Mark Your Calendars
It's rare indeed that the Strib writes a sensible, institutional-voice editorial. But while I admit that I tend to focus more on the egregiously stupid things they write, there's a reason for that; they write so much of it.
But never let it be said I don't actually read the stuff. Because today's editorial makes some sense.
I said some.
The House has, predictably, taken a get-tough approach to sex criminals; life without parole for first and second-degree sexual assault, 20-year terms for second offenses at lower levels, and much more.
The Strib responds:
The price tag of that approach -- seven new prisons to hold a doubled prison population -- should make Minnesotans swallow hard. A lot of sensible crime control could be bought for far less cost -- something members of the Minnesota Senate seem to realize. Their bipartisan measure steers clear of mandatory minimums in favor of a more nuanced approach that recognizes not all sex offenders present the same peril. As chief sponsors Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, and Tom Neuville, R-Northfield, argue, only a few sex offenders require lifetime incarceration. Many can be helped by treatment of the psychiatric and addictive illnesses that spurred on their crimes; once released, most can be well-supervised by intensive probation and high-tech monitoring tactics.
Seizing upon those facts, Ranum and Neuville have come up with what Minnesota has needed all along: a system that responds to sexual offenders economically and strategically -- assuring that the dangerous remain in custody and that the treatable get the assistance and supervision they need to return to the community without incident. The Senate bill may not be quite as flashy as locking up an entire class of wrongdoers, but it's cheaper and safer. The conferees now considering the bills should embrace the smart Senate approach.
The devil is in some of the details, of course; treatment's effectiveness is wildly variable, and high tech monitoring can be spoofed. And I'm normally loathe to encourage Jane Ranum.
But the Strib's point is a useful one; although Minnesota, especially greater Minnesota, is still howling mad over the rape and murder of Dru Sjodin, which itself followed a string of other cases, sex offenders and their crimes are a broad subject; we could save a lot of money and grief with a less overbroad approach.
Am I wrong?
Posted by Mitch at
May 12, 2005 06:44 AM
| TrackBack
No, you're not. Especially with GPS-based tracking available as a tool for law enforcement.
Posted by: moderateleft@gmail.com at May 12, 2005 09:52 AMAnd here I thought, when I saw the title, that you might plug MOB Road Show. Alas.
Posted by: kb at May 12, 2005 11:36 AMWhif. Here I disagree. If, as I understand, sexual predators are more likely than most to commit the same crimes over and over, more likely to escalate than other criminals, what monetary gain do we get by giving them more rope to hang our children and neighbors with?
I'd be interested in a discussion that described the effectiveness of physical or chemical castration, but feel that sex predators should be kept on a short leash. Say, treatment for minor offenses then incarceration for later minor offenses.
Paying for prisons is far more worthwhile to me than the cost of trying to track all of these sex offenders who generally tend to dodge surveillance and restrictions. The incident with Dru Sjodin is hardly uncommon nationwide. ( More common, I think, than school shootings which receive much more hysteria and media fanfare. )
Posted by: aodhan at May 12, 2005 11:48 AMNope, if money is to saved in the corrections system, start with property crime or minor drug offenders (or, ideally, the entire War on Drugs). When the editors of the Star Tribune begin to volunteer to have sex offenders live next to their children, I'll start to take their proposal seriously. Until then, collect enough taxes to allow incarceration of all violent criminals until they are elderly. When one factors in the enormous destructive economic ripple effects of violent crime, it isn't even clear to me that such a system would be all that expensive.
Posted by: Will Allen at May 12, 2005 01:04 PM