Sexual violence is one of the most inhuman acts that most criminals commit. It entails non-consensual physical abuse in the form of rape and torture that often leaves victims scarred for the rest of their lives. The criminal justice system has tried and continues to try to address the punishment surrounding sexually violent predators in the United States (Sorrentino et al., 2018). According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 786,000 people are registered as sex offenders in the US as of 2023 (RAINN, 2023). However, various states have begun to initiate policies that try to address sexually violent predator’s punishment, even after serving years in prison. For instance, various states have initiated policies that allow civil commitment of sexually violent predators. Prior to this, civil commitment mostly applied to people who have mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction. However, sexual predators have since been added to the list and warrant more commitment even after serving their time. This essay argues against the civil commitment of sexually violent predators, arguing that there is a better alternative that couples reap better results.
Arguing Against Civil Commitment
As mentioned, civil commitment entails the court-ordered institutionalisation of an individual suffering from mental health, drug addiction or alcoholism (Cornell Law School, 2020). This court-order institutionalization is promoted with the idea that people suffering from the mentioned conditions are harmful to society. However, sexually violent predators have also been added to the list in various states (17 in total). They will hence receive the same kind of treatment as the others in this category. These states include Florida, California, Texas, New York, Washington, Minnesota and Kansas, among others (Sorrentino et al., 2018). However, there are various notable consequences of initiating civil commitment. For instance, the issue of reentry to society will be more cemented if this is initiated. Incarcerated sexually violent predators already face the issue of reentry into society in various ways, including probation restrictions, parole requirements, mandatory check-ins, and, most importantly, the requirement to register as sex offenders. This limits various options, including securing a decent job, even after being properly rehabilitated (Sorrentino et al., 2018). Proposing civil commitment will even invoke stricter conditions, completely limiting their second chances in life from their mistakes removing the sole purpose of the prison system, which is rehabilitation.
Additionally, initiating civil commitment will also increase recidivism. This entails the relapse of convicted criminals into criminal activities, which takes them back to prison again. There are various factors that promote recidivism, including the inability to gain stability, lack of housing and proper jobs, and lack of a proper support system (Janus, 2018). Released convicts who face such challenges are likely to retreat to their previous criminal activities and get incarcerated again. Civil commitment will also promote the same factors and hinder them from gaining stability in their lives (Janus, 2018). As previously mentioned, the goal of the prison system is to rehabilitate criminals as they reflect on the crimes they have committed and how to change. However, civil commitment denies them a chance to reintegrate into society. This will, hence, likely increase their recidivism. Although they may not commit the same sexually related crimes, they are more likely to commit petty crimes, which will lead to the violation of their parole and, ultimately, lengthy prison sentences.
Furthermore, civil commitment is also initiated on the basis that they can predict future behaviour. In this case, the states that passed bills associated with civil commitment were on the grounds that sexually violent predators are likely to relapse to their old ways, the same as drug addicts, alcoholics, and mentally unstable people (Janus, 2018). However, statistics show that this has not been the case. According to a study conducted by Public Safety Canada, the results indicated that most sexual offenders do not re-offend a second time. Their study showed that over the past 15 years, 73% of sexually incarcerated people who were released from prison have not committed the same crime again. (Janus, 2018) In fact, 100% of them had not committed any crime or violated their parole requirements. Therefore, this research is a clear indication that the prediction of behaviour is a flowed reliance on data when dealing with sexually violent predators. The media is often preaching the need for a second chance, and the prison system serves just that. However, initiating the civil commitment policies will hinder these people from getting a second chance (Janus, 2018). It also operates on the basis that sexually violent predators will likely commit the same offence after they are released from prison. This limits their legally given options of a second chance and merely continues to punish them further even after going through the entire legal and prison system.
Another key and fundamental reason why this essay advocates against civil commitment is the actual ineffectiveness of the whole policy. Although the states that have initiated these policies argue that the goal of commitment is rehabilitation, critics suggest that others have used this opportunity to punish, isolate and incapacitate sexual offenders (Jonathan, 2021). In addition, critics also argue that the money allocated by the Treasury to civil commitment could be used in better ways that actually prioritise rehabilitation. For instance, investing in evidence-based research on the underlying roots could better address the problems associated with sexual violence and prevent them from happening in the future. However, civil commitment has done little in this regard and continues to involuntarily commit people who have already served their time (Jonathan, 2021). It has also acted as an abuse of power, especially towards people who may not pose a significant threat. In addition, such kinds of isolation and punishment have been found to increase anxiety and depression among predators, creating more mental health damage to such people.
