Psychology
In the recently decided case of John Doe v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services last March 4, 2013, the ruling of the Court of Appeals Maryland disapproved the retroactive application of the Sex Offender Registration Statute (Gerstenfield, 2013). This decision has delayed the interpretation of the Court of Appeals on the particular provision of Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights that rejected the application of “ex post facto laws”. To be able to implement this, the state of Maryland supported the previous rulings from other states, particularly Ohio, Alaska and Indiana the encouraged the decision stating that registration of sex crimes prior the creation of the statute on sex offender registration should be disallowed for violating the Constitution. This means that the offenses that took place before the sex offender registration statute became effective should not be punished. This is essentially the concept of the “ex post facto” law.
As a consequence, this became the reason behind the decision in the case of John Doe v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, wherein the petitioner, Doe who was a junior high school teacher during the school year 1983-84 committed a sexual misconduct for having carnal knowledge with a thirteen-year old student. It was only in 2005 or 20 years after such incident took place that the student reported the sexual misconduct to the police. Thus, Doe was charged with the sexual related crime. It was in 2006 or during the “plea bargaining” stage of the trial that Doe’s plea was not guilty to the single count of sexual abuse against the minor victim. The court ordered Doe to be imprisoned under supervised probation and the name of John Doe to be registered as a sex offender after he had served his sentence since no sex offender registration law was yet in place.
The very first sex offender registration statute in Maryland was created only in the year 1995 which pursued forthcoming application of sexual related offenses. It important to emphasize that it was only in the years 2001 and 2009 that revisions were made to the sex offender registry law in Maryland. The modification in the law is particularly on provision which stated that persons who were formerly convicted for sex-related offense before the law took effect must be registered as sex offenders. One of the key points in the Doe decision is that the Court relied mainly on the Maryland law. The decision stated that “To require the name of petitioner Doe to be registered as a sex offender violates of Article 17 of the Constitution which disallowed the application of “ex post facto laws”. Such being the case, there is no need to address the issue on whether the requirement of Doe to register violates Article 1 of the Constitution” (Gerstenfield, 2013). The reason behind such ruling is in accordance with the principles of fundamental fairness and the basic right to be given a fair warning to comply the provision of Article 17. The Court ruled that Doe does not have a way to be informed of his criminal conduct, which later required the compulsory registration. In simplest terms, the law on sexual offender registration should be applied to future sex offenders and not to those who committed sexual acts before the law was created. The ruling of the Court in the case of Doe should be given distinction.
According to Gansler (2013), Maryland law compels the registration of sex offenders in the state or local authorities after they have been released one year after imprisonment, and a yearly registration thereafter, in the event that they will change their official place of residence. Such requirement is to be applied only if such sex offenders will reside, work, or enroll in a school or university within the State. The Maryland statute states that the registry should categorize sex offenders into four types namely: 1) offenders; 2.) child sexual offenders; 3.) sexually violent offenders; and 4.) sexually violent predators. Gansler (2013) stated that the Maryland also requires that in the case of the most serious offenders, namely the child sexual offenders, sexually violent offenders and sexually violent predators, they should be registered for life, and for the other types of offenders, they must be registered for ten years. The registration statement of the offender must contain the full name and current address, together with the latest picture and a copy of his or her fingerprints. The registration statement should provide the description of crime committed including the date and place of the commission of such crime; as well as the information on whether the sex offender has been convicted, and the date of release from imprisonment and also the social security number. In the case of non-resident offenders, the registration will require the place of work and school, if the law applies.
Accordind to Smallbone, Marshall, & Wortley (2013), the law on Sex Offender Registry in Maryland will serve as a preventive measure against sex-related offenses in the future. Such law is vital to improve on the state’s mediations to prevent child sexual abuse by focusing the attention on the role of the criminal justice systems to stop the sexual abuse among children. Thus, it will help in the joint effort of the criminal justice system composed of three core elements including the police, corrections and the courts. Each element plays a significant role in the prevention of child sexual abuse. In the case of the police force, they have the duty to investigate crimes involving child sexual abuse and to perform immediate detection of crimes to prevent further harm to the victims. In the part of the courts and corrections, they have the mutual obligation toward aim the four (4) objectives namely: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. The implementation of sex offender registry is part of the formal activities of the criminal justice system with the preliminary detection and investigation of sex-related crimes during police investigations and other investigatory agencies. The investigation and detection is generally being handled by the police to look for offenders of child sexual abuse. Thus, in order to assist the police officers to reduce the crime rate, there is a need for data storage of sex offenders to make the work of police officers easier. At the same time, it will improve the quality of police-citizen contacts or community policing which will help the police in searching and arresting the sex offenders. It will also help the police investigators to identify and minimize the immediate causes of the sex-related crimes.
The imposition of punishment is the basis of criminal justice policy since it is to be applied for retribution of the sex offenders. Thus, the ruling in the John Doe case will set a precedent for future cases and the implementation of the statute on sex offender registry. Thus, the application of the law should be prospective in nature in accordance with the prohibition on ex post facto laws under the Constitution.
Although punishment may be viewed as a form of retribution, it does not in itself serve the crime prevention purpose. Therefore, there is a need to modify the emphasis on the purpose of punishment that will apply to criminal justice settings, which include the role of the courts and the corrections to provide the fair and just punishment for sex-related offenders. The recent study of Smallbone et al. (2013, p. 20) had shown that punishment is effective in defeating the criminal behavior. In the case of child sexual abuse offenders, they should respect the decision of the court because it is part of the judiciary’s duty to the state to impose punishment for crimes.
At the same time, the sex offender registries or the child abuse registries are effective because they serve as deterrent measures to avoid future child abuse incidents. The primary purpose of this registration is to give protection to children and to guarantee their safety in the field of child care, and healthcare of the child as well as to protect them from child molesters. There are certain individuals required to register as a sexual offender who have been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction may petition the criminal division of the circuit court where they reside to remove their sexual offender designation
However, it is important to state that evidence appears to contradict the hypothesis that the severity of the punishment for crimes such as child sexual abuse will result in general or specific deterrent effects. This may be the result of the justice system having limited control over the certainty of punishment that severity is no longer material. Aside from this, incapacitation is the third goal of criminal justice interventions for persistent sexual offenders. Through incapacitation, it will banish or lessen the crime rate by removing the criminal opportunities for the individual offenders. In the past, some of the methods used for incapacitation shall include banishment, exile, transportation, mutilation and death of the offenders (Smallbone et al., 2013). Another method to prevent child sexual abuse is to amend and revise the criminal laws to serve normal prison sentence for specific crimes such as designation of the offenders to “dangerous offenders” so that the public will be well-informed and protected.
The impact of child sexual abuse in the U.S. and in the state of Maryland only reflects a part of the reality of child sexual abuse’s impact on the entire child population in the world. While the numbers of these cases are incomplete due to the silence of the victims or the sex offenders themselves, the signs and symptoms of identifying victims of such crimes have already been brought to the attention of the general public. This is due to the joint efforts of the government and the related agencies to reduce the overall number of sex related cases.
References
Gansler, D.F. (2013). Understanding and Using the Sex Offender Registry. Maryland Attorney General. Web. July 13, 2013, from
http://www.oag.state.md.us/sexualOffender/understanding.htm.
Gerstenfield, G. (2013). Maryland Court of Appeals Strikes Retroactive Sex Offender
Registration. Maryland Criminal Defense Blog. Web. Retrieved on July 13, 2013, from
http://www.gerstenfield.com/blog/maryland-strikes-retroactive-registration/.
Premier Defense Group (2013). Maryland: Retroactive Sex Offender Registration Law
Unconstitutional. Premier Defense Group-Sex Crimes Blog. Web. Retrieved on July 13,
2013, from http://www.premierdefensegroup.com/blog/maryland-sex-offender-registration-unconstitutional/.
Smallbone, S., Marshall, W.L. & Wortley, R. (2013). Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: Evidence,
Policy and Practice. New York: Routledge.
