- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
How to Handle Sex Criminals
Step one: forget jails.
Forgive me if you've heard of this from me in the past, but the policy I will propose will at first get your dander up -- until you'll agree, I hope, that it makes sense and is critical to the safety of our women and children.
Here's the headline from last Tuesday's Vancouver Province: "High Risk Violent Oliver Sex Offender Released on Bail." Sadly, similar stories abound across Canada. We talk of sex offender registries for sex offenders we have released from prison so that they can molest, rape and kill again. When these sickos are released, we all go into an understandable panic at the danger posed to our communities. The trouble is, it's our fault!
How can violent sex crime become "our fault"?
Easy -- because we handle the problem as if we're talking about crime, and we put the offender into jail and thus into the justice system. Once that happens, the offender is entitled to whatever benefits accrue to "good behaviour," including parole and early release. When he's in jail, he receives little if any medical help. In short, what our society does is send someone to jail for pedophilia, then let him out still a pedophile! How the devil can that make any sense?
Sicko?
There is a solution, one that's already available to other serious offenders who are found "not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility." We're talking murderers, people who burn down houses full of people, go on rampages and so on. We know they're sick and we treat them as sick, never letting them out until they are well.
When we learn of a sexual assault on a child, what do we all say in chorus? "The guy must be sick!" And in truth, he is.
Nobody decides one day that he will molest and kill little children, or rape women, or both. He has a mental condition that gives him an irresistible urge, something that isn't cured and more likely is aggravated by jail. This means that when he is released, he still has the same irresistible urge and it's only a matter of a little time before he's found more victims.
The natural feeling is that we should keep the bastard behind bars for life. For a lot of reasons, that isn't an acceptable "solution." The question we must ask ourselves is this: isn't there a better way to make our communities safer? And the answer is yes, and the methodology uncomplicated.
Never released?
When a man is convicted of a serious sex crime, the judge must make a finding: is this man a psychopathic sexual marauder, a pedophile, a perpetual sexual marauder? If the answer is yes -- and here's the hard part -- he should be found not guilty by reason of his mental illness and -- here is the vital part -- he's committed to a mental institution and detained at the Queen's pleasure. This means he will never be released until it is demonstrated that he is well. This means that the offender is not allowed parole, early or otherwise, and is in custody perhaps for his entire life.
Why not just have him declared a dangerous offender?
Mostly because the law requires such a high test that for most offenders the designation isn't even considered.
But won't this mean that any time some shrink says he's OK that he'll get out?
No, it does not. For five years, I sat on the cabinet committee that hears the petitions for release by those detained at the Queen's pleasure and I can assure you that all cases are subject to a most rigorous standard indeed, and even after release they must regularly report to the authorities. My colleagues Alan Williams and Garde Gardom and I heard a dozen or more cases where we approved a release of perpetrators of some ghastly crime. We knew that if there was a failure, we were the ones who permitted it to happen, and we took our duties very seriously indeed. We often called the psychiatrist involved for further assurance. We had no case of recidivism.
Isn't this mollycoddling?
Of course not. Quite the opposite. We are sending these people not into the justice system, but into a medical system where they cannot be released unless certified, under the strictest and rigorous of standards, to be as unlikely to offend as anyone else. Moreover this method brings one enormous blessing to the community -- no sexual offender will be on the loose again just because he qualifies, based upon time served and "good behaviour," for release.
'A hard pill to swallow'
This, I know, is a very hard pill for society to swallow. But it has one great benefit -- it will work. Because it will work, our children don't have to face pedophiles who have spent a couple of years in jail from which they are granted parole, leave, and that sort of thing. Until we have the ability to think this problem through logically and sensibly, and stop letting our quite natural demand for revenge overrule our good sense, we will be jailing sick people and releasing them without any regard to the state of their mental health -- and we'll continue to have more headlines like the one in the Province, while police forces will have to use up valuable police time keeping an eye on sick men.
It's putting offenders in prison that is mollycoddling -- putting them away, getting treatment until they are demonstrably cured, which might never happen, is tough medicine that protects us all.
To keep our neighbourhoods safe, we must all give our heads a shake, and bring in policy that will do just that.
Related Tyee stories:
- In Denial about Mental Illness
Humane care? Government doesn't want to know. - Bring Back the Mental Health Advocate
Campbell can show he really cares about the mentally ill. - Homeless Solution Up for Vote
Vancouver councillors mull 'supportive housing' plan.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Tyee Builders Tally: Amazing!
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- 'Storage Wars'
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
54
Login or register to post comments
anarcho
4 years ago
The notion of punishment is a problem
I have been saying this for years. The reason why such a sane approach is lacking is in part due to the sick notion that misbehavors need to be punished, a relic stemming from authoritarian religion. Another aspect, also stemming from authoritarian religion, is the concept of free will. In this case the sex criminal is treated as though he freely choose to commit his act in the way we freely chose to buy an icecream. This is of course, rubbish.
murdock
4 years ago
another slippery slope...
I agree Rafe,that the child molesters and other pathological criminals "sicko's" should be treated with a different system than the basic 'criminal justice' system that exists today.
The problem I have is the limited visibility of such a system that you are proposing.
The problem I have is with the ease with which such a system may be misused, without some sort of visible 'oversight' such a system can be used in terrible ways.
Even today, I have had the unlucky happenstance of being the only 'defender' for a mother of 2 whom was about to be 'put away' by a demented medical system that was being used by her spouse's family to get her put away. The queens cowboys were being used as the 'muscle' and only by staying below the radar in the community and getting her out into a bigger city to see a different 'shrink' of a doctor was she able to avoid what would otherwise have been a very long stay in the mental ward...just so that her husband could avoid a messy divorce.
Such things can and do happen.
While I applaud the desire to change the way to handle the sex criminals, we must not go through with anything only to find that more essential liberties are taken away from the innocent.
