Sex Offender as Scapegoat

Introduction

Main Argument of the Paper

• Thesis:
  The paper argues that sex offenders in the United States are scapegoats—subjected to social violence and legal punishment far beyond the actual danger they pose. The perception and treatment of sex offenders are shaped by societal frameworks that exaggerate their threat to justify excessive punitive measures.

• Key Points:

  1. Social Violence and Scapegoating: Sex offenders are treated as societal scapegoats, blamed for social disorder, and subjected to legal, moral, and social violence that surpasses the actual harm they pose.

  2. Media and Legal Framing: The media and the legal system frame sexually deviant behaviors as monstrous and those who engage in them as "monsters."

  3. Psychiatric and Psychological Roles: Experts (e.g., psychologists, psychiatrists) do not explicitly label sex offenders as monsters, but their categorizations of mental disorders perform a similar function by portraying sex offenders as unable to control their impulses.

  4. Undeserving of Rights: The consequence of this framing is the creation of a class of individuals who are regarded not just as unsympathetic, but undeserving of legal and moral rights.

The Metaphor of the Monster

• The Role of the Monster in Society:

  • The monster metaphor is central to the argument:

    • Monsters are beings that trigger fear and disgust because they have human characteristics but are considered fundamentally inhuman or other.

    • Sex offenders, when framed as monsters, are seen as human-like beings who have deviated so far from societal norms that they are no longer considered fully human.

    • Scapegoating Mechanism: By dehumanizing sex offenders, society can treat them as a convenient target to blame for societal problems or fears.

• Consequences of the Monster Label:

  • This monster framing allows society to justify the deprivation of liberty for sex offenders, even beyond the sentences mandated by criminal law, often under the guise of public safety.

Legal Consequences: Civil Commitment and Community Supervision

• Sexually Violent Predator Laws:

  • Sex offenders, after serving their criminal sentences, can be civilly committed for life under laws such as the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Acts.

  • This commitment can extend beyond the end of a criminal sentence, often based on the claim that they pose a future threat to public safety.

• Megan's Law:

  • Sex offenders can also be subjected to lifetime community supervision under state laws like Megan’s Law, which requires public notification of their presence in communities.

  • These legal frameworks, while claiming to protect the public, further perpetuate the scapegoating of sex offenders.

Psychiatric Diagnosis and the Legacy of Theology

• Role of Psychiatry:

  • Psychiatrists and psychologists play a critical role in the legal process by offering diagnoses that categorize sex offenders as having mental disorders.

  • These diagnoses contribute to the dehumanization of sex offenders, reinforcing the monster narrative and justifying extreme punitive measures.

• Theological Roots of Psychiatry:

  • Modern psychiatric frameworks still carry remnants of theological thinking, particularly in how they frame deviant behaviors:

    • The early-modern monster has evolved into the psychopath or person with an anti-social personality disorder—categories that overlap with the concept of a "sexual offender."

  • This continuation of theological frameworks in psychiatry highlights the moralizing nature of sex offender treatment, aligning punishment with notions of sin or moral failure.

The Media and Legal Systems' Role

• Media's Framing of Sex Offenders:

  • The media contributes to the process of framing sex offenders as monstrous figures, amplifying fears of sex offenses.

  • This portrayal simplifies complex social issues into digestible narratives of pure evil or danger, which feeds public perception and justifies extreme legal responses.

• Legal Systems Incorporating the Monster Framework:

  • Legal proceedings, particularly in cases of civil commitment and community supervision, incorporate psychiatric diagnoses and the monster framework.

  • Psychiatric testimony often becomes a key factor in determining the fate of sex offenders in legal proceedings, intertwining medical authority with legal control.

Invisible Deprivation of Liberty

• Unjust Deprivation of Rights:

  • The result of the monster framing is an invisible, yet significant, deprivation of liberty.

    • Offenders may face civil commitment or lifetime supervision, even if their criminal sentence has already been served.

    • These measures operate outside of the standard criminal justice system, and often without due process protections, undermining fairness and justice.

Framing and Its Consequences for Justice

• Social Role of the Scapegoat:

  • Sex offenders are treated as scapegoats, figures onto whom society can project fears, moral failures, and social disorder.

  • This scapegoating allows for social unity through the exclusion and punishment of a specific, marginalized group.

• Disproportionate Retribution:

  • The retributive response to sex offenses is often disproportionate to the actual risk posed by sex offenders.

  • This extreme reaction is fueled not just by the perceived risks of sex offenders but by a societal fear of acknowledging the human, albeit deviant, desires that underlie many of these offenses.

Conclusion and Broader Implications

• Control of Violent Offenders:

  • The strategies used to control sex offenders (e.g., civil commitment, lifetime supervision, public shaming) could be applied to other classes of violent offenders, with similar consequences for justice.

• Fear of Human Desire:

  • The paper concludes by suggesting that the harsh treatment of sex offenders reflects a fear of confronting the humanity behind their actions, which often involves deviant, but human, desires.

  • By labeling sex offenders as monsters, society avoids engaging with the complex psychological, emotional, and social factors that contribute to deviant behavior

Framing of Sex Offenders

A. Frames and Organization of Experience

Introduction to Frames

• Concept of Frames:

  • Frames are cognitive mechanisms used to organize and make sense of experiences. They are used to categorize and interpret events, shaping how individuals perceive and understand their world.

