Hello Everyone,
Thank
you all for a great class! We dove into many different layers of the meaning behind
a “sex offender” and analyzed the various perspectives of the stakeholders. I
will start off by giving a breakdown of what happened in the seminar. For those
of you who were unable to make it, make sure you share your opinions in your
post :) We began class
by going around the room and having everyone state their definitions of a “sex
offender,” where/how they developed that meaning, and whether their definitions
changed after the readings and videos. Joe stated that his definition is
someone who “violates a personal sexual space,” while other Verons made
references to the media for how they developed their definitions. Shows such as
“To Catch a Predator” and “Law and Order” made such influences. After the
definitions and a brief discussion, we then did a workshop in which everyone
was divided up into three groups, the policy makers, the reentering sex
offender, and the victim’s families. The purpose of the workshop is to evaluate
the current sex offender laws. The groups were required to present a three
minute speech stating why they feel the current sex offender laws should stay
the same, or change. To start off the official blog post, we will dig into an
idea that Meiner’s highlights in her article… the actual sex offender registry
and who it is meant to protect.
In
the Meiners’ chapter, she speaks about the social construction of
"children" and "childhood." She highlights that the image of
a child is constructed by adults and their memories of their own childhood
experiences, fears, fantasies, etc. The social construction of the child
currently revolves around the idea of their innocence and vulnerability. They
are “pure, unpolluted beings free from sin and guilt.” My first question to you
is: Does our notion and understanding of
“children” shape our views on sex offender laws and what we believe to be “effective?”
What defines a “child?” Do our personal views play a role in shaping what we
believe their protections should be?
A
second point that stood out during our discussion was in regards to sex
offender registries. The issue was brought up about how we have sex offender
registries, but no registries for murderers, rapists, etc. We spoke about the
stigma and negative connotation that the “sex offender” labels place on the
individuals. Profession Waterston even mentioned how labeling demonizes. There
is a lot of distortion in the registries and as we discussed in class, there is
a disparity between the “sex offender” who urinates in public versus a father
who molests his daughter throughout her childhood, but people of the community don’t
always recognize this. My second question to you is: Do you believe that there should even be a sex offender registry and
how “effective” is it? What do sex offender registries even do?
My
last question to you all deals with “treatment.” Do you feel that there is an effective treatment program for sex
offenders? If so, what is it? If you do not believe there is an effective treatment, why not?
Feel
free to express any other thoughts on the class. Once again, thank you for a
great class!
11 comments:
I can attest to the fact that Michelle ran a great class and that we did have a very interesting dialogue on the issues that Michelle laid out in her blog post. I was so happy to be back with the Verons this week (though I missed those who were unable to make it to class). Since Michelle required us to get into three groups (as if we were either policymakers, a victim’s family member, or a sex offender), some of the dilemmas confronting “society” in terms of “what to do” about sex offenders, and even (in some cases) what actually constitutes a sex offense, clearly emerged. The role-playing was superb. I think Professor Stein and Nico ought to consider a second career in improv!
Of course, the issues raised are terribly serious, and I think we gave them respectful attention in the class discussion, even though we had some fun with the play-acting.
Instead of responding to Michelle’s specific questions, I’d like to highlight some issues I consider really important:
1) For me, a most important of Meiner’s points has to do with what is emphasized and what is ignored in the contemporary social problem of sexually based offenses and offenders. Meiner notes that the threat of stranger sexual violence is exaggerated relative to who is most likely to commit a sexual offense (a family member). As a result of the distorted emphasis, people fail to recognize or deal with or work to prevent danger that may be in their midst. This is not to say that stranger sexual violence never occurs, but it does suggest that our attention to one particular kind of threat is itself dangerous. This principle (of over-emphasizing one threat at the sacrifice of other, more likely threats) was clearly discussed in an editorial in The Nation this week titled “Terror in Texas by Richard Kim (May 13 2013 issue) comparing response to the West Chemical and Fertilizer disaster in Texas with response to the Boston Marathon bombings. This piece is well worth reading and drives home Meiner’s point.
2) I also think it’s important to note that when we talk about “what to do” about sex offenders, or the negative implications/consequences of the registry, or debating where sex offenders can live or not live, or noting other effects of current social policy and practice, nobody is suggesting that “offenders” not be held accountable. Instead, the point of looking at the nuances and thinking through the consequences of our “law and order” approach, is to ensure a safer and more sane world for everybody.
I look forward to hearing your responses to Michelle’s questions.
Thanks so much for the class, Michelle!
