Critical Teaching in a Sex Crimes Course
It is often said that the media doesn’t tell us what to think; the media tells us what to think about. The media frames our understanding of public issues and informs us which public issues should be at the forefront of our minds.
For 8 years I have taught a college course entitled Sex Crimes. The course uses history and theory to critically examine sex crime laws and sexual offending behavior. In the course, I aim to provide an in-depth examination of the causes and responses to sexual offending and engage students with a non-stereotypical view of offenders as well as an understanding of the many legal controls with which individuals must comply.
Each semester teaching this course, I struggle with the extreme views that students have of individuals who commit a sexual offense: the individual is a pervert, a monster, a stranger waiting to kidnap and rape a child. Students remark that individuals who commit a sex offense are sick and cannot be cured, deserve to be castrated or executed, and should be locked away forever.
What students don’t realize at the start of the semester is that a sex offender in the eyes of the law can be someone who urinated in public in a school zone, a 21-year-old who had sexual relations with his 15-year-old girlfriend whom he later married, an individual caught viewing online child pornography, an individual conversing in a chat room with someone who they think is a minor but is actually a cop, or an individual that kidnapped and raped a child (to name only a few). These are extremely varied acts in their impact, but they all fall under the umbrella term sex offender.
As the American criminal justice system continues to strengthen laws against individuals who have committed a sexual offense, it is important to understand how attitudes toward controversial criminological topics can be altered based on scientific understanding rather than a media frenzy.
Here is my response:
Hello:
I think that your article is wonderful and well written.
One aspect that bothers me in particular, however is that while people sometimes debate the morality of punshing sex offenders, they seldom discuss the actual legality – especially in a historical context.
The argument (according to the United States Supreme Court) is that sex offenders are very dangerous because they have a “high and frightening” recidivism rate. As we know, this is rubbish that was spewed by a third-rate paraprofessional in a glossy magazine and then widely adopted as truth.
Apparently, many, many people know this – many influential people – and yet, my civil rights are still abridged! This is a sobering thought! For, if it is generally conceded by anyone who is presented with the hard evidence (which continues to mount) that registered citizens, in general, are very apt to never reoffend, then we must conclude that their repugnance to sex offenses overcomes any sense of outrage over the abridgement of a fellow citizen’s basic constitutional rights! Basically, they just don’t give a damn!
This should scare the crap out of all persons who profess a love of justice and a love of the United States Constitution. Our country, as a matter of public policy, is abridging the rights guaranteed by the US constitution to a segment of our population that is about the same size as the populations of Wyoming and Vermont combined! And politicians are simply shrugging their shoulders and feigning ignorance!
Furthermore, if we look back at history, we can see other situations where entire segments of a population were marginalized by government decree. Jim Crow; the Japanese Internment; the Chinese exclusion Act; the Nazi Krystal Nacht (and surrounding persecutions); the blacklisting of suspected American communists (both during McCarthy and in the decades prior); the Jewish laws and purges from antiquity and lasting for hundreds of years in western Europe; the current plight of the Chinese Ouighurs. The list is practically endless.
I yearn so much to be able to go for a walk or sit on a bench in the local park or to go enjoy a day at the beach. I wish to be able to go to the public library and check out a book! Yet, I am prevented, by law, from these simple pleasures that we all take for granted.
And the evidence is in; the science is clear that I am not a threat to anyone. And many many politicians, professors, writers, thinkers know these facts. But I still cannot go to the park or beach without fear of criminal prosecution!
They know the facts. They choose ignorance, fear and hatred.
JJJJ, well written and thought out. Some much info provided in the past couple of days to provide for another letter to the governor and the news paper.
A great commentary. I will try to work some of the information into my commentaries to news media or politicians.
“As the American criminal justice system continues to strengthen laws against individuals who have committed a sexual offense….”.
I would argue that a better word is “enhance”, “exaggerate” or “overload” existing laws. “Strengthen” makes it sound like the existing laws are weak, when, in reality, they are already excessive and overly burdensome.
