Friday, March 30, 2018
You Can Serve Time But You Can't Hide: Community Notification Laws for Sexual Predators
Ohio, like most other states, has laws that require some sexual offenders to register their residence with the state and those names and addresses are required to be announced to the community. In Ohio, only the category of "Sexual Predators" and "Tier 3" Sex offenders are subject to community notification. Any offender in that category, however, is subject to reported to the community. The Sheriff's Department notifies by mail all residents who live with a 1,000 feet of the registered address. The registration and notification of criminals is not the norm -- but is it justified in the case of the sex offender? After all, these criminals have already served time in prison in many cases. Is there something special about their crime? Or does this provision unfairly burden these former felons?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the case of criminal justice, I believe it is not only just to ensure that the criminal understands and is punished for their actions, but also to preserve the safety of the citizenry. For example, the reason that we want a rapist, murderer, or robber off the streets is so that less people are victimized by rape, murder, or robbery. Though one might naively place faith in our prison system to reform criminals, statistics show that those released rarely change their ways upon release. As a study from the National Institute of Justice found, approximately 68 percent of nearly half a million prisoners released in 2005 were re-arrested within three years of release; 77 were re-arrested within five years. The rate of recidivism in the United States is absurdly high. Clearly, the system ought to be fixed, in order to create long-term solutions that can both keep society safe and allow for criminals to return to civilian life. However, this does not change the fact that, until this happens, those living near likely-to-reoffend criminals are at risk. Alongside murder, sexual crimes are some of the most damaging. Experiencing sexual assault as a child can permanently damage one’s psychological state and make a normal adulthood impossible, and as the American Journal of Psychology found, victims of rape are often depressed, anxious, fearful, and feel unable to live a fulfilling life. To summarize the argument so far, our criminal justice system exists in part to protect the citizenry. Oftentimes, released criminals commit another crime. And, sexual crimes are some of the worse one can experience. Thus, it seems common sense to notify those living near to these offenders, as to maximize their safety to the extent possible. On the argument that this will cause harm to the criminals, I view this as irrelevant. Sexual assault is not an accident, but an intentional, degrading, and dehumanizing act. Those who commit it had the option to do so or not to do so – they made the conscious decision to cause this severe harm to another person, likely knowing how its effects could haunt the victim for the rest of their life. If the rapist is able to rationalize this long-term effect on the victim and still deem it worth taking, they have the capacity to acknowledge that the results of some actions never go away. And, if we are in any way attempting to have criminals recognize the ramifications and significance of their actions, it is worthwhile for them to see just how terrible it can be for something to always follow you. Yes, it will make life more difficult for the criminal. However, I believe that after degrading another person so terribly and demeaning human worth, the opportunity to rejoin society at all is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, for the sake of forcing understanding of one’s crime by the rapist, and protecting the rest of society, I believe this measure is absolutely justified.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe idea behind the notification of a registered sex offender after establishing a residential household and placing them on the registry is to inform others in order to protect other citizens. When a criminal commits a crime, they are acting in accordance with what they want and not with what society demands of them as a citizen; to adhere to the laws set in place to protect every citizen regardless of race, religion, color, or creed. Thus, in hopes to deter sex offenders from repeat offenses, a prison sentence is typically grouped with time on a registry. Though one may argue that the government is unjustly restricting the convict’s rights, it is important to note that one gives up their rights when they act on their prerogative to violate another’s. Unfortunately, in the United States, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistic study, released inmates have a 76.6% recidivism rate. Essentially, the majority of convicts return to prison within five years. Thus, programs and sentences are clearly not enough to act as disincentives or deterrents for criminals. At face value, this problem appears to have a clear solution: amplify the severity of the punishments. However, such as life, there is never one easy answer. While some may agree with Kant’s views that centers around retributivism and utilizing the death penalty, Burgh would argue that, “…if the offender can be said to deserve only so much punishment, then any punishment in excess of this should be considered as objectionable as imposing an equivalent amount on an innocent person.” Burgh appears to be more rational as he encourages society to deliver justice rather than fulfill a desire for revenge. For example, if a man raped a woman, it wouldn’t be just for the government to rape the man. While it may sound immature at first, retributivism follows a similar thought process. The purpose of the government is to provide the proper authority to individuals that are able to make unbiased, just decisions on behalf of all the people. When one infringes upon the right of another, the government reserves the ability to take away the rights of that individual until they have “paid” their crime back through time and serving as an upstanding citizen (i.e. getting a job, raising a family, paying taxes, etc.). In essence, in order to protect society and significantly reduce the probability that a sexual offender will repeat by using the registry as a means of “watching” over them, I think that this is justified if they are identified as Tier 3 sex offenders. Per WHIO, tier 3 offenses include “sex offenses that range from rape, sexual battery and murder with sexual motivation, to kidnapping of a minor to engage in sexual activity, to unlawful death or termination of pregnancy as a result of committing a felony with sexual motivation.
