Sex Offenders: The Law, the Community, the Solution

The term “sex offender” has societal weight behind it that is presupposed to a sense of repugnance and disgust. However, such broad terminology doesn’t give full credit to the nature of such a crime, and furthermore doesn’t demonstrate the real problem that it presents within the local community. It is the purpose of this paper and our group presentation to specify what this term means, and how prevalent this problem is within the local community. This paper will also focus on the task of what to do with this problem, and the plans/initiatives undertaken by local and state legislators to handle the problem.

Before we continue, an adequate definition of what a “sex offense” actual comprises is essential. The definition of sexual offenses is typically subjective in nature, and varies upon region and cultural acceptance of various sexual acts. However, as far as this paper is concerned, it will be focusing on the traditionally accepted legal definitions of sexual offense. Thus, sex offenses will from here on out be regarded as those crimes in which coerced or forced sexual interaction is placed upon one individual by another individual, or group of individuals. These include the status quo of legislation that regards the following as acts of sexual offenses: rape, lust murder, sexual assault, sexual abuse, incest, child pornography, voyeurism, child-sexual abuse, and generally sexual harassment. These crimes share a commonality that they are either violent, exploitative, disregarding of mutual consent-or amongst these display sufficient disregard for socially accepted sexual behaviors, i.e. incest.

In recent years, the Broome County area, and in particular Binghamton has seen a rise in the numbers of convicted sex offenders amongst its population. According to City Councilman, Anthony Massar, the city of Binghamton houses more sex offenders per capita than any other city in New York1. The answer to why such an influx of sexual offenders has occurred is unclear at the present time. Less than a year ago, city officials sent a request to Albany demanding the state to cease from sending released sex offenders to the area. However, the response has been marginal at best; as the numbers of convicted sex offenders continues to grow in the area.

The current laws regarding sexual offense in New York State are outlined in the Sex Offender Registration Act (New York’s version of Megan’s Law). The law was signed by Governor Pataki in July 1995, and subsequently became effective on January 21, 19962. The law specifically deals with sex offenders whom have already been convicted, and forces them to register with state registry offices. A court designates individual sex offenders on the basis of their overall risk to the community, a designation that ranges from (1) -low risk, to (3) -high risk. The court also specifies whether or not the offender in question is a “sexual predator,” “sexually violent offender,” or “predicate sex offender” 2. A sexual predator is determined upon mental instabilities, abnormalities, or personality disorders as well as other criteria. A sexually violent offender is one who is found guilty of violent sexual crimes, i.e. rape or lust murder. Finally, a predicate sex offender is an individual convicted of previous sexual offenses. More information regarding the Act itself and clear-cut definition for all applicable terms are available at the website for the Division of Criminal Justice Services of New York State.

Since we’ve now established clear-cut definition in regards to what we’re going to be discussing, the next issue is approaching what significance this problem plays in daily events in the local community. Indeed, the problem of sexual offenders in Binghamton, NY has gained some national attention in recent years. In May 2005, Binghamton made national headlines by initiating an outright ban for all Level 2 and 3 (moderate and high risk offenders respectively) from living in or entering an area within a quarter-mile radius of any area designated for use of children. This includes schools, playgrounds, parks, day care centers, and any other area that run a high risk of convicted offenders coming into relatively close contact with children3. Subsequently, a class action suit on behalf of a group of sex offenders in the area has been filed against the law. However, this bill (amidst much controversy) has sparked many other communities to enact similar ordinances.

So how pertinent is this problem in Binghamton? According to the most recently available statistics of violent crimes in the area, there were 22 rapes in the city of Binghamton for the 2004 year. This number equates to 47.4 rapes per 100,000 people-putting Binghamton significantly higher than the national average of 32.2 per 100,000 people4. This is in conjunction to an overall crime rate that sees Binghamton significantly above the national average. In Broome County alone, there are almost 400 registered sex offenders; 76 of them designated as high risk to the community5. When compared to other counties of comparable size and similar socio-economic factors, this number for Broome County is extraordinarily high.

