A charged debate over sexual offenders

[Thom Little]

By Alexandra Marks
Christian Science Monitor
Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2005


The national debate over how best to deal with dangerous sexual predators is playing out in a highly charged political way in New York. It centers on the issue of civil commitment, laws that allow the government to institutionalize unsafe sexual offenders in mental hospitals after they served their time in prison.

Advocates contend this is the best way to keep dangerous, repeat sexual offenders from striking again. But opponents argue that civil confinement of sexual offenders has proved to be extremely expensive and not as effective as longer sentences, intensive treatment, and post-incarceration supervision.

It is a highly emotional issue: Just what does a government do with people who clearly pose a danger? States across the country, which have been grappling with it for two decades, are still working to come up with the best solution. In the 1990s, 16 states passed civil-confinement laws for sexual offenders. Since then, most have focused instead on increasing sentences for sexual offenders and improving post-incarceration treatment and supervision.

"There's certainly been a trend in states to pay attention to how long they go to prison and, if they're going to get out, how do we supervise them effectively in the community," says Donna Lyons, criminal-justice program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "They're really looking at the whole picture. There's really not just one solution being pursued."




http://csmonitor.com/2005/1207/p03s03-ussc.html

[RC]

1. Hey! I have an idea.

Why not do something about the way sexual offenders are raised.
Most are made. There is a commonalty in their childhoods.
This diddling with the damage after the fact does nothing about anything, except maybe satisfy the Revenge & Punishment crowd.
There are common threads that run through each type of sexual offender. Not the least of which is this country's deep seated prudery. For instance, a two year old takes off their panties to run through the sprinkler. What happens? Some adult goes ape shit all over the kid. That is not good. Normal behaver is demonized. We are supposed to denie & suppress our natural instincts. All that does is distort and pervert them. This country is sexually morbid and getting worse.

[Gyre]

7. Usually "an idea" is capable of implimentation for it to have merit

I don't see that yours does. Or am I missing something?

Gyre

[bemildred]

2. What does "clearly pose a danger" mean?

Who decides? How do they decide? If it's a jury, I can deal with it. It it's some unelected hack I don't like it. Civil commitment is a dangerous thing, the Communists used to throw lots of dissidents in jail and claim they were nuts. What's to stop this being used in the same way? We already have the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the World. Do you feel safer? I don't. Maybe trying to feel safe by locking people up is not a good answer.

[mongo]

3. You're right and it sets a dangerous precident

but prepare to get flamed on this by the "protect the children" crowd.

Some here would give away every last civil liberty in the name of children.

[ShockediSay]

4. Unfortunately

within the professional psych community, it is recognized that therapy most likely will not work, and the likelihood of repeat offenses is considerable.

One such professional reported this to the local diocese regarding priests sent away for treatment. The Bishop didn't want to hear it.

[Gyre]

8. Well you can relax because it IS a jury.

In California they're called Sexually Violent Predator trials. It's a battle of psychologists in front of a jury along with the facts of defendant's crimes and his conduct since. Burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the subject is "likely to reoffend" and the subject is entitled to do it every two years until he's dead or free. There is a requirement here that a person have "two qualifying offenses", which are by definition felony convictions for serious sexual crimes.

Gyre

[dsc]

5. We need to have an honest policy and honestly debate this issue

If people want to make it a life in prison the punishment for molesting children, then by all means do so honestly and above board. Pass the law, get judges and juries to enforce it, and be done with it. But don't take short cuts. Don't lie. Don't use civil commitment which could be used for a whole host of crimes. I think we don't give out long enough sentences for this crime all too often. So let's lengthen the sentences.

[BiggJawn]

6. The civil discussion here is refreshing.

Where are the "Fur den Kinder" folks? They should be here accusing US of being closet molesters by now. Must be over at "Meeting Room Underground"...

I agree with DSC, if it's thought that they can't be rehabilitated, then change the fucking LAW to reflect that attitude and make it auomatic life without parole for a first offense. Lobby the lawmakers, change the law, and put the creeps on notice that when they're caught with their hard drives full of heart-break, that's IT. Game Over. Say "hi" to Tiny.

Either that, or take 'em out and shoot them, which would be a LOT more humane tham this crap of making a list, checking it twice, prohibiting ex-offenders from living within 20 miles of a minor, etc.

And saying "You've served your sentence, but you're still a danger to society, so we're gonna lock you up in the booby hatch until WE determine that you're 'cured'.." is pretty shitty, too. As has been pointed out, that was (is) a favourite method for totalitarian regimes to "deal with" THEIR "undesirables", like dissidents, protestors, political opponents, "THOSE people", ad nauseum...

Seems the rationale for doing that is that no lawmaker wants to be the one to seem to be "harsh" on first-offenders?

Glad to see a discussion minus the histrionics on this subject.