Talk:Megan's Law

Accuracy

I don't have time to sit and rewrite or edit this right now but the very basic information in this is incorrect. Megan's Law is completely different from the law cited as being Megan's Law! While I will try to get to this at some point, it is real disservice as the article now stands. (Can't address the rest of the article, I stopped at the first inaacuracy) Evilpassion (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)evilpassion in wv

I question the veracity and neutrality of this page. No sources are given at all, and the language used starting with the sentence about civil rights is very biased. (someone else wrote this part as 209.86.240.112)

Agreed, which is why I changed it to "...claiming the sex offender registry unfairly includes those who committed consensual crimes in addition to sexual predators." Before it said "Because".

That in itself is nonsense. Read the bloody law.

Janet from Tucson

The article also claims that one must enter the registry for consensual sodomy and a number of other things - this is not true. Lawrence v. Texas made anti-sodomy laws illegal, so any actions that would put a person in the registry would have to be with minors and defined as a sex offense in a given state. The way it is phrased now, it makes it seem like two adults would enter the registry if caught performing sodomy together in private. That's not the case. -Gerrit

There is no source whatsoever given for the claim that Megan Kanka's parents left her alone the night she was killed while they went to dinner. None of the sources that are provided support such an inflammatory claim. Either cite a source, or remove this assertion. This is grossly irresponsible and defamatory toward the Kankas. Who the hell wrote this? Read this account: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20105314,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyhutch (talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

"On May 17, 1996, President Clinton signed a federal version of Megan's Law as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children's Act. It required every state to develop some procedure for notifying concerned people when a person convicted of certain crimes is released near their homes. Different states have different procedures for making the required disclosures." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law"

I agree this article is not accurate. Clinton is supposed to be listed under Megan's law as a sex offender and here he endorses it. This makes no sense.Thodin 03:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, when was he convicted of a sex crime? Rhobite 04:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's sad that I couldn't get anyone to discuss this issue after waiting a month. You stalk me so you should have discussed it earlier. I personally believe the picture is real. It clearly is not photoshopped and Bill Clinton had several women (I only remember the last one's name) accussing him of sexual crimes. He even confessed his guilt to the American people on national television. Therefore the picture is real. Unless you can prove otherwise, you can abuse your admin powers all you want to control the edits, but I won't believe you. Thodin 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite: How about Juanita Broaddrick, dumbass.

69.39.172.26 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Clinton based on the allegation." -- from Juanita Broaddrick.

Accusation isn't the same as guilt, and certainly not the same as a conviction. Not that any of this political nonsense has anything to do with the article.

Wibbble 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Effects of Megans law

Much talk here in UK about instituting a similar law. Major argument against is promoting vigilantism, any sources to show this effect in USA? RandomIdiot 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single incident has been publicized. And trust me, with cable news, everybody on the planet would know. Janet from Tucson

No question, as long as she's white it would be on every channel.

There's a case now: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/the_skinny/main3597422.shtml - cybersaga (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In Washington State the Police deliberately reclassify crimes against sex offenders as something other than it is, a HATE CRIME. Until we realize that our children our safe from our viligence not laws. Teachers, Police, Clergy, and Family members can be a sex offender, what protection does the states take to stop them. In Washington if a police officer arrests and then rapes a person it isn't RAPE, its' "Custodial Assault" far less threatening term than RAPE. In Snohomish County Washington the Community Correction Supervisor for the State Department of Corrections, Ric Rosales, stated on July 16, 2008 in response to sex offenders in the community, "Its not that we just push them out - out of sight , out of mind. We keep messing with and tangling with them the whole time they're on supervision." The laws harass and create unnecessary fear in the community and then you have Officials of the State "Messing with and tangling with..." offenders. That is harassment!!! And we sanction this harassment because we believe the fear that is brought to us by those same officials. Willie Russell WJR5006@aol.com Washington State —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.122.236 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, it is 'custodial sexual assault' and rape is not simply called rape under the law, it is called 'sexual assault'. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I thought I should clear up that glaring misinterpretation of the nature of the law. 60.241.127.220 (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

should I semi-protection?

Several anonymous IP addresses have vandalized Megan's Law with silly comments recently.

