9-02-03 SPECIAL REPORT: Handling Sex Offenders: A Dispute
A Lawyer's View -vs- A Probation Officer's View
|
Today we bring you two viewpoints on handling of sex offenders, one a lawyer, the other a probation officer. The specific issues of the Kobe Bryant case will be bypassed to discuss the broader issues addressed by the lawyer and the PO.
» 9-8-03 Colorado: Speakout: Easy to forget humanity of offenders!
While I believe from what I read in Vigil's column that she is one of the few probation officers who indeed treat those she supervises with dignity, I disagree that this is true systemwide. Vigil stated that probation officers and treatment providers are trained to treat all offenders with dignity. I know firsthand that treatment providers are trained and ethically mandated to treat all clients respectfully. What I dispute, is that most do as they have been trained.
My husband and I currently have a personal ministry of assisting individuals (primarily sex offenders) who are transitioning from prison back into society. These men stay in our home, eat with us and become a part of our family. Within a few months they transition into their own apartment, but stay closely connected to our home, often returning for Sunday dinner, holidays, birthdays, and other special occasions. In short, we get to know them and share their lives.
In another role, I have also worked directly with the court and probation systems, albeit not regarding sex offenders. I work as a drug and alcohol counselor, serving clients who are primarily court-ordered to treatment.
In my experience in both of these roles, I have seen much undignified treatment of individuals. To be fair, I have also seen the occasional respectful interaction; however, this is the exception rather than the rule. I have seen such disrespectful actions as an assistant district attorney mockingly poking fun at a sex offender's speech handicap. I have spoken to wives who have been advised by their husband's therapist (being in the field it pains me to apply this title to one who does not respect their client) to leave him, or who have been labeled co-dependent when they chose to stand with their husbands through the most difficult trial of their lives.
I believe the problem runs much deeper. It is a value that our society, as a whole, has chosen. We have picked certain classes of individuals that we have decided are our undesirables. These are the people we love to hate. After all, it is far easier to spew our venom toward those that society has said it is OK to hate than to look inward and evaluate what really scares and troubles us.
These people become easy scapegoats. Because we have decided that they are "bad," we feel justified in unleashing our anger and other negative energy on them. It somehow makes us feel better about ourselves because, after all, we are not that bad. ....
(by Lynda Mitton [is an addiction counselor in Colorado Springs], Special to the News)
|
Paul Grant, lawyer, criticizes the treatment regime that sex offenders must undergo, namely polygraph and plethysmograph testing. Given courts do not accept these as reliable (see Minnesota appeals court overturns conviction because "Polygraph" is mentioned at trial) , and he is an officer of the court, he fully understands why the courts consider them unreliable.
However, Karen Vigil, probation officer, considers these invaluable as they inform treatment and supervision planning. Given those who have had to submit to these testing procedures have no recourse to their findings in court, it is no wonder the probation officer relies upon them.
Many researchers describe these as "voodoo science" because one is at the mercy of the person testing, who can, construe or misconstrue, readings taken. The AntiPolygraph Organization has many stories one should read about this form of testing. "Among other deceptions, you can expect to be misled about the function of the so-called "control" questions (your polygrapher secretly assumes your answers will be untrue), the function of irrelevant questions (they don't show a "baseline for truth" and are not even scored), and the purpose of the "stim" test (a gimmick designed to dupe you into believing the polygraph can actually detect deception)." AntiPolygraph.org
Vigil mentions two 1993 meta-analyses supporting plethysmographs but fails to provide cites to them. "The high percentage of some control subjects with no history of deviant behavior who respond with deviant arousal patterns means that at the present time arousal measurement data cannot be used by itself to diagnose someone as a sexual deviant or to predict past or future behavior." (Misuse of Psychophysiological Arousal Measurement Data, Jack S. Annon, 1993)
Grant points out how therapists do not want to discharge sex offenders from therapy even when completed, Vigil is unaware of this happening, obviously she hasen't followed why sex offenders are so often denied parole. Prison therapy programs, if the prison has one, wait until the end of the inmates sentence to put them into therapy, then the therapists' report, if it is a successful termination from therapy report, is too late for the inmates parole hearing.
Grant criticizes LifeAfter incarceration, Vigil states "Conditions of supervision are designed to prevent offenders from having access to potential victims or finding themselves in other high-risk situations. While Grant characterizes this as "Life being effectively over," it is the only humane way to preserve offenders' freedom and maintain community safety." and ignores that, with Megan's laws that supervision never ends.
Grant points out "A person sentenced to prison for a sex offense won't be released on parole until and unless the parole board determines the offender has progressed in treatment to the point where he or she is no longer likely to reoffend." and misses something most people miss. If a parole board, or the judge in a case of probation, feels the offender is safe for society, how can society then, by virtue of Megan's Laws, consider the now registered sex offender, a danger to society?
When the criminal justice process (for every penal law) terminates by placing the offender back into society, that has meant that, the rehabilitation process is over, the offender is now safe for society, allbeit maybe still under some supervision. Given that as tradition, does the principle and process of Megan's Laws negate and thwart that criminal justice process?
CLICK to Return
Opposing Viewpoints - Which Do You Believe?
» 8-23-03 Colorado: A heavy price:
As the media frenzy continues to build in anticipation of Kobe Bryant's upcoming court hearings and trial, most Coloradans have little or no idea how harsh Colorado's laws are for those charged with or convicted of sex offenses. Potential jurors and all of the public need to know.
But the risk of wrongful conviction is relatively high in many sex assault cases, where often there is little or no physical evidence, and no way to know for sure what did, or did not, happen. The consequences of wrongful convictions are so severe that jurors need to keep that in mind when determining whether a prosecutor has proven guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Even where there is physical evidence, such as DNA, its meaning can be ambiguous. The presence of the defendant's DNA evidence, for instance, does not answer whether there was consent.
If Bryant is convicted of sexual assault through the application of physical force or violence, as he is currently charged, he may face a prison sentence of from four years to life in prison, or possibly 20 years (to life) probation, as the district attorney announced. His life would effectively be over. .....
(By Paul Grant, Lawyer)
|
|
::: PROBATION OFFICER ::: |
» 8-30-03 Colorado: Speakout: Probation officers trained to treat sex offenders with dignity
On Aug. 23, the Rocky Mountain News published an op-ed article by attorney Paul Grant about how sex offenders are managed in Colorado and especially expressed concern for Kobe Bryant. As a probation officer who has worked with adult sex offenders in Colorado for more than 17 years, I feel compelled to respond.
Grant is correct in stating that experts in the sex offender treatment field don't believe offenders can be "cured." That is because one isn't "cured" of a behavior. It is, however, something one can learn and choose to control and manage with appropriate treatment.
It is true that offenders are required to undergo regular polygraph examinations to uncover past behavior and measure compliance with rules. However, supervising officers are trained that dishonesty on a polygraph is not sufficient grounds for revoking probation as Grant alleges. (Tell that to the many parolees and probationers who are sitting in prison right now because of that problem.)
I can say that probation officers and treatment providers are trained to treat all offenders with dignity, respect and humanity .... (She quotes THEORY WELL!)
(By Karen Vigil, Probation Officer)
|
Copyright ©2003 LAMP.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau -
|
