Heavy
Topic: Society's To Blame
Recently, a local article in the newspaper discussed the publication of the names of released sex offenders, and a discussion of whether or not the state government can legislate where they are permitted to live. Essentially, the state would be saying that, for example, released offenders where the crime involved a minor would not be allowed to live within a certain distance of grade schools or playgrounds.
The question of whether or not the state can do this depends on whether or not the offender retains their rights as a citizen once they've been convicted, done their time, and released. The argument is that it is believed the offenders will repeat the crime, if given the opportunity. This opens a whole new can of worms.
Firstly, it is an assumption that they will be repeat offenders. It cannot be assumed true for 100% of them. But there will be a percentage, and you probably can't predict which specific persons will repeat. The safest thing is to just assume they all will. It's not the most fair thing, though. Some of them will never offend again, yet they are assumed to be repeat offenders because someone else is. Is that just part of the price they pay for having committed the offense? Or should they be given the chance to move on and start life again?
Next, do they retain their rights as a citizen? If not, what rights do they keep? What rights do they lose? If so, then why can't they live anywhere they want?
If they can't live wherever they want based on their crime, what's next? Will bank robbers be unallowed to use or live near banks? Where will people convicted of marijuana use live? Will persons convicted of assault have to live separated from people? Isn't that what prison is in the first place?
For that matter, if it is assumed they will repeat, then that brings the entire penal system into question. If offenders repeat their crimes, then the prisons are not an adequate deterrent. The premise of prison then becomes a minor deterrent, with the benefit of keeping the offender off the streets for an amount of time based on the severity of their crime. But once they're released, will they repeat the offense? At that point, isn't releasing them the same as unleashing a criminal onto society? If it is assumed they'll repeat the offense (or a similar one), then why release them?
Because prisons are crowded and cost money, that's why. The flip side of incarceration is expense. It costs money to incarcerate, feed, and clothe a prison inmate. It's paid for with taxes. Keep a prisoner in there for life and it's very expensive. Keep every prisoner in there for life and you have overcrowded prisons.
So. You can't release them, you can't keep them in prison forever. You can't wish them away to a corn field. There's no place to which they can just be shipped to get them out of the country. What's left?
Well, Texas has the death penalty, and they're not afraid to use it. Currently, it's for murder offenses. Is it viable to expand the list of offenses for which the death penalty can be used? Could the offender appeal, and how many times? Would that be humane? Would it be less humane than releasing the offender to repeat their crime? Wasn't the offender inhumane to begin with when they committed the crime? Does that justify further inhumanity?
Thinking about all this gave me a headache. I thought I'd share it with you all. You're welcome.
Posted by roguespidor
at 9:34 AM EDT
