Tufts Daily, the student newspaper of Tufts University, is running an editorial concerning the declining rights of sex offenders in this nation. From the editorial:
Rights balancing is a tricky business, and sometimes it’s just easier to look the other way. That’s what happened when a Boston court sentenced Jeffrey Shields to civil detention last week as a sexually dangerous person. In this case, the court pulled a trick straight from “Minority Report” and locked up Shields, an ex-felon, to prevent him from committing future offenses....
The simple fact is that we do not lock sex offenders up for life, and there’s probably a good reason for that. As hard as it is to come to terms with when staring evil in the eyes, we are a society that fundamentally believes in the idea of just desert. We believe that prisoners pay their debt to society and then start again with a clean slate. That’s what helps us cope with crimes and believe that human beings, no matter what they’ve done in the past, are capable of redemption. It’s also why our prison system has so long incorporated the idea of rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, society has given up on sex offenders, deeming them incapable of recovery. While Shields was the first person sentenced to civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, thousands have been put in civil detention facilities since the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Hendricks, which allows for the indefinite civil incarceration of sex offenders.
The purpose of these detentions is nominally to rehabilitate mentally ill sex offenders. But the problem is that these ex-prisoners are being detained because the state has deemed them incapable of recovery. Basically, in order to leave civil detention, Shields and others will need to prove that they have recovered even though the state has already give up hope. That’s quite the catch-22.
If we truly believe that certain sex offenders are incurable, then we are in some need of serious reform. But if we do believe there is hope, we should get them the help they need while they are in prison. The problem with civil detention is that it makes it all the more tempting to ignore sex offenders during their time in prison and wait to cure them afterwards. But when offenders see that even after they have done their time, they are still looking at indefinite detention, they have no reason to reform themselves. And the state has no reason to help.
The simple fact is that we do not lock sex offenders up for life, and there’s probably a good reason for that. As hard as it is to come to terms with when staring evil in the eyes, we are a society that fundamentally believes in the idea of just desert. We believe that prisoners pay their debt to society and then start again with a clean slate. That’s what helps us cope with crimes and believe that human beings, no matter what they’ve done in the past, are capable of redemption. It’s also why our prison system has so long incorporated the idea of rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, society has given up on sex offenders, deeming them incapable of recovery. While Shields was the first person sentenced to civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, thousands have been put in civil detention facilities since the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Hendricks, which allows for the indefinite civil incarceration of sex offenders.
The purpose of these detentions is nominally to rehabilitate mentally ill sex offenders. But the problem is that these ex-prisoners are being detained because the state has deemed them incapable of recovery. Basically, in order to leave civil detention, Shields and others will need to prove that they have recovered even though the state has already give up hope. That’s quite the catch-22.
If we truly believe that certain sex offenders are incurable, then we are in some need of serious reform. But if we do believe there is hope, we should get them the help they need while they are in prison. The problem with civil detention is that it makes it all the more tempting to ignore sex offenders during their time in prison and wait to cure them afterwards. But when offenders see that even after they have done their time, they are still looking at indefinite detention, they have no reason to reform themselves. And the state has no reason to help.
You stated above "We believe that prisoners pay their debt to society and then start again with a clean slate." I only wish this were the case. First, treatment has been proven to help recidivism for sex offenders. Second, a huge majority of so-called sex offenders are non-violent offenders. For example, my son, at age 19, had consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Two years later, when the case finally went to court, even though she was 18 at the time, he was still found guity of sexual assault (age of consent in Illinois is 16) and he is now a registered sex offender. He's been to jail, he's been to prison, the relationship ended shortly after his conviction, he is not allowed in church, he was fired from 2 jobs, he can longer go to parks, water parks, six-flags, school graduation of his family members, he has a felony on his record and his future does not look promising. All for consensual sex.
www.love-is-not-a-crime.com
Posted by: Tonia | September 21, 2009 at 07:39 PM