Skywalker
4 years ago
At least an attempt to find an answer.
I think the problem lies in the line
"This means he will never be released until it is demonstrated that he is well."
I don't yet have any confidence that the current justice system with all the paid legal brains will do anything more than result in higher costs and more legal challenges. Still Rafe is right "This means that the offender is not allowed parole, early or otherwise, and is in custody perhaps for his entire life."
I hate to think that we end up with a lot of trials to see if one is actually cured and those trials are at the expense of the innocent. Is there a cure for these aberrations in human behavior, or are we just kidding ourselves because we don't want to face the reality? Some crimes may demand the ultimate punishment.
alive
4 years ago
Oh no, not again?
OK, here we go again: regular as clockwork these arguments pop up, and people ask innocently: "Is there a cure for these aberrations in human behavior, or are we just kidding ourselves because we don't want to face the reality?"
Several times now,it has been my challenge to make these same people understand that there is in fact a cure!
But, since it involves castration, the good people get up in arms: anything but touching the family jewels!
I am too fed up trying to discuss this issue with the same people once more, so all I can say look it up!
The evidence is there for anyone who has the will to study!
If you prefer to just rattle the cage instead, then I hope that you are on the inside of said cage!
G West
4 years ago
Further reading suggestions
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r48/r48e_e.shtml
G West
4 years ago
And more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400960.html
jsinger
4 years ago
Are you sure the system
Are you sure the system still works the way you describe it Rafe? For some reason I thought some major changes, probably in the '90's, had made it less airtight. I can't pretend familiarity, and I'm too lazy to do the research, but I'm just wondering when your experience with the committee you mention took place. If indeed your perception is current and accurate, do we have the facilities to confine such people, with places like Riverview being closed and threatened with development etc?
RickW
4 years ago
Rafe, Rafe, Rafe.........
You want to put these "people" into a medical system that is all ready under near-terminal stress? (and no, I do not care what this government says to the contrary) You want it to collapse utterly? That is what will happen under present circumstances. And in this current "frenzy" to privatize healthcare (and again, I do not care what this government says to the contrary), just what kind of treatment will these "people" receive, without some sort of insurance policy (exactly what that twerp Brian Day advocates)? I can imagine scenes from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" emerging from the miasma......
What I would like to discuss for a moment is the notion that we as humans pride outselves in our reasoning abilities that put us "above" the animals in the world. Is the act of sexual abuse an act of reason, or is it a lack of reason? I for one choose the latter, and by exibiting it in acts of sexual abuse, that individual forfeits his (mostly) membership in the "club" we call humanity. He becomes as an "unreasoning" animal (whether animals reason or not is grist for another mill), and as such should be put down. It is not much different than dispatching (say) a cougar which attacks a child, looking for food. The cougar is seldom "insane" or "sick", but we put it down for doing what it was put on this earth to do. It just followed its "instinct" in an "unapproved" direction, and the price it pays is death.
We can at least accord the same treatment to the animal in human form, which followed its "instinct" in an "unapproved" direction.
Doing less simply says we don't much care about the victims, do we?
realisticman
4 years ago
Canada probably needs...
...a dedicated facility like this one;
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Statehospitals/Atascadero/default.asp
Phormium
4 years ago
"good behaviour"
If you find yourself arguing in favor of rafe's point of view, add this rhetorical question to your arsenal:
"How many sex offenders would be released on "good behavior" if they were incarcerated in a prison hat contained equal parts men, women, and children?"
Answer: very few, to none.
These people behave well in prison ebcause there are no women or children to rape.
NB to Mr. Mair: The women and children of Canada to not belong to the men of Canada. Your use of the expression "our women and children" was ill-judged. But your points are well taken!
crash
4 years ago
Technicality
In paragraph 9, Rafe says: "he should be found not guilty by reason of his mental illness"
It's actually "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder". It's a small thing but being found not criminally responsible is different from being found not guilty - the offender is still guilty of the act.
apollyon
4 years ago
Quick Fix But Worthwhile?
As Rafe acknowledges, this solution is none too new, yet its simplistic charms belie the danger that such a solution poses for civil rights.
I'm reminded of Churchill's famous quote about democracy being the "least worst" system. In some ways, that's how I view our justice system. Certainly there is much room for improvement, however, the miracle cures that are often being hawked by political pundits with little education in judicial philosophy, psychology or criminology, seem to me solutions that will make the "least worst" a hell of a lot worse.
Take for example Rafe's exultation of medicinalizing criminal behavior. Gone is the notion of balance / equalization in justice and instead a criminal/deviant is held indefinitely until he is approved by another. Rather than have his (I apologize for my gender-bias) rights removed for a set period in response to his crime they are forfeited absolutely and placed in the hands of medical 'experts'. I can't help but recall Catch-22 - I wonder the re-covered deviants will truly be allowed out or will the 'insane' appear more sane?
This also brings us to the question of the nature of these crimes. Rafe makes it absolutely clear that he knows what human nature is, medical credentials aside. Now I don't mean to be an apologist for rapists, pedophiles or the like but nor am I bold enough to make grandoise statements about normality. I can suggest what is right or wrong, and join in the societal consensus on those points, but the finer details of what is normal, deviant, etc. are much trickier and potentially laced with powerful consequences.
By 'medicinalizing' certain crimes and shunting them to a place where civil rights don't apply, we risk undermining the very foundation of our system of justice in order to persecute the few (and dangerous) offenders. Not unlike the war on terror which uproots our own civil liberties in the name of the evildoers who deserve no lenience.
In sum, our imperfect system seems a lot more perfect to me than Rafe's quick fix and while I applaud the investigation and problematization of this issue I am hesitant to deviate from our current practices until I'm assured we're heading for "least worst" and not the opposite.
alive
4 years ago
Saving your time reading reports
Thanks G West: to make a long boring story short here is the excerpt that counts:
It goes on to say the due to ethical consideration if is not used anymore.
