Carpenter, University of New Hampshire School of Law Follow Abstract Within this Article I seek to develop a feminist legal theory of justice, by questioning the ability of traditional legal strategies to facilitate justice and identifying underlying principles that contribute to a more inclusive and holistic form of justice. Secondly, I apply this theory to the situation of women victims of sexual violence in post-genocide Rwanda, in an effort to explore how these principles can contribute to a realization of justice that empowers women. In Part II of this Article, I seek to develop a set of principles underlying a feminist reconceptualization of justice. This endeavour is a three-step process:
This document was produced under a Federal Grant, therefore it cannot be copyrighted, and may be freely copied, posted, or distributed. Although this report includes a variety of interesting findings and many ideas that will be explored upon post grant period, this research was embarked upon, in general, to investigate: These three primary foci were investigated using three different methodologies and samples.
In Phase Two, data on sexual offenders released during the years to were collected, and outcomes of interest were analyzed. The following points highlight the major findings of the three phases of the study.
The intense community reaction that followed extended well beyond the state. One expression of community outrage was the enactment of laws to notify the public of the presence of sex offenders living and working in their community.
The premise was, and still is, that with this knowledge, citizens will take protective measures against these nearby sex offenders.
Sex offenders must register their addresses with local police jurisdictions within a specified time of release from prison. The goal of notification is to inform both the public and past victims so that they can protect themselves accordingly. As with other states, registration and notification are separate steps in New Jersey, but are often referred to as one process.
Tier one represents the lowest risk and requires only notification of law enforcement officials and the victims. A tier two classification represents a moderate risk of a re-offense. It requires notification of organizations, educational institutions, day care centers and summer camps.
Tier three offenders are those who are predicted to present the greatest risk to re-offend. This category has generated the most legal resistance because it calls for the broadest level of notification.
The entire community is notified through posters and pamphlets. Despite their existence for over a decade, little work has been done to examine the effectiveness of these laws on sexual offense rates. A few researchers, such as Beck and colleagueshave conducted surveys to determine what protection methods community members use when given information regarding the presence of sex offenders.
Beck and colleagues approach their research from the viewpoint that community notification laws were enacted more to change the behaviors of potential victims than those of potential sexual recidivists. In this study, Beck and colleagues differentiated between two types of protective measures: These studies found that community notification did, in fact, increase altruistic behaviors by community members to protect members of their households, although the findings are inconsistent with regard to whether self-protective behaviors increased after community notification.
This mediating factor presents problems for identifying the true effect of these laws on sexual recidivism rates. A few studies have also surveyed sex offenders to determine the impact that community notification laws have had upon them.
Zevitz and Farkas also found that a majority of sex offenders reported negative consequences, such as exclusion from residences, threats and harassment, emotional harm to their family members, social exclusion by neighbors, and loss of employment.
Furthermore, according to many tier three offenders interviewed, these laws would not deter them from committing future sex offenses Zevitz and Farkas, In fact, Presser and Gunnison suggest that notification laws may be counterproductive in that public scrutiny causes additional stress to offenders who are transitioning back into the community.
The fear of exposure may cause offenders to avoid treatment, and in the case of pedophiles, may encourage offenders to seek out children as a result of adult isolation. None of the aforementioned research, however, addresses the critical question of whether community notification and registration laws actually reduce sex offense rates primary offenses or re-offenses in the communities in which the laws are applied, or what patterns of sexual offense rates appear.
That study, conducted in the state of Washington, compared sexual recidivism rates between two groups of sexual offenders: The pre and post- target groups were those most likely to be affected by the law i.
To account for population differences, offenders in both groups were matched on the number of sex convictions and the type of victim i. However, the study did find that notification had an effect on the time of the next arrest for any type of offense. Offenders subject to notification were arrested for new crimes much more quickly than were offenders not subject to notification.
Despite widespread community support for these laws, there is virtually no evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing either new first-time sex offenses through protective measures or general deterrence or sex re-offenses through protective measures and specific deterrence.
The primary areas of study are: The trend analysis focuses on the pattern of sexual offense rates in New Jersey over a year timeframe while comparing them to drug offense rates and non-sexually based offending rates.
Several different analyses were conducted to answer this primary question. Second, aggregation sometimes masks important differences at a lower level.
Therefore, the same trend analyses were conducted on each of the 21 counties in New Jersey. Third, historical effects broader than that solely for sex offenses may be responsible for observed changes i.The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to a recent state court ruling that determined part of Pennsylvania's sex offender registration law was unconstitutional.
Full Article Related https://floridaactioncommittee. Welcome to the California Department of Justice Megan’s Law Website where California is embracing technology to enhance community safety.
This website provides information on registered sex offenders pursuant to California Penal Code § so that members of the public can better protect themselves and their families. The information on this site is extracted from the California Sex and.
Meghan Markle will soon be England’s first Jewish-American princess. The year-old biracial actress is set to marry England’s Prince Harry next spring. The year-old was so smitten with the “Suits” actress that he arranged to meet her in June The rest, as they say, is history.
When. PA Supreme Court Declares Retroactive Application of SORNA / Megan’s Law Unconstitutional – PA Supreme Court: “Two or More Convictions” Must Stem From Multiple Acts & Convictions to Trigger Lifetime Registration Requirement. Act 10 was enacted because the law was declared unconstitutional and the lifetime registration couldn't be applied retroactively.
Therefore, whatever was applicable at the time you were sentenced is what is now going to govern under the just signed law.
(Megan's Law, Registered sex," ) The general public demanded more safety in their neighborhoods, and asked law enforcement agencies to disclose sex offenders’ lausannecongress2018.com’s law provide states the right to establish their own criteria for reporting sex offenders, but this statute also demand states to comply with the provision of information from offenders.