I believe that there needs to be a more strigent criteria for offenders eligible for treatment programs. Too many offenders are being treated who are not appropriate candidates and will not benefit. This is a waste of time, as well as resources. Holmes, believes that for successful rehabilitation several things are essential. First of all, the offender must admit his guilt. Secondly, the molester must be held accountable for his actions. Third, the offender must be made aware of the possible circumstances that lead to his deviant sexual behavior, so he can detect early warning signs. The molester must also be willing to develop other ways of relating to children in a nonsexual matter (70).
Schwartz and Cellini report that Rosen listed the following criteria for successful
treatment : younger, first offense, no previous treatment failure, high IQ, ability to express self and good abstract thinking, socially well adjusted, depression, shame, disgust, and guilt related to deviant fantasy or action, healthy social environment, married, desire for cure, and a sincere effort to control behavior (8-3 ).
Schwartz and Cellini also report Marcus criteria used to identify potentially dangerous offenders who would be inappropriate for treatment: bed wetting, firesetting and/or cruelty to animals, delinquent acts between ages 8-13; escalation of sex offenses, interrelated criminality with sexual offenses, sustained excitement prior to and at the time of the offense, no remorse for the victim, explosive outbursts, lack of human warmth or humanitarian depth, and lack of social know-how (8-3).
Treatment does not eliminate all sex crimes. At best, there are indications that it cuts the recidivism rate somewhere between 10 and 30% (Schwartz and Cellini 8-3). How does this benefit measure against the cost of treatment?
Prentky and Burgess looked at the cost of treatment in the Massachusetts program that has operated for years in the state hospital in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. They compared 129 child molesters treated in that program and released with a control group of untreated child molesters from Canada (111). In both cases, they looked at charges on new sex offenses in a five-year follow-up. They found that 25% of the treated child molesters were charged with a new sex offense which compared favorably with 40% of the untreated abusers being charged with a new sex offense (111).
Prentky and Burgess also computed the cost for a scenario in which there was a new, detected sexual crime against one victim. They estimated that the cost for investigation, arrest, prosecution and incarceration for an average of 7 years and no treatment for the offender would total $169,029 (113). Expenses for the victim, which included treatment and cure came to $14,304 (113). This assumes one victim. Most likely there were other offenses for which they were not caught. This assumes the person goes to prison for seven years on what might be a second or third conviction. In some states he may go to prison for a much longer time.
This expense was compared with the cost of treating the offender in the Bridgewater program. In Massachusetts prior to 1991, those who were released from treatment were in confinement for an average of five years instead of seven years in prison. It turned out that the cost of treating one offender for five years in the hospital based program was $118,146, which is less than the cost of one new sexual offense which came to a total of $183,333 (113).
The fact is that many studies have been conducted with varying results. The majority show that successful treatment is cheaper than having an offender recidivate. Also, successful treatment will protect society because eventually even the untreated offender will be released from prison. The key however, is successful treatment. As shown earlier, treatment at best is shown to cut recidivism rates between 10-30%. Incarcerated offenders should be carefully screened to determine if they will benefit from treatment . Again, too many offenders are being treated who are not appropriate candidates and will not benefit from the treatment. For example, Brooks reports that for many years the administrators of Avenal, New Jersey s prison/treatment center, have ignored the fact that some offenders will not benefit from treatment and have purported, without success but with stubborn perseverance, to treat hundreds of offenders who leave Avenel completely unaffected by the inadequate treatment provided there (65). Brooks believes that individuals who will not benefit from treatment belong in prison for a much longer duration than what they usually serve (65).
Whether treated or not, eventually offenders are released from prison. Most of those releasedare put on parole, while others are sent to community based outpatient programs. Community based programs are used to treat the offender and protect
society, while the offender makes the transition from prison to freedom.
Schwartz and Cellini report on Nichololas Groth who offered several suggestions for evaluating the dangerousness of pedophilic offenders for purposes of placing them in community programs ( 8-7 ). Groth suggests that the evaluation must disclose (1). How much of the offender s criminal behavior is the result of external situational factors and how much is due to psychological determinates and (2). The circumstances under which the assault occurred and the chances and conditions of recurrence ( 8-7 ). In order to evaluate these questions, Groth says that one must determine: Frequency of offending, appropriate sexual outlets, questionable sexual outlets ( e.g. pornography or prostitution), history of misdemeanor sex crimes, access to victims, and specificity of victims ( 8-7 ). Any drug or alcohol problems should be evaluated and then taken into account.
Family, friendships, and employment also may be major factors in determining risk. An offender with no means of supporting himself, or with drug or alcohol problems is less inclined to pursue or benefit from treatment.
