Many Americans are debating the delicate balance between individual rights and public safety, when it comes to housing sex offenders. Having tougher laws could serve two purposes, properly house sex offenders and protect public against sex cons. About 27 states have enacted legislation that forces serial sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies upon moving into a community and Washington State is one of them. In this country safe housing is a right but to what extent can that right be given to sex predators? I strongly believe sex predators have the right to safe housing but with limits. Depending on where their crime stands and why the crime was committed in the first place. If the sex offender committed the crime due to a mental illness he/she should be placed in a mental institute. If not the only other place for that offender is prison for life. I definitely consider prison and mental institutes safe housing for these predators. I am against having these predators released and thrown out to the communities risking more children. I think laws against sexual offenders should be harshly enforced to the fullest extent to prevent reoffends. I read an article about a detective named Glenn Quantz of the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office who believes sex cons are the most manipulative of criminals and will most likely reoffend.
Quantz came across a sex offender named Leroy David Fulton, a guy who was sentenced to three life sentences for raping young boys but only served 10 years in jail. Fulton got his master’s degree in psychology while he was in prison and was extraordinary. Fulton’s therapist had stated “I don’t think of Fulton as a client, I think of him as a co therapist.” “This guy is dangerous, and his reoffend cycle says he should be offending right now.” When Fulton was released he was exposed to the community. He was a registered sex offender but that did not stop him from “hunting his prey.” Detective Quantz soon found out Fulton had joined an astronomy club where he befriended two families with children and had already been giving the kids gifts. To me this is a clear example of why I believe sex offenders should be in prison for life or in a mental institute. I do not think there is any other way for it. Now does this clash with the sex offender’s individual rights? I do not think so because they had a choice either comply with the laws and have his/her rights respected or break the law and loose that right. The choice was theirs to make and they made it by committing the crime. They still have their right to safe housing maybe not in the way they would like to but better than living under a bridge or roaming in our neighborhoods endangering our children.
Many people including myself believe lengthy mandatory prison sentences would deter repeat child sex offenders. But there are those who oppose to such thing. An article in the Houston Chronicle in 2007 stated that some opponents agreed that lengthy sentences would prompt prosecutors to charge offenders with lesser crimes and would deter families from reporting child sexual abuse. It also stated that predators might be more likely to kill their victims to silence them. I see the opponents point but I do not agree with this because lengthy sentences might not stop sexual abuse but will deter sexual abuse offenders. As for short sentences, this will also not stop sexual abuse but will allow for offenders to commit a crime again because they know they will be released sooner rather than later. This allows them to plot their next crime. As for if they are incarcerated for life or in a mental institute they will not have the slight chance to commit another crime. An article I found in the CQ Researcher online talks about a Washington State resident in the late 1980s named Earl Shriner who was a sexual predator.
Earl Shriner had a 24 year history of sexual violence and had spent a decade in prison after kidnapping and raping two 16 –year-old girls. Shortly before he was scheduled to be released from a Washington state prison in 1988, prison officials came across a dilemma. Shriner had drawn pictures and written in his diary about torturing children once he was free. As awful as this looks nothing was done in regards to this because he had already served his time. Shortly after Shriner was released he raped, stabbed, and sexually mutilated a 7 year old boy, who survived the attack and was able to identify his aggressor. It is ridiculous how many children have to go through such a nightmare in order for the law to finally put a sex con in prison. I really believe the only way to decrease sexual crimes and properly place sexual offenders in a safe housing environment for them and ourselves is prison or mental institutes. It cannot be said that these sex cons housing rights are being taken away from them, but it can be said that they have been modified. With every right we also have a choice to either keep our right or lose it. These sex offenders made the choice to possibly lose their right to live in a normal setting. Therefore, they should not be given a second chance and should be incarcerated for life. The victim’s where not given a second chance when they were living such awful crime, then why should the offenders?
links; CQ Researcher online (most articles were found here)
Houston Chronicle 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment