Why are sex crimes so special?

[Smith_3]

I don't really understand it.

Let's assume someone goes out and kills a person for the heck of it. Just goes and smashes their head in with a iron bar and then runs away. Later this person is caught and put on trial. And he tells the judge something in the effect of "I was really pissed off that day from watching the news and just got so mad that I had to smash someones head." The person will get charged with murder and, let's assume he doesn't get the death sentence, gets locked away for about fifteen years.

Second person goes out and robs a gas station. He shoots the person working the cash register. This person is also caught. Again, if he isn't executed he will probably get something like fifteen years plus.

Third person kills a man, cuts off his penis and masturbates on the corpse. This person will get a similar sentence as the above two, but will be put on a special list of sex offenders. This measure regulates certain things about the perps life after his release, if he is released.

All three victims are equally dead. Why the special treatment of perp number three? In cases one and two one could argue just as easy that they might still pose a threat to society after their release. Who knows if perp number one will not get mad again and kill someone? Who knows that perp number two will not shoot another gas station worker? Both have demonstrated their disregard for human life just as much as perp number three. I don't see why, if it is necessary to put number three on a special list, number one and number two aren't on lists.

[polichick]

1. Because sex offenders often prey on children.

[Smith_3]

2. Ok, but why doesn't the law prosecute crimes against children more harsh, rather than sex crimes?

Why is it the sex part that makes a difference? A mother who drowns her child will not be on a special list. A father who strangles his toddler will not be on a special list.

I could see the point if there was a list of criminals that commited crimes against children. But the perp number three in my scenario did not commit a crime against a child.

[Jeep789]

3. Even more perplexing is that #3 could have been convicted

of child pornography and not murder and apparently now be held for life. I am in no way condoning or excusing the pain caused to children by this industry but surely downloading a picture shouldn't call for a worse sentence than murder.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Where are you getting that #3 downloaded kiddie porn?

That's not what I read.

[Jeep789]

11. I said could have....... nt

[sandnsea]

4. Rehabilitation

Sex offenders don't tend to rehabilitate and their crimes tend to get more heinous as they continue.

Other murders are more often crimes of passion where the offender never reoffends, or criminals who very often do get better.

[Jeep789]

9. By that standard, shouldn't animal abusers be treated the same

since many animal abusers go on to commit crimes involving humans? I do think you have a point. We have no cure for many of the afflictions many sex offenders have but is that really their fault? Many, if not most, were themselves abused. I would think hospitalizing them and seeking real causes and cures might be more beneficial and humane.

[MADem]

20. It's not "the fault" of some guy who has contracted the plague, either...

....but society needs to be protected from that person because that person is dangerous and can hurt or kill other members of the society.

I am in favor of the "Lock 'em up/throw away the key" approach to anyone who molests a child. If they're willing to serve as scientific guinea pigs while they live their lives in an incarcerated setting, more power to them. Let them have an extra hour of tv as a reward for their participation.

[Jeep789]

21. I never thought imprisoning or exiling people because they

were ill was right either. In fact, this debate came up with AIDS. Were you one in favor of segregating AIDS victims?

[MADem]

23. What is your problem? Are you that ignorant that you think AIDS is transmitted like the common cold

or are you suggesting that people with AIDS are criminals?

When people are "ill" and they run around MURDERING people, they need to be locked up and the key thrown away. They can be given treatment, regardless of whether their difficulties are physical or mental, but they don't need to be let loose to kill others. They lost that opportunity when they committed murder.

When people have a communicable, easily transmittable disease, like, say, THE PLAGUE, or virulent tuberculosis, they too need to be locked up until they no longer can sicken or kill others simply by walking by them and sneezing.

That AIDS remark sure said a LOT about you--none of it very impressive. Just your asking that question, in the way you asked it, suggests a rather muddy and uninformed view regarding the HIV virus and a very poor understanding of how it is transmitted.

I think your mask may have slipped a bit, podner....at the very least, poking people with a sharp "ignorant stick" in an annoyingly didactic fashion isn't the way to win friends and influence people. You make people wonder if you have an agenda, frankly.

