Sexual Predator Prosecution, Essay Example

Introduction

The 1993 kidnapping, assault, and murder of twelve year-old Polly Klaas in California, and the 1994 rape and murder of seven year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey, acted as powerful motivations for a national revision of policy regarding sex offenders. More than anything else, the public was uniformly outraged by the fact that both cases involved offenders who had been previously convicted of predatory crimes, and the response both from within individual states and from the federal government was to radically alter the manner in which sex offenders are sentenced, as well as how they may maintain their lives upon release. Indiana has aggressively joined in with other states in pursuing these more rigid forms of protection and punishment. Critics assert that certain Indiana statutes, proposed or in effect, go too far and strip offenders of constitutional rights. However, provided that the state does not trespass on certain, inviolable liberties, Indiana is correct in perhaps erring on the side of severity. The state understands that only the most stringent laws must be in place, for the potential victims of such offenders are the most vulnerable within society.

Indiana Statutes Regarding Sexual Predators

When the state of Florida instituted the Jessica Lunsford Act, prompted by the savage rape and murder of the girl by previously convicted sex offender John Couey in 2005, Indiana joined the thirty-five states who enacted severe sexual predator legislation in response to the Florida precedent. Aside from abiding by the other aspects of the law, which include the electronic monitoring of released sex offenders and a minimum mandatory sentencing of twenty-five years for first-time convictions, Indiana added life sentence authorizations for repeat offenders (Shahidullah, 2005,  p. 205). While actual sentencing remains largely discretionary, the modern emphasis within the Indiana criminal courts is laid upon severity, and in all cases of child sexual abuse or seduction. For example, convicted offender Ronald Hobbs sought in 2007 to have his nine-year sentence shortened, citing alcoholism as a contributing factor in his crimes of child seduction. The Muncie court denied his appeals (Indiana Law Blog, 2007).

The 1994 rape and murder of seven year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey fueled the adoption of “Megan’s Law” in virtually every state, which requires that convicted sex offenders be registered as such and, in many cases, that their histories be available as public knowledge. This was clearly a case wherein the horrific nature of the crime triggered federal authority, as a reflection of national outrage; states reluctant to comply were, in fact, faced with reductions in federal funds through the specific provisions of a 1996 act (Hall, 2008,  p. 110). Indiana, however, needed no financial coercion to comply, particularly in its setting up of an accessible network of information sites informing the public of the locations of released offenders.  The process remains ongoing:  the “Indiana Sheriffs’ Sex Offender Registry will include maps that allow users to pinpoint where offenders live, work and go to school…Hoosiers can sign up for e-mail updates notifying them when offenders move into their neighborhoods” (sexualoffenders.com, 2011).

Beyond this, Indiana law comprehensively addresses a wide range of sexually predatory offenses, both as actual crimes and in terms of solicitation enabling the crimes. The state takes a traditional view on statutory rape, wherein sex is committed with a person under the age of eighteen but not necessarily a child,  and it remains on the Indiana law books as a measure within its child molestation statue (Hall, 2008,  p. 109). Under the statute, then, even the consent of a seventeen year-old to engage in sex does not diminish the crime of the offender as seen by the law. Then, an extensive array of the forms of predatory behavior may take as solicitation are outlined in the case books. A person who commits self-gratification of a sexual nature within the vicinity of a child, even if that child is untouched, is guilty of a Class B or C Felony, depending upon the child’s age. Felony convictions of varying degrees also follow an adult’s use of computers, or any other mode of communication, to either actively solicit the child for sex or suggest the same. Distributing pornography with the awareness that a child may have access to it is a Class C Felony, while possessing and/or distributing pornography involving minors is a Class D Felony. On the Indiana books, virtually any sexual misconduct directed at a child is a felony offense, and solicitation alone is grounds for arrest and trial. Moreover, the Indiana codes reflect an awareness of the disturbingly high incidence of sexual offenses committed by relatives, or persons known to the victim; section IC-35-42-4-7, under the heading of “Child Seduction”, ensures that no parent, guardian, teacher, or even military recruiter is exempt from charges when a sexually predatory act is initiated with a child, be it sex or the pursuit of it (Office of Code Revision, 2011). It is as well, as alluded to, currently a Class D Felony for any convicted sex offender to fail to register his or her residence with the sheriff’s department upon release, and to update the same.

Conclusion

Given the ongoing and adamant nature of the public’s feeling regarding sexual predators, the tide has turned to such a degree that constitutional rights may be jeopardized. For example, it is not unreasonable for a convicted offender, released and in treatment, to complain that having to identify his history for public consumption denies him any chance of possibly living a responsible life. Concerns such as these must be seriously addressed, for the reaction to no crime should be permitted to violate the foundations of the American government. Recidivism rates of offenders, and particularly of those who pursue children,  are rarely consistent and generally do not reflect the common belief that such offenders are irredeemable (Janus, 2006,  p. 49). Nonetheless, the brutality inherent in the sexual abuse of children is such that the most strict observances should be in place, and Indiana law is justified in these stern measure. Sex offender registries may be extremely problematic for those compelled to enlist, but they are not violations of fundamental rights, and Indiana correctly makes this distinction. The state understands that only the most rigid laws must be in place, for the potential victims of such offenders are the most vulnerable within society.

References

Hall, D. E.  (2008.)  Criminal Law and Procedure. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.

Indiana Law Blog. (May, 2007.) Ind. Decisions – “Appeals Court Upholds Sex Offender’s  Sentence”.  Muncie Star Press.  Retrieved from  http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2007/05/ind_decisions_a_42.html

Janus, E. S. (2006.)  Failure to Protect:  America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State.  Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Office of Code Revision, Indiana Legislative Service Agency. (2011.)  Indiana Code 35-42-4. Retrieved  from http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch4.html

Sexualoffenders.com.  (April, 2011.) Indiana Sex Offenders Registry, update. Retrieved from http://www.sexualoffenders.com/statedatabases/indiana_sex_offender_registry.html

Shahidullah, S. M.  (2005.)   Crime Policy in America: Laws, Institutions, and Programs. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.