Wyoming pushes life sentences for sex offenders

Gov. Dave Freudenthal is proposing legislation that would require sex offenders who target children to get life in prison with no parole upon their second conviction.

Attorney General Pat Crank is scheduled to present draft legislation to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee in Cheyenne on Monday.

Current state law imposes a life sentence upon a third conviction.

"On the second time you have sexually assaulted a child, I think it's time you lock that person away and prevent him from victimizing other children," Crank said Friday.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WY_SEX_OFFENDERS_WYOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-09-17-30-37

WA is already doing this to some degree by sticking some sex offendors on a remote island in Pudget Sound.

But I do wish we had a system where these people could somehow come forward and try to get whatever treatment is available BEFORE they commit a crime and ruin a child's life.

Two strikes (convictions of certain sex offenses) and they are in for life.

On the first offense--if the child is under 12, the offender is sentenced to a maximum of life with a minimum sentence (that depends on his criminal history).

90 days before the minimum sentence is up he goes before a board who determines if he has made sufficient progress (by doing treatment in custody) that he is not a threat to the community.

If he has they release him and he is on probation-type status for the rest of his life. If he has not made sufficient progress, they keep him in prision and check again in two years.


Also: they are required to go through treatment upon release.

We have turned sex offenders into today's Salem witches. Other countries--notably Great Britain and Canada have done much work with s.o.'s and have developed programs that treat and manage. This is well worth our looking into--for the sake of the victims, offenders and communities.

Sex offenders should be sent to government run hospitals for psych evaluation and curing. Its a desiese just like anything else and its curable. Too bad they are just lumped together and punished. These could be regular people with a little bit of help. I think that society owes them the treatment that could make them into good members of society.

There is no cure or treatment for pedophiles. Except Deproprovera which inhibits physical sexual arousal. But not mental desire. There have been too many cases of pedophiles on that treatment who can't get it up but have raped children with objects instead.

I pity these people. And I don't think punishment does any good, but they need to be removed from society so they can't hurt anyone. It needn't be cruel, it shouldn't be. But they need to be removed so they can't harm anyone.

Khash.

There is no cure or treatment for perversions because no one has the time and the place, or the desire for that matter, to tackle the problem. As you probably know, the money and the grants are elsewhere. But one cannot reasonably build a clinical statement out of this.

Where should the money go? I am truly curious.

where it can generate profit regardless of the issue, topic, urgency, etc... Where it should go? Toward finding answers to problems such as this one, regardless of the financial profit it may generate. As to the problem at hand, of course, duty to protect dictates to isolating perverts from society. This is a stretch to make the clinical statement that perversions are not treatable. Doing so amounts to validating repression against research and locks the system in a loop. So my suggestion, assuming the money, would be to place pedophiles in research institutions and to tackle the problem. as was the case in state hospitals before the Reagan administration decided to closed them down. This is not likely to happen any time soon.

...mental health was sent back to the Stone Age, essentially. My thought is that pedophiles just seem to get cross-wired at some point. The very fact that they continue to commit their crimes - after being caught - speaks volumes about the "curability" of their disorder.

Is there a magic bullet that would cure it? Think about it - after thousands of years of humans observing humanity, a "cure" or rehabilitation process has not been found. I personally think that these people are uniquely set in a pattern that defies assistance. That said, I would love to be proven wrong...

On edit: punctuation

1. I made no fucking clinical statement. I said we do not have treatments for certain "disorders". You have yet to say anything that proves me wrong.

2. I find the repeated use of the word "perversion" highly offensive. It's a snarl word. You berate me, but you claim empathy for these people and a need for research and funding to help them. Then you use words that betray a lack of empathy. Well, so much for empathy.


Khash.

In fact, my step-son was in foster care and his social worker decided it would be a good thing for him to plead guilty to a sex offense when he was 13 because sex offender money was the only treatment that was available. That was 12 years ago, before registries, but he will now be on one for the rest of his life because of that. In addition, while everybody gets into an uproar over the priest scandals, a portion of that was because of the belief that pedophilia could be treated. Many of those priests weren't just shuffled off to other parishes, they were in therapy and the hierarchy was told therapy would help the priests. Sex offense treatment has had money and many years to figure out if it works. It doesn't. The behavior is too damaging to society to take these risks anymore. It's time that sex offenders are removed to permanent, non-punitive, facilities. It is the only crime that I feel this is appropriate. I would prefer some murderers, the murders of passion types, be let out of prison before sex offenders.

because no one can even agree on what causes them or how they come into existence. Is it nurture? A learned and reinforced behaviour? Imprinting? What?

