Friday, March 10, 2017
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)
I think that having special conditions for sex offenders should not be allowed as it is both unjust and unfair, in addition, it isn’t even very effective in accomplishing its goal. While the specific example of rape or sex crimes may not fit into the ‘sphere of interference philosophy’ (with the ‘advantages’ or ‘benefits’ bestowed upon every person) very well, the question when analyzing punishment in this precise instance is whether or not the punishment is excessive. Although imprisonment and even legal notifications (being a registered felon so that it shows up on one’s resume for example) is okay as a punishment, the infringement onto a sex offender’s public and social life is unjust. This is mainly the case because it not only buts an extra burden onto the offender in terms of re-integrating back into society, but also is an extra punishment that other offenders are exempt from. In its most fundamental form, sex crimes consist of one party violating the rights of another, there are many crimes that involve this fundamental structure that aren’t sex crimes (domestic abuse, theft) that get treated differently from sex crimes. Ultimately, the inconsistencies with how sex crimes are treated, as opposed to other crimes of that nature, is reason why, coupled with the excessive social burden placed on the offender, why the public notification is unjust. However, the main proponent for keeping the notifications would be for preserving safety in the community and to deter the crime from happening again. Despite this, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is roughly 35%, which while high, are nearly half of the general recidivism rate for all people arrested, and then released. Not only does this show the inconsistencies and flaws with how these crimes are dealt with, but also illustrates the fact that already sex offenders are significantly less likely to commit crime again. If anything, this extra burden of notifying a community to a sex offenders presence may only increase the likelihood for them to commit a crime as potentially they will be unable to get a stable foothold in their ‘new life’.
ReplyDeleteSex offenders and the crimes they commit need to be punished; there is no way around this. While a life sentence should be in place, it is almost never actually done so. Since they are released, the question of whether or not sex offenders need to tell their neighbors about their past has been raised. I think that a notification should be made because the crime could happen again to the families who would be warned. The crime was committed against a person, so the people need to be aware. The sex offender in question has physically, mentally, and emotionally abused people before. Thusly, the people the sex offender in question will need to be aware of this so they can be safe. Even though they shouldn’t have to worry about this, the people still need to be aware. Secondly, the crime is often repeatedly committed, so the people need to be warned. There is no way of telling whether or not it will happen again, so the people need to be aware that there is a possibility it could. One could say that this unfairly burdens former felons, but they would be wrong in my opinion. The sex offender has scarred somebody for life, and it is a small price to have to acknowledge this whenever they move somewhere.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals should be notified of the presence of a criminal who has committed a crime against their profession or being - this is justified in that these warnings will serve to inform communities to protect themselves for their own safety and well-being. Upon thinking of this issue, I thought of its relation to the incapacitation theory of punishment. The incapacitation theory is a forward-looking theory of punishment - it states that offenders should be stopped from committing more crimes in the future by removing them from society; likewise, in order to help protect a community from the occurrence of another sexual crime, a sexual offender would be removed from that community. Now in this case, these criminals aren’t actually “removed” from society, but people who are aware of sexual predators in their area will most likely try to avoid them (essentially leaving them isolated from others). For example, parents should be aware of pedophiles in their area so that they don’t endanger their children by taking them to a pedophile’s home (which may or may not tempt the pedophile to commit the crime again). Yet, this raises another question - if sexual offenders should be “removed” from society (to prevent them from committing any more crimes again), shouldn’t all criminals have the same kind of punishment? For instance, should shop-owners be informed of shoplifters in their area, and should property-owners be informed of vandals in their area? By this logic, the answer would have to be yes. Of course, this logic has a lot of flaws - for instance, these rules could seriously damage the reputation of criminals who have genuinely changed their ways. Please note however - I’m not saying that someone who shoplifted once should be denied to go into a store, or even that a sexual offender (who has committed only a minor crime) should be sent out of a community. I’m saying that stores and communities should at least be informed of the presence of these criminals - this logic would primarily harm those who have committed far more serious crimes, such as murderers or rapists. In conclusion, negatively impacting a ‘changed’ criminal’s reputation is only a small price to pay for informing communities of criminals in their area.
