And what of the convicted sex offender who demonstrates an understanding of how to present his behaviour before a Board - who is able to skillfully hide evidence of his addictions for the mere purpose of obtaining full release from any further supervision? For his skillful manipulation, is he any less of a risk to the public?
It should come as no surprise, then, that the dangerous offender provisions tend to impact the less intelligent, the less wealthy, and yes, those least able to demonstrate a capacity to hide their sexual addictions from their assessors.
Cutting through all the judicial philosophies and high-minded policies - beyond the lofty principles of fundamental justice, due process, rehabilitation, and deterrence - lies the simple fact that, in the case of the convicted sex offender, it all comes down to indicators of poor impulse control.
Surely, the manipulative sex offender who manages to convince his assessors that he now has truly vanquished his sexual preoccupations - even if untrue - has at least signaled an understanding of what "society" - in this case, his assessors - expect of him. If he is a man of means, concerned with an appearance of good repute, then is that not, too, another indicator of impulse control, that he can keep any further criminal eruptions under wraps, his persistent addictions tempered by the knowledge that he has already been punished upon exposure of prior criminal misconduct?
Though our criminal justice system is understandably loath to admit this, the dangerous offender provisions are likely there to protect us against a certain class of sex offender - the uneducated, the unintelligent, the indigent and poverty-stricken sex offender. In this repect, it is not simply the criminal indicators of his conduct that guide a Board's decision. In the end, the fate of this class of sex offender is also governed by these additional indicators of a prior low status in our society - all pointing to a generally deficient inability at impulse control, at deferring gratification upon contemplation of a desired goal.
And so, when faced with visible evidence that a low status sex offender maintains an addictive frame of mind, it is sometimes not enough to demonstrate a clean criminal record over the years. At that point, the assessors in our system do not need to wait for any subsequent criminal conduct in order to revoke parole and recommit the parolee to custody. So long as his addictions remain visible to scrutiny, all those incidental breaches of parole - violation of curfew, tardiness, inconsistent attendance at treatment programs - will simply be taken as further indications of poor impulse control, resulting in a further indeterminate period of detention, even though, in actuality, he may pose no further risk to society. Thus, when it comes to the dangerous offender provisions, your station in life will most likely determine whether you are in fact designated as a dangerous offender, subject to an indefinite term of imprisonment.
And so, the balancing of interests continues.
__________________________________________
The preceding article should not be taken, or relied upon, as legal information. It is presented "as is," for general information purposes and commentary.
