Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform – New Hampshire

Contact the President

Federal Law Suit

CCJR POLICY STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL MEGAN's LAW

International Megan’s Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking (HR 4573): Misguided and Ineffective Policy

IML is a misguided attempt to address the very real problem of sex trafficking. We ask the President not to sign the bill.

IML intrudes on the fundamental right of certain American citizens who are required to register as former sex offenders (hereafter called “Registered Citizens”) to travel freely without interference from their government. Additionally, IML violates the due process rights of Registered Citizens, affording them no opportunity to refute the implication of dangerousness that would be broadcast by their government. IML will result in the criminalization of urgent travel by affected Americans who may not be able to notify authorities in advance. Finally, IML attempts to manipulate international law by encouraging the use of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2152d) to pressure other countries into enacting similar policies.

IML has been appropriately rejected by Congress in four previous iterations.[1] It casts too broad a net. Most Registered Citizens to whom it applies pose no danger of contributing to the demand for sex trafficking.[2]  IML would establish a costly new bureaucracy, which will have no significant impact on the problem of international sex trafficking. IML may even threaten the welfare of traveling American Registered Citizens by implying to foreign authorities that they are the “bad guys.”

International Megan’s Law Will Violate Citizen Rights

Restricts freedom of travel. IML creates two classes of American citizens: those who may travel freely, and those who must notify authorities before leaving the country. The vast majority of Registered Citizens have long since exited the criminal justice system and have lived years, even decades, in the community without re-offending.  They have a recognized right to travel freely without interference from their government. IML violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)[3] by interfering with the free movement of American citizens.

Criminalizing innocent travel. International travel is often necessary without advance notice (e.g. a sick relative, an urgent business obligation). Many international travel situations require significant financial commitment from the traveler long before the application for a visa. IML could force Registered Citizens with travel emergencies to do so without complying with the law, thus risking arrest and prosecution upon return home. Equally troubling, IML would discourage law-abiding Registered Citizens from ever embarking on legitimate international travel.

Violating due process. The AWA listing of conviction status in no way reflects a person’s actual re-offense risk[4]; however the Angel Watch Center (AWC) would proffer Registered Citizens’ federally protected information to foreign authorities with the clear implication of dangerousness. Under this bill, Registered Citizens are offered no opportunity to contest the implication of dangerousness or to prove the innocent nature of their travel in advance. Thus, IML would violate due process rights of Registered Citizens traveling internationally.

International Megan’s Law Is Flawed Policy

Insignificant effect on trafficking prevention. The IML findings conflate two facts: that Registered Citizens travel internationally, and that American citizens account for a significant number of trafficking convictions. However, there is no logical connection between these two facts. Domestic experience suggests over 95% of arrests for sexual crimes are of first time offenders, not Registered Citizens.[5] In fact, Registered Citizens have an overall low likelihood of sexual re-offending.[6] Higher socio-economic status (which permits international travel), may correlate with an even lower recidivism risk.[7] If one first determines what fraction of all international travel is being done by Registered Citizens, then how few of that number even pose a risk for sex trafficking, it is far more reasonable to conclude that most sex offenses committed by international travelers are by persons never previously convicted of a sex crime, and that most travel by Registered Citizens is for legitimate, non-criminal reasons.

Given this critical flaw, IML would be a huge bureaucratic expense, with little or no effect on rates of international sex trafficking.  Compounding the problem, IML encourages the President to use of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2152d) to pressure other countries into enacting similarly misguided policies despite a lack of evidence that such policies will curtail international sex trafficking or the demand for it.

Puts American travelers in harm’s way. Many Registered Citizens were originally convicted of behavior which would not have been prosecuted elsewhere.[8] In spite of the designation in the AWA, many Registered Citizens’ convictions involved neither children nor trafficking, and yet the AWC notification strongly implies that the Registered Citizen is guilty of some generic “child-sex offense” that is reasonably related to international sex trafficking. This could and would be broadly interpreted by officials in the destination country, with no check on how those officials handle the information. A Registered Citizen could be harassed or even harmed by officials or others in the community who are notified of their presumably dangerous background.[9]

Conclusion

IML will violate the travel rights and due process rights of traveling Americans, may have dangerous collateral consequences for affected citizens, and is not supported by any evidence that it will achieve a reduction in international sex trafficking. There exist proven methods of combating international sex trafficking that are worthy of support by the United States Congress. The International Megan’s Law is not among them. We strongly urge this legislation not be enacted into law.