This isn't the most well-thought-out post, so I reserve the right to modify my position at a later date. But I'm having a gut-check reaction to several prominent news stories with one common thread: Sex offenders seem to re-offend. Sometimes in really horrible ways, like murdering young women or attacking child after child.
Right now, "registered sex offender" can mean so many different things that the term has become useless.
Have you ever wasted time checking that stupid online map with little red dots? After a dozen or more dots popped up around my former residence (in a nice neighborhood!), I found myself wondering if the registered sex offenders living all around me were convicted of statutory rape as teenagers, were raging pedophiles, or had extremely violent histories. Or maybe they just raped someone that one time when they were, I don't know, having a really bad day. You know... just a single, straight-up rape that I shouldn't be too worried about.
Is a meaningless google map that makes me want to stay inside with the doors locked, no matter what the actual threat is, really the best protection we can offer the women and children of this country?
Oh, and don't forget that most states still don't have registries that work with other states... so even though it seems like a lot of red dots on that map, the sex offenders from Illinois or California or Alaska are most likely off the grid here in Wisconsin.
While folks in the media are busy wringing their hands over our nation's utterly inneffective tracking system, I'm wondering why we're trying to fix a system that is fundamentally flawed.
There seems to be a disconnect here. Sex offenders have been deemed dangerous enough by the system to merit lifelong tracking. So why, when our jails and prisons are stuffed with non-violent offenders, do sex offenders (at least the aggregious ones) get to leave prison and return to society? Either they're a threat or they're rehabilitated. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Or is the very existence of the sex offender registry tacit acknowledgement by the system that many of these people will not ever be rehabilitated?
Why is this type of violence (usually against women and children) placed in a not-quite-as-serious category when it seems quite obvious that many rapists re-offend, and quite a few escalate?
How is it possible to rape a woman and be out in 15 years? Don't non-violent drug offenders spend a whole lot longer in jail after their three strikes? I don't know about you, but I'm all for a one strike law when it comes to sexual assault... or at least sentencing that keeps the individual locked up longer, if not for life.
I can be open-minded. If you're not willing to put violent rapists in jail for more than 50 years, then why don't we create a new type of sex offender registry that can't be so easily subverted? A scarlet letter tattooed on the forehead? Nathaniel Hawthorne may have been onto something.
I want someone way more knowledgable and powerful than me to look into recidivism rates and sentencing guidelines. While I understand that we can't paint all sex crimes with a broad brush, there should be a certain category for which there is no leniency.
No comments:
Post a Comment