Can We Rehabilitate Sexual Offenders?

Posted by Scott on May 6th, 2007 — Posted in Rape & Sexual Assault

Galen Eagle writes about the rehabilitation of sexual offenders. I include an excerpt:

[…]Haley only works with those willing to be held accountable and willing to take treatment. The courts can’t force an offender to take therapy, so they must do so willingly if there is any hope for rehabilitation, Haley said.

“I help counsel them on taking full responsibility for what they have done. The only way these guys can get help and I know our community will be safe is if they take 100 per cent responsibility for what they have done and take the treatment,” he said. “I have no time for an offender who makes excuses.”

Every sexual offender who enters the federal prison system - those serving two years or more - is initially herded through the assessment unit at Millhaven Institution near Kingston.

There they go through a sexual offender risk assessment to determine their level of risk and their treatment needs. They are then dispersed to various regional facilities.

Those who are sent to the Warkworth Institution, as many Peterborough offenders are, come under the watch of Dr. Ed Peacock, a psychologist who has treated sexual offenders for the past 15 years.

With the right treatment, Peacock said Corrections Canada has had high success rates with sexual offenders. The popular notion that pedophiles, molesters and rapists can’t be helped, that they are destined to re-offend, is not what the statistics suggest, Peacock said.

“I would say it is largely a myth. The known re-offence rates or the rates of sexual recidivism are much lower than most people think,” he said.

Read entire article by Galen Eagle.

I like hearing that we can successfully rehabilitate more sexual offenders than often thought. It makes me hopeful.

Of course, we need to actually do it.

Unfortunately, many prison systems throughout the world (especially in my home country, the USA) fail to work effectively. They just throw offenders in cells and let them live with criminals for a certain number of years before releasing them back into the public. If anything, violent offenders come out of prison more dangerous than when they went into prison.

Additionally, these inefficient and dysfunctional incarceration systems get bogged down and overcrowded by high populations of non-violent offenders arrested for victimless crimes. Let’s stop wasting resources on non-violent druggies, prostitutes and such! Instead, let’s focus our resources on rehabilitating victimizers, such as sexual offenders, murders, thieves, and such. That way we actually protect people.

Also, I don’t agree with maximum sentences. Regardless of what violent crime these violent criminals committed, let’s keep them in jail until - if ever - they have been rehabilitated. I’d rather have a completely rehabilitated murderer walking the streets than a unrehabilitated mugger.

I see money as the only justifiable obstacle. However, we would have much more funding to spend on jailing and rehabilitating victimizers if we stopped wasting it on enforcing victimless crimes. Also, I suggest billing convicted criminals for the costs associated with investigating them, arresting them, convicting them, jailing them, and any other costs resulting from their crime and the punishment thereof. Why bill innocent tax-payers for the crimes of somebody else?

What do you think? Can we rehabilitate sexual offenders?

Daily Teen Violence vs. Virgina Tech Shooting

Posted by Scott on May 5th, 2007 — Posted in Teen Violence

Brittany Robinson recently wrote about teen violence. I include an excerpt:

[…]the number of student victims lost in the Virginia Tech massacre is the same number of teen victims we lose to gun violence in our country every four days.

That may be a little hard to swallow. These are the kinds of statistics that we sometimes don’t want to know, because we’d rather be in denial about the state of violence among our country’s adolescents than to know the extent to which their lives are being lost everyday.

[…]

Full-blown massacres on college campuses may warrant extensive coverage, because they involve so many deaths occurring at once. But is it any less significant that we’re idly sitting back as teenagers pick each other off one at a time? Waiting for climactic gunning events to discuss teen violence should not be the strategy of our nation. The young lives we lose every day deserve attention and solutions, as well.

Read entire article by Brittany Robinson.

I completely agree with what Brittany Robinson says in that article.

For the sake of ratings, major news outlets over-report shocking stories, such as incidental massacres. However, the mega-corporations that own the major news outlets have no interest in changing our society for the better. They’re lazy and rich, and they don’t want anything to change. As a result, these news outlets don’t report on the major but fixable problems that plague our world on a day-to-day basis, such as teen violence.

What do you think?

Committed Parenting Prevents Violence

Posted by Scott on May 1st, 2007 — Posted in Politics & Commentary

Janet Gilbert recently wrote an article in which she names the best prevention for violence, in her opinion:

[…]when the coverage of the funerals is over, we will be asking ourselves, what can we do to prevent this sort of thing? And I think I know the answer.

I have no training in security, but I know it is not gun control.

I have no training in psychology, but I know it is not - at least initially - counseling.

I have no training in education, but I know it is not a nationwide violence-prevention program at the grade-school level.

I believe the answer is committed parenting.

Parenting is the most important job we take on with absolutely no training, except for what we learn by observing our parents.

Read entire article by Janet Gilbert.

I think quality parenting can greatly prevent violence and tragedies. However, it won’t end them, because a parent can only raise their own kids, and so some kids will still grow up and turn into nutjubs. No matter how well a parent parents their child, their child can still get shot in a school shooting. We also need to take collective initiatives to protect the innocent kids of good parents from the dangerous kids of perhaps bad parents.

Anyway, I still recommend reading Janet Gilbert’s article, because she explains what individual parents need to do to raise non-violent children.

What do you think?