Arguments for Civil Commitments of Sexual Offenders - Essay Example

Running Head: ARGUMENTS FOR CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS Arguments for Civil Commitments of Sexual Offenders Name Institution Civil Commitment on Sexual Offenders The development of recent statutory schemes in both United States and Australia over continued imprisonment of sexual offenders has elicited quite a number of arguments. Dangerous Prisoners Act (sexual offenders) for 2003 was enacted by parliament of Queensland to offer an official ground for the continuous incarceration of sexual offenders as well as offering a continuous rehabilitation until the offenders are transformed (Winick, Bruce &, La Fond, 2003). However contention arises once there is a likelihood of release of these particular prisoners back to the community even before the correction facilities have changed them into responsible citizens. It is categorical that these types of offenders be subjected to prolonged period under circumstances where the correction facilities are yet to produce trustworthy ex-convicts. The fact that sexual crime is a grievous problem is a reality especially considering that the number of victims is on increase. For approximately 20,000 sexual offense acts that occur across Australia yearly only a fraction of these cases are brought forward to the authorities. (Aborigines and Torres Violence Task Force, 1999). One determinant factor for the length of the imprisonment period to the sexual offenders is the possibility of them receding back to their earlier crime acts once the get back to the community. From the police records, the culprits of these sexual crimes have committed them repetitively and over a long time (Ministry of Justice, 2009). Such offenders are likely to become addicted to such acts such that imprisonment alone does not eliminate their habits. Therefore, alongside imprisonment, there is a need to have strong correction facilities that are able to make positive impacts on such people so that they become valuable members of the society once they complete their sentences. The research into the life and behaviors amongst the non-sexual offender shows that the persistent criminals generally tend to be young, abuse alcohol and drugs and have unstable employment. The assumption being that these factors that promote engagement in crime by non-sexual criminals also applies to sexual offenders (Craissati, 2007). Another factor considered when deciding whether or not to release sexual crime offender in to the society is the past criminal record of the particular offender. Some offenders have a past record of involvement in non-sexual crimes for instance robbery with violence or domestic violence. Such people with good criminal record are liable to longer periods behind bars than people who have been arrested on their first offences. In the same way people who have a long history in crime are not likely to change unlike people who have just been introduced to crime (Geffner & Rosenbaum, 2002). Releasing these psychopathic elements back into the society without some consinderation is therefore not integrity. Some sexual offender has been found to display general psychological mal-adjustment. Those in this sub-category generally suffer from low self esteem and deficiency in assertiveness. It is imperative therefore for the authorities to ascertain that the sexual criminal is able to overcome these challenges before the possibility of his release is considered (LA Fond, 2005). It is in this regard sexual offenders may gain the sympathy of clinicians and rehabilitation officers thereby fostering a possibility of early release. With statutes in place that vouch for longer sentencing, sex criminals would have no motivation to pretend during their rehabilitation process (Geffner & Robert, 2004). These criminal offenders will be made to focus on changing their lives completely instead of devising ways of obtaining early undeserved release. They should pursue to be good for their own sake and the sake of the community. Understanding why sexual offenders commit assault against women and children, insofar as research has gone, still remains a puzzle. Worse still the effectiveness of psychological treatment as a cure for sexual offenders remains debatable. A trial that followed up 231 male sexual offenders for a decade showed that a greater proportion of those who underwent group therapy were later re-arrested (Geffner, 2004). Another study that followed 136 extra familial child molesters who had received phallometric assessment in maximum security psychiatric institution for over a six year period showed that 58 percent were re-arrested or returned to a correction institution (Geffner, 2004). Dangerous people with Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) is a program that was identified and one of its objectives is to begin cognitive behavioral programs for the rehabilitation of sexual and violence offenders (Ministry of Justice, 2009). This program is carried out in conjunction with ministries of health, ministry of justice and the department of prison service. The success of this program is an effective treatment therapy with an aim to ensure that the public are more secure through behavior change to these victims. However, DSPD has been overshadowed by lack of proper experimental bounds. The earlier claims of its success rate were difficult to analyze. We are unable to tell which types of treatment are effective to which category of sexual offender (Ministry of Justice, 2009). The process seems to have failed with regards to its effectiveness among the psychopathic offenders, for whom it was primarily designed. More tests are therefore needed. A number of studies also indicate that sexual offence is similar to some medical conditions in that there is no cure. It is proposed that effectiveness of the treatments offered would be enhanced if government’s focused more on understanding the treatment used to control and moderate the behavior in the offenders, other than to seek to justify the release of prisoners in the pretext that they are rehabilitated and cured (Andrew & Bonta, 1998). Recidivism could also be looked at in the perspective of the types of criminals. We have the adolescent-limited criminal and the life-course persistent criminal. The adolescent-limited type tend to outgrow the habit and return to the more conventional life as they age (as they move from adolescent to adulthood), get married and have families. On the other hand, the life-persistent criminal never outgrows the habit (Abel et. al., 1987). Therefore, most life-course persistent criminals find themselves going back into crime immediately they are released. It is in this category of criminals that we find most sexual offenders. Sexual criminals hardly do it as a phase in their lives but rather do it for all their lives. If we organize sex criminal elements into the two broad categories that is, adolescent criminals also called juvenile delinquents and career criminals, we witness a futility in the prison system’s approach to rehabilitate criminals. The adolescent is likely to reform once he goes to prison, while the life-course persistent criminal will only be inhibited by the walls of the prison from his activity. When released, the career criminal goes back to his natural path whether he was rehabilitated or not. The principle