The rape and murder of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher shocked the nation. The perpetrator has pleaded guilty and now faces a sentencing court which is taking into account his long history of sexual attacks on women. It is not an encouraging story. This man was on bail at the time of the murder and his rap sheet contains a sad tale of repeated rapes of multiple victims going back over the years. It would not be unreasonable to predict that if he ever regains his freedom, he will rape again.
The judge in this case faces competing demands. The public expects a heavy sentence due to the magnitude of the crime and the media attention that it attracted. The government is well aware of the cost of keeping people in prison for very long periods. Humanitarian bodies preach the " rehabilitation " doctrine and insist that offenders can be reformed - and deserve the chance of a better life. Relatives of the victims deplore what they see as leniency that has allowed a person with anti-social habits to walk the streets - and offend again.
Whatever this judge hands down by way of sentence will be subject to appeal and at some later stage, will be subjected to reinterpretation by parole boards. They will be influenced by the reports of psychiatrists and medical people who will evaluate the prisoners rehabilitation progress - and recommend accordingly.
The problem is that it is impossible to predict with certainty that a released felon will not re-offend in precisely the same way as his previous history suggested, and if that happens - the public will be enraged at the failure of the justice system.
Unfortunately, society is threatened with a small number of offenders who suffer some sort of brain irregularity that compels them to rape - again and again. Our court system is charged with the task of finding a solution and that involves a form of punishment. Mostly, this is loss of civil liberty by way of a prison sentence, but there should also be a medical solution available - at the judges discretion.
Castration would remove the stimulus for rape and it would provide a reasonable exchange for a lesser time in prison. It should only be available in cases where persistent rapes show an offence pattern that needs to be curbed. It could form part of a plea bargain if the offender agrees to the procedure in exchange for a stipulated term in prison. It should be an option - available to both the prosecution and the defence for bargaining.
It stands to reason that an offenders pleas of remorse would carry more weight if he had volunteered to submit to the surgeon's knife. The threat of future rapes would have been permanently removed - and society would be a safer place.
It might even be an option preferable to some convicted offenders. Behavioural scientists contend that brain abnormalities cause loss of control which brings
genuine regret to some offenders. Sufferers may welcome a surgical removal that brings the prospect of eventual return to a normal life - with the guarantee they will not give further offence.
It is certainly one of the options that should be on the table when the pre-sentencing arguments are exchanged between the defence, prosecution and the presiding judge.
The main objective of every prosecution is to ensure that the convicted person does not commit a repeat crime !
No comments:
Post a Comment