As if we should worry about the niceties?
So folks keep talking, but in the back of your mind KNOW the a solution is there all along!
speedo
4 years ago
problems with prison
What this problem actually highlights is the fundamental flaw in our penal system: that we don't know what we want it to do. In varying proportions and with varying degrees of effectiveness, prison serves 4 major functions: punishment for unacceptable behaviour, deterrence for future crimes, rehabilitation and separation of unpleasant people from pleasant ones.
Punishment is a medieval notion given what we know about things like the socioeconomic and neuroscientific bases for pathological behaviours. And the idea that prison ought to be so horrible it deters potential evil-doing is anachronistic and silly too. Given that the treatments for such ills as schizophrenia, psychopathology, poverty and aimlessness can be pretty hit-and-miss, it seems like we should just focus on keeping unpleasant people the hell away from the rest of us.
If people can't control their sexual urges and prey on others, off they go to Club Pred, a condo on Saturna Island or somewhere. We don't have to punish them or deprive them of anything except their right to mix with the rest of us. Subject to periodic review, they stay on their island acquiring cultural capital like job skills and coping mechanisms until it seems like they are ready to join us again.
demeter
4 years ago
Rafe Mair on Sex Criminals
I agree with "Alive" - castration is seriously underated and underused. Talk about a deterrant!
G West
4 years ago
Did you read the other piece?
The one from the Washington Post?
Opinion on this, as we've discussed in the past, is far from unanimous...
Ethics in government and especially in the justice system is "never" just a nicety.
greengreen
4 years ago
RickW...I would suggest that
RickW...I would suggest that your answer shows little caring for humanity, victims or not. Humanity is not a "club" with you deciding who gets membership. People should not be "put down" like animals.
I'm surprised you didn't quote the bible.
settebello
4 years ago
Membership has its privileges...
That is possibly the most ridiculous argument I have ever read.
Your first proposition, equating deviant humans and wild animals, does not make any sense. I concede that you will have litle difficulty establishing that a cougar, let's say, has a natural predeliction to hunt and kill, and on rare occasion this penchant results in the demise of a human being. Instead of arguing that humans may be similarly and naturally programmed to molest children (something that would require more than a footnote), you argue from the other direction: that a "normal" animal and a deviant human are somehow the same. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to refute Rafe's suggestion that sexual offenders are mentally ill and ought to be treated as such.
Your declaration that someone, who was born a human being, can be stripped of his status as a member of the human race after committing a sex crime is bizarre. How many of us want to give a judge or bureaucrat the right declare that a human is actually a feral member of the animal kingdom who can then be put to death? That is not only the stuff of satire, it is whacky.
settebello
4 years ago
The above post was in
The above post was in response to RickW...on my browser it looked like his comment was the last entry when I responded, sorry.
James Burns
4 years ago
Fighting depravity with depravity is never effective
There are a number of problems around sexual predation. There are the individuals who commit these crimes, and what to do about them after the fact. There is the recovery and treatment of the victims. And, something people almost always forget, there is prevention. For the latter I'm not simply talking about avoiding recidivism, but preventing people from engaging in behavior that leads to these crimes.
Capital punishment or physical mutilation as a means to punish people for these crimes is a non-starter. The first and very simple reason is that innocent people are convicted of these crimes all the time. Who takes responsibility for the murder or mutilation of an innocent person wrongly convicted? What sort of punishments should RickW or alive receive for supporting a heinous crime against an innocent victim? By your reckoning RickW, it's an eye for an eye. By your own "logic" your unreasoned instinct for revenge makes you an inhuman animal who's behavior has done irreparable harm, and you must be eliminated for the safety of society.
What's more, while capital punishment will remove the threat of recidivism by a particular individual, it does nothing to address real prevention. It does nothing to address all the unreported sexual crimes that take place in society, the number of which many studies suggest far out number actual convictions of the few predators who are caught. A focus on preventative medicine and public health, which includes a significant commitment to preventative mental health care, would save society an enormous amount of money that is otherwise spent on fixing the harm mentally damaged individuals cause when left to their own devices. And that monetary savings is next to inconsequential to the harm reduction to society by preventing victims of sexual crime.
Killing the perpetrators also does next to nothing for the victims. Healing requires time and proper mental health treatment. What's more, the best service society can provide is to prevent victims in the first place. That doesn't occur with capital punishment.
Finally, dealing with those who have committed sexually criminal behavior, has to involve a level of manditory treatment. While apollyon blithely concludes that medicalizing criminal behavior undermines the foundations of our justice system, sexually deviant behavior that victimizes large numbers of our citizens undermines the safe functioning of our society. A failure to deal with this problem properly will lead the public distrust of the institutions responsible for them. An idealistic theory of justice isn't worth anything if it fails in actual practice.
So instead of approaching this problem like an unreasoning animal, or like a fantasizing idealist, perhaps it would be better to look at what actually works, and begin implementing solutions based on that.
apollyon
4 years ago
Quote:While apollyon
No more so than exaggerated statements.
alive
4 years ago
Castration is NOT capital Punishment
Can we assume that by "physical mutilation" we are talking castration?
Offenders are aware that they are "driven"; they do not wish to rape anyone!
What drives them is testosterone!
remove the scource of that hormone and you have a happy camper who no longer is "driven"!
How do I know: a distant relative was castrated and became a good, productive and happy member of society.
It was at a time when one could choose between a life sentence or voluntary castration.
Why not offer that choice here and now?
zulu127
4 years ago
Let's get to the root cause.
GWest....the paper you referenced was very interesting in many ways. The one point that stands out for me though is that male offenders are categorized simply by their acts and attitudes. The female sexual offender categorizations include personal histories.
