I have a degree in criminal justice, and every study that I have ever seen, and all of the research that I have come across, has shown that one of the greatest triggers for re-offending with regard to sex offenders is stress. The more stress that they are subjected to, the greater the chance they will re-offend. Consequently, laws such as Megan's Law, though they sound nice to some people, actually have the absolutely opposite effect than their intended purpose.

By causing a stressful situation for the offender who ostensibly "paid their debt to society," they actually make it even more likely that they will re-offend, causing even higher rates of recidivism.

Another unintended consequence ironically is that Megan's Law has caused numerous sex offenders to have to go "underground." Since Megan's Law has gone in to effect, the number of sex offenders who have "dropped off the face of the earth," has risen dramatically. Consequently, parole/probation officers who used to be able to monitor said sex offenders with less problems, are now totally losing touch with them all because the offender has essentially been forced to go underground and live under an assumed identity so as to live an existence free of the vigalante mentality that so many Americans have. Thus, by losing their whereabouts, following the stressful situation, society is put at greater risk.

Fact of the matter is, as stated in a previous post, people must be given the opportunity to pay their debt to society, and then have the opportunity to live out their lives as a law abiding citizen. I'd agree that people who prey on children are some of the lowest forms of offenders, but knee jerk laws that ultimately always seem to have serious unintended consequences are not the answer. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment (as suggested in a previous post) in these cases, the fact that the Supreme Court recently shot down a Louisiana law that allowed for this not withstanding (violation of 8th Amendment...cruel and unusual punishment), is not the answer either. One obvious unintended consequence of such an allowence would seem to be the lack of an incentive to let the victim live. Possibly contrary to popular belief, most sex crime victims are not killed. However, I would suspect that when faced with the prospect of facing death either way (for sexually assualting a child, or killing the child), a sex offender might actually see an incentive in killing the victim as to silence them and, albeit in a perverted way (pardon the pun), possibly increase the chances of them getting away with the initial crime (the sexual assault).

Remember, with every law that is the result of a knee jerk reaction, there are always unintended, and often very serious, consequences. Whereas people might "feel safer," the absolute opposite might actually be the case.