1. Rebecca Hamilton
Critical Thinking: 1 and 2
8-4-14
Megan’s Law
Megan’s Law was an amendment to the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994,” which took place in 1996. It was to combat the horrible crime committed against
the 7 year old Megan Kanka and further reinforce the safety of the community against predators.
Megan’s family had unknowingly resided very close to a sex offender and lived without caution
for one. Megan was lured in by the pedophile while her parents let her roam free. According to
interviews, the parents stated they would have never let her go unsupervised had they known.
Megan’s Law is an attempt to not let this happen again. It was decided by the courts, that a
community has the right to know when a sexual offender is among them in order to take caution.
There are many other legislative motions like Megan’s Law with similar provisions, which
confirm the need for such legislation.
Despite the obvious rational behind Megan’s Law and other laws like it, some would
argue its credibility. As in; is it a Good Law? Well, according to legal scholars, there are certain
pillars that a criminal law should maintain, and they are: politicality, specificity, regularity,
uniformity, and penal sanction. Of those pillars I cannot find anything deeming it less than a
good law, technically. Politicality for one, is the legitimacy of the laws source. Megan’s Law is a
Federal Law, and even maintains state support. So, yes it has politicality. Specificity is the clear
and unquestionability of the law. Megan’s Law is very specific and states make it even more so.
There is no question about who is classified and what it takes to adhere to Megan’s Law.
Regulatory and Uniformity are the pillars that insist that a law is fair to all despite social stature.
Our country has heard about these few celebrities who were convicted of sexual offenses Jeffrey
Jones, Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, Vincent Marger and Jerry Sandusky. Their status didn’t buy
them a way out nor did it buy them a lighter sentence. In fact, you could reasonably say that
celebrities get off the hook as much as the unknown criminal, just we hear about their stories.
Lastly, the pillar of Penal Sanction is ideal. Megan’s Law is a supported by both federally and by
state legislation. There is ample substantive law to define offences and dictate their penalties.
Megan’s law is most defiantly a necessary and good law.
Notably, Megan’s law is typically has consequences long after jail and restitution have
been put forth. The question of fairness is one that I cannot give a certain answer on. I think that
at some point the security of the public comes way before the comfort of a sex offender although
the question of what constitutes a sex offender could be debated. Some of the convictions I have
researched were practical nuances that caused conviction and others being complete accidents.
For those people, Megan’s Law is unfair because it can cause decades of hoop jumping. This is a
punishment in itself, for something that could be considered over criminalization. As far as if
they have special rights? No. Sex offenders don’t have any more rights than we do after prison,

2. Rebecca Hamilton
Critical Thinking: 1 and 2
8-4-14
they really have less. Any rights per say, are within the Bill of Rights, that protect criminal
suspects and defendants thought trail.
On the topic of criminal rights, one might ask themselves: When the right of a
community and an Individual conflict, who’s takes precedence? I have seen this argued both
ways and both in good faith. One can argue the Individual because a community cannot have
rights only the singled out people within it. This to me seems overly analytical, because we are
often more motivated and meaningful when in a group. To me, the community’s rights come first
undoubtedly.
http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/History.aspx?dt=
http://www.nj.gov/njsp/spoff/megans_law.html
http://www.premierdefensegroup.com/blog/appealing-pennsylvanias-new-megans/
Surveillance Cameras
The only good reason to watch the activities of the general populous, in my opinion, is if there is
probable cause that criminal activity is rampant within that populous that is being watched. In
order to determine whether outstanding action, like surveillance cameras, is reasonable, you may
choose to apply the standards of proof method. Although slightly abstract you may consider the
statistics of illegal activity as representing probable cause, which in turns would lead to a search,
and in this case that would be the surveillance cameras. Sometimes this can seem like searching
without a warrant, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Before any city decides to take
this sort of action, they should ask themselves if they are violating the Fourth Amendment as it is
interpreted by their state court. It is mostly accepted that we aren’t particularly assured privacy
while in the public arena, which would allow the cameras without infringing on our rights.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment