Sexual offenses, such as rape, sexual abuse, child abuse, and sexual exploitation of a minor, are much more common in the United States. United as we would like to admit. Reported sex crimes, which are usually very few in number compared to the number of people committed, often carry heavy penalties for the offender. While incarcerated, these offenders pose no danger to the public; However, one can never be too safe knowing that these criminals are free once their time in prison is over. Through sources such as familywatchdog.us and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice website, the public has the ability to find and track convicted sex offenders after their release. With just a few simple steps, anyone can fully access a sex offender's photograph, physical description, personal information, previous charges, current occupation and address. Easy access to this information can provide a sense of comfort and security to the community; Yet how fair is this lack of privacy for these offenders, who have already paid the price and are trying to put their crimes behind them? Under the laws of the United States Constitution, it must be argued that these registered offenders are unfairly given double punishment due to the utter humiliation inflicted on them due to their blatant lack of privacy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayReleased sex offenders were not exposed to lifelong shame and shame until a law was adopted in 1996, known as “Megan’s Law”. In July 1994, seven-year-old Megan Kanka, as Bill Mears of CNN's Washington bureau states, was "kidnapped, raped and murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender who lived across the street" ( Mears, 2003). After this incident, Megan's Law was created and requires convicted sex offenders released from prison to register with local authorities, making it easier to track their whereabouts and make their personal information available to the community. There are many issues and concerns regarding the constitutionality of this law. Some of these issues were confronted in 2003 when the Supreme Court rejected challenges to sex offender notification laws in Alaska and Connecticut. The case Smith v. Doe concerned the state of Alaska's sex offender registration laws. This case involved two men, Doe I and Doe II: one was convicted of abusing his daughter and the other of abusing a 14-year-old girl. Both men were released for their crimes in 1990, four years before a law requiring sex offender registration took effect. Nonetheless, these two men were forced to comply with registration requirements once Megan's Law took effect, even after spending years outside of prison rebuilding their new lives and regaining their reputations. Dana L. McDonald, in her article on Smith v. Doe, stated: "In 1994, Doe I and Doe II, along with Doe I's wife, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the district of Alaska. They claimed that ASORA violated their procedural and substantive due process rights, their federal constitutional rights to privacy, and the ex post facto clause” (McDonald, 370, 2004). These complaints, although reasonable, were ultimately unsuccessful. According to Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, “thecourt ruled 6-3 that Alaska could apply its law, which includes publishing an Internet registry of convicted sex offenders, to those who were convicted before the law took effect in 1994. » (Serre, 2003). By 2003, all 50 states had passed Megan's Law, which imposed registration requirements on tens of thousands of people whose original convictions imposed no such requirement (Greenhouse, 2003). The main question posed was whether or not this was a violation of the ex post facto clause of Article I of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states: “No bill or law ex post facto shall be enacted” (United States Constitution). An ex post facto law is a law that imposes punishment on a person for a prior act that was lawful at the time the act was committed. Forcing tens of thousands of ex-offenders to comply with this law, after they have already served their sentences, is clear evidence that the Constitution has been violated. This fact was negated by the assertion that Alaska's sex offender registration law was regulatory. Because it was intended solely to protect the public, Alaska's law was considered non-punitive because it did not view sex offender registration requirements as punishment for the offender. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens asserts that "the majority will never persuade me that the registration and reporting requirements that are imposed on convicted sex offenders and no one else because of their convictions are not part of of their pain” (Stevens, 2003). Stevens not only realizes the injustice of these requirements, but by recognizing that only sex offenders and sex offenders need to be registered, he raises another argument in terms of this law: why sex offenders are required to register. register with the state while other dangerous criminals do not. Sex offenders released from prison not only face life sentences for their crime due to a humiliating intrusion into their privacy, but they are also unfairly disadvantaged within the criminal population. Why should a man convicted of a minor sex crime be considered more dangerous to society than a thief or murderer? This is just another factor that adds to the injustice of Megan's Law. In addition to the challenges faced by Alaska's sex offender registration law, Connecticut also faced challenges resulting from the passage of Megan's Law. Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe was a Supreme Court case involving the claim that Connecticut's sex offender registration law violates the due process rights of convicted sex offenders by denying offenders a hearing to determine their threat level in society. The Cornell University Law School website provides a summary of this case and states the following: The defendant, a convicted sex offender subject to the law, filed a Section 42 action USC §1983 on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, asserting that the law violates, among other things, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, certified a class of persons subject to the Act, and permanently enjoined the Act's public disclosure provisions. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that such disclosure deprived both sex offenders »..