ReplyDeleteThere is little to no debate in the United States today that Sexual Predators deserve harsh punishments as a response to their crime which dehumanizes and brutalizes members of society. It is very true that these criminals receive special treatment from society as the community knows their every move while we might never learn that an ex-felon Drug dealers is our neighbor. However, I believe that these special restrictions are justified and that while it might seem unfair, their crimes are even more unjust and unfair to a victim and the high recidivism rate shows that the risk to society is great. Brandon mentioned that 35% of all people who commit a sexual crime against someone will attack someone again. While it is true that might be less when compared to petty theft, the magnitude of their crime highlights the high risk they can pose to the people around them. Specifically, children are especially at risk as they need extra protection from the state, and do not have a fully functional brain capable of advanced and thoughtful decision making. Allowing sex offenders to live next door to children without they parents aware puts them at risk. I agree that they system is not perfect, but I believe that it can be adjusted so that these ex-felons are not punished forever, while the community gets the information they need. I propose that these people must register with the government and people be notified about their location as long as they are on parole or probation, a period of time that varies by state but is never a short period of time for sexual predators. This ensures that these people have supervised release and must live under intense scrutiny for an extended period of time after jail, so they transition is better and so communities still get the information they need. It also allows them to maybe one day have those restrictions removed or weakened if they have proved to the courts that they are no longer a threat to society. While they will always have to report their crime to potential employers and can never leave the past behind them, this potential option ensures that they are not trapped forever if they can prove that their every move does not need to be watched. This is a contentious issue, and public security must be the priority of this system which is why it is necessary for notification laws to remain in place.
ReplyDeleteSome crimes are especially heinous and deserve similarly excruciating punishments. Child-sex crimes fall under this category due to their innate horror and disgust. Yet, after a sexual offender has been punished, it is fair to continue to punish them outside of the confines of their jail cell. Under two different frameworks of punishment, it seems that child-sexual predator notifications are excessive and should not be allowed. First, if you evaluate sexual predator notifications under Kant’s theory of retributions, he says, “whatever undeserved evil you inflict upon another within the people, that you inflict upon yourself. If you insult him, you insult yourself; if you steal from him, you steal from yourself; if you strike him, you strike yourself; if you kill him, you kill yourself.” Therefore, a sexual offender should obviously face a punishment, like the jail-time that the jury sets. But after, that punishment is executed, it’s too much to continue to punish a sex-offender. By putting up notifications, even if someone doesn’t have kids they are wary of the sex offender. They should have their own ability to tell other individuals about their criminal past, it’s an undue punishment to take away that liberty from an individual. While the sex offender did wrong onto one person, the punishment makes him look wrong in the eyes of all people and hurts his ability to interact with all people, that is completely unfair and not equal. Secondly, I view these types of punishments as a form of incapacitation. The reason we have these notifications, is to alert people in the community, because this individual might commit a future, crime similar to what he did in the past. Schoeman spells out the problem with this incapicatory framework, “There is no predictive technique available which does not include more false positives than true positives? which does not diagnose as future-guilty more persons who will not commit such crimes than persons who will.” As such, not only is the punishment unfair, but you are also hurting people who will probably be innocent in the future. Just assuming everyone is guilty, because of one mistake sets a dangerous precedent that would have more negative consequences, especially for the individual. When you compound the undue harms to people’s social lives with the fact that it is probably unnecessary, it becomes clear that these laws shouldn’t be in place.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is easy to question the legitimacy and morality of this prolonged punishment for child predators, I believe that it is justified. If we think about this punishment with a retributive lens, one could argue that extending the punishment to these criminals after they have served time in prison is as unjust as committing the crime itself. As mentioned in “Do the Guilty Deserve Punishment?,” Burgh explains that all offenders have “unfairly appropriated benefits by not restraining himself from acting on inclinations in the way in which other members of society did,” and that “in punishing the offender, the benefit is taken away by the imposition of a burden, thereby restoring an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens which existed prior to the offense” (203). This belief, which connects to Kant’s theory of punishment, assumes that these scales of justice are completely restored when the criminal has served time in prison proportional to severity of his crime. Therefore, by extending this punishment, the scales are being favored in the other direction and the benefits/burdens of society are no longer equal. But, even later on within this article, Burgh mentions that there are some laws that do not benefit the entire community, such as rape or embezzlement laws. I believe that child predator laws also fall under this category because the offenders are fully-abled and independent adults – unlike the underage people they attack. Kant states that “whatever undeserved evil you inflict upon another within the people…you inflict upon yourself,” but how can an adult predator be victim of child predation (15)? That is, the offender cannot be the victim of the same crime. Additionally, I believe that this law is justified because it protects a group that cannot always be held accountable for making rational decisions – children. Children do not always have the judgement and understanding needed to be cautious around strangers and stay away from unsafe situations, meaning that all parents should at least be notified of the potential dangers their children may be exposed to. In my opinion, this situation is similar to “party plates,” which are sometimes required by some individuals with DUI’s: although these offenders may have already served their time and may not repeat the offense, this extension is an important warning to others. And, although these laws may affect the perception and freedom of the offenders, this threat is outweighed by the decreased risk of unsuspecting victims suffering.
ReplyDelete