Mandatory Lifetime Sentences for Convicted Child Sex Offenders - Research Paper Example

CONVICTED CHILD SEX OFFENDERS Convicted Child Sex Offenders Over the past decade, emphasis and the spotlight has been on child sex offenses in the United States of America. Sexual abuse of children is illegal in accordance to federal and state laws within all the states. Wetterling Jacob’s Act makes the judicial processes involving sexual offenders much easier by making sure that the information of child sex offenders are released for prosecution purposes. The United States law states that minors cannot engage in consensual sex, meaning that any sexual relation between a minor and an adult citizen will obviously be viewed as a child sex offense. In the USA, there is always a variance in the degree of sentences that are given to child sex offenders. These punishments include fines, imprisonment, registration as a sex offender, parole, and restrictions on probation. In previous decades, there has been significant changes in penalties for child offenders that have become harsher for those that commit them. However, there is an emerging opinion presented by the public, legislature, and law professionals that there is more that needs to be done with regard to sentencing child sex offenders. There has always been the suggestion that mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders should be introduced to reduce child sex offences in the US. There are many law professionals with the opinion that if in any case a policy that proves mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders, which can influence a decrease in the rate of child sex offense in the US. Essentially, there is no criminal that is as dangerous as the one who makes the most helpless persons in the society their victims (Ewing, 2011). Unlike adults, children are always innocent, naïve, and defenseless to the extent that they are where in most cases are unable to defend their vulnerable selves from such unjust treatments. They are not even allowed to consent to sex because their naivety can be used as an advantage by child sex offenders. Anyone who takes advantage of these defenseless beings should be viewed as an enemy of humanity. One thing that be taken into account when discussing sentencing of child sex offenders is the effect that their actions have on their victims. The people who claim that mandatory life imprisonment for such individuals is unjust forget to take into consideration what happens to their victims after the offense. Let’s take an adult who has sexually abused a 12 year old girl as an example. For the girl, the incident will be part of her life. Most of these victims usually have a hard time getting over the trauma which results from such incidents. A good number of these victims never get to have normal lives as a result of such experiences. Psychologically and emotionally it can be said that most child sex offenses usually leads to the lifetime imprisonment for the victim (Cohen & Jeglic, 2007). If a victim is not able to get over the trauma, their whole life will never be the same and will even affect the manner in which they interact with people of the society especially those of the gender of the offender either men or women. It can be prudent to say that those that put innocent children through such experiences were denied normal lives by having lifetime imprisonment. Prior to the Megans Law, there was nothing that had been done to prevent perpetual sex offenders from committing the same crimes again and again. Essentially, “Megans Law was named after a 7 year old girl who had been raped and murdered by a man who was later discovered to have already been convicted for child sex offense before” (Meister, 2003). Were it that there were laws that protected young children like Megan then perhaps she would not have died at that tender age. However, even the Megans Law has been described as ineffective by some people. For instance, what importance does warning people about people who had committed child sex offenses in the past serve? People need not to be aware about the risk that such individuals pose to their children but instead they need to be protected from such people (Meister, 2003). If that would be the case, then crimes such as murder with intent will never have such big sentences. They could just imprison serial murderers for some time, and then warn the public that these individuals are dangerous and capable of killing them. On the other hand, the current system for sentencing sex offenders in the United States of America is said to be highly inconsistent. There have been many cases of sympathetic judges who would simply give child sex offenders “plea deals” with the excuse of protecting them. However, the law should be more concerned about the safety of the children whose safety and wellbeing are at risk when these sex offenders are granted freedom (Janus, 2006). The queer thing is that some judges handling these cases even do this when they have a rock solid case with sufficient evidence. When the sentencing is made mandatory, then the system will be safe from such judicial malfunctioning because the judges will obviously have to adhere to the legal requirement in such cases. The Adam Walsh Act, which was enacted in the year 2006 has proven to be ineffective in curbing sexual offenses in the US. The act asserted that “sex offenders should be registered so that the government is in a position to know their records and the number of occasions that they have been found guilty of sexual offenses especially against children” (Motivans & Kyckelhahn, 2007). However, more questions than answers have been raised pertaining to the effectiveness of the act after it was realized that more than 100,000 offenders had not yet been registered in this registry (Motivans & Kyckelhahn, 2007). This situation has been contributed to by the increase in mobility which implies that child sex offenders can always get away with such crimes. Thus, this suggests that with sufficient evidence child offenders should just be sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. By so doing, such policies can be effective in sending a message of non-leniency to child sex offenders out there. The main point of detaining child sex offenders is to see them take responsibility for their actions and accept that whatever they did was wrong. The judicial system and legal policies should not be such that they allow child sex offenders to give excuses for their actions. With the mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders, there would be no room for waivering excuses. The big question that lingers based on this case will be whether the accused is either guilty of child sex offense or not. If in any case they are guilty and there is sufficient evidence to prove that, then the sentencing will be a walk in the park. This will help in reducing the loopholes that have been experienced in the judicial system with regard to sentencing of child sex offenders (Yung, 2010). Psychologists have also shown their concerns with regard to the manner in which sex offenders have been having a progressive course that goes from the most insignificant sex offenses to significant ones. In comparison to other crimes, the recidivism rate for sex offenders has emerged to be the highest at 400%. This is a clear indication that the so called minor child sex offenders are only expected to get worse with time. Even if they would get better there is basically nothing that supports the possibility of child sex offenders getting better. Therefore, the best way to make sure that children who are at risk when such individuals are set free, are safe is to introduce a mandatory lifetime sentence so that they are far from children (Bowater, 2007). It has also been observed that paedophiles usually go to prison for a short period of time and are always isolated from the general population for their own safety. Often you will find that such people are released, for good behaviour citing this as the reason for release. However, the question here is how sure you can be that these individuals have reformed especially given the fact that there are no children in the correctional facilities. In addition, it is possible to find that some of these individuals might not have had any other behavioral problems prior to their sentencing. This will only mean that these individuals will be released from the correctional facilities only for them to repeat the same crimes that had gotten them to jail in the first place. In some situations you will find that such individuals are even found guilty of committing child sex offenses that are more serious. “According to national crime statistics, about 60% of child sex offenders are in the community on parole, probation, or post-prison probation” (Holme & Holmes, 2009). However, it is commonly argued that most child sex offenders are not the same and that a majority of them are always doing their best so that they can be better members of the society. The alarming thing is that there is no actual proof for this. There is no specific way through which a child sex offender’s willingness to change can be tested or evaluated. Sadly, this applies to almost all the other crimes. Most criminals always want to give the impression that they want to change, especially if they know that it might be the only way to earn freedom (Holme & Holmes, 2009). However, it is not disputed that some of the child sex offenders actually change into better members of the society. On the contrary, advocating for mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders does not imply that an individual is believed to be capable of committing the crime again if they happen to be granted freedom. In fact, if there is a way that this would be confirmed, then the punishment should be made even tougher. Pushing for mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders only aims at making sure that all members of the society are kept safe from people who have been legally proved to be child sex offenders. Some law experts differ in opinion asserting that there exists no better way to communicate a serious warning to sex offenders out there than making it clear that a child sex offence is unacceptable. Many of the results of the correctional facilities were not that as consequential when it came to rehabilitating child sex offenders. It is always easier to prevent these crimes before they actually take place. “Over the past twenty years there has been a general increase in the rate at which child sex crimes are committed in the United States of America” (Levesque, 1999). If in any case the policies that are being used currently were effective, then one would not have to talk about such trends. Such a trend can only mean that there is something wrong with the policies that are currently being used to curb child sex crimes in the United States of America. Therefore, it will be appropriate to have a policy that will make this issue look just as serious as it should