tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post5699734590902087055..comments2024-01-05T06:18:18.086-05:00Comments on CommentaramaPolitics: The Problem With "Megan’s Law"AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-81632184256134360472009-09-28T23:57:07.423-04:002009-09-28T23:57:07.423-04:00I agree with you on that.I agree with you on that.Individualisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-3322788671652868702009-09-28T23:04:15.318-04:002009-09-28T23:04:15.318-04:00Individualist, As you note, it would be very expen...Individualist, As you note, it would be very expensive -- and most buyers won't even do it.<br><br>But even if you wanted to, there is no guarantee that the guy committed the crime in your jurisdiction. He could have done it ten states away, and then moved to your state. You might not even be able to find out where he committed the crime.<br><br>All in all, I think it would be better for everyone if they included more information right away in the registration disclosure.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-75384468953661861402009-09-28T22:57:25.205-04:002009-09-28T22:57:25.205-04:00AndrewYou can pay to have someone go to the courth...Andrew<br><br>You can pay to have someone go to the courthouse to research the records.<br><br>This is prohibitively expensive and finding another house would be easier.Individualisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-84382383356203319062009-09-28T22:37:45.242-04:002009-09-28T22:37:45.242-04:00Thanks Mega, we do try to touch upon a broad selec...Thanks Mega, we do try to touch upon a broad selection of topics. And what would be the point of just repeating what people see everywhere else.<br><br>I'm not really sure why they haven't changed this. I suspect its a money issue, but it could also be an issue that is only now surfacing. We'll have to wait and see if anyone starts talking about this.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-84410014817157108902009-09-28T22:29:24.667-04:002009-09-28T22:29:24.667-04:00Interesting article. I like that Commentarama alw...Interesting article. I like that Commentarama always has something different from what everybody else is covering. Plus you guys always give great analysis.<br><br>I haven't thought about this issue, but I totally see the problem. Giving more information would help homebuyers, homeowners, the public, and even the guys who aren't as serious criminals as the rest. It makes sense to me. I wonder why they don't change it?MegaTrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03234420338804013858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-25861289690007101422009-09-28T21:54:25.489-04:002009-09-28T21:54:25.489-04:00Individualist, My understanding is that the state ...Individualist, My understanding is that the state registry databases are not set up to accept more information at this point, but that would certainly be good advice if possible.<br><br>The problem with doing the background checks is when you are looking at buying a house, for example, you would need to check dozens of guys (which can start to run hundreds of dollars). Also, as a homeowner, you can't make potential buyers do this. Thus, they may simply see who lives next door and walk away.<br><br>Still, that might be an answer for anyone concerned about a particular neighbor -- assuming the background check revealed more than just the charges (also I know that many states don't have computerized records available for search, and thus won't be included).<br><br>But again, why put people through that? Why not just include the details on the registry?AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-10909923669952525332009-09-28T20:36:50.608-04:002009-09-28T20:36:50.608-04:00AndrewThere are plenty of websites that will perfo...Andrew<br><br>There are plenty of websites that will perform background checks on people for a fee. In my work as an internal auditor we would obtain these reprots on people the company worked with if there was reported likely instance of fraud. These people were usually employees or contractors who had signed a waiver to do business with us. However I noted from the sites that one did not have to obtain any legal paperwork to get the report since the court record is a matter of public record. The site would do backgraound checks in all 50 states if you paid for it.<br><br>I guess if you are an individual who dated a 16 year old when you were 19 20 years ago and had to remain on a list that did not differentiate you from a child rapist you could use this yourself to avoaid the stigma. You could obtain the results yourself, post them online and maybe even ask the state agency to place a link next to your name on their list.<br><br>Not sure if it would work but it might be good advice for a client with these problems. MAybe.<br><br>Then again any further publicity may be a bad idea anyways. I don't know.Individualisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-62807757732036658932009-09-28T18:59:53.414-04:002009-09-28T18:59:53.414-04:00Writer X, There is usually nothing you can do to g...Writer X, There is usually nothing you can do to get more information. Theoretically, you could go the court house and look up the records (or dig through newspaper archives if your paper has them), but then you don't even know in what city/state the guy committed the crime or in what year -- so it becomes virtually impossible to find.<br><br>There is a privacy interest, except that these guys are already required to be revealed as offenders and their crimes were (at one time) public records. So I'm not sure there really is much of a privacy interest to be concerned about.<br><br>I suspect this hasn't been done because either (1) it would cost a lot more to change the reporting systems to collect more information, (2) someone has raised privacy concerns and everyone got queasy, or (3) with the law only finally requiring all jurisdiction to have databases available by July of this year, it's possible people just haven't run into this enough yet to realize the problem -- I never thought about it until we realized we couldn't figure out who was dangerous and who wasn't.<br><br>Finally, if one moves into your neighborhood, there is nothing you can do about it. They have a right to be there and they are not obligated to disclose any more information than gets disclosed.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-61990747224924981082009-09-28T17:08:46.455-04:002009-09-28T17:08:46.455-04:00Is there any sort of digging into public records t...Is there any sort of digging into public records that a person could do on his own that's relatively quick and inexpensive (or free)? And what does a person do if they've already purchased a home and a sexual offender moved into the neighborhood after the fact? (happened in my neighborhood, although thankfully the guy isn't next door.)<br><br>I agree that more public details should be available but how do you weigh a person's privacy with the public's right to know or does this really matter? It seems like such a straightforward idea that I wonder why it hasn't been done already.Writer Xhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16505411188186283813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-32706164279640248452009-09-28T16:25:37.505-04:002009-09-28T16:25:37.505-04:00Jed, See the update (footnote) above.Jed, See the update (footnote) above.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-859362324013231842009-09-28T15:15:24.084-04:002009-09-28T15:15:24.084-04:00Andrew - I don't know if I understood you comp...Andrew - I don't know if I understood you completely, but it appears that in a town of half a million, every neighborhood has at least one. Maybe my concern is what constitutes a neighborhood? That just seems like there are WAY too many sex offenders. Perhaps there are statistics which would indicate how many offenders per million people which might put that in a better perspective.Tennessee Jedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-85754912258315763762009-09-28T14:06:28.919-04:002009-09-28T14:06:28.919-04:00Lawhawk, I have tolerance for sex offenders either...Lawhawk, I have tolerance for sex offenders either, and the only reason this really struck me was the home search. It was shocking how hard it was find a house without a sexual offender a couple doors down. And despite my best efforts, I couldn't for the life of me sort out the dangerous ones from the not-so-dangerous ones because the law here groups them all together.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-30679788778093708432009-09-28T13:52:04.603-04:002009-09-28T13:52:04.603-04:00Andy: I agree that this has to be cleared up. Me...Andy: I agree that this has to be cleared up. Megan's Law is a positive thing, but it needs some revision. Even before there was a Megan's law, we had the "roundups." In California, whenever there was a sexually-related crime committed, all the MDSOs (mentally-disordered sex offenders)would be rounded up for questioning. But like Megan's Law, it made no distinction in what an MDSO was. <br><br>As everyone who has read what I've written, I have no tolerance for sex offenders. But I had to work largely <i>pro bono</i> for a young man who made a really stupid mistake, and was going to be labeled MDSO because of it. As dumb young people are wont to do, he had drunk a few too many beers. When nature called, he knew better than to pee in public. So while his buddies were in the 7-11, he decided to relieve himself in a large beer bottle in the car. Stupid all the way around. <br><br>But he didn't count on the Church Lady walking past, looking into every darkened car in the lot (it was nearly midnight, and the lot was not well-lighted). After months of pretrial motions and on the day to pick the jury, the District Attorney finally agreed to change the charge to disturbing the peace. If we had lost, he would have been declared an MDSO, rounded up every time a sex crime was committed, and subsequently placed on Megan's List for the rest of his life. As it currently stands, he would have been listed no differently from a serial rapist.LawHawkSFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.com