At the heart of every issue is a story. In the case of U.S. v. Comstock, it’s the story of Martin Andrews, who was 13 when he was abducted by Richard Ausley and chained to a box in the middle of rural Virginia. He survived 8 days of brutal rapes and beatings. The civil commitment laws that govern whether sex offenders can be held after their terms are up vary state to state. 20 states have such laws. January 12, the Supreme Court revisited the case on civil commitment laws, which would allow men like Ausley to be held even after they finished their criminal sentences.
Credit: Ryan Garza | The Flint Journal
Does the government have responsibility to protect the public? Yes. But does the government have the authority to gain custody of sex offenders just because they may strike again? Supporters stress that these laws focus on risk assessment and prevention of re-offending. But when it comes to sexual deviancy, nothing is simple. For the victims concerned, the law may offer some peace of mind, but on the other side of the debate…
Meet Clovis Claxton, who, despite being developmentally disabled and wheelchair-bound, was charged with first-degree child molestation and served 27 months in prison. Claxton was listed as, “a child rapist” on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement website and fliers were posted around the neighborhood. Not long after, he was found dead, with one of the fliers next to him.
According to the CNN article, “the practice of confinement in mental hospitals or treatment centers for those with severe mental illness has been around the United States since its founding.” These inmates often get the news days before their release and are confined for an indefinite amount of time. Although some sexual offenders admit that the mandatory therapy with civil commitment has been helpful, why do they have to wait until their terms expire to receive this type of help?
The label “sex offender” is broad and lumps together recidivism rates. But because our understanding of sex offenders has grown over the years, legal and societal responses should change accordingly, and at this point, civil commitment doesn’t fully address the challenge of dealing with these complex behaviors in a way that takes account of what is currently known and uses it in a proven, constructive method of treatment, instead of just locking up the problem.
Supporters stress that the purpose of civil commitment laws is rehabilitation, not further punishment. Eric Janus, author of Failure to Protect, says, “The primary goal is incapacitation.” Critics of these programs say behavioral rehabilitation centers are basically prisons and cost more than $700 million a year.
If the punitive end of their sentence is largely unhelpful in curbing what may be repeat sexual offending (which falls around 5.3%, according to United States Department of Justice), then what is the point? Then again, would staying in a treatment facility, rather than rejoining the real world, be better for those labeled with the stigma of being sexual offenders, and often threatened with physical danger, eviction, joblessness, and overall social repudiation once released?
Posted by Rebecca on January 26, 2010 at 3:15pm.