[Jeep789]

24. Did you misread my comments or are you just in a foul mood?

I said I was totally against it but that some people were for it. This was before they knew how it was spread. I asked if you were one of those. The fact that you couldn't answer the question and instead went off on a rant speaks volumes.

[MADem]

28. "One of those?" Get over yourself. Only someone completely dull of comprehension

and thick as five bricks could possibly have any question with regard to my view on that matter. Or someone who found it in their argumentative interest to be deliberately obtuse.

But "there you go again"--that oughta ring a bell with you. Speaks volumes, indeed.

[Jeep789]

29. Get over myself?

You seem to be the one with illusions of self-importance. Why would you assume that I keep tabs on your posts? Why are you so confrontational? Isn't it against DU rules to make personal attacks on others?

I'll let you have the last word as I am sure you will answer and I am equally sure that the answer will just be another attack. This is a battle of nonsensical, witless, hyperbole that I do not wish to spend energy on.

I sincerely hope your mood improves shortly.

[MADem]

30. I'm not the one making the "confrontational" comments.

And I have no "illusions" of self-importance. You suggested that I equated the plague, a readily commuicable disease, with AIDS, which is by far more difficult to transmit, and then asked if I were "one of those" who wanted to lock up the AIDS patients, ascribing an equivilency to the plague that never existed, even in the early days of the virus.

That was a loaded comment, designed to place me in an intolerant (and by implication, gay hating) camp, and surely you knew that.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. You're using a bit of a strawman there because

victims of sex crimes usually live and suffer psychological damage as a result of what was done to them. Being a victim of any crime carries some psychological trauma but sex crimes generally carry more because they degrade the victim. In your hypothetical cases, suppose they had lived and ask yourself who would be the most traumatized. I'd say the third man received the worst treatment, although the other two might be seriously injured. Only the third man lost an organ, though, and an organ that a normal man considers to be extremely important. I think most men, and women, would also prefer being shot or hit over the head rather than being violently raped, if they had to choose one. Sex crimes are extreme personal invasions.

[Smith_3]

7. Not really a strawman. A guy getting caught whacking off in a movie theater will land on a list.

As will an 18 year old that had consentual sex with a 14 year old. Personally I would rather throw those two off the list and place the person who strangled a toddler on the list.

[sandnsea]

8. The guy who strangled the toddler

Should not only be on the list, but should be carefully monitored as to whether he gets out at all.

That's the way the law is written. Despite what others are trying to pretend.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472

[dsc]

18. Not in most states

most states have a sex crimes registry.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. You changed your argument. nt

[Jeep789]

10. But the perpetrators themselves are usually victims of the same

crimes.

[EFerrari]

13. Sex crimes are special because sexually violating someone is about as close as you can get

to destroying another human being without actually killing them. In addition to any physical harm, it involves having your boundaries so traumatized, it may not be possible to ever fully heal from the injury.

Add to that, the compulsion to commit this crime makes it unlikely that the perp will be a one time offender say, as someone who flips out and beats up his dealer may be a one time offender.

That's why.

[tekisui]

14. It's sad this question even has to be asked.

[EFerrari]

15. Maybe. But you never know when someone will hear something

for the first time. :)

[tekisui]

16. I try to remember that.

I erased my initial response to the OP, you handled it very well.:)

[Forkboy]

35. She always does.

:)

[Stevenmarc]

17. The reason is very simple

Many years ago we use to have a mental health system, not a particularly good one, so instead of fixing it, the people that were served by that system were basically moved into the criminal justice system so now mental health issues are resolved with criminal justice solutions.

[MADem]

19. Fifteen years? For murder one? I don't think so.....

Also, you're not factoring in the race or ethnicity of the perpetrators or the victims.

Justice may be blind, but sometimes she's not always color-blind.

Your argument, really, the way you have framed it, would convince most people not that sex offenders should be treated "the same," but that we need to lock up murderers for much longer than fifteen years.

And "deadness" isn't the only issue, here. Aside from the perverse act or acts and the murder, there's also the matter of defiling a corpse. Now, that may or may not be important to you, personally, but you're not "the decider" on this matter. The law is, and there are laws on the books against that sort of behavior. These offenses are IN ADDITION to the murder.