ReplyDeleteIn Ohio, there is a three tier system for sexual offenses; Tier 1 offenders (child enticement, voyeurism, make child porn, nonconsensual sexual imposition/conduct) must register yearly for 15 years, Tier 2 offenders (kidnapping w/ intent, selling child porn, forced prostitution, secondary offense by a Tier 1 offender) register every 180 days for 25 years, and Tier 3 offenders (kidnapping minor w/ intent, rape, sexual battery, sex murder, any offense by a Tier 2 offender) must register every 90 days until they die. Comparing this law to the theories of punishment, the theory of Incapacitation justifies the use of these laws. The theory of incapacitation is the idea that if there is a legitimate reason for why the subject in question is a threat to society, that is enough justification for preventative action to be taken in order to prevent any further offense from occurring. The example used by Schoeman was a health hazard; if it is known that someone is a carrier for a highly contagious and dangerous disease, that is enough justification to take action against that person spreading the disease. Applying that now to the example of sex offenders, the sex offenders have already committed a crime, so there is concrete proof, Schoeman would say that this justifies preventative action against the crime being committed again. This preventative action is the sex offender registry and laws requiring offenders to report their locations, which are also subject to public notification of this given location. To keep the public aware and give them the information to help protect themselves, there should be databases and notifications if you're within the radius of potential danger. This is fair because these offenders chose to commit these offenses and serving time may not have done anything to the offender to stop them. The idea of notifying the local authorities of the offender's location draws on paternalistic punishment's idea of doing something to teach and have the offender acknowledge that their actions were wrong. Another aspect of the location notifications is for the offender to have to think about his crime every time he registers, to build a sense of guilt and remorse for the pain and to cause them pain, enough pain so they learn not to make anyone feel that way. This can act an effective deterrent as well. Sex crimes, especially those in Tier 3, are horrific and no one should have to experience any of them, but I would argue the threat of being murdered is just as unnerving, if not more, as the threat of being raped. We should have a national registry, the offenders should spend time in prison, and they should have to report their location to help public safety, but other crimes also affect people that have a case for offenders to report their whereabouts. Two categories in particular, homicide and assault. Excluding first degree murder, there are other types of murder and homicide that people will end up back in society. Homicide and assault both directly involve hurting another, but the offenders who have committed and served for these crimes walk around freely, without the burden of remembrance and guilt. I would argue that these offenders, with their violent tendencies, pose a greater threat to public safety and should report their location to warn others. I am not arguing that we should remove these types of precautions as they do benefit public safety, rather that sex crimes should not be the only crimes that mandate the offenders must report their location. There are other crimes such as homicide, excluding first degree, and assault that also have good cases for why offenders who are back in society should notify others in the name of public safety.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRegistering sex offenders and informing people in their communities is important because as long as they are free they pose a threat to society. Compared to a crime like murder, the percentage of sex offenders that are living in society is higher because murder usually results in a long term of life sentence in prison. This is important in the sense of incapacitating the dangerous – murderers are less likely to murder again because they will be off the streets and isolated from society. Because most sex offenses usually don’t result in long term imprisonment, the sex offender registry is justified because it is a way of incapacitating former offenders to prevent them from committing the same type of crime again in the future. Sex offenders tend to have predatory motives, which in my judgement is more dangerous than a person who steals out of necessity or uses drugs. Sexual offenses can never be justified through necessity, and I believe that sex offenders should serve more jail time than they do currently. Often in the US sexual offenses aren’t taken seriously, so it is beneficial that the government keeps tabs on those who have committed offenses in the past. Even though these offenders have technically paid their debts according to retribution, it is important to keep them from committing the same crimes again in the future. I think it is especially important for those with children to be aware of offenders who live in the area, especially when so many offenses are involving predatory behavior with children. Children are vulnerable and can be easily manipulated and taken advantage of, so it is in the country’s best interest to protect children from physical and psychological harm when possible. Those who live in communities with offenders should be well informed, and I think it is not unreasonable for there to be certain restrictions on where sex offenders can live, for example they can’t live a certain proximity near schools if they committed certain offenses.