Why is it that we hold males directly responsible for their actions regardless of their histories and hold females' histories responsible for their actions.
Excerpt from the paper about female offenders:
"The teacher/ lover offender most typically grew up in an environment of verbal and emotional abuse. Most offenders classified as such have histories of extrafamilial sexual abuse, generally in the adolescent years. In fact, it is not unusual for the teacher/ lover offender to also have a history of sexually abusive relationships with lovers"
"Female sex offenders who are classified as ‘predisposed’ usually victimize their own children, in absence of a male accomplice. These women usually report being sexually abused at very early ages, and for a number or years, by numerous family members or entrusted caretakers."
NO mention of male offenders histories was even considered.
As a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of my much older sister, I can attest to the life-altering effects this abuse has had on my life.
I suspect that many of these men have been abused as well but few seem to want to address this possibility.
zulu127
4 years ago
What to do with female sexual offenders?
Alive.....so sexual assaults are caused by testosterone. This can only lead to the conclusion that female sex offenders should be decapitated since the testosterone that is in these women's bodies in produced only in the brain.
G West
4 years ago
zulu127
Thank goodness someone took the trouble to read the whole thing.
Thanks. Context, background and learning is, as always, a vital part of understanding and that's exactly why 'ethical' considerations can't just be swept under the carpet for cheap and bloody expediency.
The sad part is that I have a strong suspicion the incidence of these crimes is likely to go up as pressures upon family life increase and more cheap fixes are tried and rejected without ever addressing the real root causes of deepening disintegration.
Good luck!
alive
4 years ago
very funny
Castration can be accomplished chemically (as you well know)
thanks for the joke
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
sex offenders are like us
Anarcho wrote: "I have been saying this for years. The reason why such a sane approach is lacking is in part due to the sick notion that misbehavors need to be punished, a relic stemming from authoritarian religion. Another aspect, also stemming from authoritarian religion, is the concept of free will. In this case the sex criminal is treated as though he freely choose to commit his act in the way we freely chose to buy an icecream. This is of course, rubbish."
This is an interesting but confusing comment. Anarcho, are you arguing that 1) there is no such thing as free will, whether we are talking about sexually assaulting someone or merely buying an ice cream, or 2) buying an ice cream is a matter of free will, but sexual assault is not?
Might I suggest that there is no one who truly does not believe in free will. At an abstract level, we find it easy enough to recognize that each person might be completely determined phenomena, a collection of molecules unable to deviate in the slightest from its single inevitable life history that unfolds moment by moment. But we seem incapable of actually thinking that way about ourselves (and even about most other people) in real time and real life. We keep deliberating over decisions (shall I apply for job A or job B? shall I order in pizza or Greek?), regretting past decisions (as if we could have done otherwise), talking about "choice," commending people for their achievements, being offended when others treat us as if we're predictable, etc. We keep posting comments on online forums, and do so (I suspect) with the assumption that our interlocutors are persons able to think and genuinely decide, rather than under the assumption that they are computers who might spit out the desired programmed response if our comments happen to constitute the right verbal code, or that they are like the family dog that can be commanded and emotionally manipulated but with which we cannot reason. (continued in next comment)
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
sex offenders are like us (continued)
(continuing from previous comment)
Perhaps all these assumptions could be subjected to many books' worth of critique, but I think they do approximate our everyday outlook concerning ourselves and close acquaintances. And why do we think we have a right to have a different attitude toward people who have broken a criminal law, including sex offenders? They are not primarily ill people to be treated, technical problems to be solved, dangerous persons to be incapacitated, dangerous animals to be liquidated, or case files for cabinet committees to examine. They are people like us. Like us, they have life histories and belong to social webs that influence what they do. And like us, they also have a space for choice, are responsible for their choices, and morally deserve punishment when they do evil. And like us, they are not write-offs once they have offended, and remain as fully human as anyone else who would lay claim to that name. They are like the self-castrasting offender in the Washington Post article GWest pointed out, a man who felt he couldn't stop his behaviour by mere mental effort but who felt guilty about his offences and who deliberately chose to try another solution (gotta admire his courage if not his method).
So all the above may be very idealistic and say nothing practical about the real conundrum that Rafe and commenters are addressing. But "finding a solution" for the practical and real problem of "protecting society" (btw, why does everybody always think it's acceptable to make this the #1 priority?) is not important enough to make it worthwhile to dehumanize offenders by medicalizing their conduct, denying their free will, or adopting policies that primarily objectify them. If you're willing to dehumanize yourself and your friends by truly applying the same analyses and policies to your own "normal behaviour," then perhaps such approaches to criminal justice would be coherent. Until then, let's be more consistent in our thinking about the people in jail and the people in the mirror.
G West
4 years ago
Thank you Joel
I'm glad someone read 'both' articles and I appreciate your considered and thoughtful analysis of the problem of being 'human' and 'humane' at the same time.
Not to speak to anarcho's offering - he's more than capable of clarifying what he said himself - I think that there is a very fine line in the average North American's perception of what constitutes 'justice'. Some excellent work in justice and penology had been done in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands.
All too often the ideal of ‘justice’ can be substituted, with none of the necessary conditionality and 'distance' from both the victim and the 'criminal', with another concept: Vengeance.
Much appreciated.
joanna Gallivan...
4 years ago
Get to the root!
I agree with Rafe that the existence of violent sex offenders is our fault. I would say though, that the root lies in our patriarchal society & it's emphasis on, and encouragement of male power (aka male violence). Rape and other forms of sexual violence are conscious demonstrations of power and social control - not illness that can't be helped. If a solution is to be sought, how about starting with looking critically at the system that produces the violent offenders, rather than continually searching for more band aid solutions?
James Burns
4 years ago
The #1 Priority
Joel Kropf, I don't recall anyone saying that the protection of society is the most important priority. Society is a nebulous concept next to real individuals. It is the protection of the rights and freedoms of all individuals that make up the concern over how to deal with sexual offenders, including the offenders themselves.