[Bucky]

22. I don't think "special" is the word you're looking for

Unless you're trying to get a rise out of people. Sentencing guidelines reflect public horror. Crimes that involve dehumanizing people for perverted sexual pleasures are certainly more horrifying.

[Muttocracy]

25. DOJ publication on recidivism

one of the graphs from their lit review:



http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

"Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:

* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
"

[Mike 03]

26. Great question.

Some random thoughts:

First of all, I had a friend raped and murdered by two people, so I'm not objective on this matter. She was raped and tortured over a period of hours. Her killers were sentenced to life in prison without parole.

I think in the case of homicides that involve sexual crimes, it is the "torture" factor. I would be happy to die from a bullet entering my brain, but I would not want to be raped for six hours before being killed. I think it is a mix of social compassion plus just thinking about what a victim goes through when it is not just instant death (like a malicious hit and run homicide) versus being held over a long period of time in a chamber and raped, forced to participate in porno movies, or being prostituted, or tortured, etc...

I wish I could formulate some more complete thoughts. This question will probably hit close to home to anyone who as lost a loved one to a more complicated crime involving imprisonment, torture or sexual assault.

[Mike 03]

27. P.S. If the victim is alive during the "perversion", that has to be weighed against the more commo

scenario where a perpetrator yearns to control, torture and assault a victim over a long period of time. I regard that as a more serious crime.

The sort of thing you are talking about, where a schizophrenic, or some other type of perp, molests a corpse, is extremely rare.

If the victim of sexual crimes is lucky enough to survive, she will often suffer from Post traumatic stress disorder. That should be taken into account as well in determining the weight of punishment for the crime, IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

31. They are put on lists because sex offenders have enormously high recidivism rates.

[XemaSab]

32. I think it's interesting that mostly men are responding to this thread

For a woman, it's hard to interact with men and know that most women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends. Women are raped, beaten, and otherwise physically harmed by men they know and trust.

Furthermore, there is the threat of being assaulted by men you don't know. One time when I was little, my mom's car broke down at night in the rain. A man offered to drive her home, and she took me and got in the car. He turned out to be a nice man, but it could have turned out very differently. This is one of many stories from my life, and from my mom's life, about the danger of men. Men you know, and men you don't know.

Earlier today I was thinking about something that happened when I was about 15. I was in a car, and there was a girl on the sidewalk waiting for the bus. She was wearing a skirt. She was crouched down, and her underwear was showing. There were some boys in their early 20's in the car in front of me, and they were laughing and pointing and jeering. The girl looked about 9.

This is the fear you live with as a woman, and this is part of why sex crimes are treated differently.

[renate]

37. not to blame them for not being able to understand... but I don't think they could, not completely

The story you told about the 9-year-old girl represents the kind of thing that girls live with from the moment they are allowed to play in the front yard alone or to go to a house where a friend's father or brother lives. We always have to be just a little bit cautious, or maybe a lot. As we grow older and the situations we experience change, the risk of sexual attack is always there, more and more as we walk through parking lots at dusk, go to bars, meet a blind date, meet a friend of a friend, stay in the office late with a coworker. It's just there, part of us, on a cellular level.

(Men, of course, have the same cellular knowledge that most women don't entirely trust them, no matter how sweet and decent they are, until we get to know them really, really well. I'm sure that hurts, too.)

[Hanse]

33. Because they're sexy.

They're lurid.

And therefore more entertaining. And that's what popular crime stories in the media are really all about. Entertainment.

[Jkid]

36. So wonder why they're so popular...

...it prints money.

[frustrated_lefty]

34. Recidivism is one difference

There are more, but the entire argument suggests a view of life which is limited in experience.

[bridgit]

38. Why is there a difference between 'battery' and 'mayhem'?

battery - Law. an unlawful attack upon another person by beating or wounding, or by touching in an offensive manner.

mayhem - Law. the crime of willfully inflicting a bodily injury on another so as to make the victim less capable of self-defense or, under modern statutes, so as to cripple or mutilate the victim.

Why is one considered 'an unlawful attack upon another' and the other a 'crime of willfully inflicting a bodily injury on another'? Is it the crippling and/or mutilation? Is that the 'special case incidence'? Cause they both make a boo-boo