I believe that there are a couple issues that need to be analyzed before it is considered whether or not this burden is “unfair” for these sexual offenders. Starting with the reason for committing this crime, if the criminal is willing to commit the crime, then he should be punished accordingly. However, if a person is forced by another to sexually attack an individual, then the physical attacker should not bear the full force of punishment for this crime. Instead, in "Punishment and Utility", Bentham would argue that since the attacker had no intention of committing this crime, they should not be punished because it would be inefficacious. I believe that the person who forced the attacker to harm the victim should be punished to the fullest extent of the crime. When we look at the severity of sexual assault, I believe that there is no punishment that would effectively re-balance the scales of justice. Sexual assault is a very serious crime, where the victim would be mentally scared. There is no treatment or cure for this type of mental scaring, and nothing that the criminal can do to right their wrongs. In addition, all of these victims would have to live with themselves, and with what had happened after the fact. Even if the criminal went to prison to repent for their sins, I believe that they still have not fully been punished for their sins. However, looking to the example and assuming that the sexual offender were to be let out of prison, notifying those in the neighborhood about the presence of a sexual offender is completely justified. Not only does it continue the punishment after the criminal has been released from jail, but it also acts as a deterrence mechanism. This form of deterrence alerts people of the impending dangers that may or may not beseech them. While the criminal may be ostracized from all of society and will never be able to return back to their normal lives, I feel that they do not have any extra burden upon themselves. This is because after a victim has been sexually assaulted, in addition to how the individual feels about themselves after this action, the way others act towards the victim can also negatively affect the victim as well. This sense of differential treatment prevents the victim from ever going back to their normal lives, making them bear the burden of someone else’s actions. Ultimately, I feel that notifying people about the presence of a sexual offender is completely justified, and should be implemented all 50 states.
ReplyDeleteBased on Schoeman’s idea of incapacitation, the criminal justice system ought to require the registration and notification of sex offenders. Schoeman’s work is founded upon utilitarian ideas, to which Bentham explains that the morality of law is based on “the principle of utility… [which] approves or disapproves of every action… according to the tendency which it appears to have augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question…” Schoeman furthers Bentham’s ideas, as he believes that by incapacitating a convicted offender, we could prevent future acts of crimes. This is a more comprehensive utilitarian view, as it takes into consideration of expected outcomes. Essentially, there are two parties that should be considered when crafting legislation regarding sex crimes—the perpetrator and victim(s). In the context of registered sex crimes, the government has to consider the potential of repeated offense and the outcomes they entail. In fact, HRF reports that the overall repeated offense rate for sex offenders is 37%, while in some supervised communities, it reaches 60%. This prevalence of repeated offense entails that someone in the neighborhood has a very high chance of being the next victim. With this in mind, it would be the government’s obligation to minimize the impact of such repeated offense by informing nearby neighbors and monitoring the sex offender’s behavior via registration. Some may argue that it would be an unfair burden on the former felons, however, tradeoffs are inevitable in policymaking. The minor reputational damage and burden brought to the repeated offenders are far outweighed by the potential rape or molestation prevented for the nearby residents, some being children. Even if the criminal may have served their due in prison, their criminal behavior may not be eradicated, hence justifying the government to pre-emptively intervene and minimize the chances of repeated offense. Such reasoning if further justified when sexual offenders without any treatment commit 380 sex crimes over their lifetime (HPR). Moreover, many sex offenders use romantic relationships with women to gain access to their children (HPR). Such gross acts further warrant the government to require sex offenders to identify themselves. Given Schoeman’s ends-based theories and the empirics of repeated offense with sex offenders, the government hence has the obligation to use registration and notification as means to protect the public.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://healthresearchfunding.org/37-scarey-repeat-sex-offenders-statistics/
Delete