Clearly there has been a demonstrable problem with an influx of sex offenders into the area. Legislation has hitherto attempted to not only provide justice for those that commit crimes of a sexual nature, but also attempt to prevent their recurrence by those previously convicted. The Binghamton ordinance that has limited the mobility and proximity of convicted sex offenders has stirred much controversy since its inception. Much of this debate has come from the American Civil Liberties Union, and its branch affiliate the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU has requested that a federal court reject the local ordinance put in place by Binghamton legislators, citing that the local government has enacted laws that conflict with state laws and policy. However, Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed the case since Binghamton has repealed the ordinance6.

Other criticisms of harsher laws, particularly those regarding indefinite detainment or confinement for long periods of time, have risen from civil libertarians, mental health associates, and criminal rights’ activists. The Pataki-Silver sex laws, which were created as an attempt to further confine and detain chronic sex offenders, have been accused of posing a more problematic threat to the situation rather than a viable solution. The law asserts that chronic sex offenders can never be rehabilitated, and thus after serving their prison sentences would be mandated to spend time in a mental health institution for an indefinite amount of time7. Civil libertarians see this as a violation of the convicts civil rights, while mental health specialists have criticized this as an unjust linkage between sex offenders and the mentally disabled7.

Other areas in the broader community have attempted to address the situation in a similar respect. The village of Endicott passed a law last summer which stated that moderate and high level sex offenders living in apartments within a quarter mile of schools, day care facilities, parks, and playgrounds, have 60 days to move from the premises or face a fine of $1,000 and/or 1 year in prison. Up until recently the law wasn’t enforced due to the reaction similar legislation created in Binghamton (see above). According to officials, it is estimated that the law would prohibit moderate and high level sex offenders, “from living in roughly 80% of the village” 8.

A fundamental question as to whether or not sex offenders are capable of rehabilitation is still being pondered by local officials and to a greater extent across the nation. Instead of the more punitive approach, some advocate pursuing a therapeutic method of rehabilitation. The problem, advocates of this solution admit, “âÂ?¦it’s hard to prove that treatment works” 9. The inherent problem with treating sex criminals and attempting to rehabilitate them is that it is a life-long process that may never demonstrate any real, tangible, productive results. So far, evidence concluding that such treatment programs actually work have been skewed, underpowered, or show minimal results. A study involving 11 states that do hold such programs revealed that only 8% of those sex offenders receiving treatment were less likely to commit another sex crime10. Conversely, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, 13% of sex offenders will commit another serious sex crime once they are released9.

Other options for dealing with the problem posed by sex offenders have approached a more drastic-and permanent-alternative to the problem. A legislator in Virginia has proposed a bill that, if passed, would give convicted sex offenders the option of either being surgically castrated OR spend an indefinite amount of time in a mental health institution10. A little background information is necessary to evaluate such a proposal. First, in 1999 a law was passed in Virginia that stated after a prison sentence, sex offenders deemed a viable risk to the community could be forced (upon a Judge’s approval) to remain confined indefinitely in a state mental health facility. The problem with this is that it is extraordinarily costly-costing the state $300,000 a year for each individual10. State legislators and politicians have come out in support for castration as a more fiscally feasible solution and alternative to detaining convicted sex offenders for indefinite sentences. Under the law, the sex offenders would still serve their actual prison sentences, but instead of potentially being forced to remain at a mental health facility-they could have their freedom if they chose to undergo a surgical procedure in which their testicles were removed (which leads to a decrease in testosterone production)-thus helping sex offenders mediate their cravings10.

These types of proposals have shown widespread support amongst nationwide polls. Recent studies have indicated that the public is in support for harsher penalties for sex offenders, including lengthening sentences for sex offenses, and even the potentiality of castration. That of which should be of no surprise to anyone; much criticisms has arisen in response to this particular proposal as well. Civil libertarians have questioned the constitutionality of such a punishment, citing that the United States’ Constitution under the 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”

There are other criticisms beyond constitutionality. Health officials have cited the medical futility of such a procedure for sex offenders due to the myriad of reasons that can lead an individual to commit sexual offenses. Often times, sex crimes have nothing to do with sexual urges, but rather an affliction for violence, a determination for domination, or a complete lack of conscious due to anti-social behavioral patterns. Lowering testosterone, opponents say, would simply utilize an invasive, cruel punishment with long-standing effects that does little-if anything, to deter future sexual offenses. Also, it should be noted that surgical removal of the testicles isn’t the only means of reducing testosterone production; but rather, prescription drugs can obtain the same ends through less invasive means10.

