New at Reason

March 7, 2007

Jacob Sullum takes a second look at the escalation of sex offenders' punishments.

Comments

|3.7.07 @ 7:36AM|#

one reader insisted that "200 years is not sufficient. He should get life."

And after that, he should have to register as a sex offender.

LarryA|3.7.07 @ 9:54AM|#

Way back in 1968 Senator Frank Lautenberg amended the Gun Control Act to prohibit anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing firearms. (Felons already being covered.)

Besides the suddenly-felonious civilian gun owners affected, a lot of soldiers, cops, and security personnel lost their jobs.

At the time gun owners protested that this was an ex post facto law which added punishments to crimes that had already been settled, and was therefore unconstitutional under Article I Section 9. They warned that if it was allowed the penalty for other crimes would be so enhanced.

Of course that was just a slippery slope argument, so it was discounted. After all, we have to think about public safety.

|3.7.07 @ 10:01AM|#

I find myself unsure where this political group stand with regard to sex offenders. I understand not wanting to lump any and every offense under one umbrella law IE a 19 y/o and a 17 y/o having sex and the 19 y/o is now a convicted sex offender etc etc.

I have never seen the threshold levels everyone considers plausible to have based on specific crimes against others. How would you suggest society deal with a known pedophile in their 40's?

It appears to me that the people caught once go to jail get out and should they commit the same offense are now more likely to kill their victim in addition to molesting them. Just a trend I find myself noticing more of these days.

Personally if anyone ever sexually attacked or attacked in general my family they would be safest left in jail and never set free. Knowing they would get out one day I would be hard pressed not to exact some justice of my own when they did.

So I can see not wanting to have a one size fits all mentality. But it really is hard to tell from reading some pieces where exactly this party stands on the issue. Almost to the point that many on the face of it might think your pro sex offender.

|3.7.07 @ 10:05AM|#

"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders on the grounds that it is therapeutic and preventive rather than punitive. But the therapy is a sham, and the preventive rationale could be applied to a wide variety of criminals, all of whom have demonstrated a tendency toward anti-social behavior and many of whom are at least as prone to recidivism as sex offenders are."

This is the keystone of the psych industry. They can lock someone up for life without a trial, just as long as they say they're trying to help him. If people want to lock someone up for a behavior, they should do it through the legal system, not the medical system.

Dan T.|3.7.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Our society has decided that sex crimes are the ones we are least willing to tolerate.

This means that some offenders probably will get worse than they deserve but it's probably a worthwhile trade-off.

|3.7.07 @ 11:00AM|#

Unsure,

You write:
Personally if anyone ever sexually attacked or attacked in general my family they would be safest left in jail and never set free.

That's exactly why I think we should be doing more to get victims out of the judicial process as soon as possible. So that the rest of their lives is as good as it can be. The sooner the healing begins the better. But that's just the opposite of what we do now. Victims are encouraged to remain victims, pulling out the pictures and producing the tears, for as long as the criminal. They appear at every appeal and parole hearing, pleading that the criminal be kept behind bars, or the ultimate "closure", put to death. The Irony is that prolonging the criminals punishment, prolongs their victimhood. It also has the perverse effect of making it a lesser crime if your victim is poor or has few friends or family.

Russ 2000|3.7.07 @ 11:39AM|#

What if you're a self-anointed sex offender? You know, a person who hasn't actually committed any crime, but may have had an impure thought now and then. Can you register anyway, just so everyone is forewarned?

|3.7.07 @ 2:13PM|#

"Bailiff, Whack his pee-pee!"

|3.7.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Here in Virginia taking a leak behind a dumpster is enough of a "sex offence" to require one to register as a "sex offender".

|3.7.07 @ 2:46PM|#

IIRC the person who made that "200 years is not sufficient" comment was joking.

|3.7.07 @ 3:01PM|#

crimethink,

My snideometer doesn't twitch much at this:

| February 28, 2007, 2:39pm | #

If this guy intentially purchased child porn (not accidently downloaded by clicking the wrong link on YouTube), then 200 years is not sufficient. He should get life. By purchasing child porn you have declared yourself ineligable to be entrusted with freedom and, as far as I am concerned, you are no longer even human.

As far as the guy in Georgia goes, or a rapist, send them up for life as well. But purchasing child porn is certainly vastly worse than bank robbery, and should be punished accordingly.

|3.8.07 @ 12:25AM|#

The whole sex-offender mess is a classic example of pointless,feel-good legislation passed solely for the empowerment of demagogues. In truth, the "Megan's Law" crowd don't have much to offer outside of raw emotional manipulation ("We must honor the memory of Little Timmy So-and-so...").

If you don't believe me, just pull aside one of these "advocates," start grilling them with real hardball questions and see how quickly they fall back to invoking the names of children as the sole justification.