My first response ties into your first two inquiries. Our personal views certainly play a role in the construction of social policies. After all, who spearheaded sex offender registries and transparent information on sex offenders for the public? Parents of children who were sexually abused. There’s obviously a huge emotional component and vested interest to that. And what politician isn’t going to help ameliorate such fears?
Megan’s law, for example, allows for a wide dissemination of this information in the community. I believe this is a false sense of security, providing for protection against an imagined predator. It should also be noted that the case of Megan, from Megan’s law, actually involved a neighbor raping her. Not so much a stranger.
Another issue is, like you say, how we define “children,” and I’d like to take that point a step further. Of course it’s difficult to say what is innocence and what is vulnerability, and I think the assumption by many (at least those creating this laws) is that adults need to take on a protector role. Taking a cue from Professor Stein, it’s psychologically beneficial to imagine that the danger is somewhere outside of us, that the sexual predator that’s lurking is either not within us personally or around us nearby. These laws and policies and rhetoric all work to reinforce that notion.
Moreover, there is no real generally accepted opinion on what a child is and what the age of consent is. Is it 15? 16? 17? 18? Is an individual who’s attracted to a 16 year old in a state where the consent is 17 or 18 having sexually deviant thoughts?
To answer your question, in short: No, I do not believe there should be a registry. It’s dehumanizing, not based on any empirical evidence (but rather, reactive policy), and a huge hindrance to reintegration into society.
Lastly, "treatment" has long been an issue when discussing sex offenders. It is true that sex offender treatment programs are largely ineffective; such a fact has been used by both sides of the debate (i.e. “they” should be civilly committed because there is no treatment, or... they shouldn't be committed because there is no way to treat them). A seminal court case, Kansas v. Hendricks allows for such commitment, even after one serves their time.
Michelle,
Great class! It was amazing. Such a great discussion, and a necessary one.
To your first question. I believe that when we think of children, in the context of the US, we often cherry pick when we want to consider a child as such. For example, when are they adults? 16, 17, 18, 20, or 12? When it comes to a crime, some states would like the age to be 10, while others have made it clear that a juvenile can be well over the age of 18. If you saw the Central Park 5 doc., there is a part where Donald Trump comes out and makes an announcement how NY should reinstate the death penalty for the kids who were wrongly convicted of the rape - they were kids, some the age of 14. But when it comes to a sex offense, we want to protect them, and more so if it a girl in certain situations and boys in others. Not to say that we should not protect children, but there are significant inconsistencies when it comes to how we treat children. This morphs our conceptions of who the offender is - a creepy man trying to lure a stranger into a car offering free candy vs. the father, uncle, brother, or neighbor who everyone trusts.
I don't believe there should be. I believe in restrictions, but only minimal ones, and dependent on the crime. Registries bring with them stigma and that can lead to abuse. Aside from the person urinating in the park, we have to think about the "debt" to society, and if that debt lasts for life or only for the prison sentence. Furthermore, we need to think about the impact on the offender, and I believe that being registered and having the information public can be nothing but a detriment.
Treatment, especially for something like a sex offense is extremely complicated. Does the teenage couple need treatment? And this goes for anyone - does the person who smokes marijuana need treatment? The underage drinker? The kid who always jumps the turnstile? Sex offenders, given its grey and ambiguous definition, should be approached case by case. The serial rapist should not be put in the same box as the teenage couple, but it is also hard to determine is manipulation was out of the equation for the couple. A complex issues, one that at face value seems unsolvable.
These are wonderful questions.
As I assert in the article I handed out in class, we overemphasize stranger crime to distract ourselves from the frightening scenario of danger lurking closer to home. It is our way of imagining we are in control of something that we simply cannot have total dominion over: other people’s sexual desires and behaviors. Interestingly, too, although only a small percentage of sex crimes committed by adults involve children, we tend to overfocus on those crimes… especially when the children are white and from intact homes. The abuse of children of color, poor children, or children living in foster homes or shelters never receives equivalent attention.
Not only is there no good treatment for sex offenders, there is no way to predict such offenses. Did you know that a number of surveys of college aged males found that the majority said that, if they were certain they would not be caught, they would rape a woman. (We have no way of knowing of course, if what they said was true. There may be more constraining their behavior than they know.) But still, this gives us an inkling that the line between deviant and normal desire is not as clear as we would like it to be, nor is it so easy to predict who will go over the line and commit a crime.
Registries, I fear, are nothing more than modern day witch hunts. Like much in our criminal justice system, the structure that is imposed creates criminals, either directly-through entrapment-or indirectly, by marginalizing people until they have no stake in society or civil behavior.
Hi Michelle, sorry I missed your class, it appears to have been very interesting and with a most complex and intriguing topic.
In regards to \the first question, I do believe that our notion and understanding of what “children” are and what they represent, certainly define our views on what sex offender laws should be. When we think of sex offenders and we think of children, we immediately want the harshest punishment possible. When it comes to protecting our children, we tend to in many instances, even tolerate injustice and condone what could be considered as severe punishment that we may not tolerate in other circumstances.
However when it comes to sex offender registry there is, I think, a lot that can be done to improve the system. I do believe there should be a registry but I do not agree that a 17 year old, who has consensual sex, with his 16year girlfriend, should be labeled a sex offender. I also do not think that a person who urinates in a park can be placed in the same category as any type of offender. I think that the rules which guide the sex offender list, should be carefully reviewed and revised to account for certain instances that do not constitute a predatory conduct.
There is a stigma that follows many people throughout their lives for certain acts that are not consistent with a sex offender or a predator and that certainly needs to be changed. But I do think it is important to make communities aware that a sex offender or a sexual predator is living in their neighborhood, so that people can be more vigilant as to how they keep their children safe and so that they protect themselves as well.
When it comes to the treatment aspect, I am not sure that there is an effective treatment for sexual deviant behavior. I have read about many instances where sex offenders who are imprisoned, say that if they are given the opportunity to walk the streets, free, they will most likely offend again. However this does not account for every sex offender. There might be effective treatment out there we just need to keep looking to see what works on what individual. Even if there is no real treatment for all sex offenders or child predators, there might a treatment that can help some of the offenders or control others in some aspects.
This was yet another thought-provoking seminar excellently led by students. Well done, Michelle!
My only two cents here is simply to underscore what Sally and I said during the role-playing exercise: if we believe that our system dispenses justice through its trial and sentencing processes, the continuation of punishment through things like the registry fundamentally undermines our justice system.
We have spent most of the year questioning the justice system, so I realize this does not solve the problem. However, I do think that if don't feel like a jail sentence is sufficient, we should examine what would be just and effective rather than tacking on additional, crippling punitive measures after the debt has been paid.
Hey everyone that was such a wonderful class that we had on Thursday. Your class ruptured my preconceived notions that I had in regard to sex crimes so thank-you Michelle. In addition, I am happy that Professor Waterston was able to make it to class today.
In regards to your first question, I believe as Niko mentioned that individuals choose their own standards in their conception of what a child is. Each state has different rules in regard to such offenses. I do believe, however regardless of the age, children should be protected without a doubt. I agree with Niko that the inconsistencies in the rules alter our perception in what is deemed a sex offense.
Originally, I believe there should be a sex registry. However based on the class discussion I am unsure. Based on the activity we did in class, sex offenders still have to work so even if they do not live in your neighborhood, they could still work there so there are cracks in the system.
I feel based on what Niko said it is a very complex issue especially in terms of categorizing terms of sex offenders based on the class discussions. I believe it will take quite some time before the system work out the kinks.
Hello all. First I would like to apologize to Michelle for missing class. I am sure that everything went smoothly and you were all excited as usual.
To answer your first question, the notion of "children" definitely shapes our views on sex offender laws and their effectiveness. We view children as inexperienced, ignorant and fragile. Because of these views, when children are taken advantage of, our natural reaction is to foster hate and disgust towards the people who take part in the abuse. This is where our preconceived notions of children come into play. If we look at children as completely incapable of standing up for themselves or speaking up for themselves than we will naturally want sex offender laws to be intense and serious. If we have some type of sense that children can stand up for themselves than sex offender laws would be seen as effective even if they do not result in castration.
To answer the second question, there should be a sex offender registry. I also believe that our current registry is not effective. There should be a registry because people in the community should be alerted if anyone living close by has been convicted of a sexual crime against someone. However, the current registry starts and stops at this alert. In my opinion, this registry should provide a brief description of the crime and how the offender is remedying the offense. By doing this, we begin to view these offenders as human and thus, they do not get shunned from community if they are taking the necessary steps to amend their past mistakes.
I’d like to thank Michelle for such a stimulating class that produced a number of ethical dilemmas for us as a class to struggle with.
