All papers are checked via
|← Court of Appeal||The Murder Case of O.J. Simpson →|
Sexual offenders refer to people involved in knowingly causing another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat. It is like rape. The government has the responsibility of defending the public from the sexual predators. The government has the responsibility to confine the sexual predators after they have completed the court cases. Taking a look at the two violent, sexual cases in the 1980’s Washington D.C. The law has been strengthened to confine the sexual offenders and restrain their release from the jails. Sexual offenders should be subject to additional confinement (Card, 2003). This is well demonstrated in the community protection act in the Washington D.C which checked on; increased sexual assaults, registrations and intelligence statues on sex and kidnapping offenders, creation of a special team to look at the sexual offenders before their release and the confinement of sexually violent predators. Confinement has two substantial factors; the dangerousness and the disease factors. Civil commitment is geared towards rehabilitating an individual to come back to the normal operations (Doyle, 2007).
Sexual offenders include people who pose risks directed to the community. They should be held in confinement after the court cases. The current law setup allows the judge or jury to determine whether the sexual offenders should be or should not be released to the community after serving the confinement period. In my opinion, sexual offenders should be confined forever in a facility offering management, care and treatment (Card, 2003). Permanent confinement of sexual offenders is referred to the civil commitment. Sex predators in the United States are civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center for Control, care and treatment. Sexual offenders are dangerous criminals. Sexual offences do not only cover the children but include mature persons.
Sexual offences are a threat to society. The government should provide a situation in which the offenders should be confined after serving the court sentences. This is to ensure that the community is free from the offensive acts. The sexual offences have been rampant in many parts of the world. Many states of the United States have laws permitting the civil incarceration of the violent, sexual offenders (Doyle, 2007). Sexual offenders should be confined after serving their sentences. This is not always the case. There are two forces that play in such a scenario. The community has to be protected from any possible attacks and the individual rights of the sexual offenders. Liberty of the sexual offender is compromised in the light that the sexual offender may commit the offense again putting the community at risk.
In my argument, the community interests must be put ahead of the individual rights (Morgan, 2007). This is in the line the individual engages in the sexual offences out of his or her own will. Therefore, the individual has the choice of committing the offence or not to commit the offences. The choice of the sexual offenders should be followed up as a matter of facts. In the same perspective, after the release of sexual offenders to the community, there is a likelihood of committing similar offense in a higher magnitude.
I support the confinement of sexual offenders against their will (Card, 2003). The community interest comes first when matters of sexual offenses are involved. There have been heated debates over the recidivate of sexual offenders. The probability has been established to be significantly elevated. Governments in my opinion should impose forcible confinement. This will in turn put off any other individuals preparing to commit the offence. The moment the society realizes that sexual offences have capital punishments; very rare individuals will attempt to commit the offense. The society will be free from the sex pests (Doyle, 2007).
The main challenge comes in when we consider the individual rights. The sex offenders are subject to individual rights. This rights conflicts with the community interests. The charges involve lots of psychological tests to demonstrate that the sexual offender is mentally stable. Confinement has been complicated by the fact that it is against the law holding persons against their wish. The law in America asserts that everyone has the right to move from one point to another freely. The law values the freedom of the individuals (Card, 2003).
Sexual offences have evolved over the years. There has been an increase in the rape and murder cases. The sexual offenders murder the raped persons to conceal evidences. Statistics indicates that there are high chances of recidivism. There is a need to protect the community from the sex predators even after the sex predators have served their sentences. Some communities are sensitive in a way that they have to be notified once a sexual offender has been released to the community (Doyle, 2007). The sexual offender is subjected to double jeopardy and expo factors. Discrimination is unavoidable in such cases. Members of the community keep vigilant in case of any occurrence of the sexual offenses.
The law of Megan passed by the federal and state levels requires that the public be notified on released sex offenders. The law of Jessica requires convicted sex offenders wear GPS devices (Card, 2003). Most of the laws are named after their victims. New York has identified the threat imposed to the community by the sexual offenders to an expanse of authorizing civil confinement. There are people who have completed the prison terms but still considered a threat to the society; such people are subjected to civil confinement, which I strongly recommend. Civil confinement has been adopted in more than nineteen states, in the United States of America. The states have seen the need to keep the sex offenders locked up in their sentence ends (Morgan, 2007).
Confinement must be confirmed by the judge or the jury on the necessity involved. The sexual offenders are then kept in extremely psychiatric facilities. Sexual offenders will be subjected to longer prison terms demanding thorough observation of the individuals involved (Card, 2003). The Ohio lawmakers issued bright green license plates for the sex offender’s cars (Doyle, 2007). New Jersey is considering the restriction of the sexual offenders from accessing the internet. Texas has a death penalty for repeated sexual offensive. It has been established that many criminal codes in America does not protect the physical integrity of the body. DNA has enabled easy identification in the sexual offenders and the murderous. Many states have established programs used in the follow-ups of the individuals who have committed felony sexual offenses in the past (Morgan, 2007). The programs involve the extensive surveillance and the long term specialized treatment. This has been the case in Illinois a state in the United States of America (Card, 2003).
Sex offending is a serious and complex social challenge. The impacts have been associated with long term consequences. Child abuse has been identified as the most popular and severe. This is the reason I recommend further detention after the sexual offenders are through with the prison terms (Doyle, 2007). The confinement involves rigorous and mandatory procedures involving counseling, curfews, field visits and searches, increased office reporting, drug testing, polygraph testing and removal from the house hold. Other detention measures involve restricted contact with people aged eighteen years and below, restrictions from pornographic materials, payment of restitution for the harm done and continued financial support to the family. There is also: compliance with sex offender laws regarding the DNA testing and registration with the local police department (Card, 2003). This ensures that sexual offenders are fit being back to the community; but they still possess potential threat. Old habits die hard.
Considering the case of Kansa verses Hendricks case, the United States of America government set procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners (King, 1999). The prisoners convicted of sexual offense; and the state has considered dangerous basing on the mental abnormality. Kansas’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, any person with mental abnormality or personal illness is confined due to the high chances of participation in subsequent sexual predator act. Leroy Hendricks and Tim Quinn had a history of molesting children sexually. The individuals admitted to suffering from uncontrollable sexual desires for children especially when under acute stress. This forced the jury considering them as sexually violent predators. Hendricks was civilly committed (King, 1999).
Hendricks continued to assert that the state was unconstitutional procedures in using ex post facto and double jeopardy law (King, 1999). Hendricks had no mental illness; this condition could have guaranteed civil confinement. Involuntary civil commitment must require the existence of mental illness. Hendricks case did not portray mental illness, therefore, did not address claims of ex post facto and double jeopardy (king, 1999). This forced the supreme case grant Kansas’ certiorari (King, 1999).The Supreme Court asserted that the public safety is far above the individual rights. Hendricks was punished twice by expo factor and double jeopardy.
Sexual offenders are subject confinement especially after it has been established that individuals have mental impairment. It has been established that involuntarily confinement is not a punishment. The society must be protected from the sex pests. This is the reason I recommend further confinement of sexual offenders even after serving their prison terms. The antisocial behavior must be controlled by the confinement of individuals. Statistics have indicated that sexual offenders have a likelihood of repeating the same sexual offences after some time.