New Jersey Section 2C:7-6 – Community notified of release of sex offender

New Jersey’s Community Notification Laws for Sex Offenders

In 1994, seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender living across the street from her home in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. The public was outraged to learn that they were not notified about the offender’s criminal history and presence in the neighborhood. In response, the New Jersey Legislature passed a set of bills known as “Megan’s Law” in October 1994, which established requirements for registering sex offenders and providing community notification.

One key component of Megan’s Law is Section 2C:7-6, which requires law enforcement agencies to disseminate relevant information about released sex offenders to the public when necessary for public safety. This article provides an overview of the community notification provisions under 2C:7-6 and examines some of the debates around balancing public safety with the rights of offenders.

What Does Section 2C:7-6 Require?

Section 2C:7-6 states that law enforcement agencies must notify the public when a sex offender is released into the community, if disclosure is deemed necessary to protect the public. The scope of disclosure depends on the offender’s specific risk of re-offense:

• For low risk offenders, schools and registered community organizations are notified.
• For moderate risk offenders, schools, community organizations, and residences likely to encounter the offender are notified.
• For high risk offenders, the public is more broadly notified through means determined by the prosecutor’s office and local law enforcement.

Notification typically includes the offender’s name, photograph, physical description, offense history, address, place of employment or schooling, and vehicle license plate number. The information may be disseminated through press releases, flyers, telephone calls, door-to-door contacts, electronic notification, or any other means deemed appropriate .

The degree of notification depends on the offender’s tier classification, which is determined by the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of re-offense. Tier 1 offenders have a low risk, Tier 2 moderate risk, and Tier 3 high risk. The tiers correspond to the scope of community notification required under Section 2C:7-6 .

Balancing Public Safety and Offender Rights

While community notification aims to enhance public safety, critics argue it infringes on offender privacy rights beyond what is reasonable. In 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Megan’s Law in Doe v. Poritz, but acknowledged notification imposes additional punishment beyond the sentences handed down by courts .

Some key issues in balancing rights include:

• Duration – Offenders must register for 15 years to life, depending on tier level. Critics argue this excessively prolongs punishment.
• Stigma – Broad community notification leads to public shaming and vigilantism in some cases .
• Barriers to Reintegration – Notification makes it harder for offenders to find jobs and housing, which may increase recidivism .

Some argue community notification should be more narrowly targeted to those with a credible risk of re-offending. However, others contend extensive notification is necessary given the devastating impact of sex crimes.

Effectiveness of Community Notification

Research on the effectiveness of community notification has been mixed:

• A 2011 study found broad notification laws did not reduce first-time sex offense rates in New Jersey .
• However, a 2008 study found notification decreased recidivism rates for high risk offenders .
• A meta-analysis suggested notification may have modest deterrent effects, but methodological limitations make findings inconclusive .

Overall, research indicates community notification likely provides some public safety benefits, but may not be as effective as hoped in preventing first-time offenses or deterring all recidivism.

Conclusion

New Jersey’s community notification laws under Section 2C:7-6 attempt to balance public safety with the rights of convicted sex offenders reintegrating into society. While notification aims to empower communities to protect themselves, critics argue it goes too far in infringing on privacy beyond sentences imposed by courts. The impact on deterrence and recidivism also remains uncertain. Ultimately, policymakers continue to grapple with finding the right balance between community awareness and avoiding undue stigma as offenders serve their time and attempt to rebuild their lives.

References

New Jersey State Police. “NJ Sex Offender Internet Registry: Frequently Asked Questions.” https://www.nj.gov/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html

The New Jersey Legislature. “New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 2C, Section 7-6.” https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2020/Bills/S0500/477_R2.HTM

Justia. “Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995).” https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2002/a-24-00.html

Goode, E. (2007, March 6). “Vigilante Justice.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/06sex.html

Wagner, P. (2019, May 3). “Study Finds Sex Offender Registration Laws May Do More Harm Than Good.” Prison Legal News. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/study-finds-sex-offender-registration-laws-may-do-more-harm-good/

Agan, A. (2011). “Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function?” Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 207-239. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658483

Prescott, J. & Rockoff, J. (2008). “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?” Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 161-206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588442

Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W., & Zgoba, K. (2012). “A Longitudinal Examination of Sex Offender Recidivism Prior to and Following the Implementation of SORN.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(3), 308-328. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn34229-eng.pdf