  • Other terms related to frames include schemas, scripts, and idealized cognitive models. These are all overlapping concepts that pertain to how people organize their perceptions and actions.

• Erving Goffman's Definition of Frames:

  • Sociologist Erving Goffman defines frames as the principles that govern the organization of social events and the way individuals subjectively engage with these events.

  • Frames provide the context or structure through which people interpret actions, events, and situations in a meaningful way.

  • A frame helps to establish the significance or meaning of an event by connecting it to a broader pattern or model.

Frames and Cognitive Organization

• Cognitive Patterns:

  • Frames act as cognitive patterns that shape how we process and understand experiences. These patterns help categorize experiences and organize them in specific, meaningful ways.

  • An experience might seem identical from an objective perspective, but when processed through different frames, individuals may interpret the same event very differently.

• Gregory Bateson’s Analysis of Frames:

  • Gregory Bateson, an anthropologist, discusses frames in the context of play. He argues that serious activities can serve as a model for creating playful versions of those activities.

  • For example, chess is a game based on the model of medieval warfare, transforming serious war strategies into playful interactions on the chessboard.

• Example of Frames in Action:

  • The same action can be framed in different ways based on context:

    • Bite: If an animal is fighting, its action may be described as a "bite."

    • Playful Nip: If the same animal is playing, the action is framed as a "playful nip."

  • This demonstrates that the meaning of an event depends on the frame through which it is viewed.

Frames in Morality and Social Perception

• Moral Framing:

  • Frames are often used to shape moral judgments and influence how we view the rightness or wrongness of actions.

  • For example:

    • Robbery can be framed as a criminal act of theft, or it can be reframed as a necessary act for survival (e.g., feeding children).

    • The legend of Robin Hood reframes theft as a heroic act of compassion, challenging traditional moral frameworks.

  • These variations in perception are shaped by the frames individuals use to organize their experiences.

• Framing in Social and Political Debates:

  • Moral debates are often framed in competing ways:

    • Pro-abortion advocates might frame opponents as "anti-choice" to emphasize the restriction of personal freedoms.

    • Anti-abortion advocates might frame their opponents as "pro-abortion" to highlight perceived support for unrestricted abortion rights.

  • In both cases, the frame organizes the experience, influencing the moral interpretation of an issue.

The Role of Metaphors in Framing

• Metaphors and Their Impact:

  • Metaphors play a foundational role in shaping frames. They help construct the meaning and interpretation of an event by drawing comparisons with familiar, often non-literal, ideas.

  • Changing the metaphor used in a frame can result in reframing an experience entirely, shifting its meaning and moral value.

• Literal vs. Metaphorical Frames:

  • Sometimes an event is framed as literal (e.g., war for soldiers on the front lines) or as metaphorical (e.g., war in the game of chess).

  • The way an event is framed determines whether it is perceived as a serious, real-world occurrence or something more symbolic or playful.

Framing Sex Offenders as "Monsters"

• Victimization and Invasions of the Self:

  • Sex offenses, such as rape and child abuse, are viewed as serious moral violations because they represent profound invasions of a victim’s sense of self and dignity.

  • These crimes are seen as deeply immoral because they degrade and violate the victims in fundamental ways.

• Perpetrators Reframed as Monsters:

  • In contrast to the victims, perpetrators of sex offenses are framed within the "monster" frame. In this frame, sex offenders are not seen as humans making immoral choices, but rather as beasts driven by uncontrollable, non-human impulses.

  • Monstrous behavior is perceived as being beyond human choice, and as such, perpetrators are often viewed as incapable of exercising autonomy or making rational decisions.

• Consequences of the "Monster" Frame:

  • Legal Justice: The monster frame leads to the dehumanization of sex offenders. As they are viewed as "monsters," they are seen as unworthy of standard legal protections or moral rights.

  • The justice system often treats those framed as monsters as individuals who do not deserve the same rights or dignity as ordinary citizens, justifying harsh legal consequences and extraordinary measures like civil commitment and lifetime supervision.

Summary and Implications

• Frames Shape Experience:
  Frames are powerful cognitive tools that shape how people interpret and organize experiences, events, and actions, influencing how they are perceived morally, socially, and legally.

• Moral Judgments are Framed:
  Morality is often framed in different ways, allowing for competing interpretations of the same event or action. The framing of an act as either immoral or necessary depends on the perspective from which it is viewed.

• Metaphors Influence Perception:
  Metaphors are key to reframing experiences, influencing the way actions are understood, whether they are seen as serious and literal or playful and symbolic.

• The "Monster" Frame for Sex Offenders:
  Sex offenders are framed as monsters, which dehumanizes them and justifies severe legal and social punishments. This framing distorts the recognition of these individuals as persons capable of making choices, focusing instead on their animalistic and uncontrollable impulses.

B. Monstrous Other; a long tradition

Introduction: The Monster Metaphor

• Monsters as Metaphors:

  • The term "monster" is frequently used to describe individuals who engage in horrifying, unnatural acts, particularly in the context of criminal behavior.

  • Historically, "monster" has been closely associated with deviant sexuality and is used to label people who deviate from social norms.

  • Understanding the monster metaphor requires a historical perspective, as contemporary uses of the term may obscure its origins and meanings in legal, psychiatric, and social contexts.

• Aim of the Section:

  • The goal is twofold:

    1. Uncover the sources of the social hysteria surrounding sex offenses.

    2. Restore humanity to the offender by analyzing how the concept of the monster has evolved and impacted social perceptions.