Upon release from prison, treatment, or parole, child molesters are free in society. The 1990 s may be characterized as a time of growing public and political impatience with criminals in general, and with sex offenders in particular. Currently, state legislatures around the country are drafting legislation that responds to the public outrage. Often these crimes are committed by an offender paroled or released from the corrections system after serving their maximum sentence. Washington became the first state to pass a law which notified the community when a sex offender was being released into that community. It was called the Community Protection Act of 1990. After the brutal murder of Megan Kanka, New Jersey s state legislature drafted a series of laws known as Megan s Law which is aimed at protecting the community from sex offenders. Currently, Megan s Law is in constitutional limbo. It appears that certain provisions will pass constitutional guidelines while others will not. Highlights of Megan s Law include: registration of sex offenders, community notification, and civil commitment . Again, all of these proposals are coming under constitutional and civil rights issues.
New Jersey s registration act is the least questionable of the three enactments. New Jersey s Supreme Court and the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals have both upheld their constitutionality.
Law enforcement authorities belief that the benefit to society of registration statues is substantial in that registration helps in the investigation of sexual crimes, establishes a legal ground for detaining known sex offenders who are found in suspicious circumstances, and tends to deter some registered offenders from committing new sexual crimes because they know they can easily be traced (Brooks, 57). Registration takes little time or effort, does not unduly invade privacy, and does not publicly stigmatize offenders or make it difficult for them to adjust to community living, so civil rights are minimally intruded upon (Brooks, 57).
The community notification law is highly controversial. The statue establishes three different levels of notification, based on the degree of risk of further offenses for each individual sex offender (Brooks ,58). The first level is for the lowest risk offenders, and requires only notification to the victims and law enforcement agencies that are likely to encounter the offender ( Brooks,58). The second level is for moderate risk offenders and requires notification only to such community organizations as the Boy Scouts, educational institutions, and day care centers (Brooks, 58). The offenders with the highest risk of reoffending are assigned to level three. This level has generated the most controversy. Level three says that the entire community that is likely to encounter
an offender may be notified (Brooks,58). This notification may take place through the use of posters and placards, and similier material. This level of notification can have a tremendous impact on the offender. Brooks reports that factors considered in placing an offender in level three include compulsive and repetitive behavior, a sexual preference for children, a failure to respond to treatment, or refusal of treatment, a failure to show remorse or denial in having committed the offense, failure to comply with conditions of supervision, and a history of recent threats (59).
The third statue in Megan s Law provides for the indeterminate civil commitment of mentally ill sex offenders who are regarded as too dangerous to be at large even though they have completed prison sentences for sexual crime (Brooks,62). There is only a small minority of offenders who fall into this category. Brooks states that the involuntary civil commitment of violent sexual predators is based on the well-established police power of the state to civilly commit persons who are both mentally disordered and dangerous (62). Especially those with the inability to control their sexual behavior (62).
The registration statue now seems fairly well accepted. There are delays in the community notification statue and the civil commitment statues. The major constitutional argument against these statues is that that deny the sex offender substantive due process of law.
Obviously, there is not a perfect solution to the problem of preventing sex offenders from recommitting crimes upon release into the community. I feel that Megan s Law and laws proposed similar to it are a good idea. However, these proposals are meeting constitutional and civil rights scrutiny.
Brooks provides several suggestions as to how criminal justice systems can reduce the problem of child molestation. He believes that there should be a broad attack on the problem of sexual offenders which should involve issues not yet dealt
with either by legislatures or the judiciaries (65).
Brooks points out that one problem is plea bargaining, which not only commonly results in inappropriately sharp reductions of sentences, but also in serious
sexual crimes being downgraded to non-sexual ones (65). For example, Jesse Timmendeques; Megan s killer, should have received a 30 year sentence for his second sex offense but by plea bargaining served only a 6 year sentence.
According to Brooks, other areas that should receive attention include the tracking and monitoring of repetitive sex offenders who are regarded as dangerous (65). In addition, the practice of giving lenient sentences should be evaluated (65).
My conclusions are that child molesters should receive more severe punishments. Make the punishment fit the crime. Each case should be looked at separately and the circumstances of the offense should be evaluated. Repetitive offenders should be locked up as long as possible. It is my opinion that our safety is worth the cost of locking them up. Repetive offenders who will not benefit from treatment should remain incarcerated for life terms. Recently in the news, a man repeatedly convicted for child molestation said the only way he won t harm any more children upon his release is if he is put to death. I am not advocating the death penalty for child molesters however, offenders such as this cannnot be released from prison. Treatment programs should be offered to offenders, however, offenders should be carefully screened to see if they will benefit from such treatment. It should be determined whether an offender is amenable and motivated to accept treatment. Statues such as Megan s Law are a good idea, however I don t believe that these type laws will withstand constitutional standards.
Finally, the issue of sexual crimes has many dimensions, involving the criminal justice system and the mental health field. An effective approach to preventing sex offenses should involve not only the legislature, but also police, prosecutors, judges, treatment personal, and researchers. All of these agencies must work together to reduce the problem of child molestation.