First of all, most sex offenders are people the victims already know – such as family members, neighbors, etc. In other words, they’re people that aren’t ON the registries. Second, the recidivism rate for ANY criminal is extremely high – almost 70% of all inmates get re-arrested within three years. Neither a registry for sex offenders or jail time is a deterrent.
So, instead of wasting the taxpayer’s money on a system that doesn’t work, why not go after the real problem – why are they committing these horrible crimes? Is it a poor socio-economic status/upbringing, perhaps a chemical imbalance in the brain, both, or something else? Finding and treating the real cause will do far more to prevent these crimes from happening than prison sentences. The convicted sex offender can truly get help to correct the underlying problem, and then attempt to start a new life.
However, this idea apparently flew right over the heads of those I was debating with. They were of the opinion that a convicted sex offender should never be given a second chance, and must carry that “scarlet letter” via the registry for the rest of their lives. One woman actually said that she would never allow any convicted sex offender near her or her family, and would never give them a chance to redeem themselves because they were “dead” to her.
Essentially, they were no longer people, because they had forfeited all of their rights by committing the crime. A lot of people seem to agree with this idea, which is why the registries now exist. Again, I can understand the sentiment behind this viewpoint, but I was absolutely appalled at their complete lack of compassion for a fellow human being. Sex offenders, despite what they have done, are still human beings. They should receive treatment for their disorder, and after serving their time should be given every opportunity to start anew, especially since they are guaranteed these rights under the Constitution, including the freedom to not be discriminated against.
What was even more frightening to me was that just a couple of weeks earlier, these same women said they were “pro-choice” but they were perfectly willing to force a woman to have a child she didn’t want, simply because the father wanted it. That’s not pro-choice, that’s anti-individual. Clearly, these women don’t trust the individual. They want to give the information that is on the sex registries to the public, to do with as they see fit. By contrast, I don’t trust the public. I would much rather give one person the tools to fix their life than allow the mob mentality to do anything, since a mob almost never does anything good.
The most disturbing thing about this whole conversation was the meaning behind what these women were saying. That “dead to me” statement is very telling. These women were completely unwilling to give another human being a chance to improve their lives; to get better and move on. They had no forgiveness, no compassion, no hope – all they had was fear, cynicism and bitterness. And what’s worse is they’re not the only ones; dozens of people just like them feel exactly the same way. That’s really depressing.
I found this pessimistic viewpoint to be even more disheartening when I compared it to my own. I may be cynical but I’m definitely not bitter, and I always try to give someone the benefit of the doubt. People CAN change. It’s not easy, but it has happened, and I firmly believe that everyone who’s fallen off the wagon should be given the opportunity to get back up. Constantly beating them down will not help.
I am not naïve; I do not believe that everybody is kind-hearted and will do the right thing if only they were given the chance. I’ve seen too much unpleasantness to believe that. But I cannot, in good conscience, accept without question the idea that every ex-convict is irredeemably bad. Even the law of averages works against that idea.