I was going to ask for semi-protection but that would block out a good number of editors. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Dfpc 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeal the law, that'll keep them away. It's just a silly comment itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.144.114 (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on biographical issues including WP:BLP

I'd like to see an experienced biographical editor make sense of this article, especially those parts which put the "Kanka family" in a bad light. I am not very familiar with the topic and I'm not sure who is a "living person" or which people are included by this phrase, but some of this seems rather strongly worded against them. However I appreciate it is a controversial topic, and while I have no idea WHAT the source is, the quote "They all knew what Joe Cifelli did" does pull up a mystery URL that I can't access.[1] I don't actually approve of the law on constitutional grounds, but this savaging of a victim's family, even one that has been used as a political football, seems pretty terrible. Please figure out how to fix it. 70.15.116.59 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed about three paragraphs of unsourced material that reflects negatively on the victim's family and makes assertions about others that violate WP:BLP. Also, WP:UNDUE would not allow such amounts of information and especially in the introductory paragraphs. I know you were looking for comments but I took what I deemed was appropriate action at the time. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess I should have just done that myself. There was probably the germ of an argument buried in there, and I hate to see anything with some kind of source get deleted, but for stuff like that to fly it had better be a lot more sturdily put together. 70.15.116.59 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical Changes 1st Paragraph

I made 4 or 5 small grammatical changes to the intro paragraph to improve readability and grammar (removal of "that" and similar unnecessary words/phrases). Changes did not extend beyond intro sentence.

I would like to grammar-police the entire article if there are no objectsions. Despite working in law enforcement, I do not feel qualified to make more than grammatical changes to the article. I will limit any revisions to simply subject/verb agreement and enhanced readability. Please let me know if there are any objections - I will not begin for at least a week, and if/when I do it will *not* be over the suggestions of others. Thanks--Legomancer (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, fix it up. This article really needs some expansion too so feel free to help in that regard also. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the intro to spell out the difference between Megan's Law and Jacob Wetterling (Sexual Offender's Registration) Act of '94. If this isn't met with objections, I'll start working on the body of the article later this evening.--Legomancer (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I added a link there to the Wetterling act. JodyB _talk 23:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-did Legal Origins. I took out a lot of the stuff about Jesse Timmendequas (the murderer) and some of the stuff about Megan. It didn't read very well, and the article should really focus on the law. Right now the Megan Kanka link just redirects to Jesse's, I put a suggestion on that page for creating a page all about Megan with stuff about her life - which would be a much better place for it. Thanks,--Legomancer (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding interpretation of recidivism data

The current article references "extremely high recidivism rates of sex offenders" without giving figures. The Department of Justice's last in-depth report was from 1994 (to support the Federal Megan's Law) and it only lists a 5.3% re-arrest rate for *all* sex based crimes, not just crimes involving children. Child molesters have a recurrence rate of ~1.5%. The study points out that people convicted of a sex crime are much more likely to be arrested for another felony (any felony, not just a sex or minor-involved felony). Since the 1994 DOJ study, there hasn't been any far-reaching or comprehensive data analysis. There has been a number of university research projects and case studies on specific offenders or various corrections facilities. Here's the questions:

Should I evaluate the data by labeling it as "High, low, consistent, etc" rate of recurrence? What sources are valid to pull data from? Since the most relevant and directly applicaple data is almost 15 years old it's of questionable worth and smaller studies don't necessary have a big enough scope to justify a Wiki cite.

As a parent, I think a 5% (or 3, or .05%) is enough to justify aggresive monitoring, but gut reaction to pedophiles isn't a valid source. Suggestions?--Legomancer (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The average re-arrest rate is somewhere around 65%. [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.188.210 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The "average re-arrest rate" is the rate of re-arrest, NOT the rate of re-arrest SPECIFICALLY for another sex offense. Such ambiguities are how people get away with perpetuating the belief that "65% of sex offenders are re-arrested (for sex crimes)" (parentheses indicate the underlying implication, not the fact). With sex offenses, the primary concern is that the offender will commit another sex offense, and that is used to justify laws such as Megan's Law. Therefore, we must be very specific when quoting figures in order to avoid issuing a statement that is too ambiguous, and therefore leaves available these ugly and non-factual implications in the reader's mind. Daivox (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a big list of questions! I would think that DOJ/BOP data would be the best source. I would not characterize the data as high low, etc. I would let it speak for itself. Let me do a quick run on Nexis and see what I get. JodyB _talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not too much help on Nexis. I'll reconstruct the search and see what I can find. But I did come across this: "The U.S. Department of Justice has determined that, contrary to public perception, sex offenders generally have a lower rate of recidivism than others who commit serious crimes." I can't put my hands on the data though. JodyB _talk 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I found some more recent (~5 years old) data on all kinds of recidivism info. It's a few hundred pages in total, but well organized. I'll slog through it and make suggestions. If anyone would like a copy or links please email me.--Legomancer (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll send you an email later. I'd like the link. Frankly I'm a little surprised at not finding data to back up this idea of high recitivism. I suspect we could contact DOJ and get a report or press release link. But let's see what you have found. Thanks for your work. JodyB _talk 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a short-read (http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html). The problem is definition. Like I said, about 5% of all people convicted of any sex crime will once again be convicted of another sex crime. About 1.5% of people convicted of crimes against children will be convicted again of crimes against children. Some places use arrests, some use number of new charges, some use any violation of conditional release (probation, parole). With various people interpreting the data, and not a lot of communication between agencies, it's difficult to really say "Here's an accurate picture of offenders." The figures supporting high recidivism are because (around 75%) sexual offenders will be convicted of another crime (any crime). With crimes against children, about 80% will be convicted of another crime, and about 75% of those crimes will be felonies. There's the possibility of bias in the criminal justice system leading to higher conviction rates for people with a previous sex-crime conviction. There's also a greater likelihood of repeat offenders pleading to lesser charges that wouldn't necessarily show up in study looking only at specific types of offenses - example: a plea to aggravated assault of a minor instead of sexual assault. This goes back a few comments to "How do we reach a consensus on what to put in?" Thanks,--Legomancer (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious lack of citations in "arguments in favor of the law"

While I agree that the above mentioned section needs to exist and be filled out with information, there are no citations to back the information that currently exists, excluding one recent edit I have made myself. If you have sources for any of this information, please add relevant citations as soon as possible. The lack of citations has been noted in this section for a significant amount of time, and if no sources can be shown, it is potentially at risk for wholesale removal by editors far more zealous and headstrong than myself, especially since my last edit was citing sources that DISPROVE the information I was editing.

In short: please cite some sources or rewrite the entire section from scratch, citing your sources for the new content along the way. Thanks! Daivox (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated destruction of 2/3 of the article by Sceptre

Sceptre insists on removing 2/3 of this article because of various violations of Wikipedia policy. Rather than combine, reword, or otherwise fix the content to fit the policies, the content is being tossed out. If the content isn't in line with Wikipedia policies, FIX IT. The wholesale removal of 67% of an article's content based solely on policy violations without any discussion is not acceptable. Either fix the content or tell others what needs to be done to make the situation better. This matter has been referred to Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Daivox (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In response to the third opinion request, I agree with the removal. General terms like "it's proponents", "critics of" and "supporters of" are unacceptable. Those opinions need to be credited to specific people or groups and their expression of those opinions must be cited with reliable sources. The entire tone of the disputed section makes sweeping generalizations of the different opinions and who may or may not agree with them. Each of the paragraphs should be rewitten with appropriate sources before being placed back into the article. Material with questionable sources or attribution should be discussed on this page prior to its addition. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I will make the effort to clean up these sections as my own personal time permits. I would request that the content be left on a temporary basis so that I can take this action and either source the statements within or remove them entirely because of inability to locate a reliable source. Note that I did not author these sections, and I have questioned the structure myself, but my primary argument lay within the realm of removal of such a huge part of an article without any discussion. In light of your third opinion, I will take appropriate action to clean up this article. Thanks! Daivox (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are worried about weasel words etc be constructive like Daivox and put some refs in there, deletion is not good for the wiki.3fingeredPete (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I do not have enough time tonight to finish the necessary rewriting. I am allocating explicit time tomorrow evening to take on this rather large task, as I want to get it right the first time. Please be patient; it's a lot of work and I'm going to take it on entirely out of my own good will. This is a sensitive topic and the sections that are in dispute contain a ton of relevant information, but the organization is TERRIBLE and the citations are horribly lacking, so I don't want to go about this effort half-cocked. Please leave the problematic sections up until I can do the rewrite properly tomorrow evening; I don't want to have to revert something just to pull the necessary information back out for rewriting. Also, if anyone has suggestions as to how to re-section this mess, let me know. I'll likely be tossing half the content out, and if something like "Praises" and "Criticism" are appropriate, I'd like to know. I'll take any helpful suggestions I can get. Daivox (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have determined that the majority of the deleted information belongs under Sex offender registration, not Megan's law. As a result, I will not be re-adding it, but rather will integrate it into that article instead of rewriting it here, as it does not belong. Daivox (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprecedented

The fact tag I added was to challenge the use of the word "unprecedented" in the phrase "and the law was passed in an unprecedented 89 days." While I know the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation's own web site uses that word, such a strong claim probably fails the "unduly self-serving"test at WP:SELFPUB and an independent source is needed. For that matter, even the 89 day claim should probably be verified independently. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant to remove that term from that sentence during my edits, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I am removing it because of the dispute over its presence, as well as the following additional reasons. I sourced the numeric figures, but "unprecedented" is a claim that is nearly impossible to verify; it lacks sufficient context regarding what precedents it is comparing itself to (vagueness), and to verify such a qualifier in a general sense would require more effort than it is worth, essentially finding the time frame from proposal to signature of every other law that has been passed and comparing that to the 89-day figure. I would also argue that the "400,000 signatures and passed in 89 days" information is insignificant and may in fact not deserve mention in the article at all without some sort of sourced, reliable clarification as to WHY these facts are noteworthy. I don't see how they're necessary in describing Megan's Law and the pertinent facts about what it is, what it does, etc. If these figures are covert arguments as to why Megan's Law is necessary, those arguments should be placed under sex offender registration instead. Daivox (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lacks something truly important

The whole article does not mention impact on other countries, which is important because Sarah's Law is influenced by Megan's Law. Besides, Japan and Taiwan once considered enforcing measures similar to the measures mentioned on Megan's Law to control sex predators or sex offenders. After my request is fulfilled, the article can be Metawiki's TOTW.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

i would like some information on sexually aggressive offenders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.213.204 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"The notification requirement may be imposed for a fixed period of time—usually at least ten years—or permanently."

Temporary registration, generally, is in the case of an adult victim. (All rapes are sex offenses, not just those of children.) Sex offenders convicted of crimes against children are always registered for life and not just a set number of years, as far as I know.

There may be some cases where the victim was an older minor (over 13 and physically mature) and the offender was registered for a temporary period, but, if you are using the word "child" in the strictest sense, I know of absolutely no temporary registrations where the victim had been a child. Does everyone get what I'm saying here? I think we should probably clarify this in the Article.

In fact, I knew a guy (an acquaintance, not a friend by any stretch of the word) who did something to a 4-year-old when he himself was still a minor; I think he was 14 at the time. His record was not expunged when he turned 18, because Pennsylvania, at the very least, does not issue temporary (anything less than one's entire lifetime) registrations for offenses against children, certainly not in the strict sense of the word "child" as explained above. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

POV in #Criticism

This is the appropriate section for criticism of the law and its implication, of course, but the depth of the section (separate paragraphs for separate non-notable activist groups, rather than collective overview of their arguments) and inclusion of quote boxes give WP:UNDUE weight to critics. FourViolas (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call RSOL non-notable. It's an umbrella organization for 27 state level organizations. I'm ok with reverting the quote if you deem it necessary. It just summarizes wetterlings critique pretty well. I was also going to add criticism by Human Rights Wstch and ACLU, but I guess it must be kept it minimal.

ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a short article. We don't want to overbalance it one way or the other. If it was longer on one end it could be longer on the other I suppose. Dunno what to say on the merits of the material. Law is a crude instrument. The editor makes a point re the law being overbearing, but on the other hand, Megan Kanka and so forth. I surmise that that American people have elected to try to minimize Megan Kanka type outcomes even if the collateral damage is high, which I suppose is the American people's right if they want to do that.

