Here we're talking about somebody who was considered for civil commitment - a high-risk offender who is going to need intensive treatment and monitoring well after leaving the center - but there is nothing in the law that accounts for that.
What happens is that these guys are being pushed farther and farther into rural communities, where they have less access to the treatment in mental health they need, less access to employment opportunities . . . and they may be more difficult to monitor and supervise.
What happens is almost a competition among communities for more restrictive laws, ... The trouble is as we create all these new obstacles, we may be making them more dangerous.
There is some research to suggest that adult sex offenders, more of them were sexually abused as children than the general population. But that doesn't mean children who are abused will go on to abuse. It may be a risk factor for future abuse, but it's not a cause and effect.
That doesn't make [these cases] any less tragic, of course. But they may just not be the right kinds of cases on which to base broad social policy.
We don't really have a way to answer that yet, partly because there have been so few people released from civil commitment and partly because the number who have been committed is also low.
There is no research to suggest that residency restrictions increase public safety. There is no magic bullet.
When people feel they have nothing and are hopeless, then that actually causes an increase in the likelihood that they'll return to the life of crime.
Copyright © 2024 Electric Goat Media. All Rights Reserved.