Sex Offenders - Research Paper Example

SUPREME COURT BRIEF No. 00-000 PAUL P., (a minor, by Laura L, his legal guardian); QUINCY Q; RONALD R; STEVEN S, (a minor, by Sally S, his legal guardian), (all fictitious names), Individually and as Representatives of a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23 (a) and 23(b) (2) Plaintiff and Appellant v. JOHN J. FARMER, JR.*, Attorney General New Jersey; JEFFREY S. BLITZ, Atlantic County Prosecutor; WILLIAM SCHMIDT, Bergen County Prosecutor; ROBERT D. BERNARDI*, Burlington County Prosecutor; LEE A. SOLOMON, Acting Camden County Prosecutor; DAVID E. BLAKER*, Cape May County Prosecutor; ARTHUR MARCHAND, Cumberland County Prosecutor; DONALD C. CAMPOLO*, Essex County Prosecutor; ANDREW YURICK, Gloucester County Prosecutor; FRED J. THEEMLING, JR.*, Hudson County Prosecutor; STEPHEN B. RUBIN, Hunterdon County Prosecutor; DANIEL G. GIAQUINTO*, Mercer County Prosecutor; GLENN E. BERMAN*, Middlesex County Prosecutor; JOHN KAYE, Monmouth County Prosecutor; JOHN B. DANGLER, Morris County Prosecutor; E. DAVID MILLARD*, Ocean County Prosecutor; RONALD S. FAVA, Passaic County Prosecutor; JOHN E. BERGH*, Salem County Prosecutor; WAYNE W. FORREST*, Somerset County Prosecutor; DOLORES M. BLACKBURN*, Sussex County Prosecutor; THOMAS V. MANAHAN*, Union County Prosecutor; JOHN G. LAKY,* Warren County Prosecutor, PAUL P. and RONALD R., Appellants Defendant and Appellants ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY District Judge: The Honorable Joseph E. Irenas Attorneys for Appellants: Edward L. Barocas, Esquire (Argued) Michael Z. Buncher, Esquire Office of Public Defender Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 850 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorneys for Appellees: John J. Farmer, Jr., Esquire (Argued) Rhonda S. Berliner-Gold, Esquire B. Stephan Finkel, Esquire Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 80 Trenton, New Jersey 08625, Steven S. Sand, Esquire Office of Prosecutor of Gloucester County Broad & Hunter Streets P.O. Box 623 Woodbury, NJ 08096, Maureen OBrien, Esquire Office of Prosecutor of Union County County Administration Building Elizabeth, NJ 07207 Attorneys for United States as Amicus-Curiae Supporting Appellees: Robert J. Cleary, United States Attorney George S. Leone, Assistant United States Attorney (Argued) 970 Broad Street Room 700 Newark, New Jersey 07102, David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard Schaitman and Lowell Sturgill, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division Room 9152, 601 "D" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A. 2d 367 (1995) Artway v. Attorney General, 81 F. 3d 1235 (3d Cir. 1996) E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F. 3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997) A.A.v. State of New Jersey, 176 F. Supp. 2d 275 (D.N.J. 2001) Constitutional Provisions Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Are sex offender registries created by Megan’s Law unconstitutional? STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The issue raised is the constitutionality of a sex offender list. The cases to be examined are Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A. 2d 367 (1995), in Artway v. Attorney General, 81 F. 3d 1235 (3d Cir. 1996), E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F. 3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), and A.A.v. State of New Jersey, 176 F. Supp. 2d 275 (D.N.J. 2001). Sex offender registries are constitutional according to these precendent setting cases. Prisoner and privacy rights are in the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment gives the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (U.S. Constitution). Sex offenders are entitled to these rights as well. However listing their names on a list or registry does not invade their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The term “unreasonable” means not reasonable. It is reasonable to suspect a convicted sex offender to commit the same crime they were convicted of. Thus under the Fourth Amendment, sex offender registries do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Sex offenders brought a privacy suit after the Megan’s Law became effective. These offenders thought their privacy was being unlawfully violated due to the sex offender registry. The case was Paul P. v. Verniero, 982 F. Supp. 961 (D.N.J. 1997). The court remanded this issue and said that the privacy of the sex offender was being violated. The Attorney General revised the sex registry. Thus this argument is possible. The Fifth Amendment states that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Sex offender registries do not charge the sex offender a second time. The registry is to protect the citizens, not punish the sex offender. The sex offender has had the due process of law and found guilty. All of these reasons make sex registries legal under the U.S. Constitution. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “against ex post facto, bill of attainder, double jeopardy, equal protection and due process challenges the registration provisions of Megans Law” upon ruling in the case of Artway v. Attorney General, 81 F. 3d 1235 (3d Cir. 1996). Similarly in E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F. 3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), the validity of retroactive of the sex registries to sex offenders that had been convicted and released before Megan’s Law was examined. The ruling was sex registries “do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses.” The Sixth Amendment is about having a speedy trial and due process. All names on a sex registry have been convicted of a sexual crime. Due process has been complete. The sex offenders have had legal counsel, a jury, judge, and process through which they were found guilty, or pled guilty to their charges. Thus the sex registry does not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Eighth Amendment is not clear on what cruel and unusual punishment inflicted means, but a sex registry where only names are given to a data base does not seem to be cruel and unusual punishment. Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A. 2d 367 (1995), the Supreme Court of New Jersey “held that the sex offender registration and community notification laws do not impose punishment in violation of Federal and State Constitutional guarantees against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, bills of attainder and cruel and unusual punishment.” The New Jersey Supreme Court also ruled that the information of sex offenders on a registry protection of the public was more important than the privacy of the sex offenders. Constitutionally and on the State level, the sex registry was found to be legal. The State of New Jersey held a vote to amendment the State Constitution in 1994. After being proposed the vote was held. The Megans Law sex offender registration and community notification provisions were signed into law on October 31, 1994 (chapters 128 and 133 of Public Laws of 1994). These provisions are set forth in New Jersey law at N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 through 2C:7-11. The law establishing the Megans Law sex offender Internet registry was signed on July 23, 2001 (chapter 167 of Public Laws of 2001). The provisions of the Internet registry law are set forth in New Jersey law at N.J.S.A. 2C:7-12 through 2C:7-19. After this vote and law was passed sex offenders challenged the constitutional amendment and Internet Registry. The argument was an Internet registry is a punishment which goes against the Ex Post Facto Clause in the U.S. Constitution. In addition to this argument, the Equal Protection Clause was used to argue that sex offenders are not receiving equal protection as due to their constitutional rights. This case was A.A.v. State of New Jersey, 176 F. Supp. 2d 275 (D.N.J. 2001). These arguments are all well founded, but another approach can be taken. The United States citizens also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble of the United States Constitution state “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The establishment of justice can be interpreted as upholding justice by protecting the people, not the sex offenders. Domestic Tranquility cannot be obtained if sexual predators stalk children while their privacy is protected. Common defense also cannot be obtained if sexual predators can target children from the shadows. The general welfare of all the citizens of the United States is jeopardized by unreported sex offenders. In order to prove that the sex registry is approved by the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble, statistics about sexual offender recidivism need to be presented. A study of rapists and child molesters show that given enough time almost half will repeat their crime, with child molesters having a higher recidivism than rapists. (CSOM) (CSOM) These statistics prove that due to fact sex offenders are likely to reoffend, the general public is at risk from these crimes. The recidivism of sexual offenders is different depending on classification. The following data shows: Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent. Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent. Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent. Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent. Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent. These numbers show that the public need to know about sex offenders in order to protect themselves from potential criminal threats. ARGUMENT It must be noted that sex offender registries are not to punish the sexual offender, but instead put in place to protect the public. A sex offender registry should never be used to punish the sex offender by causing them to lose housing, employment, or any other alienation from the public. The public should be discouraged in discriminating against these sex offenders. The registries should inform the public, not enrage a mob to attack the sex offenders. Information to protect the peace of the public should be the only reason to use a sex offender registry. CONCLUSION Sex offender registries are not unconstitutional. Every argument can be dismissed in the favor of a sexual offender registry. The U.S. Constitution is not being violated by a sex offender registry. The public and court system has spoken; sex offender registries are a must to protect the public. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of April, 2010.   ___(signature here)____________________ Read More