We don't want to editorialize too much with contentious issues. Here's the law, here's what it says, here's the proximate circumstances around its creation. Good studies (unbiased academic studies and so on) regarding the effects are welcome, and to some reasonable level commentary from various entities about how they feel about law also. We want to avoid any vibe that tends to imply "this is a good law" or "this is a bad law" or leave the reader with that impression, which getting into too much detail or length on one side or the other can do. Just the fact, provide a quick summary with some link, let the reader dig down if she wants, and make up her own mind. Herostratus (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN I would like to see you take part of this discussion on talk page of "sex offender"- article here as we are discussing my edits there. I make an attempt to defend my edits and would like to have your response, and at least to have you to reconsider your latest massive revert. Doing that kind of revert without further discussion and suggestions how to improve the quality while maintaining at least part of the section is rather aggressive approach IMO.--ViperFace (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ViperFace I see no reason why I should join the discussion there when my edit was to this article and discussion about this article should be here. Your material has unbalanced the article, adding a "Criticism" section along with the "Mixed reception" section. Your second paragraph's source is an advocacy group, not treatment professionals and academics. Your third paragraph mixes in general sex offender laws (that's WP:SYNTH) and cherry picks a quote. That's not helpful as it can be easily countered with the more specific, "Wetterling is quick to say that she still supports registries as a law enforcement tool and believes in civil commitment for some offenders who are truly too dangerous to live in society." [3] Only your fourth paragraph seems to be sourced to a professional group. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

NeilN Would the section be ok if I try to correct the issues you point out? I was about to do something to "Mixed reception" since it was not too coherent saction, but I didn't have the time before the flame war over my edits started. Reason for advisin you to see the another article talk page is, that I wrote rather long message defending these edits in general and also asked few relevant questions with respect to proportionality/balance issues. --ViperFace (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@ViperFace: The "Mixed reception" section is pretty horrendous. Improvements would be welcomed, keeping in mind both supporters and opposers statements should be included. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus, the point of my editing is to cover majority view among treatment professionals and academics working on this field. By all means Americans may elect trying to minimize the said instances, but professionals on that field hold that these laws are not working. It's not implicitly asserting that this is a bad law, but to state the facts that professionals do think this is a bad law and their assertions are based on scientific research, and there are some third-sector organizations echoing the criticism of these professionals and highlighting the other adverse effects beyond the ineffectivity aspect raised by academics. I can't see why such wide spread criticism should be suppressed in Wikipedia and I don't know whether any of you actually read the references. --ViperFace (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, Herostratus, FourViolas Ok, I added some coverage of critique under the terrible "Mixed reactions" section, since it seemed the most appropriate place for it. My edit is the third paragraph and it was add-only edit. I hope I managed to maintain the balance and was able to take account all the feed bcak you gave me. Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions, since one comes blind to his own writing and I have to confess that I had hard time to keep myself out of the activist mode and keep the text compact. I mainly referenced news sources and ATSA's webpage. Is this ok? It's not from peer reviewed source but both their articles have long list of sources. Thanks in advance.--ViperFace (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For those interested.

I thought some folks might be interest in this NYTimes OpEd piece out today. The information discussed in it is relevant to this and other pages. — James Cantor (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article. I think the pendulum is starting to swing the other way now that more and more people are recognizing that much of the "to-do" about sex offenders has been a moral panic and has been influenced by moral entrepreneurs. I'm sure there is some way to balance the needs of the public to "feel safe" while providing the most appropriate treatment and living arrangements for those previously convicted of offenses deemed "sex offenses" by the government. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megan's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113052823/http://www.citypages.com/2013-03-20/news/patty-wetterling-questions-sex-offender-laws/full/ to http://www.citypages.com/2013-03-20/news/patty-wetterling-questions-sex-offender-laws/full/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times editorial

Here's a link to a NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megan's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710221615/http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.fi/2009/04/interview-with-patty-wetterling-june-27.html to http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.fi/2009/04/interview-with-patty-wetterling-june-27.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712000630/http://theparson.net/so/ to http://theparson.net/so/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030603161826/http://www.megans-law.net/ to http://www.megans-law.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)