Megan's Law and Durkheim’s Perspective of Punishment: Retribution, Rehabilitation or Both?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v6i7.1235Keywords:
Sex offender, retribution, rehabilitation, Durkheim, Megan’s lawAbstract
The victimization of Adam Walsh, Jacob Wetterling and Megan Kanka has been instrumental in designing sex offender laws. Registration and Community Notification Laws (RCNLs) are informally known as Megan’s Law (Terry 2011.) This paper explores sex offender legislation from the Durkheimian framework of retribution versus rehabilitation. In this paper I attempt to answer the research question: Does sex offender legislation respond to the diluted stance of punishment, which Durkheim envisioned is characteristic of modern societal sentiments (rehabilitation replacing retribution)? Why or why not? I first outline a brief history of sex offender legislation, followed by a discussion of select characteristics of societies that exhibit retributive and rehabilitative justice. Based on scholastic evidence presented in this paper, I conclude the punitive tendencies of current sex offender legislations are more retributive than rehabilitative. Current policies do not conform to the progress of punishment which Durkheim envisioned is concomitant to social evolution, and in many ways, demonstrates taking a step backwards.
References
Ackerman, A R., Sacks, M., & Greenberg, D. F. (2012). Legislation targeting sex offenders: Are recent policies effective in reducing rape? Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 858-887.
Ackerman, A. R., Sacks, M. & L. N Osier. (2013). The experiences of registered sex offenders with internet registries in three states. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 29–45.
Beckett, K. and Sasson, T. (2000). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America.London: Sage Publications).
Circles of Support and Accountability. (2016). Retrieved from http:// cosafresno.org/.
Connor, D. P., Copes, H., & Tewksbury, R. (2011). Incarcerated sex offenders' perceptions of prison sex offender treatment programs. Justice Policy Journal, 8(2), 1-22.
Colorado Circles of Support and Accountability.( 2016). Retrieved from http://cocosa.org/.
Corrigan, R. (2006). Making meaning of Megan’s Law. Law and Social Inquiry, 31(2), pp 267–312.
Daigle, L. J.(2012). Victimology- A reader. Sage: California.
Day A. , Carson, E,. Newton D. & Hobbs, G. Professional views on the management of sex offenders in the community. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(3), 171-189.
Durham COSA. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.durhamcosa.org/index.html.
Duwe, G. & Donnay W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46(2), 411.
Duwe, G. (2013). What works with sex offenders? Results from an evaluation of Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability. Corrections Today, 75, 32 – 34.
Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society (Introductions by Lewis Coser). New York: Mc Millan
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.emoregon.org/cosa.php.
Elisha, E., Idisis, Y. & Ronel, N. (2013). Positive criminology and imprisoned sex offenders:Demonstration of a way out from a criminal spin through acceptance relationships. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19 (1): 66-80.
Ferrandino, J. (2012). Beyond the perception and the obvious: What sex offender registries really tell us and why. Social Work in Public Health, 27, pp 392–407.
Fox, K. J. (2013). Incurable sex offenders, lousy judges and the media: Moral panic sustenance in the age of new media. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38 (1), 160-181.
Fox, K. J. (2013). Circles of Support and Accountability: Final report prepared for the state of Vermont Department of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.doc. state.vt.us/about /reports/circles-of-support-accountability-final-report/view
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garfinkle, E. (2003). Coming of age in America: The misapplication of sex-offender registration and community- notification laws to juveniles. California Law Review, 91, 163-208.
Gelles, R. (1999). Intimate violence in families. London: Sage Publications.
Gockel, A., & Burton, D. (2013). Can god help? Religion and spirituality among adolescent male sex offenders. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 6(4), 274-286.
Glaser, B. (2010). Sex offender programs: New technology coping with old ethics. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16 (3), 261-274.
Harris, A.J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson J. (2010). Widening the net effects of transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s federally mandated sex offender classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 503-519.
History of the Law and Federal Facts (2008). Pennsylvania State Police. Retrieved from http://www. pameganslaw.state.pa.us/History.aspx?dt=.
Koeing, P. (1998). Does congress abuse its spending clause power by attaching conditions on the receipt of federal law enforcement funds to a state's compliance with Megan’s Law. Criminal Law and Criminology, 36 (2): 721.
Lieb, R., Quinsey, V. and Berliner, L. (1998). Sexual predators and social policy. Crime and Justice, 23, pp 43-114.
Love, M. (2015). 50-state survey of relief from sex offender registration. Collateral Consequences Resource Center. http://ccresourcecenter.org/2015/05/14/50-state-survey-of-relief-provisions-affecting-sex-offender-registration/
Petrunik, M. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and social policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(4), 483-511.
Presser, L. & Gunnison, E. (1999). Strange bedfellows: Is sex offender notification a form of community justice? Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 299-315.
Rahmberg, E. & Cohen, F. (2001). Sex offender registration and community notification laws: A Megan's Law sourcebook. New Jersey: Civic Research Institute.
Reinhart, C. (2006). Federal law on classifying sex offenders. Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-0765.htm
Ronel, N. (2009). “The Criminal Spin”. Pp. 126154 in International Perspectives on Crime and Justice edited by K. Jaishanka. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Simon P. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.
SORNA (2014). Office of sex offender monitoring, apprehending, registration and tracking. http://ojp.gov/smart/sorna.htm. (Last Accessed May 26th 2016).
Stevenson M.C., Smith, A.C., Sekely, A.D., & Farnum, K.S. (2013). Predictors of support for juvenile sex offender registration: Educated individuals recognize the flaws of juvenile registration. Journal of Child Sex Abuse, 22(2):231–54.
Storm, L. (2017). Criminal law. Retrieved from https://catalog.flatworld knowledge.com/bookhub/reader/4373?e=storm_1.0-ch01_s05 #storm_1.0-ch00about
Terry, K. J.(2011). What is smart sex offender policy? Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 275-81.
Thio, A. (2012). Deviant behavior. USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Trivits, L. C. & Reppucci, N. D. (2002). Application of Megan’s Law to juveniles. American
Psychologist, 57(9), pp 690–704.
Venable, V. M. (2015). Black church members' perspectives on the role of the black church in the rehabilitative process of juvenile sex offenders. Social Work & Christianity, 42(3), 350- 368.
Visgaitis , R. L. (2011). Retroactive application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: A Modern encroachment on judicial power. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 45, 273.
Wilson, R.J. & Prinzo, M. (2001) Circles of Support: A restorative justice initiative. (2001). Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 59-77.
Wilson, R.J. , Cortoni, F, & McWhinnie, A.J. (2009). Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 21, 412-430.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
