Stuck in Folsom prison … forever

The New York Times reported on Sunday that some states are beginning to confine certain sex offenders indefinitely by placing them in “”treatment facilities.”” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled this so-called “”civil confinement”” constitutional, and many are looking to expand the programs. Should sex offenders be subject to indefinite confinement?

There is no question that something must be done with the most violent sexual offenders, but putting them in an over-priced “”treatment facility”” is not the answer. While the state has an interest in safeguarding its citizens, this should be embodied in sentencing guidelines, not a legislative amalgam that racks up greater expense to taxpayers and has no structure to ensure that the worst offenders are the ones that get committed. The best and most just way to keep violent sexual predators from striking again is to lock them up forever. On average, rapists are sentenced to 10 years and only serve one-half of their sentences. Thirty-eight percent of them never see the inside of a prison cell. Instead of keeping a 102-year-old senile Wisconsin man in a state hospital for “”treatment,”” we should serve stronger justice the first time, not as an afterthought.

– Kara Karlson is a journalism senior.

There is no conclusive evidence that treatment programs (sometimes involving classes in art therapy for anger management) actually rehabilitate sex offenders. Many of these programs have been platform soapboxes for politicians who want to appear pro-family and tough on crime. However, without proof that these programs produce results (ahem, abstinence-only sex education) the state is wasting millions of tax dollars on ineffective treatments. I agree that violent sex crimes deserve strict sentences, but these facilities detract from the fact that many categories of sex crimes go unreported, especially rape. Unfortunately, states are not building equivalent (huge and government-funded) treatment centers for individuals who have been victims of sex crimes.

– Allison Dumka is a political science senior.

Rudolph, the red state winner?

Rudolph Giuliani spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, prompting some to suggest that the former New York mayor might have a chance at winning the 2008 presidential nomination. Is Giuliani a serious contender? Or is he too liberal on social issues to win over the Republican base?

Despite the drubbing Republicans took in last year’s mid-term elections, they seem poised to win the White House next year – provided that Rudy Giuliani is their candidate. Though many in the media excessively question his appeal among social conservatives, Giuliani maintains a strong lead in early GOP polls. Some say that as conservatives become better acquainted with Mr. Giuliani they will jump ship en masse, yet the opposite has proved true: Polls show him increasing his lead over the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney. In addition, most polls show him beating both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a general election. With their egos shattered in the aftermath of the 2006 elections, Republicans won’t – and shouldn’t – take Giuliani’s mass electability for granted.

– David Francis is a pre-business sophomore.

Let me start off by saying that Rudy Giuliani is the best candidate in the country for president in 2008. Rudy has all the right ideas on social issues – he thinks individuals are better than the government at deciding whom to marry and how to treat both their bodies and their fetuses. But more importantly, he understands how to boost both American security and financial stability. And for those reasons, there is no way he will get elected. Republicans can’t deal with the fact that he doesn’t want the government interfering in people’s sex lives, and Dems can’t deal with his prescient tax policy. Giuliani will not get elected – and it will be a shame.

– Stan Molever is a philosophy senior.