NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Sex offenders have been a serious problem for our legal system at all levels, not to mention those who have been their victims. There are 43, 000 inmates in prison for sexual offenses while each year in this country over 510, 000 children are sexually assaulted (Oakes 99). The latter statistic, in its context, does not convey the severity of the situation. Each year 510, 000 children have their childhoods destroyed, possibly on more than one occasion, and are faced with dealing with the assault for the rest of their lives. Sadly, many of those assaults are perpetrated by people who have already been through the correctional system only to victimize again.
Sex offenders, as a class of criminals, are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes (Oakes 99). This presents a problem for the public, as potential victims, and the legal system which is entrusted by the public for protection. It would be irresponsible for the legal system to ignore the criminal class of sex offenders, for they are subject to a recurring physiological urge that requires the use of effective restraints that would curb the habitual repetition of episodes producing the harmful consequences to the public (School 95). In light of this realization, steps beyond treatment have been taken to reduce the recidivism rate of sex offenders.
Notification laws, special supervising techniques by parole officers, and both surgical and chemical castration are techniques used in various forms in this country and abroad with success. However, notification laws and both forms of castrations have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the sex offender. A study found in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence by Michael C.
Seto and Howard E. Barbara looked at 224 sex offenders. Of those men, 33 committed a new offense of some kind for a general recidivism rate of 14. 7 percent. Even more interesting was the study did not support the idea that good treatment behavior, as in positive or appropriate behavior in group sessions, good homework assignments, and positive ratings of motivation, could be associated with a less of a chance for recidivism. They gave two possible reasons for this finding.
Sex offenders, by the very nature of their criminal behavior, are masters of manipulation and exploitation. These individuals can exhibit behavior that contributes to favorable assessments. The second possible reason is these skills are learned, or enhanced, in the treatment setting. Data from a program evaluation by Quinsey et al in 1998 is consistent with this interpretation. They hypothesized that it was due to exposure to sexually deviant material or by learning about others modi operandi. A more recent study, published in the same journal, by Loan et al in 2000 suggests the opposite.
Of the released sex offenders they studied they found a 23. 6 percent recidivism rate for those treated while a 51. 7 percent rate for the untreated group. They also conducted an analysis separately on the outcome for men who had previous sexual convictions. Those with no previous sexual offense convictions had a 20. 9 percent recidivism rate of the treated men compared to 42. 9 percent of the untreated men. Of the men with previous sexual offenses, 26. 1 percent of the treated group sexually re offended compared to 73. 1 percent of the untreated men.
According to this study, treatment is invaluable in minimizing the recidivism of sex offenders with previous offenses. With such conflicting reports on the effectiveness of treatment it is easy to see why our legal system has taken other steps to keep sex offenders from continually victimizing. Registration of sex offenders began in 1994 with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. It encouraged states, by threatening to hold back ten percent of their crime-fighting funding, to establish systems where anyone who commits a sexual or kidnapping offense against a child is required to register his or her address with the state an release.
The original version gave law enforcement agencies the choice when to release an offenders information if they thought it necessary for the publics protection. Unfortunately, some law enforcement agencies did not do so (Oakes 99). On July 29, 1994, the ineffectiveness of the current notification law became painfully apparent. Megan Kanka, unbeknownst to her or her family, lived across the street from three convicted sex offenders. On that day Jesse Timmendequas, a twice-convicted sex offender, lured Megan into his house by promising to show her a new puppy.
He then raped and murdered her. Other than the three men, no one in the residential neighborhood of Trenton, New Jersey was aware of their criminal backgrounds (Oakes 99). Timmendequas had been released despite his and his therapists doubts that he could adjust to life outside of prison. On top of this, he had been granted early release for good time, even though failed to participate regularly in prescribed therapy. Had I known that there were three pedophiles living across the street from my home, I never would have allowed Megan to walk out of the door of my house alone. I guarantee she would be alive today, stated Maureen Kanka (Martin 96).
In response to this preventable atrocity New Jersey enacted Megan's Law. On May 17, 1996 President Clinton, on recommendation from The Department of Justice, amended the 1994 Wetterling Act with Megan's Law requiring agencies to release information in all cases necessary to protect the public and allowing any registry information to be disclosed for any purpose permitted under state law. Today, all 50 states require convicted sex offenders register with states agencies of law enforcement. As of February 1998, there were nearly 240, 000 offenders registered in the United States (Oakes 99). Even still, not all registry information is disseminated to the public. Some states numerically rank offenders using tier levels according to factors used to determine the offenders risk of re-offense.
The higher the tier classification, the more information about the offender is released to the public. Classification is done by either prosecutors, boards, or clinics. Every offender is at least assigned to the low risk Tier 1, where only the law enforcement agency is notified. A Tier 2 ranking, considered moderate risk, requires that notification be made to agencies, schools, and community organizations.
A Tier 3 ranking is considered high risk and community notification is required. In addition, some states require that the sex offender be given notice to the classification. This allows for a review process if the offender wants to challenge the classification (Oakes 99). Such a system is likely an effort to head off constitutional challenges, of Sex offenders have raised challenges to notification laws based on the Bill of Attainder, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Ex Post Facto Clauses in the United States Constitution.
In the Michigan case, Doe v. Kelley 97, the court held that because notification does not constitute a punitive purpose, the Bill of Attainder Clause was not violated. A New Jersey court, in Paul v. Verniero 97, held that notification does not constitute punishment and does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. In 1997, the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clause arguments were defeated in Kansas v. Hendricks when the court held that notification did not amount to a second trial.
In Femedeer v. Have 99, the Utah court set up a two step analysis that an offender must meet before demonstrating a violation of the Due Process Clause. The first step is to determine if the state interfered with a liberty interest. If an interest exists, then it must be determined if the procedures for the deprived interest are constitutionally sufficient. Several federal courts have found these S...
Free research essays on topics related to: double jeopardy, convicted sex offenders, recidivism rate, cruel and unusual punishment, law enforcement agencies
Research essay sample on Recidivism Of Sex Offenders
