Megan's Law was sold to the public as a way to protect children from dangerous sexual predators. More specifically, it operated on the assumption that anyone who had already committed a "sexual offense" was more likely to commit future crimes. Of course, there's no guarantee that any of these offenders are going to attack again. So this is a list of POSSIBLE, POTENTIAL threats.

I have no problem warning the community about threats to the community. My problem is that Megan's Law, by merely providing a laundry list of offenses, puts too many people on the list who are NOT threats to the community. There's no shading or fine-tuning here. Thus, many completely harmless people have wound up on the lists, publicly branded and humiliated, putting jobs and friendships at risk.

Because the Massachusetts registry isn't available online, I decided to look at the California registry, which is available at http://www.sexoffenders.net/. I chose San Diego County, which has 87 people on its registy, and looked at what crimes put people on the list.

Now, the California registry only lists offenders names, birthdates, zipcodes and offenses. There's no information on when the crimes were committed, or any more details that would allow me to look up the charges.

However, the first thing I noticed was that there were FIFTEEN people on the list whose only crimes were "288 -- Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act." No other charges. I couldn't find a specific definition for "lewd and lascivious" in the California code, but California has separate charges for things like oral copulation, solicitation, exposing onesself, acts involving minors, sodomy, rape, coercion, and so forth. A lot of these charges get very specific. So, if the only crime these people committed was "lewd and lascivious", that doesn't sound like the predatory threats to society that Megan's Law is supposed to warn us about.

Anyway, that's 15 out of 87 -- 17 percent of the people on the list were only convicted of "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Acts." Is that a reasonable margin of error?

FIVE people on the list are charged only with "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act" AND "Solicit To Engage In Lewd Conduct In A Public Place". So there are five people on the list for prostitution-related arrests or entrapment. [It is/was common practice for plainclothes police to flirt with gay men, and then arrest the gay man when he made a move.] Again, that doesn't sound like the kind of criminal the sex offender registry is supposed to warn about.

So, that's 20 out of 87: 22%

Five more people on the list were charged with "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act" and "Commitment As A Mentally Disturbed Sex Offender". Now, at first that sounds bad -- they were committed, after all! However, these people were never charged with any crimes involving coercion, rape or minors. A little digging shows that statute only involved 90 days confinement, and was taken off the books in the early 1980s. Plus, most of these people were born well before World War II. Hmm... old folks who were committed only for the crimes of "lewd and lascivious" before 1980. These sound like remnants from the bad old days when homosexuality was a crime to be cured.

25 out of 87: 29%

As I go through the list, I also find other charges that sound too mild to justify having ones' right to privacy permanently revoked:

One person is on the list for "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act" and "Sodomy." However, the sodomy law was taken off the California books in 1976. Another person is on the list for "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act" and "Indecent Exposure." [A friend of mine was charged with "Indecent Exposure" in California in the 1960's -- he and a male friend were making out in the back seat of a parked car, when a cop shined his flashlight in the window. Is that the kind of person you want to point out?] Three more people are on the list for "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act" and "Oral Copulation". Again, with no coercion, rape, or minors involved, these people don't sound like public threats.

30 out of 87: 35%

Plus, there are two people charged with "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act", "Indecent Exposure," and "Solicit To Engage In Lewd Conduct In A Public Place." One person (born in 1934) was charged with "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act", "Commitment As A Mentally Disturbed Sex Offender," and "Solicit To Engage In Lewd Conduct In A Public Place." And one person (born in 1932) was charged with "Lewd And/Or Lascivious Act", "Indecent Exposure," "Commitment As A Mentally Disturbed Sex Offender," and "Solicit To Engage In Lewd Conduct In A Public Place."

That's 34 people out of 87: Almost 40% of the list! Keep in mind that none of these people were charged with anything involving coercion, rape, or minors. One was born in 1919, 1 in 1920, 8 in the 1930s. These sound like some pretty old crimes, and hardly the potential threats to society that Megan's Law is supposed to point out.

The question is, what margin of error is acceptable?

Keep in mind, that even the more dangerous criminals on the list are only *potential* repeat offenders. Many people are rehabilitated and make positive contributions to society after they've served their time.

So, is it okay to violate the civil rights and potentially ruin the lives of 99 people in order to protect society from 1 potentially dangerous individual?

Is it okay to hurt and humiliate 80 people to protect from 20 possible threats?

How about risking 60 to protect from a possible 40?

Or hurting 40 to protect from a possible 60?

That's what this California list does. I just described to you 40% of the list. People whose only crimes were lewd and/or lascivious behavior, soliciting, sodomy, indecent exposure, and oral copulation. And some of these people were committed for this behavior.

If we want to protect the community by listing potentially dangerous offenders who are loose in the community, assign it to the judges and parole boards, and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Also, why limit it only to sex offenders? Am I really in more danger from the flasher down the street (who I am warned about) than the former murderer next door (who isn't on any list)?