In that sense, you are right - there is little funding (or desire) to deal with sexual deviants. But I think what I said was true - we do not have a cure or an effective treatment. That's not to say that we won't or that we can't, but right now we don't. I'm all in favour of more funding to find ways to help these people (and therefore their victims and potential victims).

Khash.

If we could get a handle on its causes, maybe we could spend the money on prevention.

THey cant be cured, and will strike again. Life imprisonment without parole sounds good to me. How many times is a child -- or women -- killed by someone who was in prison for molesting a child or rape? Pretty much al;ways...

They will never be good members of society. They will always be predators of the most vulnerable in society.

Post your sources otherwise if you have them.

Welcome to DU...

No matter how much they argue it is a "disease", the fact is that that disease irreparably harmed another person, a child at that. If you want to focus on treatment, focus on the treatment of the victim, not the offender.

so long as the language of the law is not such that an 18 year old man can get charged with "sexual assault" with a "child" because he had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and the girl's father found out, got mad and called the police. That would be a miscarriage of justice. If loopholes like that can be prevented, then it may be a good law.

I have a problem with this.

I think I need a definition of "children". I don't need a second conviction to put someone away for life if they've sexually abused a child. Once is enough for me.

But "sexual assault of a child" also includes having consensual sex with a 17 year old. Bad judgement surely but hardly comparable to raping a 3 year old. The terms need to be defined.

Khash.

a pre-pubescent victim and a post-pubescent victim. Sexual offenses against pre-pubescent children justify permanently isolating the offender from society through either the civil commitment process some states have enacted or through life sentences such as proposed by Freudenthal. The price paid by the child and by society justify this. In cases involving post-pubescent victims, both the prosecutor and the judge need more latitude and discretion to consider the circumstances of each particular case.

in prison for all offenders, it is ridiculous to suppose that the age of the victim is the most mitigating factor in determining a sentence.

Jesus.

Second time rapists of adults should never see the light of day either. A distinction between rape and consentual sex with or between minors should be made, but the rest of the sex offenders should be locked up for life.

www.armchairsubversive.com

it's always best to start with pariahs in society because then everyone will cheer.

I am against this.

I am not pro-sex-offenders.

----

aside from that, I am against some definitions of sex offender. I do not think people looking at porn should be considered sex offenders. I do not believe in thought crimes. FYI, I'm a woman who has no interest in looking at porn.

People are arrested for going to websites. And they are called, sex offenders.

Living with the knowledge of sexual abuse is hell, but it's not a trauma that can't be overcome. If we really want to eliminate it, it would be better to focus on the victims - getting them the emotional support they need and helping them from becoming tomorrow's abusers.

I think laws like this are going to make it worse on some victims; "you don't want to send Daddy/Uncle Raymond/whomever away for life, do you?" Kids have enough guilt to deal with. When laws are overly harsh it's going to keep some victims from coming forward.

I never told anyone in my family about my abuse at the time it was happening. Looking back with what I know now, if I had my choice between getting on a witness stand and sending the perp(s) to jail for life, or letting my dad go beat the shit out of them, I'd choose the latter.

It's not like every time an offense occurs, someone's going away for life. I see your point and it would be a problem, but child molestation seems to be at the root of way too many of our more twisted adult criminals. And, of course, we always need more treatment money, that goes without saying.

Abused children grow up to be abusers, not always, but a significant percent of the time. And many of these pedophiles and other sex criminals have dozens if not hundreds of victims during their career as molesters.

Taking these people out of society will help break the cycle of abuse.

That's not sarcasm...I'm serious.

Life in prison is a picnic for them as far as I'm concerned.

(on edit) I'm not talking about an 18-year old who messes around with his 17-year-old girlfriend...

a slap on the fanny? An aquittal should open them to criminal libel prosecution.
their parents need the DP if they suborn perjury

"anybody accused of abusing a child".

wasn't there originally convictions?They should own everything the accusers have.
PS I did say also, that an acqittal needs a legal remedy, not just "no harm,no foul".

There are people here who think the McMartin's got a free ride (n/t)

They sued one of the parents and were awarded $1 in damages.

n/t

"A recent report of the American Justice Department report looked at almost ten thousand sex offenders released in 1994 and found that only three percent were subsequently convicted of another sex offence, a much lower rate than for other crimes."

http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm



"The only criminal category with a lower rearrest rate than sex offending was murder. The rates for sex offender re-arrest were especially impressive when looking at another sex crime, which was very infrequent (about 8%). Comparisons of the rates of reoffending between sex offenders and other criminals have routinely shown a lower rate of reoffending in sex offenders. "

http://www.med.umn.edu/fammed/phs/sht/shtv1n07.htm

and I think one other state, already have the death penalty for sexual contact with a child under the age of 12 if the perp is over 21.