Alternative Rehabilitation for Sexually Violent Predators
As argued, civil commitment is an ineffective approach towards addressing and rehabilitating sexually violent predators. It is also notable that studies have found that there are various underlying issues that have promoted these people to act in such a manner. These include childhood trauma, being victims of sexual violence themselves, early exposure to pornography, substance misuse, psychopathy, brain abnormalities, and hormonal imbalances, among others (Kahn et al., 2021). This then creates a sensitive and complex nature of the causes of such behaviours, necessitating the need to address them in various ways while promoting rehabilitation instead of promoting civil commitment. For instance, organizing community-based treatment has proven to be an effective rehabilitation and reentry technique for incarcerated people. This is done by creating community-based treatment where the predators receive therapy while engaging with the community and are still under supervision. This helps them get a good supportive system and better re-integrate into society without the feeling of isolation, intimidation and ridicule (Kahn et al., 2021). The long-term effects have proven successful, as they are able to get back to their normal lives and change their behaviours.
In addition, promoting intensive psychotherapy is also an alternative rehabilitation solution compared to civil commitment. Specialized psychotherapy programs for sexually violent predators enhance cognitive behavioural therapy that helps address underlying issues. As mentioned previously, such predators have underlying issues, including physical and emotional trauma, abuse, and early exposure to pornography, among others. This creates an illusion of sexual urge that can only be satisfied through sexually assaulting an individual (Kahn et al., 2021). Hence, through cognitive behavioural therapy, psychologists can understand their underlying issues and how best to address them in regard to their urges and predatory behaviour.
Another alternative rehabilitation solution is initiating restorative justice programs. This involves creating a platform where the offender, victim, the immediate family and friend and the community come together. The goals of this program are to promote accountability, create a healing platform for the victims to express themselves, and find a common ground of re-integration that seeks forgiveness (Kahn et al., 2021). Through dialogue and restitution, both parties are able to move with their lives, as forgiveness plays a big part in removing the chip from each other’s shoulders. However, it is essential to note that these programs may be sensitive to address, as victims would rather not face their predators. However, it could work if the victims have taken the time to make peace with their situation and are willing to face their previous aggressors. The long-term repercussions will be forgiveness, initiating a dialogue about sexual abuse and its causes, and how to go about the victims defending themselves and potential aggressors seeking to help others before committing the crime.
Conclusion
In conclusion, sexual violence is an inexcusable crime, and its aggressors should face the maximum available punishment according to the law. This is because the victims face a life-threatening and changing ordeal that scars them for life. With that said, the prison system is supposed to act as a rehabilitation centre for the aggressors, as studies suggest there are numerous underlying measures for their crime. However, civil disobedience, which is the involuntary detaining of people with certain conditions, should not be a priority for sexual aggressors. This limits their ability to fully rehabilitate and reintegrate into society as changed people. There are numerous alternative solutions that could help the aggressors change their ways, successfully re-integrate into society and change their lives without necessarily prioritizing civil commitment.
References
Cornell Law School (2020). Involuntary civil commitment. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/involuntary_civil_commitment
Janus, E. S. (2018). Beyond Strict Scrutiny: Forbidden Purpose and the “Civil Commitment” Power. New Criminal Law Review, 21(3), 345–378.
Jonathan, S. (2021). Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. In Governing Risks (pp. 279–294). Routledge.
Kahn, R. E., Jackson, K., Keiser, K., Ambroziak, G., & Levenson, J. S. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences among sexual offenders: associations with sexual recidivism risk and psychopathology. Sexual Abuse, 33(7), 839-866.
RAINN. (2023). Perpetrators of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN. Rainn.org. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
Sorrentino, R., Brown, A., Berard, B., & Peretti, K. (2018). Sex offenders: General information and treatment. Psychiatric Annals, 48(2), 120-128.
write