amendments are unethical and unconstitutional. " Why notification only about Sex crime offenders why not murderers and robbers" was a question asked by a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union. Other criminals are just as dangerous as Sex crime offenders, why should only Sex crime offenders be subjected to discrimination ( Jerome 2 )? " Others debate that Megans Law is ethical, there most definitely is a better sense of security especially because Sex crime offenders get scared off by the Law, and communities will become safer places to live ( Mader 1 )." The critics of Megans Law are not in favor of letting sex crime offenders off the hook, but would rather see other approaches in reducing sex crimes ( Jerome 2). When looking at Megans Law from the perspective of the sex crime offender, it is obvious that their lives will never be the same. One judge added, " This law would prevent offenders who had served time in jail from ever returning to a normal , private, law abiding life ( Mader 2)." Community notification scares sex crime offenders to death. Detective Casey Johnson of King County Police Department stated, " Offenders call me at all the time and ask where to go, where there are no notification laws Butler and Roos 8( Jerome 3 )." Sex crime offenders who pay society their debts should at least be given a second chance to lead a productive, peaceful, and pleasant life. This law makes all of the Sex crime offenders open to ridicule, discrimination or even vigilantism ( Martens 2 ).While upholding the requirement that Sex crime offenders register with the police, the United States Federal District Judge, Nicholas Politan of Newark New Jersey, ruled on February 28, 1995 that community notification is unconstitutional. " Critics say that the Megans Law Amendments violate the Ex Post Facto clauses of the state and Federal constitutions, which forbids people to increase punishment after the crime that they committed ( J...
