New York adopts tough sex offender laws

[Dominique]

Ok the following article discusses the move of New York to pass a civil confinement law so that they can hold sex offenders indefinately after they have completed their sentence. I thought it would be an interesting discussion point, but please be warned it contains descriptions of disturbing and violent crimes

www.smh.com.au/news/world/tackling-sex-offenders/2007/03/10/1173478712201.html

My opinion is that I wholly support New York's decision, an the similar decisions of 20 other American states. The article says sex offenders have a low chance of reoffending, but when you read about one of these awful crimes so many times they have a criminal record. People like that are a danger to society and often, I think, permanently mentally ill. I normally don't support the death penalty for anyone, but reading about some of these crimes I'm not so against it at all for those people.

Anyway sorry if anyone thinks it's a bit too gruesome or sensitive a topic for discussion, but I think it's interesting to see how people's own usually firm beliefs and moral stances about rehabilitation and the death sentance are put to the test when looking at the options the government has available for such horrible crimes.

Also it ties into a previous discussion about the death penalty.

[zeldafitzgerald]

Wow, interesting article.

I'm not yet sure how I feel about this. I am completely against criminals who are still dangerous and likely to strike again being released back into communities. Having these people, many who have not changed and are angry from all their time in prison, back out in the world is terrifying.

But it's a tricky topic because I am not in favor of our law enforcement abusing their power and confining people after they've served their time with no trial. I guess I'm hoping that people get sentenced correctly - I don't think sex offenders should only get 10 years. And murders should always receive a life sentence. I guess I would want a jury to decide (in the beginning, during the initial trial) what will happen at the end of the term. If they have to then serve time in a lower-security prison, or mental institution. It needs to be set in place by a jury though, or it could lead to an abuse of power.

I have a friend whose brother is currently in jail, and has been for 10 years because of statutory rape. He did not know the girl was not 18, but the girl's dad pressed charges. A careful system has to be in place so that people like him (who is technically a sex offender) do not serve beyond their time.

I also HATE when people receive lesser sentences because they plead insanity. Perhaps they were insane....you almost think they'd have to be to do some of these things. But that doesn't change the fact that they committed the crime, and they need to be punished accordingly - mainly for the sake of the world - so they don't get out of the institution after a short while and commit more crimes.

[Dominique]

I wouldn't be in favour of it if it was possible without a trial, but apparently they can only be detained after they've finished their sentance if a judge or jury recommends it for the safety of the community, so as long as this remains in place presumably only violent rapists or peodophiles would be detained afterwards.

I agree with you about the insanity thing, but perhaps under this new provision if you plead insanity you might be likely to be detained in some kind of institution after your sentance is finished anyway? Not sure but it sounds like a possibility because the argument for the new provision is that some of these sex offenders are mentally ill.

I don't believe that sex offenders should only get 10 years either, for the majority of them it's not a sentance that's proportionate to their horrible crimes. However, I do think your friend should have received a more lenient sentence from the sounds of things.

[zeldafitzgerald]

Oh good, I must have read that wrong. For some reason I thought that they DIDN'T have any kind of trial.

The justice system in the US is incredibly flawed. Sex offenders get let out early on parole, because the jails are so full. Well, the jails are so full because our drug laws are so strict - you get caught with drugs and you get a long sentence with NO parole.

Obviously, drugs are a problem, but it seems like having tougher laws for sex offenders than people caught in possession of drugs is just common sense. This is just for simple possession of drugs too - not talking about if you killed someone because you were driving under the influence of drugs or something - that's a different story.

[Dominique]

That's a difficult issue with the overcrowding of jails due to drug offenders. I guess it's like you said, drug use is a serious issue but it's sentances shouldn't exceed the sentances for those who commit violent crimes.

I think it's different here, in a lot of Australian states the possession of small quantities of cannabis and cultivation of defined numbers of plants has been decriminalised (but not my state). In these jurisdictions, expiation/infringement notices can be issued by the police when a person is found in possession of a small amount of cannabis or growing a defined number of plants. Payment of the expiation or infringement notice fine means that the person avoids going to court and the possibility of a criminal conviction.

It's still criminalised in my state, but it doesn't carry very heavy sentances.

What kinds of sentances do they give out for drug possession there?

We have had a rise of the use of ice in the area, which has lead to some pretty violent and random attacks on people at night clubs because someone was so drugged up they went completely mental. Pretty scary. There is a big crackdown on our night club area this week due to an increase in drug related random bashings. Everyone has been warned not to be out on the streets in the area after 12am, not that that happens because nightclubbing is obviously pretty popular.

[Kristie]

I'm not quite sure what I feel on this topic yet either. I'll probably have to do more research before I can come up with a strong attitude. That was a very informative article, and I had no idea this was happening in the US. All I'd really heard on the sex offender topic was having pink license plates, like the DUI plates are yellow. I think that this system isn't going to work very well, but I do think it will be more efficient with a trial after the initial sentence. Every case is different and therefore every case needs to be handled differently. I think that, while it's still wrong, a simple rape isn't as bad as a rape and burying-alive. I agree that it's stupid the drug crimes get more time than sex offenders, because they're not really the same at all. If the death penalty is used in these cases of sex offending, I think that it should only apply to those who are killing their victims, just as usually murderers are the criminals receiving that sentence. I don't really believe in the death sentence, not for the feeling that it's wrong, but because it's an easy way out for the criminals.

Thanks, Dom, for bringing up this issue. I had no idea anything of this kind (the laws and such) was happening, in the US or Australia.

By the way, the insanity plea is used in less than 1% of felony cases in the US. It's not as widely used as the media would make it out to be.

[Dominique]

you're welcome

I had never heard of the license plates idea before, that sounds a bit strange. I didn't know you have different coloured plates for DUI offenders either. We don't have anything like that over here.

[zeldafitzgerald]

Another controversial thing about the drug sentences is that they are incredibly strict on even first time offenses. I read once that first time offenders receive at least 3 years, no parole. I can't remember if that was in the entire country, or just a certain state. I would like to research this at all.

Kristie - that's very interesting that it's only less than 1% - I guess it just seems like many of the attention getting cases have the criminal pleading insanity. One case comes to mind of that woman who killed all of her children. You probably ARE not all there mentally if you kill all your children, but it doesn't mean that you should get to avoid jail.

[Kristie]

O yeah, I remember that case. She definitely had to be a little cuckoo to do that to her kids. Didn't she drown them in the tub?

[Dominique]

zeldafitzgerald said:

Another controversial thing about the drug sentences is that they are incredibly strict on even first time offenses. I read once that first time offenders receive at least 3 years, no parole. I can't remember if that was in the entire country, or just a certain state. I would like to research this at all.

I think here it can be up to 2 years and or a fine. So obviously it's usually less than two years or just a fine, probably depending on how much of the drug they have in their possession and how hard the kind of drug they have is.

A minimum of 3 years sure is a lot. Seems a bit out of proportion if the person just has a couple of grams of pot on them especially since it's in a lot of young people's nature to experiment.

[Dominique]

zeldafitzgerald said:

One case comes to mind of that woman who killed all of her children. You probably ARE not all there mentally if you kill all your children, but it doesn't mean that you should get to avoid jail.

I think we've had some similar Australian cases to that one, this woman here killed all her children not long after each of them were born. It was sad that social services or something hadn't worked out it was happening and allowed it to continue for so long.

[Bina]

There are many cases like that over here. Women killing their children, men running amok and killing their whole family and rapists getting off again and again. It seems like people went nuts even more often in recent years or maybe it´s more in the media than it used to be.