Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:46:24.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Meaning of Megan's Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Rose Corrigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study of Megan's Law contrasts scholarly narratives that describe and analyze sexual predator laws with a case study of implementation in New Jersey. A critical feminist perspective shows that Megan's Law employs a radically underinclusive notion of sexual violence that conflicts sharply with feminist arguments about the cultural and institutional roots of sexual violence. The law excludes many of the most common offenders from reach of the law, thus deflecting attention away from assaults committed by family and friends in favor of reviving stereotypes about deviant strangers. The most significant effect of Megan's Law is not to expand the power of the punitive state but to advance a political and legal interpretation of rape that undermines the basis for and gains made by feminist rape law reforms of the 1970s.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , Spring 2006 , pp. 267 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Adams, Devon B. 2002. Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Allison, Julie, and Wrightsman, Lawrence. 1993. Rape: The Misunderstood Crime. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
BenDor, Jan. 1976. Justice after Rape: Legal Reform in Michigan. In Walker and Brodsky 1976.Google Scholar
Bevacqua, Maria. 2000. Rape on the Public Agenda: Feminism and the Politics of Sexual Assault. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Brownmiller, Susan. 1975. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Burgess, Ann Wolbert, ed. 1985. Rape and Sexual Assault: A Research Handbook. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chappell, Duncan, Geis, Robley, and Geis, Gilbert, eds. 1977. Forcible Rape: The Crime, the Victim, and the Offender. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Lorenne, and Lewis, Debra. 1977. Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality. Toronto, ON: Women's Educational Press.Google Scholar
Clay-Warner, Jody, and Burt, Callie Harbin. 2005. Rape Reporting after Reforms: Have Times Really Changed? Violence Against Women 11:150–76.Google Scholar
Cobb, Kenneth, and Schauer, Nancy. 1977. Michigan's Criminal Sexual Assault Law. In Chappell, Geis and Geis 1977.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon. 2000. From the Sexual Psychopath Statute to “Megan's Law”: Psychiatric Knowledge in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Adjudication of Sex Criminals in New Jersey, 1949–1999. Journal of the History of Medicine 55:292–314.Google Scholar
Connell, Noreen, and Wilson, Cassandra, eds. 1974. Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Delacoste, Frédérique, and Newman, Felice. 1981. Fight Back! Feminist Resistance to Male Violence. Minneapolis MN: Cleis Press.Google Scholar
Denno, Deborah. 1998. Life before the Modern Sex Offender Statutes. Northwestern University Law Review 92:1317–87.Google Scholar
Earl-Hubbard, Michele. 1996. The Child Sex Offender Registration Laws: The Punishment, Liberty Deprivation, and Unintended Results Associated with the Scarlet Letter Laws of the 1990s. Northwestern University Law Review 90:788.Google Scholar
Echols, Alice. 1989. “Daring to Be Bad”: Radical Feminism in America, 1967–75. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Zillah. 1984. Feminism and Sexual Equality: Crisis in Liberal America. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Estrich, Susan. 1987. Real Rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel, and Sherry, Suzanne. 1996. The Pariah Principle. Constitutional Commentary 13:257.Google Scholar
Fernsler, Stephie-Anna Kapourales. 1998. Pennsylvania's “Registration of Sexual Offenders” Statute: Can It Survive a Constitutional Challenge? Duquesne University Law Review 36:563.Google Scholar
Filler, Daniel. 2001. Making the Case for Megan's Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric. Indiana Law Journal 76:315–66.Google Scholar
Finkelhor, David, and Jones, Lisa. 2004. Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
Fischer, Andrea L. 1997. Florida's Community Notification of Sex Offenders on the Internet: The Disregard of Constitutional Protections for Sex Offenders. Cleveland State Law Review 45:505.Google Scholar
Freedman, Estelle. 1987. “Uncontrolled Desires”: The Response to the Sexual Psychopath, 1920–1960. Journal of American History 74:83–106.Google Scholar
