Why Hospitalizing Sexual Predators Is Not Mollycoddling

Posted on October 4, 2011 in Child & Family Debates

Source: — Authors:

TheTyee.ca – Opinion – Remember, the goal is to protect society and deal with a dangerous sickness.
2011/10/03.   By Rafe Mair

Dear Mr. Weston,

I want to direct your intention to how sexual predators will be dealt with under your criminal law proposals, and point out that this is an area that requires leadership, not just braying to public prejudices.

Back when I was a young law student, rape was a hanging offence and guess what the unintended consequence of that was — rapists murdered their victims because it got rid of the principal witness and you could only hang once.

Sexual offences against youngsters are so appalling that society expresses its massive rage and disgust — understandably so — and in doing so, creates two horrible unintended consequences that could and should be erased by the stroke of a pen.

First, like with rapists of yore, there is an incentive to kill the victim who is usually the only witness.

Second, no matter how long the sentence is, the predator will be let out, far from cured, to offend again.

Here is the answer, and it’s the right one, but it takes leadership and courage.

What is the very first thing we all say when we hear of a sexual predator molesting and perhaps killing his victims?

“He’s sick!”

And he is! Big time! And our diagnosis is bang on!

Why, then, do we put him jail when there is a much better way? Namely, when it is shown, at trial, that the accused is mentally ill and his actions inherent to that sickness, the judge acquits him on the grounds of diminished capacity and orders that he “be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.”

What does this mean?

He is confined in hospital, treated if, and only if, he is deemed to be cured, released under the strictest of parole conditions. Uncured, he stays, perhaps forever.

Is this mollycoddling?

Hardly, since the offender may never be released. Moreover, no release is permitted unless and until a board of psychiatrists judges the offender is no more likely to offend than any other citizen. He stays in custody, and that decision is supported by a committee of the provincial cabinet followed by an order-in-council from cabinet as a whole.

Please think this through. The issue is whether we’re going to let a sexual molester back on the streets without any therapy, or let him out only after he has been treated and found safe to release by a board of psychiatrists and agreed to by the government.

While I was in cabinet, I was part of the three ministers’ review process, and we dealt with the question of release of people detained “at the Queen’s pleasure.” I especially remember one where the man had set fire to his house knowing that his wife and children were inside. They all died. He was passed by the board as safe to release, and that’s what we did. We were under enormous pressure, for we knew that a mistake on our part could have very serious consequences. Of the dozen or more we released over five years, none re-offended.

Please, Mr. Weston, do some serious thinking on what I’ve said.

Sincerely, Rafe Mair

< http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/10/03/Hospitalizing-Sex-Predators/?utm_source=mondayheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=031011 >

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 at 12:59 pm and is filed under Child & Family Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

One Response to “Why Hospitalizing Sexual Predators Is Not Mollycoddling”

  1. Dear Editor,

    Rafe Mair’s article, “Why Hospitalizing Sexual Predator Is Not Mollycoddling”, of October 4, 2011 is a serious and a debatable issue that one must think through carefully. The fact is that majority of rapists commit the same offence again whenever they are released from jail on the bases of them being safe in the society. However, this could become a very serious issue as neither leadership nor non-leadership can predict if the rapist is well treated, safe in society, or could likely to harm again.

    I do believe that everyone deserves a chance to makes changes in their lives, and such opportunities should be given to people who are willing to make those changes that will enable them to become better citizens. It is unfortunate however that we find these people making the same offence again even after undergoing extensive treatment with psychiatrists and other therapist. Hence, in the leadership decision on this matter, every offence should be examine with great care even if the rapist has finish his time in the jail or has been treated.

    The government should not entertain sexual molesters or rapists by the credit of them ‘being sick’, and spending time and money to cure their so called disease unless necessary. Also, I believe their disease is caused by their own psychological intention to harm, or caused pain in some innocent victim. So unless they are well treated and willingly to change, their victims are more likely to get killed in cause of their shameful act; in other words, to achieve and maintain a safe and protected society, the government must ensure that leaders in making such decision are equipped with all the necessary information before the offender may be released


Leave a Reply