A sexual predator who was “castrated” (I don’t know if it was done chemically or surgically) has been released in California. If I heard correctly, he will live in Washington. Naturally, people are angry.
A poll was taken, and some people said that the ex-con should be forced to wear a tracking bracelet. 11% said he should be locked up. Others said that he has served his sentence and should be left alone to rejoin society.
I understand that people don’t want a sex offender living near them. The question is, where will they live? No matter where the person moves, he is dogged by his record and the authorities make sure everyone knows what he has done. Many times the ex-con is forced to go elsewhere. Of course, the scenario plays out again.
It seems as if people believe that a sex offender who has served his time has no right to live anywhere. At least, not near them. But since the same attitudes are everywhere, then by extension he has nowhere to go.
As I said, I understand why people would be upset at having a sex offender in their neighbourhood; but again, what’s to be done? Maybe sex offenders should just be executed and have done with it? (I’m being sarcastic. I am pretty much against Capital Punishment.) 11% of the people polled said to lock him up. For how long? Should sex offenders be given life sentences?
He has served his time (for whatever crime he was convicted of), but I think it can be argued that it should not be assumed that he is rehabilitated, or perhaps even argued that complete rehabilitation is impossible. That’s the problem.
Indeed. But what’s the solution?
[list][li]Keep them in prison forever[/li][li]Execute them[/li][li]Make him an outcast[/li][li]Find that he has “paid his debt to society” and leave him alone[/*][/li]I’m sure that many people would favour option 1. But that would violate the Constitution because the punishment would (in many or most cases) be too severe for the crime.
Option two is unreasonable, in my opinion.
Option three is what we’re doing now. But if we make it impossible for someone who has been rehabilitated (in this case, the guy voluntarily opted for castration), then how can the offenders become preductive members of society? I do appreciate that neighbours ought to know the risks; but again, how can someone be reintegrated into society if he is being persecuted?
Option four would work with some offenders, but not for others. But how do you choose which?
I was hoping you wouldn’t ask that. Perhaps we should first consider whether we can safely assume that there is a solution - one that adequately satisfies our somewhat antagonistic senses of justice, safety and humanity, that is.
There are no good answers. As for me, if society wants to keep offenders away from others, society should have to grow a pair, change the sentencing, and pony up the cash money for the offenders’ upkeep.
Just to add to the debate, sexual criminals have one of the highest rates of recidivism. Once they commit that first crime, there are likely to do it again.
My recommendation is option 1: Keep them in prison (or some other method of seperating them from the opportunity to commit their crime).
Is there a high case of recidivism with chemically castrated ex sex crime prisoners?
(I can’t read Cartooniverse’s link so this data may be there)
I would not see much injustice in release of dangerous and likely to reoffend prisoners being contingent on them undergoing some form of permanent castration (chemical or surgical) but they should have sperm samples taken, stored, and be given free medical help should they eventually want to have a family.
I think the most interesting thing about them is that sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate, and yet there’s still hysteria when they’re released and you still have people wondering if its possible for a sex offender to be rehabilitated.
If this is a poll (the OP feels a bit more like a great debate…) my opinion would be that a released sex offender shouldn’t be treated any differently then any other released convict. I’m very much against “Meagans Law”…
This may be precisely because they are closely monitored now.
I think the problem is that when a petty thief is released and returns to crime, all that happens is a few more petty thefts, whereas a sex-offender returning to crime (even if that might be statistically less likely) ruins another life, or worse. Hysteria is a bad thing, I agree, but so is naiveté.
I think it’s a perfectly valid thing to wonder - suppose, for example, that paedophilia is an orientation (not an acceptable one, obviously).
I’m torn on this issue in many ways, but one thing I do think is awful is that, when you release a sex offender into society, the nice neighborhoods with concerned neighborhood alliances and all will hound them out of their place. These are the places with good child supervision and, obviously (because the parents threw such a fit) concerned parents. So the offender get chased into the rotten neighborhoods, where there are just as many kids but with likely far less supervision and sometimes parental involvement, who are much more vulnerable in many ways. I think it creates a bad situation on all sides.
For myself, I’d say they’ve served their sentances and should be free now like any other criminal. But then I don’t have kids and I don’t have a child molester living on my street. Oprah did a show on it and I felt pretty conflicted about all sides represented.
Is there any evidence at all to back up that guess? Other released criminals are closely watched as well, and I haven’t seen any evidence that the pressure on released sex offenders is drastically increased, even in areas that take Megan’s law seriously (for example, I get a post card with a photo and personal information every time one is released in my neighorhood). It’s possible that Meagan’s law is having an impact, but attributing the low recidivism of sex offenders to it and similiar measures is big stretch to make without any evidence.
