Connect with us

The Sentinel

Opinion: What if sexual offenders didn’t get a second chance?

Opinion

Opinion: What if sexual offenders didn’t get a second chance?

Forty-seven-year-old Kirk Fu­gelseth is being recommended for release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in St. Peter, and Moose Lake, Minnesota. This man ad­mitted to molesting more than 30 children between the ages of 3 to 14. After his first conviction for mo­lesting two Oregon boys, he was convicted again in 1997 after admitting to molesting his girlfriend’s 9-year-old daughter. Studies show that repeat sex offenders are more likely to repeat the of­fense even after going through treatment programs, and having jail time, and Fugelseth is just another example of someone repeating criminal activity even after prior convictions and jail time. Most rapists also have a 46 percent conviction rate for new, non-sexual crimes, as well as repeat offenses according to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There have been a lot of cases in which a guilty person was let free, or once they were re­leased from jail time, they repeated crimes. Now, I know we can’t be fully sure what someone is going to do, but by seeing statistics we know it’s a pretty high chance that a criminal will have repeat offenses.

Personally, I am a strong be­liever in second chances, and I understand people make mis­takes. But the mistake of sexu­ally assaulting someone? That isn’t a mistake. And it doesn’t deserve a second chance. A criminal could know “If I do this, I may get a few years in prison- but I will get out.” And of course they don’t want that- but they do know the punishment isn’t permanent. If we had the strongest possible punishment from the start, people would be stray from committing the crime in the first place. If you knew from the start, “If I commit this crime, I’m going to be in jail for the rest of my life,” you may be a bit more cautious about whether you should commit the crime or not.

A graph from Statistics from Justice Department, National Crime Victimization Survey: 2006-2010 and FBI reports shows the alarming percentag­es. The majority or rapes aren’t even reported, and then of those reported, hardly any are jailed. And of the jailed ones, a large amount repeat the act. If tempo­rary jail time isn’t stopping the crime repetition, what will?

Proven rape convictions need a stronger punishment in order to deter rapists.

2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    October 9, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    I totally agree that anyone who has been convicted of a s_x offense and been through treatment should be confined for life if they commit another s_x crime. Beyond that, the author does a poor job interpreting USDOJ, BOS reports.
    Rapists always have the highest recidivism rates of all s_x offenders and are not representative of the whole. The author gives the impression they are, as well as leading the reader to assume that when she writes ". . . but by seeing statistics we know it’s a pretty high chance that a criminal will have repeat offenses." There is no excuse for that statement, or the intimation that it is a repeat s_x crime. In the "Recidivism of S_x Offenders Released from Prison in 1994", 68% of non-s_x offenders were re-arrested vs 43% of s_x offenders for any type of crime. For s_x crimes, 5.3% of all s_x offenders were re-arrested for another s_x crime, 3.3% of child molesters for another s_x crime against a child. California S_x Offender Management Board reported more specifically on types of crimes. 3.55% committed another s_x crime, 4.57% for a non-s_x felony, and 35.48% for technical violation of probation (non-s_x, non-criminal).

  2. Anonymous

    October 9, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    As to under-reporting, the Besserer and Trainor (2000) study that was used in an attempt to discredit statistical studies because not all were reported, said 59% of those who did not report said the "assault" was not important enough. It was also noted a touch on the buttocks in a crowded area was counted as an assault. While any sexual assault is reprehensible and a crime, the admissions by the authors certainly dilutes the impact of non-reporting on statistical studies. While on the subject, the Iowa County [prosecuting] Attorney's Association issued a statement condemning residency restrictions. In it they said they are finding fewer reporting after residency and notification laws were enacted because of the ramifications for the family of the offender. Under-reporting is real, no doubt, but it is over-reported.

    And determent is easily overridden by passion, which is always present in a s_x crime – just like murder in spite of the death penalty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More in Opinion

To Top