So, where IS it safe to put sex offenders after prison/rehab?

Great Debates
1

I was going to put this in GQ, because it’s really a question, but it’s definitely not a factual question, and I suspect it could spark a lively debate. Mods, if you feel the need to move it, please do.

Bear in mind, as I ask this question, that I’m not defending sex offenders in any way. I think that sexual offences are just short of murder on my personal disgust-meter. This is more of a “Devil’s Advocate” question, but one which I think also deserves an answer. Since is easily the smartest bunch of people I know… here goes. Be kind.

I saw a story on the news last night about this development in Washington state. The news covered a sort of town meeting, in which concerned citizens and parents spoke out against a “halfway house” for Level III sex offenders (which appears to mean likely to re-offend) which could be placed in their vicinity. The parents were understandably worried. Frankly, if such a halfway house were being proposed in my community, I’d be frightened and angry too, and I’d sure as hell speak up about it.

And yet, in thinking about it, there seems to be no “safe” place to put sex offenders after they have served their sentence. Certainly, I would say that residential neighborhoods are too risky, but that’s my feeling as a father and husband. My wife suggested business districts, but that would surely cause an uproar among the local businesses that would be affected… and to my mind, would decrease the risk only slightly.

Then we get into other options, such as rural areas or enclosed compounds. These are somewhat safer than other options, but also are more restrictive to the offenders, after they have (supposedly) served the sentence meted out to them by society. In a sense, these options, while more safe, also continue the punsihment of the sex offenders, after they have served their sentence. Is that the right way to go?

I’m fairly realistic about this. I know that for many sex offenders, their crimes are a compulsion and they are likely to re-offend. I think there needs to be realistic preventitive steps taken against this probability, to minimize risk. But to what extreme do we take that? Because some are likely to re-offend, does that mean we treat them all like they are going to? Doesn’t that go against the nominal goal of re-adjusting the offenders to a “normal” way of life? Do we punish all for the potential crimes of some? And, that being a somewhat slippery slope, where does that end?

I think that residential neighborhoods are the wrong place for sex offender halfway houses… too much temptation, which most of them are probably not ready for. And I’m sure most businesses will not allow a city or county to place such a house near their business, for much the same reason. So where do we put them? Out in the deep woods? In a sex offender colony? On a deserted island? Or do we just kill them and have done?

I have no answers to these questions, myself. It’s too big an issue, and I have a hard time getting around the feeling I would experience if such a house were in my neighborhood. I’m wondering what some of you think.

2

Interesting dilemma, is this an implicit assertion that once a sex-offender, always a sex offender?

3

That’s probably the main thrust of my questions… I’m not sure. I don’t want to think that, but at the same time, I can understand the fear that it is the case.

Like I said, I don’t have an answer for that. It does seem to be many people’s perspective, though, when presented with the possibility, that the law should always treat a sex offender as though they are going to offend again. shrugs Make of that what you will. I’m not sure I agree with it myself.

4

What do you mean, ‘put’ them? Are you implying that sex offenders should lose freedom of movement following conviction?

5

Evacuate Wyoming or Alaska, fence it in, and let the sex offenders roam freely there.

6

The problem is that once somebody has served his/her time and is released, excepting parole based prohibitions, they have the right to live where they want to/can afford to.

They’ve done their time. Whether or not they are truly rehabilitated or are likely to repeat the crime is endlessly debatable, and certainly should be considered in conjunction with parole, but it’s ultimately irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed in a community.

7

After we figure out this dilemma, we need to figure out what to do with arsonists, drunk drivers, child abusers, forgers and the myriad of other criminal who have served time and are going to be allowed back on the streets, who may or may not have the inclination to repeat the crime.

Once a person serves his or her time, that should be it. If we decide that we need to give sexual abusers life sentences, then let’s do it. Otherwise we have a government that is entitled to enslave it’s citizens for a lifetime for a crime committed 40, 50, 60 years in the past.

8

Maybe we should try and change our judicial system to one of reform, and not punishment.

If sex-offenders were treated more as having a mental defect, and not as a simple criminal, then maybe there could be actual reform, and thus there wound’t be an issue of where to ‘put’ them.

Keeping them rotting in a jail cell certainly won’t alleviate their ‘disturbed’ impulses, and can only create a more hostile person - further traumatized by rape & torture in prison.

Before you attack me, keep in mind that when incarcerated for a mental condition, the lengh of incarceration is based on mental health. As scarry as it seems, these people could be held indeffenetely if there was no improvement.

Release 'em when they won’t hurt anyone anymore. Period.

