This paper argues that convicted sex offenders should be required to participate in treatment programs during incarceration, while maintaining the right to refuse continued treatment upon release. Drawing on studies from Alaska, Massachusetts, and various recidivism researchers, the paper contends that even inconclusive recidivism data justifies mandatory in-prison treatment, given the potential to reduce future victimization. The argument balances public safety interests against constitutional rights, distinguishing between obligations imposed during incarceration and those that may follow release. Cost-benefit considerations and the interests of victims are also addressed.
Results of studies are inconclusive as to how often convicted sex offenders re-offend once released from prison. A Canadian study suggested the number is as high as 88% (Bialik, 2008). However, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren states, "There is no research support for that view, period" (Bialik, 2008). Another widely publicized report indicates the rate of re-offense to be 52% (Bialik, 2008). If even half of all convicted sex offenders are likely to commit a similar crime once released, that number is too high.
According to research on sex offender treatment programs, intervention during incarceration remains one of the most studied approaches to reducing reoffending. The disputed nature of recidivism statistics does not diminish the urgency of the problem — it underscores the need for proactive measures.
One way to reduce the number of repeat offenders is to mandate participation in a treatment program. Once an offender is convicted of a crime, their constitutional rights are appropriately curtailed. They lose the free will they enjoyed as members of society at large. As such, they should be required to undergo treatment for sexual assault — it should not be a matter of personal choice.
The corrections process in the United States should be aimed at rehabilitation as much as possible. Sex offenders are unlikely to receive a life sentence. As a result, most will eventually be released, and they may encounter potential victims. While offenders are in custody, it is in their best interest — as well as that of society — to receive any and all available treatments. Treatment should begin as early in the incarceration period as possible, as the evidence suggests this produces the greatest improvement.
Sex offender treatment programs do work. A study conducted by the Alaska Department of Corrections concluded that treating sex offenders reduced the incidence of sexual re-offense or prolonged the time until re-offense (Alaska Department of Corrections, 1996). The programs did not work for every offender. Sexual assault is not the result of a disease and therefore cannot be cured. "It is an aggressive deviant behavior that results from the convergence of a complex number of factors" (Alaska Department of Corrections, 1996). It can, however, be contained and managed. If treatment programs work, the number of future victims is reduced — and that should be the primary goal.
Treating offenders may require financial resources, but a study by the Massachusetts Treatment Center concluded that the cost of treatment was lower than the cost of processing the offender through the legal system and imprisonment (Prentky & Burgess, 1990). From both a humanitarian and a fiscal perspective, investment in treatment during incarceration is well justified.
"Post-release mandates raise constitutional concerns"
"Treatment offers victims safety and peace of mind"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.