We live in a society of obsessions: money, possessions, violence, and especially sex and crime. A group of obsessed legislators have been encouraged by the obsessive right-wing Supreme Court. The legislators want (what else?) more laws. Seeing the political opportunity for more sensational laws against sex and against crime, the legislators have this great scheme; label some convicts "predators" (there's a good scary propaganda word) and keep them in jail forever.
Since these guys have already been sentenced there's that pesky "double jeopardy" business to worry about. For a good Fascist, a little thing like a Constitutional guarantee never gets in the way. In fact, the right-wing would dearly love to junk the Constitution and especially such safeguards as the double jeopardy clause. They aren't into anyone having rights, at least not anyone but themselves.
To get around the constitutional safeguards, the obsessed legislators will simply do some re-labeling. Be suspicious of law by labeling. Your turn is coming, a label will be put on you and you'll be outlawed, too.
One good idea is to re-label "jail." The legislators want to call it "hospital." Good so far. Now, to keep the man in "hospital," the legislators will label him "sick" and instead of a criminal proceeding, the legislators will label it a "civil" proceeding. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to such a "civil" matter, or at lease that's what the radical right-wing Supreme Court says.
One out of every eight men in prison is a sex offender. Since prostitution is not a sex offense to these geniuses of labeling, almost no women are among the 4479 ex-sex-offenders.
The opportunist legislators all have the same idea: play on public obsessions and fears, devise a scheme to keep ex-offenders in jail forever and make lots of high paying jobs for the state employees who'll get the gravy of "guarding" the "sickos."
So far, sex offenses are special and unlike other crimes. the culprit is labeled "sick" or "criminal" depending on what the obsessed public wants to do to him. In order to punish a sex offender with ridiculously severe treatment that's out of all relationship to the actual harm done, the law starts by labeling him a criminal. A criminal has intent to commit an offense, is able to control himself and is in control of what he elects to do. After the law punishes the guy for the high crime of fucking someone he shouldn't or someway he shouldn't, with 20 years or so, the public re-labels him "sick." The guy still, after 20 years, an "offender," never an ex-offender, can then be put away forever, or until he's "un-sick." Since he's "sick" because he committed the crime, he will never be "un-sick." A "sick" person has a disease and is not in control of what he does.
It would seem to a rational mind that one couldn't be both criminal and mentally sick, but obsessed persons aren't rational.
Since everyone hates the perverts or, at least say that they do, the idea of jailing them forever is appealing to certain kinds of people. They miss the point. Why should perverts be the only "sick" criminals? Isn't it just as "sick" to use drugs, or burglarize homes or point guns at folks? It's all a question of getting a frightening label.
First get the universally loathed perverts, then, how about the "violent" offenders? Certainly being violent is "sick." It would be an easy step to "hospitalize" the violent offenders forever. Pretty soon it will be a "forever" sentence for every offense except those that the obsessed politicians might get caught at.
The question to ask yourself is who's really "sick?" Could it be state Senator Stewart Greenleaf, or maybe State Representative Lisa Boscola? It might be that just because they have weird ideas and irrational obsessions, they aren't really "sick." Perhaps they're just "different" and maybe it's acceptable to be "different" even when it's as dangerously "different" as these legislators.
==30==
Return to Bad Laws Menu.
Return to HOMEPAGE.