This is one law I don't really have a problem with. Until/unless medicine can actually fix the problem, the recidivism rate for child molesters is higher than any other crime.

The statistics I've seen (cited in my previous post) don't support your statement.

You just have to look at long term studies instead of short term because sexual offenses go unreported.




Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports. In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000). Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).

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

If you are claiming the rate of recidivism of sex offenders is higher than non-sex offender criminals, you need to cite a comparison between the two.

From my second link above, "In a more long-term follow-up study, R. Karl Hanson, Heather Scott and Richard Steffy of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada report that 62% of sex offenders released from Canadian prisons will be reconvicted of a crime 15-to-30 years after release, as compared to 83% of nonsexual criminals."

I saw that report. I also saw that it didn't say what kinds of crimes were included in the nonsexual criminal numbers. Drug use? Fights? Shoplifting? I'm responding to the claim that sex offense has a low recidvism rate. It doesn't. The point most everybody has made is that sex offenses are unique crimes with high recidivism. Comparing them to other crimes, especially unknown crimes, has no bearing. People are much more willing to take a chance at being robbed than having their child molested or loved one raped.

That's what I'm asking for.

If the argument is an emotional one - people are traumatized by the thought of being raped - that's a fair statement, and one I wouldn't argue.

If the argument is a statistical one - this type of criminal is more likely to repeat a crime than other types of criminals, then it shouldn't be too much to ask to see some supporting data. The studies I've seen suggest it's incorrect, I haven't seen any comparisons that support your assertation yet.

If, let's say, drunk drivers have a far higher chance of repeating their crime than sex offenders, then perhaps society's efforts would be better directed at locking up drunk drivers for life, with no chance of parole. Drunk drivers are as much a serious problem as child molestors; in 2004 they killed over 16,000 people in the US.

If the recidivism rate for drunk driving is HIGHER than that of sex offenders, wouldn't logic suggest we're targeting the wrong criminals with this type of law? Other than sensationalism, why is this particular group of criminals being targeted, rather than ALL dangerous criminals (including drunk drivers)?



Just to clarify - my immediate family has been affected by rapists, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. However, the issue for me is political laws that play on media hysteria and sensationalism, rather than facts.

Even if recidivism for drunk driving were higher than sex offenders, the sex offenders still commit the worse crimes which is the reason they should be the target of life sentences. I gave you the studies that show they do not rehabilitate and the sheer numbers of victims involved. The numbers are there and they're higher than you have claimed. Of all crimes, sex offenses are not being sensationalized.

Keeping in mind, I do think we need separate categories completely for the 19 - 16 year old consentual sex scenario; and even juvenile offenses where treatment has been deemed to have been successfully completed.

How is a priest exposing himself to a child - or even making a child perform a sex act on him - WORSE than killing someone because you were drunk driving?

They're both horrific, but I'd have to go with killing a person being worse.

And again, you've not shown that sex offenders are worse at being rehabilitated than any other criminal. You've shown that a sex offender is more likely to commit the same act over a 25 year period than he(she) is over a 3 year period, but that's a given. The opposite would be statistically impossible. I've posted both short term and long term data showing that sex offenders are LESS likely to repeat a crime than other criminals. You've ignored that.

Your argument seems to be based on "sex crimes are really really bad." That is not a logical argument, it's an emotional/sensational one. And I contend that's not a valid basis for writing a law.

A valid basis for changing the law would be that a released sex offender is a greater risk to society than a released drunk driver/other violent criminal, and that simply hasn't been shown to be true.

It shows exactly what I said. You have to chart sex offenders longer because sex crimes go unreported. It takes that long to get a real picture and the real picture is bleak.

I'm going out for the evening. I'll do the rest of the comparisons when I get back. One more thought, sex crimes are as bad as murder.

My sister was abducted and raped at knifepoint 20+ years ago. It's appalling for someone to say it would have been better if she'd been murdered.

I said being raped is as bad as being murdered. The pain and suffering is equally bad.

Here's stats on 3 year recidivism, 50-60%. Like I said, sex offenders take longer to reach the same rate because the crime goes unreported. I don't know what the 25 year recidivism rate is, for alot of crimes it goes down as people age because they eventually straighten up. Not true with sex offenders.

http://www.tgorski.com/criminal_justice/criminal_recidivism_021212.htm

The 3 year recidivism rate for ALL criminals, in the link you just provided, is 67.5%.

You've claimed the recidivism rate for sex offenders is higher than all other criminals - and yet the chart you posted earlier show that even after a 25 year period, the rate is 39-52% (depending on whether it's a rapist or child molester. Even if it's 60% (your current claim in this post), that's still lower than the average.

