Public Policy and Parental Rights

Introduction 

Sex crimes are common in the United States with estimates from research indicating that that one in every five girls and one in every seven boys are sexually abused by the time they reach maturity. Studies have also shown that one in six adult women and one in 33 adult men experience an attempted or completed sexual assault (Miller, 2015). For this reason, state legislatures over the years have ratified several tough-on-crime statutes that order restrictive parole conditions for convicted sex offenders returning to the community. Other strict rules have also been introduced to restrict prominent cases of paroled offenders who go on to re-offend in particularly dreadful means. The paper examines the political position of the state of Texas as it pertains to parole supervision of sex offenders with child victims (Stewart et al., 2018). It advocates for public policies through which their rights to have contact with their biological children when they are released on community supervision will be upheld. 

Parole restrictions come in various ways and may restrict offenders from their parental rights under the law. For example, Texas law prohibits sex offenders who had a minor victim, who are on probation, parole, or mandatory supervision from living in or visiting a residence within 500 feet of a child safety zone such as includes schools, daycare facilities, parks, playgrounds, youth centers, sports field, and other places where children congregate, for the length of their parole (Thielo et al., 2016). Some states also necessitate paroled sex offenders to wear Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices so the state may monitor their movements and locations. Many states continue to search and introduce various policies to control the sex offenders’ populations released from prison into the communities (Miller, 2015). The search for solutions and restrictions has led to the introduction of alarming techniques such as the "no contact" restrictions, which prevent paroled sex offenders from having any interaction with persons under the age of seventeen, including their children which is discussed in this paper. 

Sex Offenders Parole Policy Analysis 

Reduction of recidivism rates is now and will always be a matter of public interest. Promotion of public safety has continued to be the primary focus in the criminal justice system. Some may have different opinions on what promoting public safety consists. Playing an active role in developing programs that ignite positive offender change is one of the main components in improving public safety (Justice, 2017). When an individual commits a crime and serves his time without error and is granted parole should he/she be expected to come out and go right back out to committing more crime? Recidivism is most certainly not what the goals are, instead if we as a community want to lessen recurrence, go must provide equal opportunities to those who are released from institutional divisions (Miller, 2015). How can we expect individuals to seek positive change if the communities they release into are so adamant to stunt any growth opportunities? 

One of the most critical factors of reentry is family reunification. Sadly, there are several types of criminal offenses that if granted parole these offenders may not be offered the opportunity to truly reacclimatize to life via the family reunification process (Savage & Windsor, 2018). Family support is detrimental to offender reentry and success, however what of those offenders who are not permitted this process due to the nature of their crime? The problem is in the policies that state that persons can be restricted from access to their biological children if the Board of Pardon and Parole sees fit if the offender meets the criteria (Justice, 2017). If the biological child and immediate family member is not the identified victim, why restrict access and hinder the reentry and reunification process. Historically, no family support contributes to increased recidivism rates. 

State of Texas laws on sex offenders 

The research will convey current public policies within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice which allow the parole division to restrict offenders from contact with biological children. Currently, the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole administrative directive defines a legally recognized parent as - The mother, a man presumed to be the father. a man legally determined to be the father, a man who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction, a man who has acknowledged his paternity under applicable law, or an adoptive mother or father, as defined in Texas Family Code §101.024; (BBP-Policy 2017) or where the offender has been appointed legal guardian of said child.” (Justice, 2017) 

In cases which the victim of sexual abuse is indeed the biological child of the predator then restrictions to a child, also deemed as the victim would be appropriate with cause for due process hearings to restrict access, however what about the rest of the case who do not meet this criterion? Should they be subject to the same limits? Current Texas public policies appear to think so. Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division (TDCJ-PD) sex offender supervision program (BBP Policy 2017) guidelines reflect that all offenders who have a registered a sex offense with a child victim are subject to restrictions from their biological children and family regardless if they are the identified victim in the case. 