Freeman-Longo, Robert. 2002. Revisiting Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem. In Hodgson and Kelley 2002.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence, and Fisher, George, eds. 1997. The Crime Conundrum: Essays in Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Frohmann, Lisa. 1991. Discrediting Victims’ Allegations of Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case Rejections. Social Problems 38:213–26.Google Scholar
Gfellers, Nikki, and Lewis, Kimberly Ann. 1998. The Amy Jackson Law—a Look at the Constitutionality of North Carolina's Answer to Megan's Law. Campbell Law Review 20:347.Google Scholar
Gilder, George. 1973. Sexual Suicide. New York: Quadrangle.Google Scholar
Gornick, Janet, Burt, Martha, and Pittman, Karen. 1985. Structure and Activities of Rape Crisis Centers in the Early 1980s. Crime & Delinquency 31:247–68.Google Scholar
Greenfeld, Lawrence. 1997. Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Greissman, Alison Virag. 1996. The Fate of “Megan's Law” in New York. Cardozo Law Review 18:181.Google Scholar
Griffin, Susan. 1977. Rape: The All-American Crime. In Chappell, Geis and Geis 1977.Google Scholar
Gusfield, Joseph. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haag, Pamela. 1996. “Putting Your Body on the Line”: The Question of Violence, Victims, and the Legacies of Second-Wave Feminism. differences 8:23–67.Google Scholar
Hanley, Robert. 1995a. Judge Curbs Law on Sex Offenders. New York Times. January 5, 1995: A1.Google Scholar
Hanley, Robert. 1995b. “Megan's Law” Suffers Setback in Court Ruling. New York Times. March 1, 1995: A1.Google Scholar
Hodgson, James, and Kelley, Debra, eds. 2002. Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices, and Challenges in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Philip. 1998. Moral Panic: Changing Conceptions of the Child Molester. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kabat, Alan. 1998. Scarlet Letter Sex Offender Databases and Community Notification: Sacrificing Personal Privacy for a Symbol's Sake. American Criminal Law Review 35:333.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Joseph. 2000. Monstrous Offenders and the Search for Solidarity through Modern Punishment. Hastings Law Journal 51:829–908.Google Scholar
Kensik, Edward. 1998. Extended Sex-Offender Terms May Have Untoward Results: Megan's Law Opponent Predicts Fewer Plea Bargains, More Trials. New Jersey Law Journal August 17:6.Google Scholar
Klemmack, Susan, and Klemmack, David. 1976. The Social Definition of Rape. In Walker and Brodsky 1976.Google Scholar
Koedt, Anne, Levine, Ellen, and Rapone, Anita, eds. 1971. Radical Feminism. New York: Quadrangle.Google Scholar
Kuperman, Eric J. 1996. The Mark of Cain: No Second Chance for Teachers Convicted of Sex Offenses against Students. Cardozo Women's Law Journal 3:491.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sharon, ed. 1999. New Versions of Victims: Feminists Struggle with the Concept. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Langan, Patrick, and Harlow, Caroline Wolf. 1994. Crime Data Brief: Child Rape Victims, 1992. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Largen, Mary Ann. 1976. History of Women's Movement in Changing Attitudes, Laws, and Treatment toward Rape Victims. In Walker and Brodsky 1976.Google Scholar
Largen, Mary Ann. 1985. The Anti-Rape Movement: Past and Present. In Burgess 1985.Google Scholar
Lieb, Roxanne. 1996. Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Law: Legislative History and Comparisons with Other States. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2002. Pedophiles and Cyber-Predators as Contaminating Forces: The Language of Disgust, Pollution, and Boundary Invasions in Federal Debates in Sex Offender Legislation. Law & Social Inquiry 27:529.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mardorossian, Carine. 2002. Toward a New Feminist Theory of Rape. Signs 27:743–75.Google Scholar
Marsh, Jeanne, Geist, Alison, and Caplan, Nathan. 1982. Rape and the Limits of Law Reform. Boston: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Martin, Robert J. 1996. Pursuing Public Protection through Mandatory Community Notification of Convicted Sex Offenders: The Trials and Tribulations of Megan's Law. Public Interest Law Journal 3:29–56.Google Scholar