Historical Origins of the Monster Metaphor

• The Renaissance and Enlightenment Views:

  • In the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the figure of the animal in human form became central in popular, literary, scientific, and legal cultures. These figures were often referred to as prodigies—a category of monsters.

  • Monsters symbolized moral failings and were used to purify dangerous forms of sexual conduct, acting as scapegoats for society’s fears and anxieties about deviating from moral norms.

  • The language used today to describe sex offenders (e.g., "predators") still retains the historical connection to monstrous forms of deviant sexuality.

• Aquinas and the Concept of the Prodigy:

  • St. Thomas Aquinas distinguished between sexual acts that are unnatural and those that result from moral choices. For Aquinas, engaging in sexual acts that were abhorrent to the natural order—such as bestiality and sodomy—produced monsters or prodigies.

  • A prodigy was a figure of horror and moral condemnation, representing the most deviant forms of sexual misconduct.

• Ambroise Paré’s Account of Monsters:

  • Ambroise Paré, a 16th-century chronicler, described monsters born of unnatural acts like bestiality, specifically half-animal, half-human creatures.

  • These monsters were associated with sodomy and atheism, and they symbolized violations of natural law.

  • Such monsters were considered horrific and were feared, reinforcing social norms that demanded sexual conduct be aligned with natural and moral order.

The Role of Monsters in Reinforcing Norms

• Social Function of the Monster:

  • The concept of the monster historically functions to reinforce societal norms. While monsters were seen as the products of unnatural actions, they simultaneously served as a moral boundary to ensure acceptable conduct.

  • Monsters were framed as both statistically abnormal and morally evil—indicating that deviant behavior was not only rare but also inherently wrong and dangerous.

  • The term monster itself originates from the Latin monstrum, which means both portent (an omen or warning) and abnormal birth, underscoring its dual role as a symbol of danger and a moral lesson.

• The Normal vs. Abnormal:

  • The concept of the normal was linked to moral rightness—that which was statistically average was considered right. Deviations from this normality, especially in sexual conduct, were seen as unnatural and often horrifying.

  • Monsters symbolized these deviations, acting as reminders that behaviors outside the norm were morally and socially unacceptable.

The Monster Metaphor and its Transformation

• The 17th Century: Fear and Witchcraft:

  • During the 17th century, there was widespread fear of sinful behavior, often attributed to witchcraft. Religious leaders such as John Cotton advocated for the persecution of sinners, believing that such individuals were inherently sinful and required segregation or punishment to maintain civic order.

  • These fears led to witch hunts, where people who were deemed deviant were labeled as monsters, reinforcing the moral panic around sinful behavior.

• The Rise of the Moral Monster:

  • Beginning in the 18th century, the concept of the monster shifted from being a biological anomaly (e.g., half-human, half-animal) to a moral anomaly. Philosophers like Michel Foucault emphasized that monstrosity was no longer about the mixture of physical forms but about moral irregularities in character.

  • The moral monster became associated with criminals, particularly those who engaged in socially deviant acts, including sexual offenses.

  • As criminology and psychiatry developed, the idea of the psychopath or antisocial personality disorder emerged, positioning these individuals as monsters of character who were morally defective and capable of heinous acts.

The Modern Understanding of the "Monster"

• Psychopathy and the Monster:

  • The modern conception of sex offenders draws on earlier ideas of the moral monster. These individuals are seen as lacking empathy for the pain of others, which makes them monstrous in the eyes of society.

  • The psychopath, a modern iteration of the monster, is viewed as incapable of feeling remorse for their actions, particularly in the context of violent and sexual crimes. The lack of empathy for others is seen as evidence of their subhuman status, thus justifying their segregation and punishment.

• Sex Offenders as Monsters:

  • The sexual offender is often framed as a "predator"—a dangerous creature who threatens the social order. This metaphor emphasizes the offender’s animal-like, uncontrollable impulses.

  • Society treats sex offenders as monsters—not just criminals—but as inherently evil beings who cannot be rehabilitated. This view undermines the possibility of reforming the offender and reduces their identity to their criminal acts.

The Stigmatization of the "Other"

• Discrimination and the Monster:

  • The metaphor of the monster often serves to justify the segregation and dehumanization of those who deviate from accepted norms. This includes not only sex offenders but also those who have committed violent crimes or are considered mentally ill.

  • In the context of sex offenders, their status as monsters can lead to discriminatory policies that punish rather than address the underlying causes of their behavior.

• Goffman’s Analysis of Normalcy:

  • Sociologist Erving Goffman discusses the relationship between the normal and the abnormal, arguing that social stigma is used to exclude those who do not conform to society’s ideals.

  • Goffman’s description of the “unblushing male”—the prototypical figure of normalcy—underscores the idealized norms that individuals are expected to meet. Those who deviate from these norms, such as sex offenders, are often stigmatized and excluded.

• Monstrous Crimes and Social Unity:

  • The concept of monstrous crimes (e.g., sex offenses, terrorism) plays a powerful social role: it unites people in fear and contempt for those who commit such acts.

  • The fear of the "other"—those who commit monstrous crimes—serves to reinforce societal cohesion and justify harsh punishments.

  • This stigmatization often prevents more rational discussions about how to address the causes of such behavior and the rehabilitation of offenders.

Conclusion: The Impact of the Monster Metaphor

• The monster metaphor has a long history and continues to influence how we view deviant behavior, particularly in the context of sex offenders. By framing such individuals as monsters, society dehumanizes them, overlooking the complexity of their actions and the potential for rehabilitation.

• The stigma associated with being labeled a monster leads to discriminatory and punitive responses, hindering efforts to address the root causes of sexual violence and instead reinforcing societal fears and anxieties about sexual deviance.

C. Scapegoats and the Social utility of outsiders

Introduction to the Role of Monsters as Scapegoats

• Monstrous Crimes & Scapegoats: The media and society frame certain crimes, like serial murder and sex offenses, as monstrous, and categorize the perpetrators as "monsters." This labeling serves the same social function as it has throughout history: the scapegoating of individuals.

• Scapegoating: This involves attributing social suffering or crisis to an external source, often unfairly, to protect the group and restore social harmony.

  • Joseph Kennedy highlights that the sex offender becomes a scapegoat when the suffering attributed to them is exaggerated beyond the actual facts.

The Disproportionate Response to Sex Offenders

• Low Recidivism Rates: Contrary to public belief, sex offenders have relatively low recidivism rates. Studies from the U.S. Justice Department show that:

  • Only 3.2% of released rapists were reconvicted for another rape within three years.

  • 3.5% of all sex offenders released in 1994 were reconvicted of a sex crime.

  • Of those reconvicted for a sex crime against a child, only 2.2% had been rearrested for such crimes.

  • Other studies report 13.4% recidivism rates.

• Despite these findings, the media and legal systems often emphasize exaggerated statistics and the idea that sex offenders are repeat offenders. This creates a narrative of an ongoing threat, encouraging punitive measures rather than nuanced solutions.

• Public Misconception: Media coverage of sex offenders typically ignores the disagreement within studies about recidivism rates, instead amplifying fears of repeat offenses.

Social and Psychological Functions of Scapegoating

1. Focus of Social Solidarity:

   • Emile Durkheim's concept of social solidarity suggests that monstrous crimes, such as sex offenses, create a sense of unity in fragmented societies. By unifying against the "other", society strengthens its internal bonds.

   • Sex offenders are targeted because their crimes are framed as exceptionally deviant, contributing to social cohesion through shared condemnation.

2. Sex Offender as a Scapegoat:

   • Rene Girard analyzes the social role of scapegoats, noting that during periods of crisis, society tends to identify an individual or group as the source of its problems.

   • Girard's Analysis of Violence: He argues that the violence directed at scapegoats is "holy, legal, and legitimate", while the violence that the scapegoat supposedly represents is seen as illegitimate and immoral.

     • This dynamic allows society to absolve itself of collective guilt by focusing blame on an outsider.

   • The violent targeting of sex offenders as scapegoats has similar features in modern society. Sex offenses, particularly involving children, are seen as particularly egregious transgressions against societal norms.

Characteristics of Scapegoating

• Rene Girard and Kierkegaard identify common features of scapegoating:

  1. Crisis Situation: Scapegoating occurs when society is in a state of crisis (e.g., moral panic over crime).

  2. Violation of Social Norms: The scapegoat has committed crimes that blatantly challenge societal taboos (e.g., sexual violence, abuse of children).

  3. Victim's Stigma: The target of scapegoating often carries a stigma that makes them socially undesirable (e.g., sex offenders are considered morally and socially defective).

  4. Subject to Violence: Scapegoats are subjected to legal and social violence, ranging from harsh legal punishments to social ostracism.

• Scapegoating in the Case of Sex Offenders:

  • Sex offenders fit these four characteristics:

    1. The social crisis of increasing fear over child abuse, particularly sexual offenses, creates a demand for scapegoats.

    2. Their crimes are seen as blatant violations of deep-seated societal norms surrounding the protection of children and sexual conduct.

    3. Sex offenders are stigmatized as morally corrupt or mentally ill, making them easy targets for societal condemnation.

    4. They face legal and physical violence, such as long prison sentences, public registration, and social isolation.

Reframing Normal Sexual Behavior

• Normal vs. Abnormal Sexual Interests:

  • Studies suggest that some sexual attractions classified as offenses, such as attraction to post-pubescent adolescents, are statistically normal and prevalent in many people.

  • This raises the question of whether many who are labeled as sex offenders have sexual interests that are socially disapproved but not inherently abnormal.

  • Sexual attraction to adolescents, while legally problematic when acted upon, may be part of a larger spectrum of normal human desires, highlighting the difficulty of distinguishing between normal and deviant in sexual behavior.

Conclusion: The Social Function of Scapegoating

• The scapegoating of sex offenders serves to:

  1. Maintain social order by reinforcing moral boundaries.

  2. Create social solidarity by uniting society against a common enemy.

  3. Absolve society from guilt by focusing blame on outsiders who are considered morally or psychologically flawed.

• Despite the disproportionate legal response and the low recidivism rates, sex offenders continue to be targeted as monsters and scapegoats. This illustrates the psychological and social utility of maintaining such categories of otherness, which provide a convenient way to express societal anxieties while reinforcing moral and legal norms.

D. Scapegoats and Moral Panic

Introduction to Moral Panic

• Moral Panic Defined: A moral panic is a social phenomenon where a group or individual is constructed as a threat to societal values, often depicted in exaggerated or distorted terms by the media. Key features of moral panic include:

  • The target group (such as sex offenders) is portrayed as a threat to social values.

  • The mass media shapes and stylizes the depiction of the threat.

  • Influential figures like politicians, media editors, and therapists amplify the panic with their diagnoses and solutions.

  • The resulting public fear leads to reactive legal and social measures.

• Moral Panic over Sex Offenders:

  • Sex offenders have been frequent targets of moral panics throughout U.S. history.

  • During such panics, sex offenders are often scapegoated, resulting in harsh punishments and social condemnation even after the panic subsides.

Historical Context of Moral Panic and Sex Offenders

• Legal and Social Response to Crime:

  • The moral panic around sex offenses became particularly prominent during the 1970s and 1980s, when the U.S. criminal justice system shifted towards determinative sentencing, such as mandatory minimums and extended sentences.

  • This shift reflected anxieties about racial disparities in sentencing and the growing fears surrounding violent criminal behavior, especially child sexual abuse.

  • The breakdown of social solidarity post-1960s further fueled the need for more severe legal responses to perceived threats, including child abuse.

• Sex Offenders and the Family Hierarchy:

  • Child sexual abuse is seen as the paradigmatic sex offense, posing a direct threat to the family unit, particularly the father's role as protector. This disruption is viewed as a challenge to societal order and moral values.

  • Sex offenders, especially those who abuse children, are linked to a breakdown in the basic family hierarchy, which is central to social order and moral norms.

  • Sex offenders are framed in the same way as political terrorists, as legitimate targets of public scapegoating because of their perceived assault on societal values.

Psychological and Social Function of Scapegoating

1. Sex Offenders and Childhood Abuse:

   • In the therapeutic community, sex offenders are often believed to have themselves been victims of childhood abuse, thus sharing a stigma with their victims.

   • Child abuse is considered a key factor in shaping an antisocial personality, which contributes to criminal behavior.

2. Legal Violence and Incarceration:

   • Robert Cover, a Yale law professor, argues that the judicial system enacts violence whenever it imposes punishments, particularly long prison sentences or the death penalty.

   • Even after prison terms, sex offenders face civil commitment and severe restrictions on their movements (e.g., Megan's Laws, which mandate public sex offender registries and restrict living conditions).

   • Unlike other criminals, sex offenders are labeled as sex offenders for life, even after serving their sentences, reflecting the belief that their monstrous nature cannot be changed.

3. The Entertainment Value of Scapegoating:

   • The public fascination with the monster-like portrayal of sex offenders provides entertainment value. Media depictions often exploit the horror and morbid fascination that come with watching these individuals being caught and degraded.

   • Popular TV shows like To Catch a Predator turn the pursuit of sex offenders into a form of spectacle. These portrayals contribute to the demonization of sex offenders, reinforcing their status as outsiders who are qualitatively different from "normal" people.

   • Mythologies of Evil Incarnate serve to provide psychological satisfaction to the public by transforming violent offenders into easily identifiable, almost mythological enemies.

4. Scapegoating and Social Function:

   • Rene Girard's concept of mimetic desire helps explain the dynamics of scapegoating. According to Girard, a community channels its violent desires towards a surrogate victim (the scapegoat), thus preventing the community from falling into self-destruction.

   • The cathartic violence directed at sex offenders can be understood as a social release, allowing the community to purge its fears and anxieties in a controlled, ritualistic manner.

   • In ancient societies, theater served as a form of mimetic desire, and in modern culture, laws and media portrayals function in similar ways by channeling societal anxieties into narratives of moral crisis.

The Continuing Moral Panic over Sex Offenders

• Sexual Offenses as a Persistent Source of Moral Panic:

  • The moral panic over sex offenses continues unabated, with the public increasingly viewing sex offenders as inherently monstrous and incapable of rehabilitation.

  • There is political and media capital in maintaining the moral panic. Media outlets, politicians, and therapists benefit from the ongoing fear and anxiety that surrounds sexual crimes, as it provides them with platforms to push their agendas and policies.

• The Function of the Scapegoat:

  • Scapegoats, like sex offenders, serve the dual function of bearing the community's guilt while simultaneously acting as cathartic outlets for collective frustrations and fears.

  • Oedipus as a Scapegoat: The myth of Oedipus, as told in Sophocles' play, parallels the scapegoating of sex offenders. Oedipus is blamed for the plague in Thebes, even though his actions were not entirely to blame. Similarly, sex offenders are scapegoated for broader societal anxieties about sexualization and the vulnerability of children.

  • The fear of sexualized children and the social anxiety about sexual desires are reflected in the moral panic over sex offenders.

Scapegoating vs. Effective Solutions

• Does Scapegoating Solve the Problem?:

  • The process of scapegoating sex offenders does not effectively address the root causes of sexual offenses or contribute to meaningful solutions for prevention and treatment.

  • Stigmatizing the offenders may result in social exclusion, which undermines efforts to rehabilitate and understand the underlying causes of sex offenses.

  • The mythological narrative of the sex offender as a monstrous other does not allow for self-reflection or rational control and instead focuses on a simplistic, sensationalized view of the crime and the criminal.

• The Value of Stigmatizing the Crime vs. the Offender:

  • While the crime of child sexual abuse is stigmatized for good reasons, the practice of stigmatizing the offender—through humiliation, isolation, and exclusion—does not help society address the real social problem.

  • This stigmatization only diverts attention from the need for better understanding, prevention, and rehabilitation of sex offenders.

Conclusion

• The moral panic surrounding sex offenders serves to reinforce societal norms by demonizing those who violate them. However, this approach fails to resolve the underlying issues and may actually increase the likelihood of avoiding real solutions.

• Scapegoating sex offenders provides temporary relief from collective anxieties but does little to address the complexities of sexual violence, leading to the perpetuation of a cycle of fear and punitive measures that often fail to reduce crime or rehabilitate offenders.

Sex offenders as monsters: Legal response

• In the U.S., laws not only incarcerate convicted sex offenders for past offenses but also impose severe social restrictions after their release.

• Psychiatric diagnoses are used to justify preventive detention for sex offenders, marking them as dangerous individuals.

• Psychiatrists and psychologists are enlisted by lawmakers to provide grounds for ongoing confinement of sex offenders.

• Certain sexual disorders are deemed to severely impair the cognitive, emotional, and volitional capacities of offenders.

• These disorders are used to support laws designed to protect the public from future offenses.

• The attribution of abnormal mental states to sex offenders transforms them into "monsters," making their punishment and exclusion more acceptable in modern, secular society.

A. Statutes and the Courts banish sex offenders from social participation

Statutes and the Courts' Role in Banishment of Sex Offenders

Both statutory law (laws passed by legislative bodies) and common law (court decisions) serve to banish convicted sex offenders from participating in common social networks. This creates a form of social exclusion, positioning sex offenders as acceptable targets of scapegoating. The legal system effectively marks these individuals as outsiders, keeping them away from community life and reinforcing societal fears around their potential danger.

Residency Restrictions and Social Exclusion

1. Georgia's Sex Offender Residency Statute

   • A prominent example of legislative efforts to restrict the liberties of sex offenders is the Georgia Sex Offender Residency Statute.

   • This law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of areas where minors congregate, including:

     • Schools

     • Public and private parks

     • Playgrounds

     • Skating rinks

     • Neighborhood centers

     • Gymnasiums

     • School bus stops

     • Public swimming pools

   • This statute is illustrative of a broader trend across states to restrict the living spaces of sex offenders, often making it nearly impossible for them to find housing.

   • Additional Restriction: In Georgia, the law includes a unique provision that prohibits sex offenders from living near school bus stops, making it almost impossible for offenders to find acceptable housing without violating the law.

2. Impact of Residency Restrictions

   • The prohibition on living near places where children and families frequent effectively isolates sex offenders from most communities.

   • These residency restrictions have created a de facto banishment, where the offender can be forced to live in remote or unsafe areas, or in situations where reintegration into society is nearly impossible.

   • These legal barriers, while intended to protect minors, contribute to the social isolation and stigmatization of sex offenders, with minimal opportunities for them to reintegrate into society.

Involuntary Civil Commitment Statutes (SVPAs)

1. Sexually Violent Predator Acts (SVPAs)

   • One of the most extreme legal measures used against sex offenders is involuntary civil commitment through Sexually Violent Predator Acts.

   • Once a convicted sex offender has served their criminal sentence, these laws can lead to the indefinite incarceration of the offender in a civil commitment facility based on psychiatric diagnoses of mental abnormality or personality disorder.

   • Key Points:

     • Civil commitment is not criminal punishment, but a form of preventive detention to protect the public.

     • Offenders are committed indefinitely, with reviews held periodically to determine if they can be released, though these releases are rare.

     • The treatment provided during civil commitment is typically rudimentary, with cognitive-behavioral therapy and rehabilitation programs that have uncertain effectiveness.

2. Constitutionality and Precedents

   • The first SVPA was enacted in Washington State in 1990, though Washington had already run a civil commitment program for sex offenders as early as 1971 under the Sexual Psychopath Program.

   • Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia have SVPA laws, which allow for the civil commitment of sex offenders after their criminal sentences end.

   • The commitment is based on two criteria:

     1. Mental abnormality or personality disorder that predisposes the individual to commit sexually violent offenses.

     2. Substantial impairment of their ability to control their behavior.

3. Legal and Practical Concerns

   • Burden of Proof: The burden is often on the offender to prove that they should not be committed, which places the individual in a position of disadvantage.

   • Review Hearings: Though civilly committed offenders are entitled to periodic reviews, these hearings are often pro forma and do not result in the offender's release.

   • In states like New Jersey, hearings are repetitive and based on the same diagnoses and risk assessments presented during the initial commitment, often with little hope of release.

Constitutional Issues and Supreme Court Rulings

1. Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)

   • The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that civil commitment of sex offenders under SVPAs is constitutional, even though sex offenders are not necessarily mentally ill.

   • The Court stated that individuals can be committed if they have a mental abnormality that makes them a danger to society, even if they are not classified as mentally ill in the traditional sense.

2. Kansas v. Crane (2002)

   • The Supreme Court further upheld civil commitment laws in Kansas v. Crane, allowing commitment when the state proves that the offender has "serious difficulty" controlling their sex-offending behavior.

   • Volitional Impairment: The Court held that a sex offender’s volitional impairment (the inability to control their actions) can justify commitment, with certain psychiatric diagnoses used to establish this.

     • Common diagnoses include paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia) or personality disorders like antisocial personality disorder.

3. Psychiatric Diagnosis and the DSM-IV-TR

   • SVPA statutes often rely on psychiatric diagnoses from the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to determine whether an offender is suffering from a volitional impairment.

