NO
Edward Martone
FromEdward Martone, "Mere Illusion of Safety Creates Climate of VigilanteJustice," ABA Journal (March 1995). Copyright, 1995 by The American Bar Association. Reprinted by permission of ABA Journal.
MERE ILLUSION OF SAFETY CREATES CLIMATE OF VIGILANTE JUSTICE
How can society protect itself from some of its most dangerous predators' That is the question posed by the debate over laws requiring community notification of the presence of convicted sex offenders released from prison.
This debate flared up last summer after a horrible crime shocked the entire country. New Jerseyans responded by calling for a community notification law, reasoning that if the public knew about the presence of sex offenders in their midst, they could take measures to protect themselves from being victimized.
The New Jersey Civil Liberties Union was almost alone in opposing the community notification bill. We argued that the law would merely create an illusion of safety, and that it would beget even more violence. Recent events have bome out our concerns.
In the early morning of Jan. 8, two men forced their way into a house in Phillipsburg, N.J., looking for 25-year-old Michael Groff, a paroled sex offender. They knew he was staying there because the police had notified the community of his whereabouts under the new law. The intruders announced they were looking for "the child molester" and thenbeganbeating the wrong man.
Fortunately, police arrived before anyone was seriously injured. Law enforcement of ficials quickly condemned the attack as unacceptable vigilantism. The local prosecutor insisted that the law "was never intended to permit or condone harassment or intimidation of individuals who have paid their debt to society." But unfortunately, such unintended consequences are inevitable and unavoidable.
The Phillipsburg assault was not the first. In Washington state, arson, death threats, slashed tires and loss of employment have been attributed to a similar community notification law enacted last year.
The public's rage against sex offenders is more than understandable. Their aimes, especially when visited upon children, leave life-long scars and offend the community's deepest sensibilities. But in our zeal to protect ourselves and our children, we should not enact measures that do more harm than good.
Besides aeating a climate of ugly vigilantism, notification laws cause compulsive sex offenders to run from family, avoid treatment and seek the safety of anonymity by hiding out, thus subjecting the public to even greater risk.
So far, state and federal courts in California, Illinois, Arizona, New Hampshire and Alaska have struck down community notification provisions as unconstitutional.
In New Jersey, the law is being challenged by the ACLU. And in January, the federal district court in Newark issued a preliminary injunction against community notification in one released rapist's case.
The courts are concerned about the violation of ex post facto laws, although they have been less hospitable to privacy claims. The litigation will go on.
In New Jersey, about 4,000 sex offenders are convicted every year and are sent to prisons that offer little or no treatment. Eventually, they are released into a state in which there are no residential programs that accept sex offenders with aiminal records. Many of these are juvenile offenders who, if untreated, will commit an average of 360 sex offenses in a lifetime.
Community notification laws offer little protection against this compulsive behavioral disorder. It is time we recognized that their sole function is political --to placate an angry public.