This is an article that deals with the argument of whether there needs to be more laws dealing with predators or whether the current laws need to be better enforced. The story here is of a man who has been convicted of raping and killing a young girl who was jogging through a park. Police have also discovered the skeletal remains of another young girl, who was killed in similar fashion, and they think that the same man is responsible. The main issue here is that the man was locked up for the crime but somehow struck a deal to only get 6 years in prison instead of his original sentence which was life in prison. This happened in the San Diego area where they do in fact have a "one-strike" law against predators. The problem here seems to be that the courts become to lenient when its time for sentencing. In my opinion I feel that the San Diego law of "one-strike" is quite the consequence, but when a predator gets out after only a short time, it raises the threat of repeat offenders. When the courts give out such a short sentence for the crime, they are really eliciting thoughts of "hey I can do this again!" from the minds of predators. I'm not sure that California needs to crowd their prisons anymore than they already are, but lackluster sentences (in regards to these crimes) is a slap in the face to society - my opinion.
Are More Laws Targeting Predators The Answer?
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1503
I personally believe that predators should be put in jail longer for the crimes they commit. One way to prevent overcrowding is to let the non violent criminals, the ones that are stuck in jail on charges they can't afford to get out on parole. This would cut back on a lot of spending and would also help cut back on the construction of bigger jails. Many judges allow predators to get out on a shorter sentence to save money and to get them to confess to other crimes. But really the predator is more than likely going to commit other crimes in the future costing us all a lot of money.
I think that the "one-strike" law should be implemented in cases involving violent offenses, especially if the perp is over the age of 18 and has a violent criminal records. Psychologists have said that the only way to predict future violene is to look at past violence. Jail time is not going to magically transform offenders into better people and prevent them from commiting future crimes.
I think violent criminals and the mentally ill need counseling and psychological treatment in combination with the confinement of prison. If our criminal justice system doesn't effectively show these criminals what they did wrong and exemplify ways to work past their violent and sexual urges, then how do we expect them to change? In the event of parole, I think that should be saved for the criminals who commit less threatening crimes such as theft.
Violent offenders are often career criminals, chacterized by a dysfunctional childhood and inadequate means of coping in adulthood. They turn to crime to satisfy what they feel they lack or never received as a child. If we can target these risk factors early, we can modify our treatment programs to better suit the needs of both the perp and society in order for a change to occur.