INTRODUCTION The phrase sex offenders automatically puts a chill down people’s spine due to the nature of the crimes that they commit. According to the Associated Press (2015), in the politics of prison, “sex offenders are marked men because they account for a disproportionate number of victims. To elaborate, in California, these types of prisoners are killed at a rate that is double the national average, most of the time by violence-prone cell mates or by the general prison population”. Sex criminals do not even manage to earn respect by other criminals because they are viewed as uncontrollable animals with abnormal urges and desires. We are able to see them in the media, especially in television shows such as To Catch a Predator and Law …show more content…
There are more than 600,000 registered sexual offenders in the United States. The high majority of these sex criminals will be released back into the community and the recidivism rate for these individuals remain high. One in four will eventually recidivate within 15 years. Zott (2007) found “It costs about $22,000 per year, excluding treatment, to incarcerate an offender. Community supervision and treatment can cost between $5,000 and $15,000 per year” (pg. 87). To appropriately address and introduce long-term treatment for sex offenders, we have to be able to identify methods to improve treatment by reviewing old cases and studies. A progressive approach is to incorporate the views and beliefs of sex offenders to better obtain information and inform ourselves. This focus is usually done as a topic of study for mental health …show more content…
Although there is some scientific evidence that implies the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for most criminal offenders, the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders is unknown and remains to be a hot subject of debate for most people. Treatment ultimately depends on the individual and the contextual factors, like a former child abuse victim. With studies, conclusions are not supported and the conducted research is not reliable or valid for that matter. The quality of the research and its consistent results make up the heart of trustworthy research. The quality of research studies continues to change and so do the defining characteristics of the experiments, these consist of narrative reviews, synthesis research, quasi-experiments, and so
The United States Supreme Court in the Packingham v. North Carolina first amendment case has ruled in favor of Lester Gerard Packingham. The state from now on may not bar social media access to registered sex offenders. The case’s build up dates back to 2002 when 21 year old college student Lester G. Packingham had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl. For involvement with a minor he received a 10-12 month sentence, but having never met problems with the law, the judge required him to go on a 24 month probation and register as a sex offender. Five years had passed and in 2008 North Carolina forbid any person on the sex offender list to use any type of social media.
Policy Analysis: Megan’s Law Sexual violence, particularly against children, is a significant issue all around the world. In the early 1990’s in the United States, there were multiple well-publicized cases of sexual violence against children. From kidnappings, to rapes, and everything in between, violence was being committed against children and something needed to be done about it. In 1996, Megan’s Law was passed in response to the sexual assault and death of Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old from New Jersey (Corrigan, 2006).
Y. (2010). Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function? SAEN, Inc. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://www.saeninc.org/registry_effectiveness Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412–419.
Chapter Eight of the book Flawed Criminal Justice Policies, authors take the closer look at the laws and faulty policy regarding the sex offenders. According to the book policy makers started the myriad laws to protect the public from the sex offenders with increased prison sentences, and restricting the residences to the violators. Today we have very similar situation when it comes to treatment of sexual offenders. The process starts with the sex offender being committed to the prison sentence, and lastly to being registered as a sex offender on many public websites, so that the people could distinguish who the sex offender is and where he/she lives. In this chapter we can learn about a lot of different statues that were made to protect people from the sex offenders.
A final criticism is that it subjects sex offenders to indefinite punishments (Levenson,
Megan’s Law is a federal law that has changed the course of the criminal justice system in the United States of America. Prior to Megan’s law, convicted sex offenders were able to easily re-offend due to lack of public notification. In the year 2000, it is estimated that there were more than 248,000 sexual victimizations and over an 8-year period in the United States there were 366,460 attempted or completed rapes and sexual assaults (Welchans, 2005). The prevalence of sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia in the United States has sparked a large conversation over the last decade, which has led to the creation of several laws, including Megan’s Law. This analysis of Megan’s Law will focus on the positive aspects that implementing this law has
The term "sex offender" means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense. Research has shown that Sex offenders that commit a crime against a person has not previously been convicted of a violent offence before. They do these crimes unders a masks of a normal relationship. Most Sexual offences committed against the person are mostly perpetrated by family members and acquaintances, and the big majority of them are unreported. Not all crimes are the same because there is such a wide spectrum of sex crimes.
“Teenager’s Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries,” is an article written by Julie Bosman, and published by the New York Times Newspaper. The article is written about a 19-year-old named Zachery Anderson who is listed on a sex offender registry for life. The cause of this was talking to an under aged female through a dating app called “Hot or Not.” Although, Zachary Anderson did not know that the girl who had lied about her being 17, was actually 14, he later plead guilty to what had happened. Reading this newspaper article had me thinking about all sorts of things, whether it was about the fact that Zachary had sex with a female who was under the age of consent in Michigan or the fact that he was put on the sex offender registry.
In an ideal world there should be treatment facility that deals with sex offenders alone and their potential substance abuse. This way there is a chance for the offender to get the help they need and will be guaranteed a place for treatment and they will not be turned away. There should also be a way during treatment that allows them to find resources to “win back” others found in their family and the community. We believe that the best addiction model that fits sex offenders is the biopsychosocial model because the substance abuse could be an innate part of the genetic make-up, it could also have been a way to deal with past issues or memories; to relieve psychological pain.
America has a strict law, which protects our citizens from predators; sex offender registries are exemplifications. In the article “Protect Yourself, Family From Sex Offenders,” Rick Schneider argues that sex offender’s name should not be taken off even after they had served their time. Many can argue that registries are a good way for the government authorities to keep track, and to protect the community from any violence caused by sex offenders. For example, many people may believe the registry protects people from predators because it allows others to know where the predators are and how likely they are to strike again. On the other hand, some people consider that it is “horribly unfair” to release the names and addresses of offenders
Where is the justice in a system that allows juveniles to be made into victims of heinous crimes while not providing these children with necessary rehabilitation? Adult prisons are terrible environments for rehabilitation of juvenile criminals. Juveniles are at high risk for sexual abuse and suicide in prison. “Congressional findings in the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 posited that juveniles were five times as likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than in juvenile facilities - often within their first 48 hours of incarceration.
All grown-up male sex offenders in prisons might volunteer for the system. In view of the long holding up rundown, most offenders enter treatment just when they are inside of year and a half of discharge. Offenders are relied upon to keep accepting treatment subsequent to surrendering prison for over to three years through aftercare programs accessible all through the state. A number of the sex offenders don 't volunteer to take an interest in treatment, despite the fact that DOC has contracted more sex guilty party specialists and is giving more information about theprogram to offenders in an effort to increase participation.
A therapist ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness may be problematic because offenders have criminogenic needs that need to be treated in order to reduce criminal behavior. The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model of corrections and rehabilitation was designed by Andrews, Honta, and Hoge in 1990. This model has demonstrated the strongest research-support on its ability to explain and treat criminal behavior. Andrews and Bonta have shown that in order to produce a successful rehabilitation program, the program must "respect the individual, have a psychological theory basis, and should work in junction with the enhancement of preventative services". This model reveals the importance of going beyond ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness and providing treatment relevant to
The theory views the offender as either a patient or a victim or both. According to this theory a person who has committed an offense is not morally responsible for the offense he or she has committed because the offense might be the product of an illness in which treatment is required; this type of person is regarded as a patient. When the offense is the product of a dysfunctional social environment the person is regarded as the victim. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the offenders, instead of punishing the offenders this approach focuses on repairing and treating the dysfunctional areas that the offenders are experiencing by means of behavioral therapy and other therapeutic programmes.
(1994). JUVENILE OFFENDERS: WHAT WORKS? A Summary of Research