But yes you're right when you say a lot of your commentary is very idealistic. You dismiss medical treatment as dehumanizing, yet you extol the utterly abstract notion of morally justifiable punishment when a human being does "evil". Exactly what forms of punishment are not dehumanizing pray tell? Or do you intentionally avoid that particular conundrum so as to prop up your idealism with convenient and utterly empty abstractions, letting the lack of definition lend you an illusory moral high ground? It's much the same tactic Bush likes to use when talking of evil-doers and being hated for "our freedoms". It's just babble and it does nothing to address real problems in a fashion that is even remotely effective for offenders, victims and the rest of society.
The whole point of a mental health approach is to first recognize the humanity of all those involved, and find treatment solutions that enable the greatest balance of harm reduction for everyone. It's about what works, not about feel good airy-fairy notions of I'm human, you're human, can't we all just get along, kumbaya.
RickW
4 years ago
settebello, et al:
Never said such at all! Being "reasoning" animals, I hold that those who commit acts of depravity do so voluntarily and with full understanding of their acts. These acts are committed in full deliberation.
They are, in short, sociopaths. As such, they are not deserving of any sort of sympathy, and can only deserve to be dispatched. They have forfeited their "membership" to the club we call humanity.
Save your sympathy for the victims, not the perps! But I can see that are not inclined that way (just like the legal system, which considers victims as "losers" and empty shells to be summarily discarded - probably because there's no money in it)
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070726_161005_9580
I canonly reiterate:
Victims first! Perps last!
G West
4 years ago
Where do we start?
The problem, at least a big part of it, is that today's Perps were almost always yesterday's victims. I know it is a bit of a conundrum but I don't think that part of the issue can, or should be ignored.
Certainly, the way the dominant culture has treated groups like the First Nations can't be ignored as a causative factor in their interface with the 'justice' system and the Campbell government's fascination with mega projects and games while child poverty is largely unaddressed must also play a role.
If we want to address mental health issues and the dominance/submissive nature of much sexual deviance I don't think simply addressing the Perps as monsters is getting us very far.
I don't have the answers, but I'm certain removing their human rights altogether is not going to create well-modulated personalities - either in respect of their own lives or others.
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
punishment, humans, etc
Thanks for your kind comments GWest. I must admit, though, that as James Burns discerned, my views on punishment may well be at odds with those of most people on this thread. James, you asked what forms of punishment are not dehumanizing. Well, many forms are not. To speak of punishment generically, when I was a child and received a spanking from my dad, that was not dehumanizing. When I had to serve detention time in school, that was not dehumanizing. These are of course trivial forms of punishment compared to, say, imprisonment, which I have not (yet!) had to experience. But that would not be dehumanizing either, provided it shared the characteristics of these minor punishments: 1) being meted out as something that I deserved by virtue of my conduct, and thus taking me seriously as a rational, choosing agent, and 2) being meted out with interest in my future well-being.
Whether a given form of punishment is dehumanizing is in some respects a cultural question. For much of Western history corporal and capital punishment were not dehumanizing (it is seriously questionable whether the latter could avoid being dehumanizing in a culture that does not believe in an afterlife or reincarnation). They key is the message sent in the handing down of the punishment and in its ongoing administration: it must take seriously the offender's ability to think and decide, and it must not be unconcerned with the offender's present and future well-being (i.e. it must not be done solely to incapacitate him, as if he were merely a germ to be quarantined).
(more in next comment)
dorothy
4 years ago
root cause, right...
"If we want to address mental health issues and the dominance/submissive nature of much sexual deviance I don't think simply addressing the Perps as monsters is getting us very far."
I couldn't agree more, but there was someone who recommended that we get to the root causes, and I think there is at least a beginning here, to do with the dominance/submission theme. How often do simple functions in our society not involve elements of coercion. Exchanges that should be ruled by rationality and pragmatism, a simple quest for efficiency and liveability, carry within them a load of adversarial garbage, where one party aims at pounding the other into the floor-boards mentally speaking. The put-downs we meet with 'out there' also infiltrate our homes and schools, in fact everywhere we go, unless we put up a formidable battle for civility. Our culture finds it a good joke to ask, where does the 400 pound gorilla sit - where he pleases, hee, hee. We are endorsing bullying and overpowering as a social norm here. Nothing less than a shift in our cultural tectonic plates will improve the situation. Sexual abuse of children and other defenseless members of the community has not been a feature of every society at all times, so there are obviously lessons to be learned from those who do things differently and see different results.
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
more punishment, humans, etc.
To continue: James, you also suggest that references to "evil" conduct, "morally justifiable punishment," humanness, etc. are "babble" and "feel good airy fairy notions," in contrast to finding "what works" and is "effective." Your claims are unconvincing partly because people have been talking about "getting to the roots of crime," "treating" it "effectively," and using our "scientific knowledge" for a very long time, with little actual delivery of any "improved results." (In fact, this comment thread could in many respects have been written in 1893, 1922, 1956, 1977, or 2007.) It has turned out, surprise, surprise, to be rather perplexing to know how to fix people (or fix social structures) to make them stop being bad, or how to come up with systematic, large-scale methods of preventing them from being bad in the first place. I assure you that Canadians were very gung-ho about "mental hygiene" and mental health in the 1920-1970 era.
Furthermore, what if we were to find some really effective way of preventing crime or recidivism? If it meshed with our sense of human dignity, we'd probably be delighted, but if it didn't, we'd have a quick reminder of why those abstract notions matter to us. I'm of course not saying anything original here -- pop culture has explored this stuff often enough. I haven't seen A Clockwork Orange, but I hear it makes the point effectively.
