Earlier this week, we wrote about a recent ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that invalidated Allegheny County's version of Megan's Law. In making that ruling, the court stated that the county's criteria regarding where convicted sex offenders could and could not live was more restrictive than state lawmakers intended when they created the law.

In addition, the court found that the residence restrictions effectively banished sex offenders from stable communities and steady housing and employment. Residency laws often force offenders to move from cities to more rural areas, with fewer jobs and less opportunity for treatment, which can raise the risk of recidivism.

According to Jill Levenson, a nationally recognized expert on sexual violence, online sex offender registries are ineffective. Most victims are attacked and assaulted by new offenders who are not on the registries, she said, so to reassure parents that their children are safe just because they don't live near a registered sex offender is providing a dangerously false sense of security.

In addition, she said, over 90 percent of children and 80 percent of adults know their attackers, so focusing on "stranger danger" is not an effective approach. A better method would be to educate parents on the patterns of sex offenders, so they can determine the potential risks created by people who already have access to their kids.

Levenson suggested that Allegheny County should follow the lead of other states, which have established zones to prohibit sex offenders from loitering within 300 to 500 feet of children. This allows offenders to maintain stable jobs and a residence, while still protecting children from potential harm.

What do you think? Should Megan's Laws be revised or repealed?

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, "Court ruling has communities overhauling Megan's Laws," Bill Reed, Oct. 2, 2011