here is that the desire for sexual assault is psychologically engrained and therefore the tendency to be a life-course criminal (Hanson, 1998). While examining sex offenders, dynamic risk assessment should also be conducted. Factors to be looked into are those that may lead him back into sexual offence. Some of these factors include self-management issues, socio-emotional problems and self-offending attitudes. A lot is known about the static risk factors that lead to increase in risk, but little is known about what changes in dynamic structure lead to an increase or decrease in a person’s risk to be a sexual offender. The assessment of risk and the prediction as to whether an individual is bound to re-offend have been controversial areas over the years. Predictions made so far on how dangerous an individual may be in the future were two out of three times likely to be wrong. There are so many false-positive predictions that it is difficult to conclusively base our arguments on the methods to use to assess future risk levels of individual sex offenders. In spite of this, psychiatrists have continued to provide testimonies in courts because the courts acknowledged that though their predictions are wrong most of the time, they are not wrong all the time (Andrew & Bonta, 1998). But should we really base our decisions to release sex criminals after a short duration in prison on such grounds? Considering the effects that a single sex re-offender could have on the community it would probably be wiser if we took the lesser risk by incarcerating them for a longer duration. The use of sex offender profile can be used as a risk assessment tool. Data based on profiles of identified groups may prove useful in researching personality make-up and in determining whether an individual exhibits symptoms of a certain psychopathology (Hanson, 1998). However, such data cannot firmly establish that an individual has engaged in a certain type of behavior. It is for this reason that federal courts in the US insist that mental health experts are not allowed to testify whether a defendant can or cannot commit a specific type of crime. Therefore, until such a time that we shall have accurate tools to assess the risk posed by the release of sex offenders back into the society, we need to keep them in jail longer. Nevertheless, scientists have documented factors that have a higher correlation towards recidivism manifested among sexual offenders over time. These factors are not similar to those of other criminal re-offenders. A history of criminal offenses in general and sexual offenses in particular is the most predictive indicator that an individual will re-offend (DeClue, 2005). Failure to comply with law enforcement authorities or medical practitioners during treatment while incarcerated may be an indicator of a re-offense potential. High substance abuse is indicative of almost any criminal tendency and is a factor here as well. Sex offenders are with us and regardless of the shortcomings we must devise a way of managing them and the risk that they pose. The general consensus among prominent researchers is that there is no solid evidence to support any particular treatment as effective in minimizing recidivism in sexual criminals, and neither is there evidence on the contrary. In as long as reliable information on this does not exist, we will be forced to use the different modalities that are currently available, namely: organic interventions, penile plethysmographs, polygraphs, containment approach and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Looking at the issue from a different perspective, some studies suggest that offenders themselves run a greater risk of being victims of violent crime. Therefore on their release from prison, sexual offenders could face the possibility of creating a cycle of crime and punishment. Victims become offenders as offenders become victims. Although such cases are rare, it is worth taking them into account when considering the release of sexual offenders from correction institutions back to the community (Winick & La Fond, 2003). Moreover, working with sexual offenders from the therapists’ standpoint is physically, mentally and emotionally draining and is thus easier to conduct it within the institutional confines of a prison. Monitoring and evaluation of the offenders becomes difficult when they are released (Smallbone, Marshall & Wortley, 2008). Individuals convicted of offenses such as sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault need to be evaluated. For those sexual offenses that are not serious then psychological evaluations are recommended so as to assess and prevent the individual from committing a more grievous offense in the future. However, it is the wish of the community that where the sexual offenders have not been corrected adequately then they ought to be incarcerated for the longest time possible until the time when their release will not endanger members of the society (DeClue, 2005). The law experts argue that preventive detention is restricted to the response observed on the conduct of individuals concerned. In this case prolonged imprisonment must be driven by lack of observation in behavioral change. Meanwhile with respect to pathological arguments a sexual offender tends to show several serial development stages of this crime. It is therefore not healthy and safe to release such a person back to community before proper confirmation that he is fully transformed. References Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Mittleman, M., Cunningham-Rather, J., Rouleau, J. & Murphy, W. (1987). Self Reported Sex Crimes of Non-Incarcerated Paraphilics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1): 3-25 Aborigines and Torres Violence Task Force. (1999). Aborigines and Torres Violence Task Force Report. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Andrew, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1998). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. (2nd Ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson. Craissati, J. (2007). Managing High Risk Sex Offenders in the Community: A psychological approach. London: Taylor & Francis. DeClue G. (2005). Sex Offenders, Re-Offense and Risk Prediction: Case Study. Journal of Threat Assessment, 2, 73-92. Geffner, R. (2004). ‘Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders: Current approaches, Research, and Techniques.’ New York: Haworth Press. Geffner, R., & Rosenbaum, A. (2002). Domestic Violence Offenders: Current Interventions, Research, and Implications for Policies and Standards. New York: Routledge. Hanson, R.K (1998). Sex Offender: About Risk Assessment Public Policy, Law and Psychology, 4, 50-72. La Fond, J. (2005). Prevention of Sexual Violence: Coping with Sex Offenders in the Society. American Psychological Association; 1st Ed. Ministry of Justice. (2009): DSPD Program: Joint Initiative Between The Department Of Health, NOMS And The Ministry Of Justice. Washington D.C: Ministry Of Justice. 4 (2) Smallbone, S., Marshall, W., & Worley, R. (2008). Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: Evidence, Policy and Practice. Birmingham: Willan Publishing. Winick, Bruce &, La Fond, John. (2003). Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous Offenders: Law, Justice, and Therapy. American Psychological Association (APA); 1 edition. Read More