Trying to define what criteria constitutes a definition of a “child” tends to be difficult, especially when ambiguous terms like innocence and purity are used as overarching guiding principles. Similarly, individuals mature at different rates and ages. For these reasons, along with others, definitions involving children will always play a role in what protections should be considered. We cannot detach human experience from potential thought experiments exploring what should or should not be protected. To further complicate this issue, even in the face of evidence that may challenge biases we harbor, we are still sometimes unwilling to immunize ourselves from these biases, e.g., conservative politicians’ unwillingness to accept that alternatives to incarceration make communities safer. As a result, a change in the culture must occur that both provides politicians with greater political coverage and raises awareness about mental health and psychological issues with prison. Our punitive culture in the United States, especially these views associated with sex offenders, restricts movements for reform because it is assumed that tough approaches make communities safer.
While I do sympathize with Nico’s, Professor Stein’s, and Professor Waterston’s concerns about the potential abuses and stigmatization of the registry, I do, tentatively, feel that there should be a sex offender registry with some reservations. As Minerva pointed out, individuals at young ages who engage in consensual sex should not be labeled sex offenders. A sixteen-year-old individual who sends a nude picture to an eighteen-year-old individual should not be labeled as a sex offender. These few examples illustrate the need to reform certain categories of individual who should not be included in the registry. Similarly, steps need to be taken to reform the severe limitations that sex offender status creates in terms of restrictions on housing, job place, and so forth. Since I am not that well versed in sex offender researched, I read a few articles and came a across the statistic that, according to the Bureau of Justice Studies, released rapists have a recidivism rate of 2.5%, which is the lowest for “same category of offense” that include assaulters, robbers, drug offenders, etc. Aside from concerns dealing with strictly look at data involving rapists, this piece of evidence prompts to pose a number of questions that I would love to explore. Does the current levels of observation lead to low rates of recidivism? What mechanisms can be put in place to measure or evaluate re-entry programs dealing with these ex-offenders? If post-release supervision is not a leading factor in reducing recidivism, what current policies in place are?
Moving forward, there are a number of different factors that need to incorporate in talks of effective programs. First, as I mentioned above, changes in the culture need to occur that encourage us to view ex-offenders in different light. Second, even with continued used of a sex offender registry, we must be aware that this could serve as a false sense of safety. Third, evidence-based approaches should guide research and policy. Perhaps, in a way to transition, ex-sex offenders could participate in programs for large periods at a time, especially dealing with psychological evaluations, that could be part of an agreement to phase them off the list. Fourth, raised awareness about the link between sex offenses and child abuse and other forms of trauma that lead to deviancy needs to be championed, which in turn, should serve as a way to come to a more holistic understanding that not all “bad” sex offenses stem from character flaws. Either way, I am a bit reserved right now because I am conflicted by a number of competing views—as evidence during the class discussion.
Hello, Michelle. I have so many regrets for missing the amazing class discussion you led last week. Please forgive me for not being able to participate in this meaningful session.
On a side note, I want to thank you especially for sharing Meiners’ work with us. The part where Meiners quotes Castles and Davidson’s interpretation of the symbolic significance of women’s sexuality, namely their role as biological producer of an ethnic group, has helped me to come up with a new way of examining inter-ethnic relations through the lens of female sexuality. I have decided to incorporate this new interpretation into my thesis paper, and I can barely use words to describe how excited I am about this! Thanks a ton!
Now, on to the blog discussion. I see this collective anxiety over the safety and purity of children as a modern version of witch-hunt, now aims at dangers post by (mostly imaginary) strangers. Interestingly enough, the concept of children as vulnerable and innocent population that requires a great deal of attention and protection is not the first socially constructed moral idealism that serves to boost nationalism. In the past, as Meiners pointed out, women were seen as the key to maintain racial/ethnic purity and superiority, an important component to national pride. As a result, the white communities aimed to assert their racial hegemony by elevating the value of white women’s reproductive system. Obsessive concerns over white women’s sexual purity were the predecessor of this pervasive and over reacting anxiety over children’s innocence and purity, both serve to protect the key definition of our national identity.
In today’s society where the prime focus of nationalism is no longer racial based, we then shift our moral emphasis to, children, a less specific group, comparing to the category of white women, that bears symbolic significance of national identity. Children symbolize the future and the success of our nation. When the focus is no longer solely on white women’s sexuality, black men are ceased to be the center of collective moral anxiety, for black men had long been portrayed as the predator of white women’s chastity. Accordingly, in a society where collective moral panic centers in children’s purity, people who are proceeded as a threat children’s purity, sex offenders or whoever else, become the convenient target of modern witch hunt.
Post a Comment