9

They already did, it’s called Tennessee.
O.K., I got the quick joke out of the way, I’d just thought I’d add one little thought to the debate. In my state, Illinois, and many others, there is a Sexually Violent Persons act which allows the State to civilly commit sex offenders even if they have completed serving their time in prison. If a person is found to be a SVP, they are committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services for sex offender treatment, and, if they successfully complete that, they can be released from custody and live on their own.

Now, where they live is another question, which deals with the entire Not in My Backyard feeling any person has.

10

I would first differentiate a “sex Offender” from a “child molester”
If we are talking about child molesters then, I believe your statement is true; Once a child molester always a child molester. It is a compulsion or addiction much like alcoholism but more psychological rather than substance induced. In their defense, the can lead normal and productive lives as adults but not very trustworthy around children. Much like an alcoholic in a bar, a habitual child molester suffers from great temptation around children. He may not get the sweats and classic withdrawal symptoms of a substance addict, but he may formulate little fantasy plans and maniipulate situations to gain the full trust of the child then fall into molestation again.

I would say anywhere outside this country is safe enuf. A court order barring being 100 feet to a child is also a good step. The Wyoming idea was good but what will me do with the 100 or so people that already live there? Las Vegas is already full. We could steal some more lands from the indians and stick them there. Or we could create an ex-con city. It would be a place to house ex-convicts and their spouses. Absolutely no children allowed. The place would be heavily guarded but anyone can come and go as they want (registering in and out) and create their own industry there. Somewhere far away from large cities and children. Uhh Is midway Island still ours?

11

Much of this revolves around our (society’s) abhorance of the crime. Recidivism amongst, say, drunk drivers, or burglars is old news, and most people don’t get seriously excercised about it. Sex crimes, especially against minors, get our back up in a way few other things can. It’s out of bounds. Beyond the pale.

We know in our hearts that criminals are fairly likely to commit new crimes. We can’t, however, reconcile ourselves to permitting another offence against a child, which brings us hard up against our social values. Is there a point where social values have to be sacrificed for the (often illusionary) safety of children? Or is it that we have ignored our social values to date, and the fate of the ex-con child mollester forces us to flinchingly face this?

I think a solid case can be made for that second theory. We have a criminal justice system, I think, that fails to meet our social values and fictions. We seem to want to assume that, having been locked away for a period of time, our criminal will have learned the error of their ways, and go forth to sin no more. We know this is often false, yet we have made few concrete steps to fix it. And then we’re faced with a truly abhorent crime, and our response is to turn whole communities into open air jails (Variations on Megan’s Law). Now, considering that we have no viable treatment for these kinds of crimes in place, Megan’s Law was inevitable, but it’s also an admission that we have no real intent to address the root of the problem, as a whole.

If more states go the route described in Hamlet’s post, and were actually willing to fund these to appropriate levels (and that means people willingly paying the necessary taxes, and willingly changing their legislator’s priorities!), this whole question would dry up and blow away.

My guess is that’s not going to happen.
:frowning:

12

Sex crime is a prickly issue. I do think society equated “level three sex offender” with “child molester”. Lets slow down for a moment and look at what other crimes besides child molestation have been committed by L3SO.

According to the link Milord posted above, Washington State defines sex offenders this way:

scratching head I’m wondering, first of all, how anyone could feel safe with someone guilty of these crimes living nearby. Second of all, how could anyone defend the ights of such individuals. Third, how is it that sentences for these crimes are not more extensive with the very high probablility that these people will reoffend? Isn’t the idea behind incarceration to keep the general public safe? Now they’re set free. Are we safe, or are we sitting ducks?

I can respect that some of you have trouble with the “once a sex offender, always a sex offender” argument, but there’s another piece to that argument. If we feel that they’re not fixed by incarceration, then they’re still broken, and we haven’t done our job rehabilitating them… if that can even happen. The beauty of psychology is that it’s brain medicine, and we still don’t fully understand the human brain. It might work, or it might not. We might get sufficiently snowed by a manipulative intellect, or we might really help someone see the error of his/her ways. The fact of the matter is that for anyone who hurts people, and we think they’re likely to do it again, don’t we have an obligation to make sure they never hurt anyone again?

In this respect, I don’t have a problem with admitting I don’t want these people in my neighborhood. I can live with being bigotted against these people. IMHO, these people made their choices. Were talking about level 3 here, not your 18 year old brother getting caught in the back seat with a 16-year-old.

13

I didn’t see a “Welcome Forum” so here I am. Howdy all.

I’m a right wing conservative and proud of it. I am sure you on the other side are equally proud as well.

