Is There a Criminal War on Sex Offenders?

That's the question I posed at Concurring Opinions and will be the subject of my next paper (the draft will be up this summer). Rather than post here also, I'd direct you take a look at my post there. There has been a healthy debate in the comments about the shortcomings of the "criminal war" concept as applied in this situation that I think is definitely worth reading.

Comments

[Sex Offender Issues]

Great article. Look forward to reading more.

[eAdvocate]

A criminal war? No! However, there is a subtle unchecked vigilantic war sanctioned by and furthered by lawmakers through newer and more onerous laws under the pretext of protecting children. Excepting for the rare high profile case, which does occur within every crime type, and far more frequently in other crime types, there is no evidence to support overbroad laws enacted regularity with vengeance for one group while ignoring others.

When laws are constructed in such a manner as to deny any specific group, basic human rights and protections under the law, without legal recourse and without real representation in the political process, that defines a subtle vigilantism better then anything else in history. This is likely the first time in history that politics and public opinion have circumvented our system of checks and balances guaranteed through constitutions, State and Federal.

When people are forced to live under bridges without warmth, water or toilet, in cars and tents away from their loved ones and families, denied public housing, specifically exempted by lawmakers from what is necessary to reenter society following sentence, unlike other offenders, thought to be ill and denied treatment or funding for such, and in some cases held indefinitely in facilities for treatment following sentences under a presumption of further criminal acts, allowed to freeze to death in subzero weather and lawmakers have nothing to say of these circumstances and so many others, nor do lawmakers take any action to resolve circumstances, that is not war it is legalized vigilantism; it is the unnecessary actions of many that distinguishes war from vigilantism.

[Daniel]

I made fuller comments at Concurring Opinions but let me just respond to the post above. I think the distinction being drawn is pointless. Whether the war is "covert" or "overt," "hot" or "cold" makes no difference to its victims or to its prosecutors. It may make the people who are the audience to the war (and every war has an audience) feel differently about the war, but it would be foolish to anyone caught up in the war to feel differently based upon such propaganda.

[Mark]

I've always thought the impetus behind the registration regimes has been to offer another "bite at the apple" against ex sex offenders. I think the movers and shakers behind these laws are fully aware that the registries are little more than theater; but the byzantine laws allow another after-the-fact opportunity to catch ex sex offenders in a felony violation, and thereby give them some more time.

[Mark]

Most of the laws being made during this 'sex offender war' do nothing to prevent sex offenses from happening. Actually very few laws are being considered to stop it except for minimum sentencing. Most of it is designed to make the public feel safe. The drug war spent countless billions trying to get the drugs off the streets or preventing it from even getting here. GPS was suppose to 'prevent' sexual abuse, but then a child got killed by an offender that was wearing GPS and they turned around and said 'its a tool to help solve crimes' when it was revealed that there isn't anyone actually watching the GPS tracking 24/7.

All it is is propaganda.

[JT]

Well, a war on sex offenders is obvious. I think politicians are mostly just using laws that get tougher on sex offenders to gain favor from a public that is nearly hysterical about sex crimes.

[Patrick]

The necessityof the sex offense hysteria and accompanying vigilantism is what needs to be discussed. Control of relationship likelihood is what is being advertised, as well as consequential-estimative threatchain behaviors in regards to same. This may be a type of "flooring hysteria" / "Appeasement-in-kind" designed to create false unity of purpose among both lower and upper classes who are being played off against one another in many other ways. It may also be part of the need to bolster a dream-pursuit motivation in the consumer citizen psyche.