“As the American criminal justice system continues to strengthen laws against individuals who have committed a sexual offense….”…I for one HATE this language because it is so presumptuous. Not everyone convicted is actually guilty. And many people take plea deals admitting to sex crimes they didn’t commit in an effort to avoid prison. I was convicted at trial for a porn offense based on perjurous testimony from the lead investigator. Im still fighting to clear my name.
Facing what seams like a very similar situation. Is there a way to contact you?
JJJJ…4 Jays!
Thank you for your critical and precise analyses of the aforementioned!
I felt the same way you did, and chose to leave the Mainland, wherein I could and still can enjoy going to beach, fish, body surf, and stay to myself….got a simple job that pays the bills…drive a simple island beat up car, but am Able to survive with a decreased amount of societal negativity and police brutality!
If you are single with no other family responsibilities, I would leave ASAP!
Good Luck and stay as positive as you can, especially during these unprecedented times!
Well said. The entire basis for all sex offender laws is public safety based on recidivism rates the original author has admitted are wrong and flawed. Numerous, not just 1 or 2, studies show registries are not accomplishing anything, public safety is not enhanced, recidivism rates are in the single digits and below most if not all other crimes, and yet here we are with things getting worse every day, with the occasional exception.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to get people to understand constitutional rights and how important they are, even when its the rights of others being abused. People only seem to be capable of a change in thinking or to care about things when it directly affects their lives.
I going to put my 2 cents in and chime here…. I feel that who lost children and been abuse that I understand………. Now on the other side of the coin, those who had laws made for them destroyed so many innocent families because of their selfish acts I wish nothing but deepest,hottest parts of hell and for those lawmakers who also created them…
The funny part I hope Jeffery Epstein black book is used to locate those same lawmakers so that can endure the same “Membership” every one of endure. This time no use of tax dollars to buy any one
The problem with that is that these people are so up there in age that they’d most likely die in prison and never get a taste of the laws they created on the registry.
The problem can’t simply be attributed to ignorance, political opportunism or simple outrage. If that were the case, reversing the trend toward more draconian sex offense laws would be a simple matter of education. The Professor Zilneys of the world would easily prevail.
Sexual prejudices evolved at least in part because people tend to hate what they fear most in themselves. Homophobia generally results in persons who have at least a kernel of sexual insecurity and lash out in an attempt to overcompensate. This is not to diminish valid consciously derived rationales such as religious convictions, However, those alone do not explain the vindictiveness and vitriol expressed by some toward homosexuals.
Consider this broad category of persons termed sex offenders. We all know the spectrum ranges from innocent childhood sex play to the most heinous violent rapists. This begs the question of why society tends to lump all together.
IMHO, doing so is a way to, metaphorically, push away the mirror. Sexuality is deeply embedded in humans, and is not just a secondary characteristic of the species. Virtually everyone has had some stray thought that made them feel uncomfortable and fearful of their own potential. This could be as simple as a married person having fleeting thoughts about a coworker, a brief speculation about gay sex, or merely taking note of a niece blossoming into a young woman.
It is very comforting for a person to convince him or herself that any potential for sexual impropriety is not internal, but exists only in those “others” who are somehow permanently damaged monsters. Then the mirror has receded to a manageable distance.
Professor Zilney is correct that the framing starts with language, that appends a permanent scarlet letter to former offenders. Words are distorted, misused and misunderstood when they leak from psychology, law or other disciplines into the common vernacular. When taken out of the original context, they lose their very specific meanings, which renders them meaningless.
The term “pedophile” is one particularly relevant term. For example, Jeffrey Epstein is consistently referred to as a pedophile. He may have been many horrible things, but he was never accused of nor diagnosed with pedophilia. His victims were not prepubescent children, which is the core requirement for the diagnosis. Yet in public discourse, and in the media, this very specifically defined term is used only as a pejorative and has descended to the status of a “dog whistle.”
Ed C,
Your comment was a better read than the actual article. The things you said are what a professor should be saying to his/her students. Perhaps you should continue on this topic, save it and try to publish it somewhere that will be seen by many people.