My last post inspired several comments, including one anonymous person
who wrote at length about the idea of making released sex offenders live in so-called "safe zones" away from children. The broader question is what to do with child predators who have served their sentence - assuming of course the sentence is something less than death.
We should first note that not all offenders are equal. For example, it is not uncommon for a young male of 16 or 17 to be convicted of sexual contact with a girl of 13 or 14. This is not ideal behavior by any means, but is it equivalent to a man in his 40s preying on young girls? Hardly. Yet in the eyes of the law both are "child predators" and will be labeled as such for life. Our laws need to make better distinctions about the type and degree of sex crimes.
The second thing to remember is that many, and perhaps most, child predators are mentally ill. This is common sense - normal adults do not seek out young children for sexual purposes. Yes, there are people who are simply evil and must be treated as such. However many offenders have some kind of disorder. Sadly, our society has simply turned its back on these people. Fifty years ago they were institutionalized, cared for humanely, and kept away from opportunities to act on their impulses. Now, in the name of "equality" we leave mentally ill people to fend for themselves. They fill our homeless shelters, beg for money on the streets, and sometimes commit horrible crimes. This is a shameful situation that must be addressed soon.
Another cause of the apparent increase in sex crimes is that the internet now makes pornography easily available. There have always been magazines and such, but online material is never-ending, easily accessible and very private. It serves to encourage harmful fantasies and, for some people who are already weak, can push them into acting on their impulses. Since a lot of this material comes from overseas, it is not easily stopped. The temptation attacks even otherwise strong Christian men - as we see in the frequent stories of clergymen caught in sexual affairs.
True Knights is a good resource for anyone who needs help with this problem.
In any case, the reaction in many states and localities to the release of child predators is to tell them "go somewhere else." A patchwork of laws forbid registered offenders from living within certain distances of schools, churches, parks, bus stops, or other places where children congregate. 2,000 feet is a common limit.
Here's an exercise for you. Try finding a spot in any city or suburb that is not within 2,000 feet (almost a half-mile) of a school, church, park, or bus stop. It isn't easy. So one of two things happens: the predators simply drop out of sight, or they are exiled into isolated rural areas. Does this accomplish anything toward the goal of preventing future offenses? Not really. Most sexual deviants are happy to travel if that's what it takes to find what they want.
It does, however, mean that they are spread out over vast areas and become that much harder to track. It also makes it harder for them to stay in touch with family, friends, therapists, and others who can help them live a normal life and not repeat their offenses.
It's also a fair question to ask why we don't apply this logic to other types of criminals. Should arsonists be forbidden to own matches or enter wooden structures? Should shoplifters be banned from malls? Should tax evaders be sold into slavery until their debt is paid? It's easy to say that punishment should fit the crime, but not always easy to do so in practice.
Of course,
if one takes the position that all sex offenders should be executed or imprisoned for life, none of this matters. However anything short of that extreme leaves us with a problem to solve. How do we make sure these people do not hurt more children?
I don't have any simple answers. Maybe there are none, other than to continue all efforts to recover a general sense of faith and morality in our culture. Tougher penalties do not seem to be helping. This isn't surprising since, as noted above, many offenders are mentally ill and are forced to live in the fringes of society. Doing something about this (something more humane than prison or execution) would help a lot.
At the end of the day, the real question is whether we believe people who commit these crimes can change their ways. If they can, then society will benefit from having them return to productive lives. If not, then they have to be separated somehow so they do not harm anyone else. I don't think there is a blanket answer to this question - each case has to be considered individually. That's why broad-brush legislation that reduces the discretion of judges, juries, and parole boards is probably not the best solution.
Do YOU have an answer? If so, I'd like to hear it. Post your comment and we'll talk about it.