Virginia is not the only state that has touched upon requiring stricter punishments for sex offenders. Three other states have already enacted laws (while constitutional debates continue on) that permit castration as an alternative for chronic sex offenders. The question then must be applied at the local level. Before such a plan could ever get serious consideration at the national level, it would first pass a test at local and state levels to see how such an experimental punitive measure would deal with the problem. Binghamton and the local area have yet to propose any serious ordinance in regards to going as far as castration.

Throughout this paper we’ve addressed some of the issues surrounding sex offenders and their heinous crimes, in relation to the local community. However, we’ve yet to address the begging question of “what causes sex offenders to commit such acts?” This is a universal question that requires deep analysis and research. However, much research has been conducted as of yet to try and arrive at an answer to this monolithic question. To understand the behavioral complexity of a sexual offender, one must differentiate between causations and associations; this is crucial in formulating objective, factual understandings and solutions to the causes of sex offenders. From here on out, we must reject non-verifiable or subjective assertions as to what causes sex crimes (for instance, saying a woman dresses provocatively is not a cause for rape).

There are numerous causes that make an individual lash out in such a way as to commit a sexually deviant crime. Such behaviors are traditionally categorized into four different sections of psychological imperatives that allow them to act in such a manner. First, is the learned behavior category. These individuals were abused (sexually or otherwise) at some point in their youth in which they were subjected to the humiliation, deprivation, and submissiveness of being a victim of someone else11. Conversely, when they reach adulthood, they understand the power that dominating someone in such a way may yield, and they typically view the world in such a fashion. For instance, it’s either to dominate OR become dominated12.

The second reason an individual may commit a sexual offense is due to some point of deterred or arrested development within his psyche. This could be manifested in a number of disorders or diseases that inhibit one’s understanding of right from wrong. Indeed, if psychological treatment was a possible alternative to handling sex offenders, this category seems to be the only demonstrable group in which a physiological/psychological impairment would render such treatment as useful in any way.

The third category of sexual offenders are those whom demonstrate a similar mindset to those whom act upon learned behaviors-but have not yet been abused by another; but rather, act in such a way to create one’s own sense of self-worth11. These individuals traditionally suffer from severe low self-esteem, are plagued with insecurities, and must focus their energies on dominating others simply in order to make themselves feel adequate.

The fourth category stands in contrast to the aforementioned notion of those acting on behalf of low self-esteem. These individuals hold a grandiose vision of themselves and often times act in ways in which they feel they have the power and authority to force themselves on others. Such high-levels of self-esteem can result in violent behavior that can lead to rape, sexual assault, or battery. This is a relatively new understanding behind sexual offenders-who were often only believed to be acting on low self-esteem. These individuals constitute a great number of the sex offenses committed by loved ones. Often times, narcissism can turn violent when a sense of praise has been altered or neglected, or their position of perceived greatness threatened by another individual12.

These are merely psychological understandings that have attempted to pinpoint the most universal causes for sex offenders to act in such a way. This doesn’t conclude that all individuals with low self-esteem or narcissisms are sex offenders; nor does it mean that all sex-offenders will fall into said categories accordingly. These are only the leading theories out there to attempt to categorize severe psychological impairments that may foster violent or sexually criminal behavior.