Case scenario 

An example of a case can be demonstrated by a 19-year-old boy who is in a relationship with a 16year-old girl. Having been dating, both were identified as minors. When the girl becomes pregnant, parents of the girl are enraged, charges are filed for sex abuse of a child by contact. While the young man is in prison, the girl identified as the victim has since given birth to child and girl comes to visit with the said child as the two continue their relationship into adulthood while the offender is serving out the sentence. While incarcerated the two getting married and make a plan to support each other and raise the child together when released. The offender is released on parole to sever out the remainder of his 10-year sentence and is not permitted to reside with his bride and or assist in raising of his child due to child safety zone restrictions (Anderson, 2016). 

Regardless of the case, there should be a formal court proceeding that allows for due process and for offender’s case to be heard to include family support and testimony of all parties involved before deciding that an offender ought not to have access to his/her biological children. The recent court case, (Lisa Ann Fineberg, Appellant, 2018) rendered a decision in late October 2018 that would support the notion that Parole should not be able to restrict such access without allowing the offender to plead his case. Being on community supervision should not mean giving up rights to your children when the instant offense case does not meet criteria to make such a restriction appropriate and in the interest in public safety. 

Effects of restriction policy on sex offenders and families 

The restriction policy is an outdated and overreaching system which disrupts lives and breaks families. In many states, sex offenders’ are wide diversity in terms of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds showing great significance in age differences (Savage & Windsor, 2018). Sex offenders’ behavior and characteristics vary displaying factors such as lack of education, instability in employment and residence, drug and alcohol abuse that interfere with daily life, frequent disputes with families, friends, and strangers; and resistance to authority figures. However, the majority of them do not have extensive criminal histories or customary criminal lifestyles. 

Thus, the system policy imposed to bar offenders from seeing their children even when they had not been mistreated, until offenders prove they’re safe is unjustified, unfair and contrary to constitutional human rights (Thielo et al., 2016). As a result, such restrictions have grave impacts on the children affecting them in social, physical, emotional, and psychological ways. The outdated idea that sex offenders must be managed for life and are not curable should be abolished as research analysis indicate contrary results. It is unlawful and selfish to prohibit contact between a parent and a child when there might not have been a problem especially when the records of sex offenses data back to teenage hood records and practices (Savage & Windsor, 2018). 

Restrictions on the offenders have also been implemented inclusively in the child contact prohibitions subjecting the individuals to lifetime supervision especially for sex offenses ranging from statutory rape to sexual assault with a deadly weapon. The act introduced by various states subject offenders to a community-based lifetime-supervision program, which adheres to the view such individuals are beyond cure and are dangerous to children. Therefore, cutting-off low-risk offenders from their families can make them more likely to re-offend. The process of isolation and stigmatization by removing structures and stability increases the risk. Thus restrictions should be reserved for extreme cases such as incest. 

Various hurdles are put in place to restrict sex offenders such as different assessment or show progress in treatment before they are allowed to see their children. Studies also show that parole and probation officials often do not keep track of how often offenders should be allowed to have contact with their children, any efforts to have no opportunity for an exception (Anderson, 2016). Access to family and children usually takes years of polygraph exams, divulgence of sexual history, expression of remorse and many other difficulties before any hope of seeing their children (Savage & Windsor, 2018). Extreme actions which deprive them of their liberty include submission of plethysmograph testing, in which sensors are attached to their penis, to find out whether they were aroused by deviant imagery and sounds and other mind intrusive examinations. 

Proposed changes 

It is a political obligation of the government to promote public safety by holding offenders’ accountable and instituting effective crime prevention measures. The contact restriction laws are introduced out of a sense of concern and urgency as they reflect a broad public yearning for safety in a world that seems progressively hostile to children. The laws and policies are instituted to ensure that every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. The system is hence in need of new policies which will presume that sex offenders should parent their children unless a judge or parole board finds compelling evidence the children are in danger (Zgoba et al., 2010. 

According to research reports indicate that there is a low-risk as sex offenders have less than a 2 percent chance of being re-arrested within five years for another sex offense. The report also highlights that the rate is lower than of those offenders being released from prison with no sex-related conviction. Current TDCJ-PD policy (Justice, 2017) allows such events to occur with no testimony by parties involved and with no notice to the offender. Such a policy requires revision based on the most recent opinion of appeal court which reflect “court of appeals should not have affirmed the trial courts denial of Appellant’s habeas application when there had been no hearing conducted by the trial court (Zgoba et al., 2010). 

