|
Why We Shouldn't Be Informed When a Sexual Offender Lives Next Door by Laura Clawson |
So we all got the email informing us about sex offenders registered as living in the area. This much has been covered by the Argus, as has the fact that some people support the University's decision to do this, while others of us were deeply upset by it. I happen to be a member of the latter group; while I understand that, in accordance with the Campus Security Act of 1990, they probably had to let us know that there were registered sex offenders in the area, I believe that they should simply have advised us that if we wanted complete information, we could get it.
As upset, angry, and disappointed with the University's decision as I was and am, and as much as I wanted my school to rise above the idiocy of this country, that idiocy must be counted as the main issue here. I recognize the danger and problems inherent in arguing that a probable majority of the people in this country support an idiotic policy. I do so advisedly, however; I have listened to and read most of the arguments in favor of Megan's Law and find them hugely flawed.
First off, let's look at the name: Megan's Law. Megan Kanka was a young child and she was raped and killed; it's a horrible thing and I wish it on no one of any age. And when people are talking or writing about these laws, they inevitably refer, not just to Megan Kanka, but to other cases in which young children were raped and killed. Yet the laws don't just apply to rapist-murderers, or, for that matter, to people who rape Wesleyan students at knife point. They cover a lot of other behaviors, most of them bad, but relatively few of them involving death or children. (And does anyone else find it odd that you can kill as many children as you like and not have to register unless you also raped them?) Connecticut has a relatively limited law, although that may not last for long if several state lawmakers have their way.
Currently, Connecticut's law mandates that people convicted on or after January 1, 1995 or still on probation or parole for offenses committed earlier register and remain registered for ten years after their probation ends. The offenses requiring registration are all felonies: "first-degree, second degree, or aggravated sexual assault; sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship; and risk of injury to children by impairing their morals." But there's a move on to increase the law's stringency to require lifetime registration and to include some misdemeanors, including "attempted sexual assault, indecent exposure, and other related crimes." Indecent exposure? I guess we're lucky-in Rhode Island, people have to register for having committed everyone's favorite "abominable and detestable crime against nature," namely, sodomy. Don't laws requiring registration for indecent exposure and sodomy seem like kind of a wide net to be casting for violent offenders?
Another problem is this: Even if I agreed with the premise of Megan's Law and thought that we should all know who around us had committed a sex offense in the past, I would still have to wonder about the people who hadn't been caught. After all, sex crimes are more likely than most other types of crimes to go unreported. When reported, they present the problems for obtaining convictions that we've all heard about-it is argued that the woman (or, less commonly, man) wasn't really raped (sexually assaulted, etc.); she consented and then changed her mind. Or it is argued that she asked for it. In any case, it is probable that a majority of people who commit sex crimes are never convicted, for whatever reason.
If you think you know where all the sex offenders are, might that not make you feel falsely safe from the ones you don't know about? Moreover, one effect of Megan's Law will probably be that people with the money to get good lawyers will plea bargain so that, while they are convicted of non-sex-related offenses, they are not considered sex offenders and therefore never have to register. If this happens, and it seems likely that it will, these laws will disproportionately impact the unwealthy. (As do most laws, of course.) And what about college students? Colleges, after all, have a collective record of protecting their rapists. They get asked to leave for a while, or made to write a letter of apology and do community service. They don't get put in prison or made to register.
While I think the above are important objections to Megan's Law, they aren't my main concern. Here's the big thing for me: the U.S. puts an almost unimaginable amount of energy and money into putting people in jail as punishment for their crimes. I certainly don't think this is effective; the U.S. has a much higher incarceration rate and much longer average sentences than most industrialized western nations, and yet still has more crime.
For instance, in 1990, $18 billion was spent on prison construction and operation in the United States. In 1991, most states still suffered from overcrowded prisons. In the early 1980s, fewer Canadians were killed by all means put together than Californians were killed with knives. In 1988, Washington, D.C., with a population of around 600,000, had more drug-related killings than all of Scandinavia, with a population of 18,000,000, had of murders of any type. In 1980, 195 of every 100,000 Americans were in prison; in the early 1980s, Sweden had about a fifth of the U.S. murder rate and had an incarceration rate of only 55 people per 100,000.
Regardless of what I think and of what logic suggests, a lot of people promote prison as the best way of controlling crime; many of the same people who support the idea that jail is the best way to control crime are also responsible for the existence of Megan's Law. Apparently they see no contradiction here, but let me suggest one. If prison is an effective way of controlling crime, why would people return to committing crimes as soon as they get out? If we don't think prison rehabilitates people enough that we don't have to watch them every minute when they get out, shouldn't we maybe, just maybe, figure out how to rehabilitate them?
Megan's Law effectively says that punishment for past crimes should last forever. Once a person has committed a sex crime (and how far behind can laws calling for other sorts of criminals to register be?), they should have no chance to build a good life. They should not be able to live in peace; they should not be able to find a decent job; they should not ever be able to escape their past mistake. Great strategy: I'm sure that stress, misery, and complete denial of dignity will really reduce recidivism rates.