You know that criminals other then petty thiefs and sex-offenders are released, right? There are murderers, people who commit domestic violence, non-sexual child abusers, burglars, larcenists, etc. They ruin lives too, in many cases far worse then the average sex-offender did. Where’s the “Meagans Law” to let people know that a wife-beater is moving into the neighorhood? What if someone starts dating him? Won’t someone PLEASE think of the adult women!
Setting public policies based on a small set of extreme cases isn’t a good practice.
And straw men: arguing that sex offenders should be treated differently then all other types of released criminals because they can potentially cause more harm then a released petty thief is pretty bad.
There’s no such thing as an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” orientation. An orientation is simply the way a person is–a set of desires that can’t really be changed. Acting on those desires, in a sex offenders case, is unacceptable. Merely desiring something is not.
Assuming that repeat sex offenders can not be rehabilitated, it’s not just a question of punishment vs. crime, it’s a matter of protecting the rest of society from that person’s future crimes. So I don’t think locking the person up forever is unreasonable.
Before we moved to our current house, we had a sex offender living in our neighborhood. When he was released from prison, the sheriff’s office had a piece in the paper stating his address and that legal action would be taken against anyone who harassed the individual. ( He was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl )
I did not let my kids/step kids play outside in our [fenced in] back yard alone. I was worried about them. That is part of my job as a parent, however, it seemed unfair to my kids that I has to keep them locked in [ the back yard ] because a predator was out there.
I do not know what the solution is. I don’t know where sex offenders should go.
Here is, I think the core of the problem. The released sex offender probably incresed the risk to mistee’s children by only an incredably small amount. Less probably than if a ex child murderer had been released in the area, which misstee would not have been informed about. The children would have been under much greater risks from other calamities when they were allowed out before.
BUT. The knowledge of the released sex offender, and the fact that there was a non-zero chance he might attack one of mistee’s children means that mistee must now take extra precaution or face this slight risk of terrable outcome. Those who believe the risk is so minimal that mistee should not have reacted, must consider that people don’t react to probability in a logical fashion, if they did then there would be no State/National Lottery tickets ever sold.
It is easy to be brave on behalf of yourself, but to be brave at a risk (however small) to your children is not an easy thing.
P.S.
I’m not quite sure how this post will be read/interpretted, so I am saying here that I in no way blame mistee for keeping her kids in with the knowledge she ad.
Nope, hence the conspicuous inclusion of the word ‘may’ - sheer idle speculation, not masquerading as anything other than sheer idle speculation.
What straw men? Where did I set up a deliberately distorted version of your argument in order to attempt to refute it?
Pretty bad eh? Perhaps it’s as well I never made such an argument.
I think you understood what I meant. In any case, I think it could be argued that some kinds of desire in some people put them at elevated risk of doing something that would be unacceptable; we may not be able to stop the desire from taking place, but society may be reluctant to accept the person’s presence in their midst.
And please, what is this kind of whiny sarcasm supposed to achieve other than pushing me toward an extreme that I never intended to occupy. If you’re looking for some hysterical unreasoning knee-jerker, you’ll have to look elsewhere - my post above was never intended to be anything other than a few earnest thoughts on the matter, but you have reacted as if they were dogmatic chest-beating.
My original argument was that that the disproportionate fear people have of released sex offenders is irrational and the belief they can’t be rehabilitated incorrect because they’re the criminal class least likely to re-offend. Here were my exact words:
Your response was:
In my original argument, I was (implicitly) comparing sex-offenders to other classes of criminals–your response compares sex offenders to petty thieves. You’ve narrowed the argument from all criminals to the most convenient subset. Classic straw man, IMO.
I didn’t, and still don’t, unless this is your way of saying “I agree, but…”
Perhaps I would have been more cordial if you hadn’t implied that I was naive in your first reply to me?:
My comment regarding naiveté wasn’t directed at you (although I can see how it looks that way) - it was intended as more of a general caution against the idea of going from one extreme all the way to the other.
My apologies for the confusion.
Most of what I said was intended to be comment upon the issues raised in your post, not argument against them.
You’ll notice that my comment contrasting(not comparing) sex offenders and petty thieves was a response to your expression of surprise regarding the hysteria - the reason people get hysterical is that the perceived potential for damage is greater and more distressing; I did not make any response to the paragraph in which you compared a broader range of criminals