As we move forward, what does the future hold for the community and the state in its dealings with sex offenders? Recently, amongst much scrutiny and praise, Governor Pataki has proposed yet another law regarding sex offenders that would possibly make it the toughest such law in the country. When the New York State legislature conveyed their version of what has been called “Jessica’s Law,” Pataki rejected this and favored adopting a law similar to the one put in place in Florida. Recently, the fervor that has surrounded taking up stronger legislation against sex offenders, particularly in the area, has led to an expansion of Megan’s Law as well as the proposals for Jessica’s Law. Adjustments were made to Megan’s Law that would require convicted sex offenders to remain on the registry longer and other ways of monitoring them13.

The new Jessica’s Law seems to be getting massive amounts of approval throughout the state. This could possibly be a result of the excruciatingly punitive measures that would be placed on sex offenders. It would mandate a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison to any convicted sex offender committing a felonious sex act against children; it would also raise the age limit for which violent crimes towards children has been limited to (it’s currently children under 11, under the new law it would be under 13)13. Other provisions that have made the legislation increasingly popular include a mandatory life sentence for any sex offender causing the death of a child during a sexual assault, and an overall increase in the sentences for all sex offenders, but particularly any involving children13.

In assessing a possible solution outside the realm of public policy that has already attempted to address the issue; our group has come to the conclusion that the efforts of society in addressing this issue rely on complexities that extend far beyond our own comprehensions. To this extent, we can only propose (critically) those positions which we feel, based upon our research and the content of this paper, may present a viable alternative to the problem of sex offenders poses in contemporary society. The current system of using a state registry is only the beginning. The nature and intent of the crimes committed by sex offenders, once proven guilty that is, is not of a condition that should be approached with sympathy or a future hope of rehabilitation. We feel it is in the best interests of society, the community, and the welfare of all citizens to take a harsh, punitive approach to such criminals.

To what extent does society owe these types of individuals? Surely by engaging in the social contract of citizenship one may expect to be treated in a civil and humane way. However, whereas sex offenders are concerned, they have obstructed the sense of justice and rightness of society, and are no longer protected by such contractual constructs that typically protect convicted criminals. Essentially, the current system of rating sex offenders based on their previous crimes, the severity of said crimes, and the frequency (if any) of such crimes should continue with minor alterations. The question then becomes what is to be done with these individuals. This is a difficult question to answer in such constrained pretexts.

Surely we can understand the heinous nature of sex crimes, particularly those involving children; with this in mind, such punitive measures that invoke justice to react to such revolting acts of inhumanity are required to sustain equilibrium within the justice system. As is the case with any serious criminal, sex offenders should be dealt with in three ways in which to assure they pay the full price for their crimes. Punishments should be swift, severe, and certain. While these may not enact the desired reaction towards those sex offenders acting on extreme anti-social impulses, enforcing a punishment that entertains these three qualitative characteristics should help deter future offenses, as well as providing a sense of justice to those who’ve behaved incorrectly.

On the issue of swiftness, it is imperative that a punishment be deliberated, dealt out, and enforced within a reasonable limit if any expectations of determent are to materialize throughout society. A sense of immediate justice is imperative to establishing a societal position that ingratiates the public (and potential sex offenders) that such behavior will not be tolerated. If sex offenders are allowed to sit in prison cells awaiting trial then it becomes unclear whether the justice system takes their actions with any sense of seriousness or not.

Secondly, justice accepts the principle of culpability; in which any punishment seeks to utilize harsh sanctions in the prevention of future infractions as well as conveying just actions in response to criminal behavior. Sex offenders, regardless of their rating, should expect the utmost severe punishments for their actions. Committing crimes that exploit the weak, vulnerable, and defenseless should render punishments that are appropriate in their response to such crimes. Indeed, in concert with the other principles of employing a set of solutions to the problem of sex offenders, severity plays a significant role in the future deterring of potential criminals.

Thirdly, it must be established within any criminal justice system that punishment is certain. Delaying trials, allowing numerous appeals, and other procedural technicalities that infringe upon the handling of criminals in an effective manner only impinges on societies abilities to respond to such criminals. Sex offenders must be certain that there are penalties for their actions. By employing the certainty of punishment in the case of sex offenders, all those who violate the legal code regarding sex crimes will understand that there are definite consequences they will face when they commit an act of coerced sexual aggression or exploitation.

