Punishment Availability for Sex Offenders ‘Due to the Heterogeneous Nature of Sex Offenders as an Offender
Groups, the Punishment(s) Available are Inadequate’.
Research shows that sex offenders as an offender group are hugely
varied and mixed in nature. Many different acts can be classified as
sex offences, such as rape, paedophilia and unlawful exposure. Another
way in, which sex offenders are varied, are by their more general
classifiable traits such as age or gender. This essay will concentrate
on the heterogeneous nature of sex offenders with regards to the huge
variations in the recorded age’s of those charged with sex offences.
These ages are separated by those considered by the law as adults
(17+) and those viewed as children (now-after 1998-10+). The essay
will look specifically at whether the current forms of punishment are
adequate and appropriate for children and examine whether the current
process of punishment is any better suited for those considered
adults.
The huge variations in the recorded ages of those labelled as sex
offenders has led to the suggestion that the current system of
punishment is too largely based on the moral and mental maturity of
adults, and is therefore inadequate for children. This issue is the
basis behind the introduction of the ‘Doli Incapax’. This act stated
that ‘Children from the age of 10, until their 14th birthday are
presumed Doli Incapax, that is, incapable of crime’ (Cv. DPP [1995].
AC1). The recent debates tha...
... middle of paper ...
...f time. Longuein, 1983 stated that, ‘there is evidence
that treatment results in only a temporary suppression of deviant
arousal’. Many of the recidivism studies only look at the short-term
re-offending, but evidence suggests that many more sex offenders
re-offend further into their release. For example ‘A long-term
follow-up study of sex offenders in Canada found that 42% were
re-convicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year
follow-up period’. This can be compared to Alexanders ‘comprehensive
review of 356 short-term studies of sex offender treatment’, which
found the average rate of re-offending to be 10.9%. Showing a vast
increase in re-offending over a longer time period. This evidence also
suggests that recidivism rates portray sex offender treatment
programmes as more effective than they truly are.
In the event that a prisoner (particularly a sex offender) does complete rehabilitation, he carries with him a stigma upon reentering society. People often fear living near a prior drug addict or convicted murderer and the sensational media hype surrounding released felons can ruin a newly released convict’s life before it beings. What with resident notifications, media scare tactics and general concern for safety, a sex offender’s ability to readapt into society is severely hindered (554). This warrants life-skills rehabilitation applied to him useless, as he will be unable to even attempt to make the right decision regarding further crime opportunities.
Denial is so important in sex offender treatment because it encourages finding out or exploring why denial occurs and adoptions of better and more appropriate patterns and programming (pre-treatments) that will help the offender to learn and acquire information about the offender’s dynamics, defenses, etc. which will help him/her cope well during the treatment sessions. According to Alaska Dept of Corrections and United States of America (1996), some of the aspects dealt with in offender treatment are denial of harm, denial of fantasy or planning, denial of responsibility, denial of frequency of offending and denial of the need for treatment. Polygraph and the penile plethysmograph can assist treatment providers find out more about deviant
Yates, P. M. (2005). Pathways to treatment of sexual offenders: Rethinking intervention. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 1-9.
...aker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1-25.
The Recidivism Rate of Juvenile Sex Offenders between Uses of Legal Sentencing as Adults or Utilizing Psychological Treatment
Ever since the bill for having a Canadian Sex Offender Registry was passed, in December of 2004, it has been a heated debate in many boardrooms across the country. On the one hand, there are the defence attorneys deeming it slightly mentally damaging and unnecessary for their client(s). On the other side of the coin, there are the individuals claiming it to be a great idea if used in the correct manner. A sex offender registry is only useful when used correctly, with updated and accurate profiles, while remaining conscious of charter rights.
Sex offender legislation has been encouraged and written to protect the community and the people at large against recidivism and or to help with the reintegration of those released from prison. Nevertheless, a big question has occurred as to if the tough laws created help the community especially to prevent recidivism or make the situation even worse than it already is. Sex offenders are categorized into three levels for example in the case of the state of Massachusetts; in level one the person is not considered dangerous, and chances of him repeating a sexual offense are low thus his details are not made available to the public (Robbers, 2009). In level two chances of reoccurrence are average thus public have access to this level offenders through local police departments in level three risk of reoffense is high, and a substantial public safety interest is served to protect the public from such individuals.
In today’s society, juveniles that commit a sexual assault have become the subject of society. It’s become a problem in the United States due to the rise of sexual offenses committed by juveniles. The general public attitude towards sex offenders appears to be highly negative (Valliant, Furac, & Antonowicz, 1994). The public reactions in the past years have shaped policy on legal approaches to managing sexual offenses. The policies have included severe sentencing laws, sex offender registry, and civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004). This is despite recidivism data suggesting that a relatively small group of juvenile offenders commit repeat sexual assaults after a response to their sexual offending (Righthand &Welch, 2004).
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
Some people might say that if a sex offender does their time in jail that is enough punishment. Others may disagree and say that more action needs to be taken because of stories like the little girl Megan Kanka, who was raped and killed by a sex offender. A sex offender who her parents were unaware of because there was no rule or law that stated anyone else needed to know. Soon after this incident happened, some states passed laws that required local communities to be notified when a convicted sexual offender moved to a specific area. These laws are different in every state. In some, the state requires that convicted sex offenders put up signs in the windows of their homes, so that the neighbors can be aware that a crime has been committed by that person. Some offenders are even required to send postcards to their neighbors, informing them of their crime. These specific states would like the neighbors to be aware of who is living near them. Almost as a “beware” so that they can take action by telling their children to stay away from the sex offenders. The internet also provides extremely convenient websites that allow users to locate addresses and photographs of the offender. The websites also include reasons why the offender was convicted. One of the reasons some say that the laws are too strict on sex offenders is because of people like the woman that actually lived with a sex offender. She was upset because she said he had already served his time and it was unfair to tell everyone in their neighborhood that he had committed that crime. Some of these offenders may constitute an unfair punishment, especially if they are the low-risk, one time offenders who have possibly learned their lesson the first time. It may be unfair becaus...
Witt, P., Greenfield, D., & Hiscox, S. (2008). Cognitive/behavioural approaches to the treatment adult sex offenders. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36(2), 245-269, retrieved from EBSCOhost
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162.
Sex offenders have been a serious problem for our legal system at all levels, not to mention those who have been their victims. There are 43,000 inmates in prison for sexual offenses while each year in this country over 510,000 children are sexually assaulted(Oakes 99). The latter statistic, in its context, does not convey the severity of the situation. Each year 510,000 children have their childhood's destroyed, possibly on more than one occasion, and are faced with dealing with the assault for the rest of their lives. Sadly, many of those assaults are perpetrated by people who have already been through the correctional system only to victimize again. Sex offenders, as a class of criminals, are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes(Oakes 99). This presents a
Two of the sex offenders from the Worley study reported that during Halloween they are told by law enforcement to not answer the door or have outside lights on. Also, local television networks broadcast their picture to warn others of their sex offender status. This then leads to much embarrassment and shame, having their picture televised every year (Worley, R. M., & Worley, V. B., 2013). Today, anyone with Internet access can view and search the sex offender registries and this leads to the direct violation of privacy of these sex offenders. Not only are they tormented but their family members are as well. Their children are bullied at school and their spouses may be forced to quit their jobs (“US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good,” 2007) As discussed earlier, the sex offender faces harassment and abuse constantly when they are placed on the sex offender