   • The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has disavowed using the DSM-IV-TR for predicting future behavior, but the warnings have largely been ignored in legal contexts.

   • Common diagnoses used to justify commitment include paraphilias, antisocial personality disorder, and impulse control disorders.

The "Monster" Frame in Legal Discourse

1. From Criminal to Monster

   • While psychiatric diagnoses do not frame sex offenders as mentally ill in the traditional sense, they do portray them as suffering from mental abnormalities that make them dangerous and incapable of change.

   • This rhetorical shift from criminal to monster serves to dehumanize the offender, marking them as individuals who are fundamentally different from "normal" people due to their personality traits and sexual dispositions.

2. Moral Panic and the Need for Scapegoats

   • The concept of the sex offender as monster serves to fuel moral panic, wherein society's fear of sexual violence is tied not just to the harm the offender might cause, but to the threat posed by their perceived abnormality.

   • These laws and their preventive measures position sex offenders as outsiders, creating a sense of contamination that must be avoided at all costs.

   • The attribution of essential traits, like antisocial personality disorder or paraphilia, becomes a mechanism for differentiating these individuals from the rest of society.

Consequences of SVPA Laws and Social Exclusion

1. Lack of Rehabilitation and Release

   • Despite the claims of rehabilitation programs, civilly committed offenders are rarely released from commitment facilities. This further reinforces the idea of the sex offender as irredeemable.

   • The treatment provided to these individuals is often minimal, offering little hope of reintegration into society.

2. Social and Moral Implications

   • The legal framing of sex offenders as monstrous serves to keep them socially isolated, reinforcing their status as outsiders.

   • This moral panic about the sex offender, coupled with legal mechanisms of banishment (such as residency restrictions and civil commitment), creates a cycle of exclusion that is difficult to break.

Conclusion

• Legal and psychiatric frameworks have created a system where sex offenders are not only criminalized but also stigmatized and isolated from society.

• Statutes like residency restrictions and civil commitment laws mark these offenders as dangerous, reinforcing societal fears and maintaining the outsider status of those convicted of sexual offenses.

• The monster frame used to describe these offenders, based on psychiatric diagnoses, emphasizes their irredeemability and places them outside the possibility of social reintegration, feeding a moral panic that treats them as a permanent threat.

B. Scapegoating the monsters among us: a test case for preventive state

1. Sanism and the Therapeutic Culture

• Sanism: Discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses, which contrasts with the growing therapeutic culture in the U.S.

• Mental illness historically exonerates an individual from culpability in criminal acts, based on the insanity defense (e.g., a person is not responsible for their actions due to mental illness).

• Monsters vs. Mentally Ill: While monsters are viewed as inherently blameworthy, mentally ill individuals are often not seen as morally culpable.

• Mental Illness as a Status: Labeling someone as mentally ill confers a status that does not directly imply moral judgment but marks the person as different (abnormal), much like how monsters were seen as strange and abnormal in historical contexts (e.g., Renaissance beliefs).

2. Sex Offenders as "Monsters"

• Kansas v. Crane (2002): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders could be diagnosed with mental abnormalities or personality disorders that impair their volition (ability to control their actions), justifying their indefinite civil commitment even after serving a prison sentence.

• The concept of future dangerousness: Those who commit sexual offenses are often framed as inherently dangerous due to a predatory character—not just a one-time act but a sign of an ongoing monstrous character.

3. The Myth of Recidivism

• Myth of High Recidivism Rates: Despite evidence showing that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than non-sex offenders, there is a widespread belief that child molesters, in particular, have extremely high recidivism rates.

• Pamela Schultz's Findings: Schultz's research indicates that many incarcerated sex offenders do not fit the monstrous stereotype, as many offenders do not recidivate as often as feared.

4. Court Rulings and Myths About Dangerousness

• Barefoot v. Estelle (1983): The Supreme Court allowed psychiatric predictions of future dangerousness, even though experts acknowledged the difficulty and inaccuracy in predicting future behavior.

• Kansas v. Hendricks (1997): The Court ruled that the commitment of sex offenders based on predictions of future dangerousness did not violate due process, despite the acknowledged uncertainty of such predictions.

• Risk Assessment Tools: Although recent actuarial methods are more reliable in predicting recidivism based on static characteristics (e.g., age, prior offenses), courts still rely heavily on psychiatric diagnostic categories (e.g., paraphilia or personality disorders).

5. Psychiatric Diagnoses as a Form of Scapegoating

• Personality Disorder and Deviance: Sex offenders are often diagnosed with disorders like antisocial personality disorder or paraphilia, which are framed as stable and enduring conditions responsible for their criminal behavior.

• These diagnoses serve a rhetorically powerful form of scapegoating, marking sex offenders as irredeemably deviant, much like the monsters of folklore, emphasizing their deviant traits rather than the crimes committed.

• Dehumanization: Framing offenders in this way treats them as fundamentally different and categorically dangerous, rather than seeing them as individuals who might be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society.

6. Preventive Detention and Civil Commitment

• Preventive Detention: The idea behind preventive detention is to confine individuals who are deemed dangerous, even if they have completed their prison sentence, based on the premise that they pose a future risk to society.

• Sex Offender Civil Commitment: Sex offenders may be committed indefinitely after serving their sentences under sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes, which rely on the claim that offenders' mental disorders make them prone to commit future offenses.

• The failure of preventive detention: Although civil commitment is framed as more humane than prison and a means of protecting society, it has proven to be ineffective in rehabilitating offenders and often subjects them to harsher treatment than incarceration.

7. Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty

• The U.S. criminal justice system traditionally distinguishes between punishment for actions and punishment for status. However, sex offender laws have blurred this line, as offenders are often punished based on perceived dangerousness and diagnosis rather than past criminal conduct.

• Kansas v. Hendricks: The Supreme Court ruled that laws like SVP statutes are permissible because they aim to protect society, but these statutes weaken constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection, especially regarding the right to liberty.

8. The Role of the "Monster Frame" in Law and Society

• The Monster Frame: By labeling sex offenders as monsters, the law enables a special status for these individuals, making it easier to justify indefinite confinement and deprivation of liberty without much sympathy from the public.

• Moral Panic: This moral panic about sex offenders becomes a way to rationalize the loss of rights and the treatment of offenders as outsiders who are incapable of being reintegrated into society.

• This framing supports the idea of preventive state control, in which individuals who are seen as potential threats (because of their mental disorders or dangerousness) can be isolated and excluded from society indefinitely.

9. Preventive Detention as a Threat to Liberty

• Preventive State: The expansion of preventive detention for sex offenders could lead to radical government overreach. Law professor Eric Janus warns that these statutes may serve as a template for broader government control over individuals who are considered dangerous, extending beyond sex offenders to other populations labeled as threats.

• Historical Context: Janus notes that preventive legislation has historically been used in racially discriminatory ways (e.g., Japanese-American internment during WWII), and such laws could expand further if mental illness diagnoses are used to detain people without a clear crime.

10. The Broader Implications for Criminal Justice

• The growing focus on preventive detention rather than punishment for past actions raises questions about the balance between liberty and security.

• As more individuals are framed as monsters due to perceived dangerousness, it becomes easier to justify legal restrictions and civil commitment, potentially leading to a restructuring of the criminal justice system and severe consequences for personal liberties.

• Constitutional Implications: The shift towards preventive detention and the treatment of individuals as dangerous outsiders could fundamentally challenge core constitutional principles of justice, particularly the protection of individual rights.

Key Takeaways

• Sex offenders are often framed as mentally disordered and monstrous individuals who are inherently dangerous, even if they have already been punished for their crimes.

• Scapegoating of sex offenders as "monsters" enables the legal system to justify indefinite detention and the erosion of their constitutional rights.

• The rise of preventive detention laws, like those for sexually violent predators, poses a threat to liberty and could pave the way for broader government control over various populations labeled as dangerous, shifting the criminal justice system from punishment to preventive measures.

• The preventive state risks creating a legal framework in which individuals are punished for their perceived potential for future harm, undermining due process and individual freedoms.

Conclusion

1. Sex Offenders as Scapegoats

• Argument: Sex offenders are framed as scapegoats in society, subjected to social violence that far exceeds the actual danger they pose.

• Scapegoating: The social and legal systems use sex offenders as a target for societal anxieties, creating a focus on their deviant behavior and framing them as a dangerous other.

• Social Consequences: As a result, sex offenders face severe stigmatization, often being regarded as undeserving of basic legal and moral rights.

2. Media and Legal Framing of Sex Offenders

• Monstrous Framing: The media and law often depict certain sexually deviant behaviors as monstrous, portraying those who commit such acts as inherently monstrous people.

• Deviance and Danger: This framing leads to the perception that sex offenders pose an ongoing and inherent threat, making it easier for society to justify extreme measures against them.

3. Role of Experts and Mental Disorders

• Experts on Deviance: Psychologists and psychiatrists typically avoid labeling sex offenders as "monsters." However, mental health diagnoses play a similar role in framing sex offenders as outsiders.

• Mental Disorders: Diagnoses like paraphilia or antisocial personality disorder serve to mark off sex offenders from society by suggesting they are incapable of controlling their impulses.

• The "Outsider" Status: This medicalization of sex offenders as mentally disordered positions them as a group that needs to be treated, controlled, and excluded from society.

4. Consequences of Scapegoating

• Creation of a Class of Outsiders: The societal and legal systems create a distinct class of individuals who are not only unsympathetic but are seen as undeserving of rights and protection under the law.

• Dehumanization: Sex offenders are often treated as less than human, reinforcing their social exclusion and making it easier to justify harsh treatments, such as indefinite civil commitment or preventive detention.

5. Sex Offender Laws as Templates for Broader Control

• Prototype for Social Protection: Sex offender laws, by framing these individuals as inherently dangerous, are seen as models for preventive approaches to criminal behavior. These laws aim not just to punish but to prevent future crimes based on perceived dangerousness.

• Preventive Detention: Laws like sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes use the idea of future dangerousness to justify civil commitment, which can be seen as a form of preventive detention.

• Broader Implications: These laws may serve as templates for a more extensive preventive system that could extend to other populations considered dangerous or deviant in the future, potentially leading to a preventive state that limits individual liberties.

6. Key Takeaways

• Sex offenders are constructed as scapegoats, subjected to social violence that is disproportionate to the actual danger they pose.

• The media and legal systems contribute to this scapegoating by framing offenders as monstrous and morally deviant.

• Mental health diagnoses further other sex offenders, positioning them as unable to control their behavior and justifying their exclusion from society.

• Laws targeting sex offenders may be precursors to broader preventive legal measures that could extend to other groups, representing a shift toward a preventive state where social control outweighs individual rights.