So, for the record, I'm absolutely against sex crimes of almost every variety. Fuck it, I'll go so far as to say every variety. That's how strongly I feel about this subject. That said, this story bothers me.

First off, there's the whole Canada angle. I mean, fuck Canada, am I right? Second, the name Karla Homolka isn't exactly the easiest to pronounce. And finally, I find the idea that the government would convict and sentence a criminal, even one whose crimes are as heinous as Homolka's, allow her to serve that sentence, and then effectively extend the sentence to be really, really upsetting.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case or illiterate and therefore unable to read the article for yourself, Homolka and her husband were convicted of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a number of teenaged girls. The details of the case are really quite grotesque, but let if suffice to say that the couple are really, truly fucked up. Homolka's husband is serving two life sentences but, as a result of a deal made to testify against him, she's going to be let out of prison in July. This is especially upsetting to Canadian authorities because, after the trial, videotapes of the abuse surfaced which proved Homolka totally complicit in the crimes and also rendered her testimony against her husband unnecessary. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

The crux of the argument being made by the Canucks is that Homolka is liable to do something like this again. The same argument is made in the US all the time, and is the basis for the well-publicized Megan's Law. If you don't watch America's Most Wanted and haven't heard of the law, it requires all sex offenders register their address with the state. It also provides citizens access to these registries. For kicks, here's a link to California's database.

The success of the law in crime prevention terms is unclear. This source suggests that the law has had little to no impact, but I'm sure advocates and opponents could lob statistics back and forth for days. One thing that is clear is that, whether for fear of vigilantism or a naive desire for privacy, a significant number of offenders legally compelled to register don't. Even conservative estimates say that more than 20% of convicts are unregistered.

The underlying issue is what's really difficult: Can sex offenders be reformed? I feel as though the prevailing attitude in our society is no, but our laws still read as though they can. For example, the average rapist or child molester serves about five and a half years.

If we as a society believe that sex offenders cannot be reformed, we should put them in prison forever, or execute them, or chemically castrate them, or hospitalize them, or throw them into the ocean in a burlap sack. If we believe they can be reformed, we should make them serve their time and release them back into society. I think it's irresponsible to release them and then stigmatize them in such a way that prevents whatever rejoining of society we claim to hope occurs.

Ultimately, this isn't only about sex crimes. It's about our justice system. Is it one of reform or containment? Personally, I think it's the latter, but we make ourselves feel better about things by claiming to believe in reform.

I realize that this post was light on jokes, so here's a good one on topic:

A child molester and a kid walk into a forest. The kid looks around and says, "It's really dark in here, and I'm scared." The child molester says, "You're scared! I've got to walk out of here alone!"

Analogcabin @ 2:06 PM
Permalink |