Alternative Punishments for Sex Offenders
...rson is a first time offender and has no criminal history, the average time served would be twelve years. A second degree criminal sexual conduct conviction carries a maximum sentence of twenty-five years in prison and a $35,000 fine. A first time offender with no criminal history would be out of prison in about 4 years. A third degree criminal sexual conduct conviction has a maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison and a $30,000 fine. With no prior offense, and no criminal history, the offender would be free after four years. A fourth degree criminal sexual conduct conviction carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine. With no prior offense, and a clean criminal history, the offender would see no jail time, receiving a twenty-one month stayed sentence. A fifth degree criminal sexual conduct conviction carries a one year sentence and $3,000 fine. Sentencing guidelines are not applicable here, as it is a gross misdeameanor, and not a felony. Some repeat offenders could get a five year prison stay, and a $10,000 fine. (7) These sentencing guidelines are clearly not enough. The highest offenders are being sentenced to thirty years behind bars, and only serving 12 of them. That’s two-fifths of their sentence. Second degree convictions are worse, with the offender serving only four years on a twenty-five year sentence. An offender receiving a fourth degree criminal sexual conduct sees no jail time unless they make the mistake of getting caught again. (7) Clearly, harsher punishments need to be put in place, and they need to be enforced. Chemical castration is an alternative punishment to prison time, or can be used as well, upon release. Chemical castration is a controversial issue, because it has been seen as ’cruel and unusual punishment’, and no one is entirely sure of it’s success rate. It has been used in the United States since the mid 1990’s. California was the first state to enact a bill using chemical castration. Chemical castration is when a drug ( usually medroxyprogesterone acetate, sold as Depo-Provera) is administered, causing the testosterone level in a man to fall to that of a boy who has not yet his puberty. (Feinstein 6) The argument behind using chemical castration is that men have high testosterone levels. Some studies have shown that testosterone could be a factor in sexual crimes. It is the belief of advocates of chemical castration, that if the testosterone of the sex offender is lowered, they will no longer feel the urge to commit their sexual crime of choice. (6) It is also believed that the castrated criminal would be calmer and more easy to rehabilitate and take their place in society. Also, in several studies done, relapse rates in those that are chemically castrated have dropped from between seventeen and fifty percent to as low as two percent. (6) Chemical castration is also an option because it will help the offender, freeing them of the sexual urges that most offenders wish to be free of in the first place. (3) In the case of chemical castration, it is helping people that cannot help themselves. Many offenders would choose to have chemical castration, if it meant being free of the urges that kept them from being a normal, functioning part of society. However, there are also those that would refuse chemical castration. What would be done with those people? By law, doctors that give involuntary medical treatment can be charged with battery. The forced giving of medication is a violation of the fourteenth amendment that protects against deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process. (Feinstein 6) If this were to become part of the punishment process, the fourteenth amendment shouldn’t apply here. Convicted sexual offenders should not be allowed to choose the type of punishment they want, especially if they are a repeat offender. Opponents of chemical castration say that taking away a person’s ability to sexually desire someone is cruel and unusual punishment. Another argument is that most sexual crimes are about power, therefore decreasing the amount of sexual drive will not work. Also, the side effects that some of the drugs have has been used as an argument against the use of chemical castration.(6) The argument against chemical castration being ’cruel and unusual punishment’ is that the eighth amendment was written to prevent horrific fates at the hands of a vindictive government, not from medical treatments that are given by trained professionals. (6) The only ‘harm’ caused by, in this argument, chemical castration is that the offender has a lower risk of re-offending. It is still possible for the offender to have and maintain an erection, as well as to maintain a sex drive. Chemical castration does not remove all amounts of testosterone from the body, it merely reduces it to a more controllable level. The argument that all sexual crimes are dominated by power, therefore making chemical castration is useless has been proven untrue by studies done in Germany, as well as one at John Hopkins University. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist at John Hopkins University, and an expert on sex offenders said “castration works mainly in those who are sexually aroused by their crime...sadists and pedophiles." (6) Even if chemical castration works only on sadists and pedophiles, it is an option that should be used to the extent that it can be, because the amount of improvement that has been shown by the studies is too great to pass up. Some opponents believe that the side effects of the medication, while relatively low in women, but higher in men, are a reason not to use chemical castration. Side effects include, serious allergic reactions and blood clots that can be fatal. In some cases, the drug was believed to have altered the person‘s state of mind enough to contemplate suicide. (6) Just like any other medication given, in prison or out, if a person is at risk, or shows harmful side effects, either they will not be administered the drug, or the process will be stopped when the side effects show up. Again, with the positive effect that chemical castration has had, it is ludicrous not to give it to anyone, just because some people are not able to take it. As said by Tom Emmer, a first time Republican in Minnesota (which overwhelmingly approved the bill) “"This is not punishment. This is rehabilitation. We're trying to help those who can't help themselves". (McCallum 2) A second option that is currently being discussed in Florida is the life-time application of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices that could alert law enforcement officials if the offender went near a school, park, or home of a child. This bill is being introduced to congress in response to the death of Jessica Lunsford, a nine year old girl who was killed by a registered sex offender that lived near her home. (Johnson 1) There are several good things that could come out of the proposed GPS devices. Knowing where sex offenders are at, at all times would definitely not be a bad thing. Crimes, such as that of the sexual assualt and murder of Jessica Lunsford would be easier to stop or delay. It could also decrease the chances that a sex offender would commit another crime...