There are plenty of good reasons to abhor sex offender registries, not the least of which is their further contribution toward the pathologizing of sex in an already pathological society. Of all the behaviors we’ve seen fit to criminalize—and honestly, what the hell is legal anymore?—we’ve determined sex offenderdom as the singular category upon which we universally agree: it’s a sickness. In our inimitable American style, we then take our convictions about perversion’s innateness and use them not to justify greater leniency and understanding, but harsher, longer, and more rigorous punishment.
Now there’s another reason. The linked Post article gets the money quotation:
"We've spent a great deal of public and private energy demonizing these types of offenders," said William Buckman, a criminal defense attorney in New Jersey who said the house of one of his clients was burned down, while garbage was thrown on the lawn of another. "So it's predictable that they will be the victims of violence and vigilantism.”The article profiles two registered sex offenders killed by some vigilante who found them on Maine’s online, public registry. The older victim sounded like a pretty bad character; he’d abused a 7-year-old child, and that’s far below an age where sexual consent can ever properly be given or withheld.
But the other victim was just a kid himself. Just 24. His crime, the paper reports vaguely, seems to have been sex with his teenaged girlfriend. Consider for a moment the vicious absurdity of making it not only a statutory violation for a person in his early twenties to have sex with a consenting teenager with whom he had a standing relationship, not only an imprisonable offense, but to stipulate that a very young man whose true crime, at worst, was impatience and poor judgment (in a twentysomething, imagine!), should carry the scarlet letter for the rest of his life, registered with and tracked by the state, his entire life and being reduced to “sex offender”, the disease for which there is no cure, the crime for which there is endless punishment.
The wide net catches all manner of fish.
10 comments:
Understandably, you may not be up on the sex offender culture (or fear-of-sex-offender culture, I should say). The big fear, of course, is for our kids, and while I'm all about paying your debts to society and all, I'm still pretty happy to know whether a convicted child rapist is living next door to me and my daughters.
Here in Massachusetts, there are "levels" of sexual offense. A "level three" offender is a big bugaboo, but I don't think anyone actually has a real good idea of what qualifies for what designation (they are based on estimates of recidivism, but don't ask me whose estimates). I suspect that the 18-year-old who slept with 16-year-old avoids the scary list. In this state, the guys with their pictures in the paper are exclusively the nastier ones. (Maine does not make this distinction.)
Of course, what's frightening in the big-picture sense is that an accusation of such crimes is just about as good as a conviction, at least in public opinion (and probably in court). And of course it's a political tool. SOmething we can all be afraid of when it comes time for an election and the need to be not soft on something. There's reasonable caution and there's obsession and fear-mongering.
And of course, I believe that kids' own family members remain more likely to commit offenses like these.
Your point about further marginalizing these people stands, but if you ever do look at the photos in the "registry", well, they're not the types you'd want your kids near anyway.
K
K,
If you believe what you say, then advocate for lifetime imprisonment for child rapists, or some such. What I object to is the notion that this sort of extrajudicial extension of punishment can be automatically applied post-sentence. Regardless of how terrible the original crime was, that's a very poor model for justice. The idea that we have a right to know that "bad people" live next door is easily applicable to a guy who rapes 7-yr-olds, but unfortunately that's infinitely extendable, so that you establish a precedent for all sorts of lists and registries. First criminals, then homosexuals, then the joooooos.
How do you feel about probation as part of a sentence? Sex offender registration could, at a reasonable level of interpretation, be part of the criminal sentence. Or if that's not how it works, maybe that's how the punishment should be constructed.
(And did you really just use a slippery slope argument? Punishing criminals isn't the same as punishing minorities.)
All that said, I've got some seriously mixed feelings about the list. Recidivism rates are supposedly high for child rapists (though based on the usual context, that's a factoid I usually take with salt), justifying, perhaps, some extended parole for these people. I don't much like the branded-for-life aspect of it (especially when it seems so easy to convict), but, but...it's different when it might affect meeeee.
K
Damnit. I was hoping you wouldn't call me out on my slippery sloping.
Answers: Probation as part of a sentence is fine, though I think the more accurate model would be the old and currently widely disfavored practice of supervised parole. But remember, probation is a sentence reached by a legal proceeding, and parole occurs within the period of the original sentence--not to mention that parole boards are at least a tissue of legal process for deciding such things.
I'm not averse to either. I am averse to using exaggerated recidivism statistics and beliefs about the pathological inability of sex offenders to refrain to tack additional punishment above and beyond a sentence, particularly something so invasive as these registries.
Frankly, it is none of your damn business, nor mine, whether or not the neighbor is a criminal or not, any more than it's our business if he uses drugs, likes kinky sex, or what have you.
Justice doesn't mete out punishments based on characterological destinies. It punishes acts.
I should have said "former criminal."
Dan Savage's column had an exchange an issue or two ago that was frankly terrifying in its absurdity. Someone wrote in to the effect that he and his high school girlfriend had filmed themselves in the act a few times. They weren't together anymore, but had watched and enjoyed these tapes. Now a decade or something later she asked him to burn a few of them from tape to CD. His question: could he be arrested for child pornography if someone found out?
So first Savage asks an FBI person, who says most definitely, and he better burn those fuckers post haste. Then he asks a lawyer who says that while technically illegal, prosecution for possession was unlikely. However, reproducing them in any way would almost certainly make him a sex offender.
PS: "Former criminal"? I thought it was kind of like "Mr President."
'Ex-felon,' maybe, but I don't think that the colloquial usage 'criminal' allows one to escape after the sentence is up. Crimes can't be undone.
What does a 24 year-old see in a 17 year-old, in the first place? At that age, 7 years is one helluva portion of their ages.
I'd keep my eye on any guy that age who's attracted to someone so much younger than he.
I could see someone as old as 20...even 21...if he'd been a HS senior when she was a freshman...but really...anything more than 4 years at that age is gross...and more than likely, pedophilic.
Any idea how credit crunch affected porn?
----------------
interracial sex
Maria who is the Rental Agent at Sahara Palms Apts. Protect Rapist Daniell Grant, for some unknow reason.Thier relationship is unknow at this time. She was over heard laughing at how The Victim was tormented and RAPED she thought it was funny how Grant talked about victim.Ms Grant who resides at the apts. Danielle Grant 23, of Las Vegas is a RAPIST, she and another man used a date rape drug on Victim at Sahara Palms Apartments 2900 El Camino ave. apt 170, Danielle L Grant sodomized the victim with a plunger. She is lite skinned 4'6 to 4'7 and she drives a Black Ford Focus, She works as an dental assistant during day. STOP her please. Victim is too ashamed to tell Police. Memory just now coming back. Danielle L Grant MUST BE STOPED. She is a drug addict and dealer ( Lortab and Meth,weed ) sometimes works as a Vegas Escort/Prostitute when she needs money. If you have information on her criminal activities Please contact the Las Vegas Police Dept.
Post a Comment