(more in next comment)
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
I'll shut up soon
As we continue to look for healthy and effective means of crime prevention, it turns out to be best to stay solidly grounded in the meantime in the humanizing notions of choice, responsibility, desert, and punishment. And to return to my original point, one of the reasons why we should maintain that outlook with respect to offenders is because that's how we think about ourselves. If it's tempting to think that talk about the human dignity that flows from belief in free will is nothing but fluff, consider how any of us would feel if other commenters on this thread began analyzing us as an objectified problem to be solved. They could investigate the "causes" of our odd views or annoying verbal demeanour; they could speculate upon our diet, social life, hormones, or IQ, try to track down info on our life history to figure out where we went wrong, and begin drafting a comprehensive plan to reshape us more "effectively" than by the slow and unpredictable process of trying to persuade us to choose to act differently and giving us our deserts when appropriate. If we're not keen on others taking this approach to us in everyday life, then we should think twice about models of crime prevention or criminal justice that in some way resemble the same approach.
None of this is to suggest that these manipulative attitudes are the kinds of things you're advocating when you talk about "a mental health approach," James. I am suggesting that many of us probably believe in free will, responsibility, and desert more than we think, and that our views of crime will benefit from admitting that.
RickW
4 years ago
G West
The point I am attempting here is that we as humans "pride" ourselves in our reasoning abilities which apparently and somehow separates us from the "animals". But what does something like this really mean? (I suspect it is more empty rhetoric than it is anything else, and is used more to excuse our barbaric treatment of animals)
Wonton abuse, sexual or otherwise, is not a product of reason - ergo, the major differential between humans and animals has been erased. Therefore, reason would have it that perps be treated as we treat animals (which is not very nice at all).
Regarding generational causes of the tendency towards abuse, at some point this "chain" has to be broken, and we don't seem to be very anxious to address this in a serious and permanent manner:
http://www.sanpatrignano.org/page.php?catid=214
And above ALL else, our collective glib response to the needs of the victims leaves much to be desired. We fret over the rights of the perps, but seldom pay attention to the much abused rights of the victims. I doubt that many of us haven't heard of the judge's commentary of a rape case some years back that "...she dressed provocatively, and was asking for it..."
....which only serves to bring me back to my reasoning gambit. That judge, by saying what he said, only reinforced the lack of reason behind the act - which in turn removes the major differential between us and the animals. In essence, the judge acknowledges the perp was operating by base instinct, which, in my example some posts ago, is what the courgar was doing. And we destroyed the cougar..........
James Burns
4 years ago
Belief isn't truth
Joseph this about sums up your problem:
Simply believing in something doesn't make it so. Simply believing that corporal and capital punishment aren't dehumanizing ignores the real effects that those behaviors have on their victims and society. You do understand that right? You can believe in the tooth fairy, but that doesn't make it real. Religions are constructed on elaborate fictions that people believe literally, and those literal interpretations cause endless amount of trouble in the world.
It's only when our beliefs approximate reality that we are able to understand how to engage the world effectively. That doesn't mean we will, it just means the potential is there. Otherwise we get lost in useless and frequently harmful superstition that only works in a random fashion. Harming ourselves or others by repeating a behavior, because we simply believe it to be right, is the epitome of stupidity.
You say:
Yeah well there's a big difference between commenting on a thread, and raping children. Not all behaviors are by dint of being called "behavior" the same thing. You seem to have a distinct problem understanding that concepts and words are not the same thing as reality. They are abstractions, short-hand to enable communication, but they aren't even close to the actual things they describe. Details matter, context matters, simply saying "I feel like I have free will, and because I behave in this way must mean everyone else feels and behaves this way." is spectacularly ignorant, arrogant, and fundamentally wrong.
As for mental health, well this may come as a shock to you, but things have progressed mightily since the more than century old "mental hygiene" of bygone areas that was suffused with religion and pseudo-science. You're also almost 40 years out of date with your Clockwork Orange references. You clearly don't have a clue about modern methods of mental health treatment, yet seem to feel a few movies and firm belief in your point of view is sufficient to dismiss their efficacy.
Belief in a free will has been around for quite a while, but that doesn't seem to have effectively dealt with the problem of sexual offenders and the harm they do to society.
G West
4 years ago
Well......
In actual fact we're probably not that far apart. Clearly there are some 'personalities' who aren't capable of picking up the baton again and becoming useful members of the human race...on the other hand, do some research on the Loeb and Leopold case. Everyone, at the time, called for the death penalty for them too.
I know we're doing a bad job for victims and perps and I think other jurisdictions can teach us a lot...as I pointed out above. Creating a prison culture where a good proportion of the young men and women end up spending decades in prision - as happens now in the States - certainly isn't the answer.
In the end, I suspect the real key is to create a culture where families and children have at least as high a priority as the bottom line and the next Olympics.
That's in the hands of Gordon Campbell and it's pretty obvious where his priorities lie.
By the way, I wouldn't have killed the cougar either...
Cheers.
alive
4 years ago
declaw the cougar!
If you knew that the cougar would be living close to kids, would you have de-clawed it?
That is the idea of treating people with an extra high testosterone level! just like declawing a dangereous animal!
Nobody seem to have a problem if people with a low hormone level gets treated, but heaven forbid that we interfere with those who have the misfortune to produce excess levels!
I have followed this dialogue with interest and notice that it has once again become a forum of one-up-manship amongst posters to see who can confuse a simple issue the most.
G West
4 years ago
One up manship?
Don't see it that way at all.
And it is NOT a simple issue. If it were just a question of "convicted criminals" deciding to put themselves under the knife or voluntarily submitting to chemical 'alteration', it might be. And, by the way, what do you propose for women who abuse young boys? Will hormone therapy help solve 'that' problem too?