And while your average is going up because it's underreported, so are the other averages going up, because there are crimes committed within those three years by the other criminals that haven't been solved. Most drunk drivers, for example, don't get caught.

By the figures you yourself have provided, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is LOWER than average, not higher than all other criminals, as you claimed. If you want to try again to support your claim, I'd like to suggest this format with citations:

Average recidivism rate for sex offenders over a 3 year period: ____ %
Average recidivism rate for all criminals over a 3 year period: ____ %

Average recidivism rate for sex offenders over a 25 year period: ____ %
Average recidivism rate for all criminals over a 25 year period: ____ %

That's the format you're basing your claim on, so go for it. Fill in the numbers.


And still, I disagree (and find it appalling) for you to claim it wouldn't have been any worse (better phrasing?) if my sister had been murdered.

I would guess that if you asked any parent of a three year old who'd been molested if they'd rather their child had been killed by a drunk driver, they'd say no.

They're equally bad. If you asked me whether I'd rather have my 3 year old killed, or my 3 year old molested and so psychologically damaged that he turned into a Ted Bundy, gee what a choice. I have a grown daughter. Would I rather have her murdered or psychologically destroyed, again, what a choice. I guess your sister came through okay, not everybody does. They're equally bad.

I honestly don't know why you insist on minimizing the harm caused by sexual assaults. I've never heard of a case where a drunk driver had 100 car accidents in his life, even if he was never caught. There is just no comparison. And there is just no such thing as a social sex offender. There is no comparison to an addict who steals to support his habit, which is the source of most property crimes. Sex offenses, particularly child molestation, are unique to themselves and continue to be a problem for people, separate from any other problems they may have. Child molestors keep offending, no matter how old they get. Most other anti-social young men grow out of their life of crime, eventually. That's just the way it is. The numbers you have been tossing around about sex offenses, for quite a while now, have been wrong and misleading. Sex offenders do not rehabilitate in anywhere near the numbers that would be necessary to give them the same kinds of parole opportunities other criminals get.

I haven't minimized anything; I find those that are singling out this sort of crime to be guilty of minimizing other crimes, as well as exaggerating the recidivism rate to suit their emotional/sensationalist viewpoints. And now with this last post you're guilty of making broadbrush statements about people who are molested. They don't all turn into Ted Bundy. Some make it through being molested alright, some don't. I don't know anyone who makes it through being murdered alright. Hence my statement that being molested is better than being murdered.

Everytime a drunk person goes for a drive, he puts other people's lives randomly at peril. Why minimize that, other than the fact that "respectable" people do it. It's a white collar crime, and people can envision their uncles, spouses, etc. doing it. That's why people don't want to lock those folks up for life.

Average recidivism rate for sex offenders over a 3 year period: ____ %
Average recidivism rate for all criminals over a 3 year period: ____ %

Average recidivism rate for sex offenders over a 25 year period: ____ %
Average recidivism rate for all criminals over a 25 year period: ____ %

?

You're minimizing sexual offenses when you say people are singling out sex offenses and minimizing other crimes. YES other crimes are less damaging to the victim than sex offenses are. And the reason sex offenses haven't traditionally carried the kinds of penalties they should is because the men who have traditionally been making the laws have put their "fear" that they'll be "wrongfully" accused over the damage caused to the victims. In other words, the reason they don't want to lock up sex offenders for life is because it might be their uncles or sons or even themselves. You can't even begin to compare this to a drunk driver putting lives at risk, because when a sex offender commits his crime, he's committing the actual crime. Driving drunk 50 times may not end in any harm to anybody. One sex offense does. One offender times 100 victims. And how many of those 100 victims go on to become the drunk drivers, the prostitutes, the petty criminals, and sex offenders themselves. Sex offenders completely destroy lives. There is just no comparison.

I gave you those numbers, they're all in that link up above. Your numbers have been misleading.

Humor me, cause I must have missed it.

Fill in the blanks.

You cannot make direct comparisons. Sex offenses are underreported so you aren't going to get an accurate 3 year direct comparison. Antisocial criminals tend to mellow with age, so they aren't going to be in the 25 year comparisons. But very few run of the mill criminals are going to have 100-300 victims in their lifetimes, which has been proven to be true of sex offenders. I do not understand why you refuse to see the difference.

Journal of psychiatric practice. 2002 Sep;8(5):276-89. PMID: 15985890

This is supporting what I claimed, but my original source with The International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, circa 1995.

Though I will certainly compromise with life in prison, but on the FIRST offense NOT the second.


However, serial offenders caught for the first time (and those whose acts were especially brutal) ought to be lined up and shot.

Sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism.