Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Psychology shows that most sex offenders are not repeat offenders, in other words they are not "paraphilic" (para meaning abnormal, philic meaning love). Rather, they are often individuals who commit crimes of opportunity, and are unlikely to reoffend, especially with treatment. Yet we label these people as sex offenders for life, making them register their name in an online registry and identify themselves to their neighbors as sex offenders, essentially branding them with a scarlet letter. Shouldn't more of our efforts focus on treatment than punishing them in this archaic way?
My proposal is that a psychological treatment program should be ordered for those who offend, and the psychologist would be required to report to the judge those who truly had paraphilias. Those with paraphilias who cannot be cured would be ordered to follow the procedures we now have outlined for all sex offenders (e.g. identifying themselves to the neighborhood, register on a list) for the protection of those around them, but the everyday opportunistic offender, who represents the majority of sex offenders, would not. The non-paraphilic offenders would be required to undergo a period of treatment with a psychologist, and possibly a period of incarceration depending on the nature of the crime.
Yes, we need to change the way sex offenders are treated in this country.
In cases of non-violent sex offenses, such as statutory crimes, I would agree with not forcing registration on the sex offenders database.
In cases of violent sexual assaults and child molestation, we shouldn't need the sex offenders database, as those who commit these crimes should never again see the light of day unless it is through the barred window of a prison cell. In the perfect world, violent rapists and child molesters would receive a mandatory death penalty.
Yes, we need to change the way sex offenders are treated in this country.
In cases of non-violent sex offenses, such as statutory crimes, I would agree with not forcing registration on the sex offenders database.
In cases of violent sexual assaults and child molestation, we shouldn't need the sex offenders database, as those who commit these crimes should never again see the light of day unless it is through the barred window of a prison cell. In the perfect world, violent rapists and child molesters would receive a mandatory death penalty.
I agree.
As to the OPs logic that most are 'opportunistic' crimes, well, there are plenty of opportunities out there. That's a bunch of BS in my opinion.
What I'm saying is that these individuals are not necessarily pathological, but we are treating them as if they are. With treatment it is unlikely that they will reoffend.
What I'm saying is that these individuals are not necessarily pathological, but we are treating them as if they are. With treatment it is unlikely that they will reoffend.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that argument. There are some crimes which are so heinous that they shouldn't be committed in the first place. Child molestation is one of these crimes. You may call me close-minded, but you will never convince me that a child molester should be treated and released.
As for the "crime of opportunity" argument, it's specious at best. If the only motivator was opportunity, there would be a lot more of these crimes occurring on a daily basis. Along with the opportunity, there needs to be a mindset that lets the criminal believe that they can get away with it or some other psychological condition that makes them disregard not only the law, but also the well-being of their victim.
Again, I believe that statutory crimes involving, for example, a 20-year-old and a 16-year-old where activities are consensual are in a different category and should be treated differently, but violent sex crimes are something that should be the end of the perpetrator's access to general society.
What I'm saying is that these individuals are not necessarily pathological, but we are treating them as if they are. With treatment it is unlikely that they will reoffend.
But that's exactly what I'm arguing, most child molesters are not pedophiles, they are often people who are sexually normal who under certain circumstances (stress, the presence of a girl that reminds them of a childhood love) commit a crime. Similar to other crimes, most offenders are not repeat offenders or pathological. Their crime might be heinous, but so is murder, and murderers don't have to identify themselves to their neighbors or register on a "killer registry".
Sex offenders who commit crimes against children should be executed - at the first offense.
I agree with this in concept. The devil is in the details. Define the crime and child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
