The Caution Approach To Sex Offenders
British courts have trouble taking sex offenders seriously, the London Telegraph reports this morning. Over 1600 cases of pedophilia and 230 cases of rape have resulting in nothing stronger than a warning, rather than formal charges and jail time:
Thousands of sex offenders including paedophiles and rapists have escaped with cautions rather than being jailed over the past five years.A nationwide survey of police forces conducted by the BBC found that 1,600 sex offences involving children and 230 cases of rape were dealt with by the use of cautions instead of formal charges, which could lead to a fine or a prison sentence.
Another 350 cautions were given for sex crimes involving victims under the age of 13, while cautions were also handed out for offences of bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sex with animals, incest and sexual grooming. ....
But police forces and Government agencies insisted that the use of cautions did not mean that sex offenders were being “let off” rather than facing trial. They insisted that the cautions would still be noted on a criminal record and that those cautioned would be placed on the sex offenders register.
British police have used cautions where the laws enter a gray zone. For instance, when two teens have sexual relations and one is slightly under the age of consent, they feel that a caution is more effective than a prosecution for a sex offense, That would certainly have been the better option for 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson of Georgia, sentenced to 10 years not for sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old girlfriend but for oral sex -- which Georgia uses as a tripwire offense for pedophiliacs.
The approach has its theoretical merits. The caution forces people suspected of sex offenses to comply with notification provisions usually imposed on offenders when released. It provides a measure of oversight when people refuse to press charges for various reasons against their attacker.
However, this won't work in the US. The state has to convict someone before forcing them into a notification program, which requires a trial and the presentation of evidence. In fact, it's not even clear whether this program actually protects anyone from pedophiles, but rather lets people off the hook from prosecuting them. The existence of the caution certainly could motivate victims to keep from going to court, a way out of testifying and reliving their experience. False accusations could become easier to make and also easier to make stick, since theoretically the accusers could avoid trial.
For those who really have been let off from serious crimes, as the shadow Home Secretary told the BBC, it will be interesting to see how much recidivism Britain sees from the cautions. I suspect it will be near 100%. If so, the British people will eventually force an end to it and demand trials and convictions for sexual offenders. Let's hope that they don't wait until an avalanche of new victims has to stand up and demand change first.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 11, 2007 6:18 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (9)
Posted by The Yell | June 11, 2007 7:04 AM
I'm getting sick of hearing about Genarlow Wilson, martyr. He had a pot-and-booze gangbang with female children, videotaped it, and still tried to fight for an acquittal. In Georgia. He got ten years prison but I'm afraid that level of dumb is a life sentence.
Posted by stackja1945![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 11, 2007 7:04 AM
The left believe in pretend punishment. If a crime has been committed then punish the wrong-doer. If someone pretends a crime was committed with a false accusation then punish the pretender. Pretend punishment only brings pretend utopia.
Posted by docjim505 | June 11, 2007 8:21 AM
Cap'n Ed wrote:
For instance, when two teens have sexual relations and one is slightly under the age of consent, they feel that a caution is more effective than a prosecution for a sex offense, That would certainly have been the better option for 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson of Georgia, sentenced to 10 years not for sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old girlfriend but for oral sex -- which Georgia uses as a tripwire offense for pedophiliacs.
One would think that our legislators could write a law that would better cover things like this. There's a helluva difference between having sex with a teenager and having sex with a child. The one is a case (most likely) for a firm slap on the wrist; the other is a case (almost certainly) for burning at the stake.
As for oral sex being a "tripwire" offense... Don't tell Slick Willie!
Naturally, we all want children to be protected. We also want people accused of crimes to get due process and, if found guilty, receive a punishment that fits the crime. We ALSO want the rule of law to be respected. It seems to me that meeting these different needs is part of the reason that we have judges and juries and not "one size fits all" laws.
Posted by Sue | June 11, 2007 9:15 AM
There is our future: extreme tinfoil hatted leftist loony approach to serious offenses that hurt people, especially children, for the rest of their lives. We need to do serious research into brain pathology and figure out what drugs we can come up with that can be taken once a year for life to alter the brain of any sexual offender.
Posted by lexhamfox | June 11, 2007 10:25 AM
Sue, Many of these cautions are being used in cases of child on child abuse or in cases where there is no victim of violence, rape, or unlawful sexual conduct of any description.
Hey Doc... oral sex between married adults is still a crime in Singapore.
Cautions are an important tool and I myself received a caution many years ago for something I did under the influence of alcohol. I received a caution instead of being fully prosecuted because I turned myself in at the local police station, I showed obvious remorse for what I did, and because I took immediate steps to reverse/repair the damage caused by my actions. To this day I am grateful that the authorities were able to show flexibility and understanding for my temporary failing.
Posted by Lew | June 11, 2007 11:24 AM
Sue, there IS such a drug and it's been out there for a long time and it works really really well - cyanide!
The problem is that we can't agree on what a "sex offense" is in a simple one-size-fit's-all fashion. If an 19 year old has consensual sex with a 16 year old, is that a crime? According to a strict reading of most state statutes it is, but most people who sit on juries would need a lot of extenuating and aggravating circumstances to get really outraged about it. Maybe imprudent and juvenile but not predatory in any sense.
But suppose you add 20 years to the 19 year old's age, and rerun the scenario? Now you've got a lot more justification for the presumption of a predatory act. Now the defendant has a LOT more explaining to do and any jury is going to look at them with a very jaundiced eye indeed!
Or let's suppose we keep the 19 year old at 19 and add a position of authority or power, like a teacher's aid to the description, and rerun the scenario again. Now is the 19 year old a predator? You bet she is!
The point here is that "sexual offenses" cover way too much ground without much discrimination for the vast variances of human experience. The answer for me is to stop looking to the law for a simple formulaic answer. There probably isn't one out there to be had, and we'd be better off leaving it up to juries to figure out each case on its own merits according the facts of each case. If the jury see's a predatory act, then document it and determine a just response, knowing full well that neither simplicity nor perfection are available.
Posted by The Yell | June 11, 2007 12:19 PM
Lew, one of the functions of law is to provide a formulaic system of right and wrong so that citizens aren't subject to the whims and caprices of a random dozen jurors.
Posted by Lew | June 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Yell,
First of all, juries aren't random. They are selected from the community where the crime was committed and vetted by the adversaries to the issue.
Second, since there is no objective definition of the term "justice" any more than there is an objective definition of the term "Art", how would you decide what it is and how to approximate it in a case where you MUST decide and then live with the eternal results of that decision?
The law provide's guidelines and limits when its properly crafted, but it's never a substitute for the judgment of a jury that brings the moral standards of the community to the question.
And don't forget, a jury can ignore the law. They can set someone free for all time if it reflect's their definition of justice. I may disagree with the O.J. trial jury to the point of abject disgust, but I can never say they didn't do their job as faithfully as they knew how.
If I were a defendant, I couldn't imagine any preference for someone other than a panel of my peers to find justice for me. Would you?
Posted by The Yell | June 11, 2007 5:30 PM
>>If I were a defendant, I couldn't imagine any preference for someone other than a panel of my peers to find justice for me. Would you?
So long as they're bound to follow a statute in interpreting my guilt, no.
If they're free to imagine that I'm more of a threat than a skinnier guy with better teeth and an infectious laugh, then I'll take a judge.
It is certainly possible to have an objective view of a criminal code paragraph.