Tapsearch Com EditorSex offenders and the law
March 8th 2007 00:54
This column from Jacob Sullum about sex offenders is an absolute must-read. The most important part is this:
"Instead of punishing people for crimes they might commit in the future, why not punish them for crimes they've already committed? If certain offenses merit a life sentence, which is what you often get when you tack indefinite civil commitment onto a prison term, that penalty should be imposed explicitly and with due process."
Another great line:
"When sex offenders are caught and convicted, the government says they're responsible for their actions, so it locks them up. But after they serve their time, it says they can't control themselves, so it locks them up some more."
Indeed, it's ridiculous to let someone out of prison, and then impose all sorts of restrictions on where they can live and who they can consort with for the rest of their lives. It's also, in my opinion, unconstitutional to punish someone after they've served their stated sentence.
But Sullum informs us:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders on the grounds that it is therapeutic and preventive rather than punitive. But the therapy is a sham, and the preventive rationale could be applied to a wide variety of criminals, all of whom have demonstrated a tendency toward anti-social behavior and many of whom are at least as prone to recidivism as sex offenders are."
Right on. Let's give them life from the get-go. Read the whole thing.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Instead of punishing people for crimes they might commit in the future, why not punish them for crimes they've already committed? If certain offenses merit a life sentence, which is what you often get when you tack indefinite civil commitment onto a prison term, that penalty should be imposed explicitly and with due process."
Another great line:
"When sex offenders are caught and convicted, the government says they're responsible for their actions, so it locks them up. But after they serve their time, it says they can't control themselves, so it locks them up some more."
Indeed, it's ridiculous to let someone out of prison, and then impose all sorts of restrictions on where they can live and who they can consort with for the rest of their lives. It's also, in my opinion, unconstitutional to punish someone after they've served their stated sentence.
But Sullum informs us:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders on the grounds that it is therapeutic and preventive rather than punitive. But the therapy is a sham, and the preventive rationale could be applied to a wide variety of criminals, all of whom have demonstrated a tendency toward anti-social behavior and many of whom are at least as prone to recidivism as sex offenders are."
Right on. Let's give them life from the get-go. Read the whole thing.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 41 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
