In some instances, the willingness and ability to obtain treatment can be negatively impacted by Megan’s Law. As a result of these factors, the study’s researchers determined the unintended consequences of Megan’s Law may be to increase the risks of recidivism rather than to protect the community.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of the law’s ineffectivenes s, advocates for the law nevertheless seek to justify its continuance by claiming that its purpose was never to reduce reoffense rates, but was only “designed to provide parents and communities with information” concerning the whereabouts of a sexual offender living in their neighborhood. However, this practice is meaningless unless it brings about the positive result the Legislature clearly intended when the Megan’s law was passed to reduce “the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders.”
(2 of 2)
The Legislature’s perceived effectiveness of the law served as a cornerstone to its passage. The recent study’s findings telling us the law does not reduce sexual reoffenses, and worse, may be counterproduct ive, require a change in course.
In 2007, New Jersey reportedly spent $3.9 million with, as the study found, no appreciable benefit to public safety. Given our current budgetary shortfall this money could have been, and now should be, put to much better use by investing it in efforts that will actually protect New Jersey’s children.
We agree with several of the report’s recommendation s calling for sex offender therapy to be provided in state prisons (which does not now occur), affordable treatment for sex offenders living in the community, and effective parole and probationary supervision commensurate with a realistic individualized assessment of an offender’s risk level.
Other interventions known to be effective should be emphasized. We know that making a successful transition from prison reduces sex offender reoffense rates. To accomplish this, as a report published just this year by the Counsel of State Governments emphasizes, resources would be better spent “to ensure that sex offenders re-entering communities have appropriate and sustainable housing options” to assist them during their pivotal transition back into the community.
According to the counsel’s report, efforts to further stability after incarceration by way of jobs and housing can reduce reoffense levels. This pragmatic approach is crucial to protecting our communities.
We owe the public much more than continuing to rely on a policy that has been proven as accomplishing little else but the creation of a false sense of security.
The Legislature’s perceived effectiveness of the law served as a cornerstone to its passage. The recent study’s findings telling us the law does not reduce sexual reoffenses, and worse, may be counterproduct ive, require a change in course.
In 2007, New Jersey reportedly spent $3.9 million with, as the study found, no appreciable benefit to public safety. Given our current budgetary shortfall this money could have been, and now should be, put to much better use by investing it in efforts that will actually protect New Jersey’s children.
We agree with several of the report’s recommendation s calling for sex offender therapy to be provided in state prisons (which does not now occur), affordable treatment for sex offenders living in the community, and effective parole and probationary supervision commensurate with a realistic individualized assessment of an offender’s risk level.
Other interventions known to be effective should be emphasized. We know that making a successful transition from prison reduces sex offender reoffense rates. To accomplish this, as a report published just this year by the Counsel of State Governments emphasizes, resources would be better spent “to ensure that sex offenders re-entering communities have appropriate and sustainable housing options” to assist them during their pivotal transition back into the community.
According to the counsel’s report, efforts to further stability after incarceration by way of jobs and housing can reduce reoffense levels. This pragmatic approach is crucial to protecting our communities.
We owe the public much more than continuing to rely on a policy that has been proven as accomplishing little else but the creation of a false sense of security.