Sex Predator - Societal Protection vs. Constitutional Rights - Essay Example

Sex Predator: Societal Protection vs. Constitutional Rights Affiliation Governments are man d to protect people from any acts of violence through measures, which prevent crime. However, the government must consider the right of individuals and avoid any law that can infringe on the human rights. Conviction of individuals for a crime does not deter them from claiming a just treatment in the hands of the government. Sex predator laws are in conflict with the rights and freedoms of individuals, the civil society, and the human right groups are always in controversy with the government. The constitution, which should protect peoples rights contain laws, which interfere with the offenders freedom and rights. Offenders are human beings, and they deserve to live a good and respectable life after serving their sentence instead of facing discrimination. Keywords: constitution, civil society, rights and freedoms, laws, sex predators, registry. A sex predator is an individual who tries to have sexual contact with another person in an abusive manner. Individuals who engage in sex crimes such as rape or child sex are known as sexual predators. However, the term may be applied depending on the moral beliefs and sometimes may not be a criminal behavior. In communities, a predator may refer to somebody who seeks dominance or submission in an exploitative manner. The Constitution and the society have different views regarding sexual predators and the legality of the action. The sexual predator law, the statute mandates long periods of civil commitment for habitual sexual offenders and sexual psychopaths in their criminal sentences. For instance, in the US sexual predator laws were very popular in the 1990s although they led to constitutional questions (Carpenter, 2012). One of the concerns was the double jeopardy and the need to balance the rights of the offenders and those of the community in which they came from. The laws strictness is due to the possibility of a sex offender repeating an action once released from prison and therefore, long-term jail period is necessary. The offenders also undergo screening to rule out the possibility of a mental disorder to the offender and give treatment before passing judgment. The state has the role of detaining the offender and give treatment until the individual is cured of the illness as explained by Bartol & Bartol (2012). The supreme court of the United States holds the Kansa’s sexual predator law, which requires the state prove mental abnormality as a before detainment of the offender. The other sexual predator law is the Megan’s law, which was adopted by many jurisdictions in the US and Europe, which started in the mid-1990s (Carpenter, 2012). The requirements of the law is that convicted sex offenders must register with the police based in their communities so that the police can notify day-care centers, schools, and other residents of the existence of the sex offenders in the area. There is also the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which set minimum standards for the programs of the state. In the Megan’s law, notifying the community of the presence of a sex offender assists the law enforcement in investigations. The action will also in the detention of the offenders and deters them from committing new crimes. However, the opponents of the rule argue that the statute may encourage vigilantism and may not give the offenders a chance to merge with the society once they are through with serving their sentence. Thus, the constitutional rights of the individuals’ privacy and freedom of movement will be interfered with yet the government is supposed to safeguard the rights of everybody. The offender of the sexual predator law includes the aggravate sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, and luring. The others are kidnapping, criminal restraint, and false incarceration. There are guidelines provided by Megan’s law in the constitution for all the enforcement agencies when weighing the re-offense risk such as criminal background and post-incarceration supervision (Prentky, Barbaree & Janus, 2015). The other guidelines are counseling, remorsefulness of the criminal, substance abuse, schooling or employment, psychological profile, and any known history of threats. The states need to have the details of the sex predators such as the names, photographs, descriptions, place of work or school, and description of their vehicles where applicable. The offense committed should also be well described so that the prosecutors can determine the person to give direct notice to a community. States also provides information of the offenders on searchable databases on the internet, which are accessible to all the citizens. Sex offender laws interfere with individual’s rights to privacy, family, and home causing a lot of emotional trauma. The constitution also provides freedom of movement and physical safety yet the laws deny individuals their rights and freedoms. The society views on sexual predators are that child molestation and other sexual predator crimes are less serious than other crimes committed in the society. Since most of the sex predation offences are committed by trusted persons, the society feels that the measures taken by the authorities are more harmful. After all, many of the sex predators do not face the law since the cases are never reported, as the perpetrators are close relatives or members of religious groups. The laws make people believe that the predators have been wiped from the neighborhood yet they roam freely and are everywhere in the US. The notification does not guarantee any security and violates the rights of the offender who may have reformed. Laws that banish offenders from the society make it more unsafe as there can be a re-offense (Prentky, Barbaree & Janus, 2015). People from prisons encounter various challenges and require assistance and acceptance by their relatives and the society for them to reform. With banishment and publicity of their identities, it is quite difficult for them to change and live normal lives due to stigma. More so publishing their names is violating their rights to privacy because everybody can view their identities from the internet. Stigmatization is common to the offenders yet they are human beings like any other and some have faced challenges such as burning of their homes. The society feels that sex predators go through stress and suffering, and there may be many difficulties in the society once the offender fails. Instead of banishing sex predators and leaving them to survive in a hostile environment the society feels that there should be resources on programs and policies, which ca reduce the reoccurrence of a sex predator offense. Such resources should fund education programs to teach people on the effects of sex abuse and the reason people should report any cases to the authorities. There is the need to improve the systems for handling the reported cases of abuse and provide mental health care for the victims and the offenders whether in prison or out. The civil society does not think that condemning the offenders will reduce the cases of predation, and better methods should be used to address the situation. Sex offenders are not monsters as some do it without the knowledge whether it is an offence. Some individuals as young as eight years go through stigmatization, discrimination, and restriction on top of their prison term, which is very unfair. The society feels that it is not right to place children of sexual offence on the registry and public website for life after the detection. The sex offender laws should be protective of all the members of the society, but registration worsens the situation. According to research 4 to 10 percentage of the sex, predator offence is children who do not know whether they are doing something wrong (Franklin, 2012). Children in their development age do so for adventure and unlike the adults, they may never be aware of the actions. Another problem with the registry is that the list contains offenders of serious crimes such as rape and simple crimes such as urinating in public. The state needs to change all this especially on youth offenders as it should not ignore the fundamental rights of the citizens. The government concentrates on minor and simple offences while leaving the heinous criminals who should be facing heavier punishment. The constitution has the mandate of offering protection to all people regardless of their social life and criminal records. Working with sex predators and offenders may be difficult due to the legal and ethical challenges one is likely to face. The constitution, which is supposed to set sex predator rules is the one that must protect the rights of those individuals. Sex offender treatment should be based on management and not rehabilitation. However, some people may argue that treatment as management may violate the offenders’ rights, as it is unethical. Offering treatment as rehabilitation is a better alternative, which is acceptable by the international human rights law and the professionals of ethics. Treating sex predators with respect will ensure a balance between the community and the offender since the offers will be treated with dignity. Using the registry can only worsen the situation, as the offenders will not be incorporated in the society after the reforms. References Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2012). Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application. 3rd ed. Sage Publications. Carpenter, C. L. (2012). The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws. Hastings Law Journal, 63, 101. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1916726 Franklin, J. (2012). Where Art Thou, Privacy: Expanding Privacy Rights of Minors in Regard to Consensual Sex: Statutory Rape Laws and the Need for a Romeo and Juliet Exception in Illinois, 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 309 (2012). The John Marshall Law Review, 46(1), 5. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=lawreview Prentky, R. A., Barbaree, H. E., & Janus, E. S. (2015). Sexual Predators: Society, Risk, and the Law. Routledge. Read More