Editorial: Going beyond Megan’s Law

Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2005 | 7:38 a.m.

The tragedies of Megan Kanka and Dru Sjodin, victims of violent sexual predators, are being repeated nearly every day in this country. The sex criminals who kill are often people who have committed lesser sexual offenses in the past, and who have served prison sentences. Nationally, a trend is afoot to keep these offenders in state custody beyond their prison terms.

Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, was lured into a neighbor's home in 1994 and raped and murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender. It was this tragedy that led New Jersey, and then Congress in 1996, to pass Megan's Law. It requires public notification whenever a sexual predator is released from prison into a community, and also requires the offender to always register with local police.

Yet the tragic crimes continue, seemingly unabated. Dru Sjodin, 22, a University of North Dakota student, for example, was attacked and killed in 2003. The suspect in the high-profile case, who goes to trial next year, is a repeat sexual offender.

A New York Times story this week reported that at least 16 states and the District of Columbia are moving beyond Megan's Law. They are availing themselves of state laws that allow "involuntary civil commitment" of mentally ill people who threaten public safety. The states are stretching the law to define sexual predators as people who are mentally ill. By that definition, sexual predators who have served all of their prison time can be sent to a mental institution upon the recommendation of a psychiatric panel.

New York Gov. George Pataki last month became the latest governor to apply a civil commitment law in this manner. Since Pataki's order, five convicted sex offenders have been confined to a state psychiatric center instead of being released from prison. They will remain there until either a psychiatrist or a judge orders their release.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1997 case (Kansas v. Hendricks), ruled that such involuntary confinement does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. Even still, and as much as we empathize with the states' motivations, we are opposed to preventive detention. This is how human rights abuses begin. How will this practice evolve? What other offenses will be deemed incurable, and their perpetrators subjected to involuntary commitment?

In our view, a better way to address the tragedy of sex crimes is for states to amend their laws and authorize longer sentences for violent sex offenders right from the start. Sentences could also be open-ended, meaning the offender would know that his release would be contingent upon his rehabilitation. This would avoid the "star chamber" effect that threatens freedom for everyone.

archive