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
arrogance and more
James, I agree that it can indeed be arrogant and highly erroneous to assume that everyone else feels and behaves like oneself. But in the case of free will, I think it is more arrogant to assume that I am free, rational, and responsible, but that some others are not. To assume that I am intelligent and able to deliberate logically, to strategize and plan and come up with effective policy ideas, and to do so without straying into morally objectionable methods, while those other people do not possess these capacities of rationality, agency, and moral responsibility, but simply need to be improved by the techniques that I or other intelligent people have devised, is deeply arrogant, and a far worse option than to assume that others are just as much free agents as I am.
Of course, it might be possible that all of us are equally *not* free agents, with free will being non-existent. As you rightly say, believing in something (like free will) does not make it true. But I will keep harping on the same theme: it seems impossible for any of us actually to think and act as if we ourselves did not have free will. I challenge you to try: no more thinking of yourself as a subject, no more taking your own thoughts or values seriously as something that you can adopt, discard, or modify, no more deliberating over any future action; you are only allowed to observe yourself as an object (but you can't plan or try to figure out how you're going to go about observing yourself, because that would involve the delusional assumption of the ability to choose between future options). And you wouldn't be willing to treat most others that way either -- probably not on a comment thread, but certainly not face-to-face. I dare you to try treating your friends as if they are interesting human specimens to be figured out, predicted, and controlled. In short, if we are incapable of living as if we and those we are close to are not free agents, and if we do not have outside proof that we are not free agents, then it seems inconsistent and disrespectful not to take "those other people," whether they be sex offenders or no, very seriously as free agents too.
James Burns
4 years ago
Get a clue
Rationality, agency, moral responsibility, and you forgot empathy, are all capacities that people have to varying degrees, like some people are tall and some vertically challenged (in other words stumpy). Where behavior is concerned all people also have superstitious irrationality, base drives (hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, etc.), addictions, sexual proclivities including orientation, and a host of other emotional and behavioral quirks based on genetic endowment and learned experience. Certain people, I'm sorry to say, despite your protestations to the contrary are very damaged individuals, who, usually due to some combination of personal trauma, genetic endowment and substance abuse are incapable of functioning rationally because that capacity is overwhelmed by other ingrained behaviors and/or neuro-chemical malfunction.
And yet again you demonstrate you don't have a clue as to what mental health treatment entails by stating it means treating people as "interesting human specimens to be figured out, predicted, and controlled." Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do you insist on wallowing in ignorance?
In fact, why all the attention to free will anyway? You seem to mistakenly assume that a mental health approach to treating sexual offenders denies that they have a free will. Treatment enables offenders to be aware of, control and avoid behavior that would otherwise lead them to re-offend.
You seem to be more concerned with believing in the existence of free will than in any discussion of how to effectively deal with the problem of sexual offenders. It seems like you're just using it as a red herring, by defining free will as something good and then creating a false dichotomy, by placing it in opposition to mental health treatment which you define in negative terms (clearly in utter ignorance of what treatment entails). If you don't have even the slightest inkling about what treatment entails, why are you bothering to argue against it?
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
mental health
James, as for mental-health treatment having "progressed mightily," I am not suggesting that it has not improved its capabilities over time. But at least with respect to the criminal sphere, it currently is far from being a panacea of available techniques that can solve our problems and "root out crime." Actually, mental-health professionals have always been pretty realistic and humble about what they can and can't do. But non-practitioners invoking psychiatry and other mental-health techniques as a solution for criminal justice (whether the positivist criminologists of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries or the various lay commentators in decade after decade since then, especially pre-1970) have tended to be much more misguidedly optimistic, repeatedly claiming that scientific techniques will allow us to reduce crime substantially, but rarely offering any concrete details identifying what those techniques might be. Kind of like your posts here, which do not give any concrete info about which mental-health techniques might prevent sexual offences or other crime. That does not mean that you do not have specific info in mind; if you do, it would indeed be very interesting to hear about it.
As you suspect, I am not knowledgeable about current methods of mental-health treatment (as for "modern methods of mental-health treatment," do you think that the methods of a century ago or 40 years ago were not "modern"?). I do have a little knowledge and perspective (although so far rather limited) on the history of criminology, psychology, and penology over the past century. But although in one sense I am being a little polemical against a certain type of scientific or psychological perspective on people, I am not trying to suggest that mental-health specialists and psychologists are not intelligent or have not made important findings. Most of them are humble and realistic, and few if any of them have any interest in dehumanizing people. As for the *efficacy* of mental-health techniques with respect to sexual offences and crime, I am sure that you would believe that efficacy is a matter for empirical investigation. If you have empirical evidence of the striking efficacy of mental-health measures that criminal-justice authorities or other government authorities have simply failed to implement so far, by all means share it with us.
Joel Kropf
4 years ago
clues, etc
Oops, I posted that last comment before seeing your immediately preceding post. I am not claiming that mental-health treatment necessarily boils down to "treating people as 'interesting human specimens to be figured out, predicted, and controlled.'" I used this latter phrase as a description of the opposite of treating people as if they had free will. If mental-health treatment proceeds on the assumption that people *are* free agents, and seeks to enhance their ability to function healthily and happily as such, then that's all to the good. And I have no doubt that at least many mental-health practitioners do indeed approach things that way.
Quite obviously, I *am* "more concerned with believing in the existence of free will than in any discussion of how to effectively deal with the problem of sexual offenders." I do not believe that in criminal justice sexual offenders are first and foremost a "problem" to be "effectively deal[t] with" (they do pose technical problems to be solved, but that is not what they are first and foremost). I realize that for the purpose of this thread you are primarily interested in the question of instrumental efficacy in dealing with these practical problems, and that is obviously not a bad thing to be concerned with, if it does not assume ultimate primacy among one's concerns about criminal justice. But your recommendations have real-world implications for criminal justice: you've called for "a level of mandatory treatment" for sexual offenders, and you've also called for unspecified preventive mental-health initiatives, which if implemented would be a matter of concrete public policy. Moreover, holding out mental-health initiatives as *the* solution in criminal justice (though I don't think you're trying to do this) has philosophical implications, which themselves point to further and even more serious real-world policy options. So both philosophical and technical considerations are going to end up mattering greatly.
