Not many years ago an adult male admitted to having had sexual
intercourse with the daughter of his live-in girlfriend. When asked why
he had done it, he responded, “Because she was coming on to
me.” The little girl in question was 18 months old.
In the hope of protecting our children from such predators all states
now have combined some form of a Megan’s Law with Amber Alert
technology. The former attempts to keep us informed as to who these
molesters are, what they are and where they are via the internet.
Whereas Amber Alerts have been designed, in part, to help us to respond
effectively on those occasions when the well-intentioned hopes of
Megan’s Law fail.
In many cases, however, the truth is that both systems are
significantly defective. Consider the case of John Evander Couey. On
February 23rd this registered sex offender spontaneously, and without
warning to anyone, responded to an urge to go “out” for the evening.
So, he entered the home of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, evaded
detection by her father and grandfather who resided in the home, and
successfully secreted her in the dark of night to a location down her
street where he then sexually abused her, strangled her and buried her.
Who was Couey and why was he able to do what he did? Prior to that
fateful night his arrest history included the following:
• Drug Possession
• Lewd Act Upon a Child
• Burglary
• Drunk and Disorderly Conduct
• Driving While Intoxicated
• Indecent Exposure
• Fraud &
• Larceny.
How is it possible for a man with such a background to render both of
our country’s national child molestation prevention systems impotent?
It is because people like Couey are well aware of the defects and
shortcomings of these systems and that knowledge, in turn, enables them
to effectively perpetrate their crimes in ways that allows them to
satiate their lusts unhindered until it is too late. All who are not
perpetrators themselves (and maybe even some of them as well) would
most certainly agree that such a gaping loophole cannot be permitted to
continue. A remedy is imperative. Jessica’s father is now insisting
upon it. Similar to our response to the cases of seven-year-old Megan
Kanka and nine-year-old Amber Hagerman, Mr. Lunsford is now rightly
demanding these perpetrators be kept off our streets and away from our
children. To this end he has proclaimed that, “[t]here should [now] be
a law for Jesse.” No doubt there shall be such a law and perhaps many.
Therefore, before they are drafted perhaps we should view this
eventuality as an opportunity to be seized. Who knows? Perhaps this
time around we can do it right. In short, allow me to suggest that now
may well be the time for us to seriously consider the enactment of a
federal law mandating that all convicted child molesters in this
country submit to chemical castration for the remainder of their lives
as a prerequisite to their release from prison (a concept afforded
legitimacy by laws already enacted to this effect in Florida,
California and Oklahoma). Criminal laws are generally intended to
balance in varying degrees four purposes: punishment, retribution,
rehabilitation and the protection of society. To achieve the
appropriate balance in the case of child molesters requires that we
first acknowledge the fact that they are by definition dangerously
psychopathic people; utterly indifferent to, if not contemptuous of,
our society’s concepts of right and wrong. Once this is settled, the
notions of retribution, punishment and the protection of society
clearly dictate that child molesters should rightly be incarcerated for
many years, if not for life. Such, however, is not the case presently.
Figures released by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics indicate that sex offenders in the United States receive on
average an eight year sentence and of that time serve only 3 ½ years
prior to their release. This suggests that the lofty goal of
rehabilitating these offenders has somehow been given priority in our
sentencing decisions. But, is this justified? Again, it would not
appear so in light of the fact that the same Justice Department
statistics indicate that 70 percent of the men convicted for sex crimes
in the U.S. were molesters of children predominately under 13 years in age
and that, of all those released from prison, sex offenders are 4 times
more likely to be rearrested for another sex crime within three years
following their release. These figures would suggest something
approaching a life sentence is justified to protect our children
irregardless of anyone’s concerns about rehabilitating the
perpetrators.
But can imprisonment for life be justified? Yes, if one compares it to
the possible life sentences now available for kidnapping and then
further considers that by comparison to many, if not most, child
molestations, kidnapping might well be viewed as a far less egregious
offense. For example, to prevent what John Evander Couey did to Jessica
Lunsford upon his release from prison a life sentence could easily be
justified. His kidnapping of this young girl was merely a preparatory
act necessary for him to be able to engage in the truly heinous acts
that followed. Yet, there are certain to be some civil libertarians who
will disagree. They will argue that a life sentence would be
disproportionate to the gravity of the crime of molestation, absent the
concurrent occurrence of other crimes such as murder. However, that is
where the value of making available a chemical castration option lies.
To placate the libertarians (if that is even possible) the law might be
structured as follows: convicted child molesters shall receive a
mandatory life sentence from which there shall be only one possibility
of parole (available only after the felon has served a mandatory
minimum period of incarceration set forth in the federal sentencing
guidelines) -- if the molester consents to submit to the chemical
castration procedure for the remainder of his life. Moreover, to
overcome yet another libertarian concern that such consent may not be
completely voluntary, the law should not require that the election be
made by the convicted molester at sentencing. Rather the option should
remain available to be elected by the prisoner at any time during the
course of his incarceration, subject to his having served the statutory
minimum number of years. After all, why not let such a person have all
the time they need to decide the matter for themselves? Either way,
whatever they decide the point is that our society’s goals will have
been met. Our children will be afforded greater protection than they
now have and so no doubt will be able to rest easier than Jessica
Lunsford did on the night she met John Evander Couey.
Cliff Nichols is a criminal defense attorney practicing in Los Angeles, California. He may be contacted by calling 310-458-1739 or 310-909-9024 or by email at cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com
 | Evaluating Sex Offenders (Practical Aspects of Assessing & Treating) ASIN: 0761921141 |