U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Right to Privacy?

NCJ Number
170828
Journal
Alternatives to Incarceration Volume: 4 Issue: 1 Dated: (January/February 1998) Pages: 13-15
Editor(s)
T S Kapinos
Date Published
1998
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article explains the New Jersey and Kansas laws pertinent to the registration and public notification of convicted sex offenders after their release and reviews appellate court decisions regarding the constitutionality of the laws.
Abstract
New Jersey's "Megan's Law," which has become the model for such laws in other States, creates a three-tier sex offender classification system. The State classifies sex offenders as either a tier-one offender with low risk of reoffending, tier-two offender with moderate risk of reoffending, or tier-three offender with high risk of reoffending, based on a Registrant Risk Assessment Scale score. Each convicted offender must be classified as at least a tier-one offender. New Jersey uses the tier classifications to determine the scope of community notification. The law permits an offender to challenge a tier-two or tier-three classification at a judicial hearing. This scheme has been upheld as constitutional in New Jersey State courts. Unlike New Jersey's law, the Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act allows unlimited public access to sex offender registration information and provides no mechanism to assess an offender's risk of reoffending or to determine the scope of notification. In State v. Scott, Scott challenged the registration portion of his sentence on the ground that the continuing obligation to register, together with the potential for public disclosure, violated the Federal and State prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. The Kansas Supreme Court decided that unlimited public access to Scott's registration information would be cruel or unusual punishment and concluded that his registration information could not be open to public inspection.