So what penalties/sanctions could be utilized to deal with this problem, that offer a swift, certain, and severe punishment for sex offenders? To those sex offenders deemed moderate to high threats to society, they should remain indefinitely incarcerated in maximum security labor penal colonies as a form of punishment. Sex offenders could then be utilized to act in constructive ways to promote public works-as well as keep them off the streets and avoid the temptation of committing sexual acts again. If, for any reason, that a convicted sex offender is eventually released into society-he (or she) should be monitored in a way that utilizes global positioning technology, as well as mandatory surgical castration to prevent his ability to act in a sexually aggressive/exploitative manner ever again. This would be difficult legislation to propose, much less ever hope of passing, so it is only tentative. However, its purpose is to demonstrate that stricter, more effective laws regarding sex offenders are in order.

With laws such as Jessica’s Law on the potential horizon, it’s easy to see that protecting children (and punishing those who’ve hurt them) has become a serious priority in New York State-and to some extent many other parts of the country. The local community has mirrored such sentiments in trying to create laws that better protect children. Such legislation even took prominence during the recent Mayoral race last November-as candidates discussed what to do with the current sex offenders within the area, and what the future of sex offender legislation held for the Binghamton and surrounding area. We as a community can only hope that we can find a solution to the problem of criminal exploitation and sexual assault of children. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in a serious manner; there are no easy solutions outside simply shooting them (although crude, this would solve a great number of problems). The problem present forces us as a community to protect itself, and advocate on behalf of children against such predators. This is a severe social ill that must not be allowed to continue in any community, whatsoever.

End Notes
1 Joseph, Bob. “Frustration Rising as Binghamton Sex Offender Population Grows.” 2006. WSTM-NBC3. 26 Apr. 2006. .

2 “New York State Sex Offender Registry and the Sex Offender Registration Act.” 2004. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services. 26 Apr. 2006. .

3 Koch, Wendy. “Despite High-Profile Cases, Sex Offenses Decline.” USA Today Aug. 2005. ProQuest. Newsbank Article. Glenn G. Bartle Library, Binghamton, NY. 27 March 2006. < http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-24-sex-crimes-cover_x.htm>.

4 “Binghamton NY Crime Statistics and Data Research.” 2004. AreaConnect. 25 Apr. 2006. < http://binghamton.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm>.

5 “Registered Sex Offenders by County.” 2006. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services. 25 Apr. 2006. .

6 “NYCLU Urges Federal Court To Reject A Binghamton Law That Would Banish Sex Offenders From City Limits.”2005. New York Civil Liberties Union. 22 March 2006. < http://www.nyclu.org/binghamton_sexoffender_pr_070705.html>.

7Karlin, Rick. “Call to confine assailed – Civil libertarians, others compare
plan to indefinitely detain chronic sex – offenders to Rockefeller Drug Laws.” The Albany Times Union. 7 March 2006: A1.

8 Pauling, Dena. “Endicott to Enforce Sex Offender Legislation.” The Press & Sun Bulletin. 24 Jan. 2006: 1B.

9 Heath, Brad. “Advocates Try to Prove Therapy Works.” The Press & Sun Bulletin. 11 February 2001. ProQuest. Newsbank Article. Glenn G. Bartle Library, Binghamton, NY. 27 March 2006.

10 Helderman, Rosalind S. “Surgical Option Used for Sex Offenders.” The Washington Post. 7 February 2006: B5.

11 Langevin, R., Wright, P., & Handy, L. “Characteristics of Sex Offenders.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2.3 (1989): 227-253. Taken from Ebscohost. Lexis-Nexis.

12 “Sexual Offenders.” 2005. An Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection. 22 Apr. 2006 < http://www.aardvarc.org/rape/about/whowhy.shtml>.

13 “Gov. Pataki Proposes One of the Strongest Laws in Nation to Impose Tough, New Penalties on Child Molesters.” U.S.
Federal News Service. Jan. 2006. Proquest. Glenn G. Bartle Library, Binghamton, NY. 8 March 2006 .