Under what's known as Megan's Law, sex offenders have to register with the state after they serve their sentences for their offenses.

The idea behind the law is admirable. While a large number of sex offenders may never commit heinous crimes again, it's worth the effort to keep track of them to assist police in investigations of such despicable offenses.

Pennsylvania's version of the law -- named for a young girl who was raped and murdered by a recidivist pedophile -- has been in effect since 1995. There have been no significant challenges to the law, and judges, for the most part, balance the rights of those convicted of these crimes with the needs of public safety.

It is indeed a balancing act. It seems contrary to our system of justice to essentially sentence a person to life for a criminal offense short of murder. In the case of some sex offenders, it seems reasonable to require them to report their where-abouts to law enforcement. The courts, thus far, have found no constitutional grounds to overturn that aspect of the law.

The system depends on sex offenders volunteering their whereabouts. For the most part, it works. But in some cases it doesn't.

A study cited by the state Auditor General's office concludes that the state has lost track of 923 of the roughly 9,800 sex offenders required to register with the state.

That is less than 10 percent. That may not seem like a huge number, but it would also be reasonable to suspect that sex offenders who do not

Advertisement
meet the requirement to register are ones who may be repeating their offenses.

Three years ago, state Rep. Bev Mackereth, R-Spring Grove, introduced legislation that would have required convicted sex offenders to wear monitoring devices, allowing police to track their whereabouts via GPS technology.

It was a good idea.

But it was flawed.

At the time, the state Department of Corrections and Board of Probation and Parole asked Rep. Mackereth not to press for the bill's passage until they had time to study whether such a system would work. The state conducted a pilot program, using technology from five different providers in five different areas of the state.

It failed.

The technology, at that time, didn't work consistently.

Rep. Mackereth wisely backed off on the idea. She said, correctly, that it wouldn't be right to force county probation departments to purchase expensive equipment that may not be reliable.

Now, though, things have changed.

The technology has caught up and is considerably more reliable. Some counties have adopted the technology, and it is working well. The counties also report that costs are offset by charging offenders fees to cover expenses.

Rep. Mackereth said it may be time to revisit the notion of requiring GPS monitoring for sex offenders.

Money, though, may remain the issue.

"It's not a matter of changing the law," she said. "It's a matter of allocating the dollars."

The state Auditor General's office hasn't said how much statewide implementation of such a system would cost. But it appears that it is now within reach.

And it seems like a reasonable price to pay if it prevents a sexual predator from preying upon the most defenseless among us.