May 29, 2011
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.
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...