Finally, at the level of motivation, my own interests in this topic are in large part (and probably quite obviously) ideological, which in some respects is less than admirable, since this issue concerns real people's lives. In my case, assumptions and beliefs related to my commitment to tenets of Christianity play a large part in my ideology (although it is possible that the ideas I have been promoting could in fact be quite wrong from a Christian perspective). Actually, based on your comments in this forum over the last few years, you too would seem to have a constellation of suppositions and value judgments that shape your viewpoints on specific issues, and that you *care* about greatly. This is a very good thing. It's part of what makes us human.
alive
4 years ago
read it in the archives!
There you go again, trying to distract a simple issue by dragging in topics that may be important but are unrelated.
Hormone treatment would stop the "drive" that cause certain males to offend, can we just stick to that statement?
We have gone head - to - head on this subject before, and you can no doubt dig back in the archives and read all my post on the subject, meaning you are merely grandstanding for new posters.
Sorry: I do not have the time or energy to cater to your need for attention.
James Burns
4 years ago
No panacea
Nothing is a panacea. Obviously, engaging in comprehensive mental health treatment, particularly for the mentally ill, is a small part of a solution to a rather large set of problems. Baseline needs like food and shelter have to be met as well.
At the same time you can't deal with each problem in isolation. Simply giving someone who is mentally ill shelter can be counter productive if they proceed to neglect or destroy that shelter due to their mental illness.
Moreover, the best and most lasting way to help people, is to help them help themselves. But again, when dealing with the mentally ill there are a huge set of additional problems depending on the degree of their illness. Above all, no change, particularly on a societal level, happens overnight.
But my interest here was dealing specifically with sexual offenders. Integrating a comprehensive mental health treatment scheme into our current system of criminal justice would go a long way to preventing recidivism and to helping the victims of sexual crimes. As for prevention, I firmly believe mental health treatment should be a front line form of available health care. As it stands now, treatment requires family physician referral, and they are already overworked and usually poorly equipped to deal with mental health issues. More importantly the nature of a family physician's practice encourages rapid patient turnover to maximize billing. You can't deal with mental health issues in that fashion.
In place of real universal mental health care we have a patchwork of often bizarre and always expensive forms of "treatment". And they are usually only available to those with lots of disposable income.
As for my "ideology" I'm not into "isms" particularly not religious ones. People, particularly the religious it seems, have a tendency to get sidetracked from dealing with pressing problems because some aspect of a solution doesn't conform to their religious world-view, particularly the more delusional aspects. For example, many religious people would rather see someone put to death for a crime, because if that individual is innocent they will receive their "true" eternal reward in the "afterlife". That is the epitome of delusional thinking.
G West
4 years ago
Of course I know
Of course, I know what you said then and that you're saying the same things now. I'm being entirely consistent in my response. I keep a copy of everything I write on this forum - filed according to date and interlocutor. You don’t very much like anyone questioning you or asking for supporting arguments once you’ve made your mind up about something, do you?
You think this is a 'simple' problem that can be addressed in a simplistic way and you don't seem to give a damn whose rights are stomped on or what ethical considerations are ignored into the bargain. Would that be unfair?
I don't agree and I don't think the statement you've highlighted above is very useful without a lot of codicils and qualifications. There may be a very few cases - like the creature who castrated himself in the WaPo story - that give the appearance of providing a 'solution' to their problems but I'd suggest even in his case any evaluation of the results would tend to be fraught.
Furthermore, the little I've had to say about it on this thread proves conclusively that it's not me who's looking for a fight.
Cheers.
RickW
4 years ago
G West
At least you are consistent.
Right now, "justice" consists largely of throwing a dart at the board, and deciding that day how to treat criminal behavior -- then throwing said dart the next day, and quite possibly reversing the previous day's so-called 'decision'.
Justice (as opposed to mere legal decisions) is much too dangerous to be left in the hands of politicians......
alive
4 years ago
about the "rights" of a criminal
Fair enough, I see a simple solution, and wonder why everybody avoids talking about it.
I get the feeling every male here has a phobia about loosing their masculinity?
Castration, in whatever form, is not a panacea, but it is likeley to prevent a lot of repeat offenses, and also reduce the anxiety these released offfenders cause in society.
If indeed an offenders rights are stomped on, so be it!
He is a criminal and society should be allowed to do whatever it takes to prevent repeat offences (short of hanging).
I entered this debate reluctantly, because previous encounters showed me the intensity of emotions whenever the idea of castration arose, yet I feel it is necessary to point out that the issue has one simple solution, that "we" obviously are reluctant to even discuss.
G West
4 years ago
Rick W
I certainly have no argument with that!
RickW
4 years ago
alive
It is my understanding that, if a eunuch takes testosterone injections, he can "feel like a man" again, and do the rape & pillage thing that evidently "real men" like to do............at least while the injections are in his system.
alive
4 years ago
Possible!
Quite likely!
Proves my point as I see it!
Testosterone is the "devil" in this dilemma, if "we" can stop the natural (over)production in these men, then at least they would have to find ways to obtain the hormone and deliberately make themselves capable of a crime, and it could of course be part of his sentence to stay clean.
This discussion was about what to do with the offenders:
1/ We could send them off to a deserted Island as some Lepers were?
2/ We could kill them?
3/ We could jail them forever?
or 4/ we could castrate them and at least remove the reason why they offended?
Should one or more castrated men try to find a way to offend again, maybe we should go back to idea of killing them?
I have no sympathy for criminals, but I do recognize that a hormonal disorder is a curse that happens to some otherwise good people; let us cure them!