Matson, Scott, and Lieb, Roxanne. 1996. Community Notification in Washington State: 1996 Survey of Law Enforcement. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Matthews, Nancy. 1994. Confronting Rape: The Feminist Anti-Rape Movement and the State. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCoy, Craig. 2003a. From Old Report, 4 New Charges. Philadelphia Inquirer. June 23, 2003.Google Scholar
McCoy, Craig. 2003b. Rape Unit Reborn out of Disgrace. Philadelphia Inquirer. June 22, 2003.Google Scholar
Mehrhof, Barbara, and Pamela, Kearon. 1971. Rape: An Act of Terror. In Koedt, Levine and Rapone 1971.Google Scholar
Nagel, Irene, and Schulhofer, Stephen. 1992. A Tale of Three Cities: An Empirical Study of Charging and Bargaining Practices under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Southern California Law Review 66:501.Google Scholar
Nordheimer, Jon. 1995. “Vigilante” Attack in New Jersey Is Linked to Sex-Offenders Law. New York Times. January 11, 1995, A1.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Tim. 1996. Would Megan's Law Have Saved Megan? New Jersey Law Journal July 8:1, 24–25.Google Scholar
Parent, Dale, Dunworth, Terence, McDonald, Douglas, and Rhodes, William. 1997. Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Peter, D. Hart Research Associates. 2002. Changing Public Attitudes toward the Criminal Justice System. New York: The Open Society Institute, U.S. Justice Fund.Google Scholar
Pratt, John. 2000. Sex Crimes and the New Punitiveness. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 18:135–51.Google Scholar
Rennison, Callie Marie. 2002. Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992–2000. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Rudin, Joel B. 1996. Megan's Law: Can It Stop Sexual Predators–and at What Cost to Constitutional Rights? Criminal Justice 11:3.Google Scholar
Rush, Florence. 1974. The Sexual Abuse of Children: A Feminist Point of View. In Connell and Wilson 1974.Google Scholar
Russell, Diana E.H. 1974. The Politics of Rape: The Victim's Perspective. New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart. 1998. Constructing the New Political Criminology: Power, Authority, and the Post-Liberal State. Law and Social Inquiry 23:857.Google Scholar
Schopf, Simeon. 1995. “Megan's Law”: Community Notification and the Constitution. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 29:117–46.Google Scholar
Schramkowski, Thomas J. 1999. A Mandate without a Duty: The Apparent Scope of Georgia's Megan's Law. Georgia State University Law Review 15:1131.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 1997. Governing through Crime. In Friedman and Fisher 1997.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 1998. Managing the Monstrous: Sex Offenders and the New Penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 4:452.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2000. Megan's Law: Crime and Democracy in Late Modern America. Law and Social Inquiry 25:1111–50.Google Scholar
Simon, Leonore. 1996. Legal Treatment of the Victim-Offender Relationship in Crimes of Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11:94–106.Google Scholar
Spohn, Cassia, and Horney, Julie. 1992. Rape Law Reform: A Grassroots Revolution and Its Impact. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Edwin. 1950. The Diffusion of Sexual Psychopath Laws. American Journal of Sociology 56:142–48.Google Scholar
Tonry, Michael. 1996. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Marcia, and Brodsky, Stanley, ed. 1976. Sexual Assault: The Victim and the Rapist. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Wells, Christina, and Motley, Erin Elliot. 2001. Reinforcing the Myth of the Crazed Rapist: A Feminist Critique of Recent Rape Legislation. Boston University Law Review 81:127–98.Google Scholar
Zevitz, Richard, and Farkas, Mary Ann. 2000. Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin, Hawkins, Gordon and Kamin, Sam. 2001. Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You're out in California. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (1986).Google Scholar
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, Slip op. 01–1231 U.S. (March 5, 2003).Google Scholar
Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995).Google Scholar
In the Matter of the Registrant, C.A., 146 N.J. 71 (1995).Google Scholar
In the Matter of Registrant, G.B., 147 N.J. 62 (1996).Google Scholar
In the Matter of Registrant, R.F., 317 N.J. Super. 379 (1998).Google Scholar
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).Google Scholar
Smith et al. v. Doe et al., Slip op. 01–729 (March 5, 2003).Google Scholar