What do we do with sex offenders? How about if we just keep them in prison? If they are really guilty that is. What about the ones that my not be guilty? Do we just lump them in with all the rest?

Merry Christmas all…

14

I think we ought link about 100 barges together, equipped with living quarters, etc. and float this pile of shit about 10 miles offshore, surround it with loads of razor wire and other obstacles to prevent escape. Drop’em some food & water every once in a while. If they can survive their full sentence, then we might let’m come to Wyoming or Montana to live out the rest of their life, isolated from normal folk, smoke cured or not.

15

You came up with some names of crimes, but let’s see what those crimes entail:

So it might not apply to your 18 year old brother, but it sure applies to your 20 year old brother.

And how about this gem:

Notice how “immoral purposes” is never defined in the law. Is it “immoral” to talk to a minor on the phone about buying lingerie? How about birth control?

16

Is the question where do we put halfway houses for sex offenders or where do we put sex offenders? It really is not the same question, as a sex offender who has finished serving a sentence ( including any parole or other supervision required by law) can live wherever he or she chooses, while halfway houses for sex offenders are going to be subject to the same sorts of restrictions on location as other similar group residences.

17

Good point, and you’re absolutely right, at least as far as the law is concerned.

Reading the other responses here (thanks, everyone) has helped me clarify what I’m thinking. If I may rephrase my question to make it a little more clear, I think it hinges around just when we, as individuals or as a society, consider it “safe” to allow former sex offenders to re-enter society. Just when do we feel safe knowing that a former sex offender may be living next door?

By the letter of the law, of course, doreen is absolutely right. After a criminal has served their sentence, they are free to live where they wish. I suppose my question is, is that sufficient?

And the flipside of that, is it too much in some cases? As has been shown in this thread, sex offenses can range from the relatively minor ones (statutory rape, for example… which I consider serious in many cases but not so much in others) to the extremely violent and vile cases (child molestation/rape). Do the serious punishments that go along with many of these cases truly fit the crime? Does an 18-year-old who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old deserve the scarlet letter label of “sex offender”? Do they need halfway houses or similar?

I’m torn mainly for this reason: in some of the more serious cases, the law allows some Level III sex offenders (“likely to re-offend,” as you’ll recall) to serve their time and go back out into the world. True, they are registered for a time, but is that right? Is even a “halfway house” justified by the risk that goes with it? In other cases, the law seems often too harsh (three to twenty years in Oregon, for example, for statutory rape).

I suppose my question is not a legal one… I know the law, for the most part. My question questions the law itself: How can we make the law fair to both the accused and the victim, while minimizing risk for potential victims?

We’ve already seen that the law varies from state to state, sometime dramatically. This is, apparently, a difficult question to answer, even for those that make the laws. I don’t know iff I’ve clarified my position at all, but I feel more clear on it in my head. :confused:

By the way, I think Tranquilis hit my feelings on the head about it here:

Yeah… these crimes (and the offenders) definitely “get my back up.” I’m just never sure that I can (or should) trust them again. I tend to be naive when it comes to some people, and I’d hate to think that my naivete could get my kids, my wife, or anyone else hurt.

18

Welcome to the boards, localbrew, you’ll find plenty of other conservatives here that feel that pretty much all crimes deserve life in prison. While that may be expedient, it isn’t contitutional (that darn Bill of Rights again!), and would ruin your plan to reduce taxes, as very soon the prison population would balloon into the largest expenditure in the budget. Oh well, there’s always the death penalty, right?

19

I don’t think it is in a lot of cases - but there’s also a solution for the future. The allowable sentences for crimes are not set in stone. Some crimes have life sentences, and even if a convict with a life sentence is released, they can still be subject to supervision for the rest of their life. I don’t see any particular reason why the most heinous sex offenses can’t get a life sentence. (except of course teh financial reason)

20

As far as rape, and child molestation is concerned, castration, or preferably cutting the enitire thing off completely, will definitely help matters. There would be no repeat offenses at all.

We have the technology to easily cut it off, it is not a hard nor an expensive operation($1000 - $2000), and certainly much cheaper than keeping him in prison for $20,000 a year.

This is not about revenge, rather it is making certain that any rapist or any child molestor will never ever be able to do what he did, ever again - by making it totally physically impossible for the criminal to do it if he doesnt have his thing anymore.

For those who might be squemish, or be afraid that a jury of all men might not want to convict a child molestor or rapist, then make it voluntary, give the child molestor a choice of his punishment:

  1. death,
  2. 50 “actual” years behind bars, or
  3. cutting it off, and giving him only a few years behind bars.