Analysis essay invention and thesis development process

Sex Offenders

An Investigation of Whether the Punishments Inflicted upon Sex Offenders are the most Effective Means of Dealing with these Offenders

There are some crimes that are so hideous that there doesn't seem that any chance of rehabilitation would ever be possible. It is commonly the case that the most horrific stories of sexual offenses plague the media. Because of this the public has developed an irrational fear against the sexual offender stereotype which has served as the foundation for harsher and harsher punishments. However, studies of shown that among various sexual offenders that the rate of recidivism was surprising low given the individuals completed a treatment program. Yet most sexual offenders who have complete treatment as well as their sentences and have to abide by a wide range of restrictions that make their lives unduly hard to live. This paper takes an objective look at the punishments and restrictions that are placed against a wide range of different sexual offenders and finds that their punishments and further limitations, in many cases, are far too severe and could actually work to increase the recidivism rate thus making the policies towards this group counterproductive.

Discussion

One of the main problems associated with sexual offenders is the public's perception of this group which is founded upon an exaggerated media perception of the stereotype. Therefore it has become politically popular in many regions to keep making the punishments more severe and the limitations, even upon release, more comprehensive. Many of the limitations include provisions on an offender's living arrangements. For example, there are many cases in which a released sex offender cannot return to their former house or even live with relatives because of the restrictions. In some extreme cases, offenders actually had to move from a living arrangement just because new legislation passed with new requirements which they were not incompliance with.

Various public policies that deal with former sex offenders prevent them from obtaining employment, social support, housing, and in some cases treatment. Thus this group becomes incredibly ostracized from society and has little chance of leading a relatively normal and productive life. This group often has trouble meeting their most basic of needs and lives in a state of marginal existence on the fringes of society. Yet an Ohio prison intake report on sex offenders imprisoned in 1992 revealed that 2.2% of child molesters were strangers to their victims, and 89% of perpetrators had never been convicted before (Dormin, 2010). Thus the greatest threat to any potential victim likely comes from people that they are already acquainted with and have never been convicted of a sexual crime.

Furthermore, there have been many studies that have also shown that the recidivism rate is rather low. A study in Vermont found that offenders who underwent an effective treatment program had re-offenses at roughly 3.8% over a ten-year period (Dormin, 2010). Therefore, of a group of one hundred people who underwent treatment for their offense, ninety six of them likely had to undergo severe limitations in their lives even though there a small fraction of their group were reoffenders. This coupled with the fact that a majority of offenders are first-time offenders and likely know their victims indicates that the housing limitations placed on ex-offenders are ineffective at best.

However, in some areas state agencies are acting to rectify the situation and provide funding for ex-offenders. In Middleton, CT, for example, legislators called enacted the criminal justice reforms of 2008. While this legislation toughened some of the state's criminal laws and allocated $10 million for fighting crime, it also made provisions for some of the money to be dedicated housing for recently released sex offenders. In such a housing development, an offender could either receive inpatient treatment in a restricted facility or, if they are able of looking for jobs and a new housing, could be placed in transitional or permanent housing (Shwartz, 2011).