be. When it comes to child sex offenders, there should never be any leniency with cooperation being termed as a reason for pardoning their crimes. Statistics has it that many convicted child sex offenders tend to plead innocent for the offenses they commit having in mind that the sentences made would be less due to their cooperation. However, this should not be the case. “Edmonds, who was charged for 13 felony accounts, had pleaded guilty in 3 of the accounts leveled against him, each involving different boys. He was actually charged for assaulting five boys, but was only convicted for six years, his plea agreement being termed as a reason for the decrease in sentence” (Holme & Holmes, 2009). This is something that only happens because the policy that is currently being used is flexible and makes it hard for there to be simple sentencing of people who are involved in child sex offenses. This is even made worse when you realize that people like Edmonds end up committing the crimes again. Despite the fact that there are sufficient reasons to push for mandatory lifetime sentences to those convicted of child sex offenses, there are some critics who have shown their disapproval of such policies. The most common reason for the disapproval by the supporters of this form of punishment is that not all convicted sex offenders are serial offenders. In fact, most of these critics would point out that there have been a number of successful child sex offenders’ rehabilitation programs. In this case the argument is that mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders will only mean that some sex offenders will be forced to serve some sentences that they did not deserve in the first place. Through the Jacob Wetterling’s Act, child sex offenses can be categorized depending on how serious the effects that they have on the victims and the society are. However, with regard to these categories the question that arises when the advocacy for mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders is mentioned is whether the same punishment will be used for all the categories of child sex offenses (Sample & Bray, 2006). The question that begs is, will the punishment be the same for an individual who is found guilty of raping a 7 years girl and a man who is found guilty of having had consensual sex with an underage girl? The argument in this case is that it would be unfair for some of these crimes to have the same punishments as the others which are generally considered to be more serious. Despite there being critics against the adoption of the mandatory lifetime sentences for child sex offenders found guilty, it is quite imminent that effort need to be increased and applied in relation to the high rates which child sexual offenses are escalating in the USA. The policies that are being used at the moment have failed terribly as per the continuing rise in statistics. For someone to see just how much mandatory lifetime sentences for convicted child sex offenders is needed, it is important for them to take some consideration of the victims of such crimes. In this case the victims are even more affected because they are children. For whole of their lives, they will have to live with the psychological consequences of such crimes. When an individual looks at the lives of vulnerable children and the value attached to their lives, it is impossible to disagree with the fact that anyone that poses as a threat to this stability should be locked away and protect the innocent. As explained herein, there is no particular way to know whether or not a child sex offender will repeat the same crime or not. However, in most cases one will realize that these offenders are well aware of the fact that it is not good but still go ahead and do it. Child sex offenses should be treated just as seriously as it is because that it leads to the loss of lives and value of life. The issue should be handled with much seriousness because the victims in this case are helpless children who have the potential to changing the future of humanity. This is the only sure way that can lead to decrease in the occurrence of child sex offenses in the US. References Bowater, B. (2007). Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: Is There a Better Way to Tailor the Sentences for Juvenile Sex Offenders. Cath. UL Rev., 57, 817. Cohen, M., &Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex Offender Legislation in the United States What Do We Know?. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 369-383. Ewing, C. P. (2011). Justice perverted: Sex offender law, psychology, and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmes, S. T., & Holmes, R. M. (2009). Sex crimes: Patterns and behavior. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Janus, E. S. (2006). Failure to protect: Americas sexual predator laws and the rise of the preventive state. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Levesque, R. J. R. (1999). Sexual abuse of children: A human rights perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Meister, M. (2003). Murdering Innocence: The Constitutionality of Capital Child Rape Statutes. Ariz. L. Rev., 45, 197. Motivans, M., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2007). Federal prosecution of child sex exploitation offenders, 2006. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83-102. Yung, C. R. (2010). Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders, The. Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 45, 435. Read More