Public Safety and Privacy Analysis Kristie Hamner CJA/550 May 29, 2011 Kim Tandy Public Safety and Privacy Analysis Today public safety and privacy rights are always an issue in court because there are several “loopholes” around the rights in the constitution that the courts rule for or against. The case of Privacy loses to security: The Supreme Court of the United Sates rules that states can place sex offenders on the World Wide Web without conducting a hearing. The case of the Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 123 S.
Ct. 1160, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4158 (2003) discusses the issue of privacy and security. Fact In Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, the defendant requested for a hearing before public notification to explain the reason why his information should not be released to the public The Supreme Court of the United States held the issue between the community security and individual privacy. This case deals with placing the location and personal information about sex offenders released into the communities on the World Wide Web.
Having these laws to place sex offender information gives the families of sex offenders a difficult opportunity to move into the communities because of the information on the WWW. The case deals with two issues with public information. First, is making the notification a punishment or a tool preventing future conduct. Second, if releasing the public notification of sex offenders is constitutional, does the offender have that right to a hearing where he or she should attack the issue for the notification (Medical and Law, 2003).
In Connecticut’s “Megan’s Law” requires individuals charged and convicted of sexual offenses to register with the Department of Public Safety once they were release back into the community, and Department of Public Safety to place sex offender information including the offenders descriptions, photographs, names, and addresses on the World Wide Web. Holding The Department of Public Safety states the fact a convicted sex offender has had a procedurally opportunity to contest against placing the information on the WWW.
Unless the offender can give the law is conflicting with their rights with Constitution and causing them to be in harm’s way by the communities. The Fourteenth Amendment’s rights and protections, gives that his or her agenda is a procedural one. But States are not in bar by the ideals of “procedural due process” from results from such classifications (Medical and Law, 2003). Before the Court the question it expresses as no opinion to if the State’s law violates due process principles.
The Court held the Due Process Clause gives sex offenders to a hearing to determine if or not he or she is likely to be in a dangerous place before being known as a sex offender by his or her information place in a public registry. The Connecticut law implicates a “liberty interest” because of: (1) the law’s stigmatization of the sex offender by implying that he or she is currently dangerous (2) the imposition of onerous and extensive registration requirements.
This liberty interest came as an obligation, in the Courts view, to give the individual an opportunity to show that he or she is not likely to be dangerous (Medical and Law, 2003). Rationale The Department of Public Service registry is on the legislature’s decision to give access to public through the World Wide Web available information about individuals charged and convicted of sexual offenses. The Department of Public Service does not assess or consider the high risk of sex offenders to re-offense because of the offender’s information that is place on the registry.
Also there is no determination that sex offenders placed in the registry is dangerous in any way. Sex offenders that are place within the registry are mainly in place by virtue of his or her state law and conviction record. The sole reason to provide the information of sex offenders on the World Wide Web is to make the information more accessibly and available, not to give warning about any certain sex offenders. In response, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenders dangerous or not will be publicly disclosed.
Unless the respondent can give the rule of law is defective by violating with a right of the Constitution (Medical and Law, 2003). The state of Connecticut gives specific sex offenders the chance of avoiding reporting registration the obligations of the statute. A court will exempt a sex offender from registration if his or her offense given the right for sexual contact or sexual contact with a juveniles ages between 13 and 16 and the offender was two years older than the juvenile, if the sex offender was 19 and under at the time of the incident.
The court also gave limit dissemination of a sex offender’s registration information to law enforcement purposes to protect the identity of a victim that is related to the sex offender. The decision is to exempt a sex offender from registration of his or her information or restrict publication of registry information; the results must be that public or registration dissemination is not a requirement for public safety.
The State recognizes that some sex offenders within the publication requirement are not dangerous to communities in any way justifying publicity on the World Wide Web, and the legislative decision to require courts responsible for giving exemptions belies the State’s argument that courts are unequipped to separate sex offenders who warrant special publication from those who do not (Medical and Law, 2003). Privacy Rights The privacy rights of sex offenders having to register to an online data base does not violate their rights of the constitution because the sex offenders information is mainly used for law enforcement agencies.
The Supreme Court mainly took a look to the issue of the rights of requiring sex offenders to register his or her information on the World Wide Web is a fact of punishment besides just being placed in prison. The court states that while the law imposes an additional burden on those individuals who has register as sex offenders with his or her information, the law was designed to protect the public from sexual predators, and not to punish individuals who have served his or her prison time and then released.
The courts discuss that releasing the information of sex offenders registry gives way the individuals on the registry to violence, harassment, and threats from individuals who do not want sex offenders living in their neighborhoods and communities. Laws are in place to protect against acts of vigilante justice (News Media, 2000). Conclusion In the court case Privacy loses to security: The Supreme Court of the United Sates rules that states can place sex offenders on the World Wide Web without conducting a hearing. The case of the Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 123 S. Ct. 160, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4158 (2003) discussing the privacy discusses the privacy rights of placing sex offenders information on the World Wide Web. Some people think that it is violations of the right to privacy by letting the public have information about his or her descriptions, addresses, work locations, photographs, and sex offense. The data base is to protect communities from sex offenders to give them knowledge of the sex offenders character because most sex offenders will offend again. The courts requiring sex offenders to register on the World Wide Web is a part of their punishment along with serving time in prison.
The courts did give the World Wide Web descriptions, levels, and location of sex offenders, but law enforcement agencies are given all information to about sex offenders for security purposes. If there are people who go out and commit sex crimes on children then he or she should face all the punishments that are given to them, even if that means a limit of rights of the constitution. Now states are in requirement to establish community notification programs and sex-offender registries because of risk losing federal money for crime prevention programs.
Every criminal is going to bring up some issue of the court system violating their rights of the constitution but there has to have a limit and punishment for his or her actions. References The Medical and Public Health Law Site. (2003). Privacy loses to security: The United States Supreme Court rules that states can put sex offenders on the WWW. Retrieved from http://biotech. law. lsu. edu/cases/pp/cn_v_doe. htm The News Media & The Law. (2000). Sex-offender registry laws withstand privacy challenges. Retrieved from http://www. rcfp. org/news/mag/24-1/foi-sexoffen. html