Policy development 

In-depth analysis has revealed that the policies such as sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws are imprudent, poorly created, and may cause more destruction than good. In many circumstances, the registration laws are extreme in their scope and take long duration negatively affecting people who pose no safety risk. The rules have caused harassment and victimization of registrants under the online sex offender registries being used for different purposes than what their initial intention (Anderson, 2016). The policies under residency restrictions have the effect of expelling registrants from entire metropolitan areas and forcing them to live far from their homes and families. Parole restrictions have caused men and women to abandon their children and families affecting the functionality of society in values norms and culture (Terry, 2015). In addition to causing harm to victims, state legislatures and advocates of the policies have failed to convince through evidence how the restrictions contribute to the public. 

Even in cases of public safety benefits, the restrictions should be reformed to reduce their adverse effects without compromising those benefits. My advocacy for the restriction policies and laws is for them to be narrowed down in scope and duration. The systems are founded on prediction and assumption that people convicted of sex offenses will continue to commit such crimes if given the opportunity and are high-risk dangers to the community they are released. In the same light, some politicians indicate that recidivism rates for sex offenders that are as high as 80-90 percent (Terry, 2015). However, research shows that most (three out of four) former sex offenders do not re-offend and most sex crimes are not committed by previous offenders (Zgoba et al., 2010. Child development experts have also concluded that many children move past the crimes of their youth, while some will require distinct support and treatment (Levine & Dandamudi, 2016). 

Benefits of the changes 

Changes in restrictions policies and laws will pose many benefits to their communities. The primary goal of the systems should be to prevent sexual violence and to ensure accountability for people who violate the rights of others. Abolishing restrictions and modifying registration laws will enhance public safety by providing that only former offenders are targeted, those who pose a high or medium risk of reoffending (Anderson, 2016). The policies applicable should be determined through the individualized risk assessment and classification process (Gies, 2016). Changing the extreme restriction policies will also show that state legislators have the intellect and bravery to create a society that is safe yet still defends the human rights of every person. 

Family unification policies 

It is essential for contact restriction policies to be reviewed to include family reunification. State legislatures have made family reunification, the process by which a convicted sex offender is allowed to return to live in his home with his victims or alleged victims has to become a controversial issue. The controversy arises from the high risks involved in restoring a known sex offender to a home in which he could re-offend (Levine & Dandamudi, 2016). Most sex offenders, including those convicted of incest offenders, seek to be reunified with their families after serving their sentences. Thus, the reunification process should be a gradual consisting of planning and monitoring by community supervision staff, treatment providers, victim advocates and therapists, polygraphers, and the families of the offenders and victims (Gies, 2016). The reunification process should ensure there is no further traumatization of the victim and other family members. Successful reunification efforts are defined by their ability to make the victim feel safe. Thus, attempts to reunify families not only involves the offender being returned to the home as the vital measure of accomplishment is the safety and welfare of the victim. 

Factors to consider in reunification 

Reunification should be done in adherence to various factors to escape considerable harm that could result from premature and unsuitable offender return to the home. Such actors are: 

The reunification process should be gradual and deliberate. 

Reunification should offer the best interest of the victim which should always serve as the driving force for reunification efforts (Levine & Dandamudi, 2016). 

There should be a genuine commitment to the ongoing emotional and physical wellbeing of the victims. 

The sex offender non-offending parent and other responsible caregivers should be able and willing to protect not only the identified victim but also other vulnerable members of the family. 

The readiness of all parties should be assured through appropriate treatment for the victim, family, and offender are with specific, measurable, logical, and progressive goals (Gies, 2016). 

The process should implement ongoing and closely supervised contacts between the offender, victim, and other family members during the reunification process. 

Challenges 

Reunification requires consideration and weighing of the potential benefits of reunion against the apparent risks. The decision on whether to allow a sex offender to return to a home with the previous history of sexual abuse or where other potential victims reside is a complex issue accompanied by numerous questions and challenges (Stewart et al., 2018). Such problems include demands from the sex offender for parental rights to visitation, provision, and residence. It may also raise concerns from requests from family members to either allow or restrict the return of the offender (Terry, 2015). 

Victim advocates raise other interests, while child welfare agencies and family courts present a wide range of expectations. However, it is essential to also put into consideration the newly formulated state policies on family preservation directed toward preserving families and reunifying parents and children in cases of abuse (Gies, 2016). However, the implementation of the policies should be subject to keen evaluation and assessment and finding satisfactory answers to questions of victim safety and the ability to keep families intact. 

Recommendations 

The family reunification process requires responsible practices due to the risks needs and circumstances present. Thus it is advisable to assess of risk and needs of the offender and environment. Reunification plans and management of the sex offender should be easily modified and strategies put in place based on the current risk posed by the offender, as well as the needs of the victim and other family members (Stewart et al., 2018). All parties involved in the reunification should work in collaboration by enhancing clear and consistent communication and an establishment and maintenance of a conducive environment to safe unity. 

Conclusion 

Despite the high rate of sexual crimes in the United States, there is a need to adopt policies which safeguard human rights. The state of Texas should, therefore, consider instituting reforms on policies which govern offenders on parole. Public policies should uphold family reunification by bringing parents together with their children as many families have the desire to maintain relationships with inmates who commit sexual offenses (Terry, 2015). Thus the criminal justice system should give families the opportunities to restore and rebuild their relationships with binds of love and trust. Parents should be allowed to continue their strong feeling of affection to their children and maintain significant family ties. 

Reformation of the contact restriction policies between parents and their children will ensure emotional and financial support which will benefit not only the family but also the society. However, the necessary precaution should be taken during such a process to ensure that the safety of the victim is paramount and the risk of recidivism. Thus, the parties involved must provide that the offender has assumed full responsibility of the abusive behavior, he or she should recognize the harm caused to the victim and be remorseful and has demonstrated coping skills and actions that will enhance prevention of victimization of others in the family or the community. 

References 

Anderson, J. (2016). Sex offender registration/notification and how it benefits the community. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved From: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250181.pdf 

BBP-Policy (2017, October 20). Adopted By Majority Vote of The Board On The 20th Day Of October, 2017. . 145.263. Retrieved from Texas Department of Criminal Justice: https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/policies_directives/POL%20145.263_Special%20Condition%20X_2017-1020.pdf 

Gies, S. V. (2016). The use of electronic monitoring as a supervision tool. In  Sexual Violence  (pp. 95-117). Springer, Cham. 

Levine, J. A., & Dandamudi, K. (2016). Prevention of child sexual abuse by targeting pre-offenders before first offense.  Journal of child sexual abuse ,  25 (7), 719-737. 

Justice, B. A. (2017, September 1). Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division policy3.6.2. Retrieved from: https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/pd/03.06.02_parole_policy.pdf 

Lisa Ann Fineberg, Appellant, NO. PD-1024 and NO. PD 1025-17 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals October 3rd, 2018). Retrieved from https://cases.justia.com/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2018-pd-1025-17.pdf?ts=1538581095 

Miller, H. A. (2015). Protective strengths, risk, and recidivism in a sample of known sexual offenders.  Sexual Abuse ,  27 (1), 34-50. 

Savage, J., & Windsor, C. (2018). Sex offender residence restrictions and sex crimes against children: A comprehensive review. Aggression and violent behavior. 

Stewart, L., Thompson, J., Beaudette, J. N., Buck, M., Laframboise, R., & Petrellis, T. (2018). The Impact of Participation in Victim-Offender Mediation Sessions on Recidivism of Serious Offenders.  International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology ,  62 (12), 3910-3927. 

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas.  Criminology & Public Policy ,  15 (1), 137-170. 

Terry, K. J. (2015). Sex offender laws in the United States: smart policy or disproportionate sanctions.  International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice ,  39 (2), 113-127. 

Zgoba, K., Veysey, B., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict best practices? Justice Quarterly , 27(667-691).