Second Thoughts About ‘Barbarous’ Acts Against Rapists

We know we have an imperfect justice system, but do we have to be reminded of it so starkly? And so often?

An imperfect system often creates problems without solutions; one sure sign of a problem without a solution is that it prompts public officials--apparently driven to say something--to make inane or misguided remarks.

Gov. Wilson and Orange County’s state Sen. Marian Bergeson filled that role nicely in the matter surrounding the imminent prison release of convicted serial rapist Melvin Carter. More on that later.

Carter’s parole, after a criminal career in which he confessed to more than 100 rapes, comes at roughly the midpoint of a 25-year sentence. The current plan is to release him in the small, remote northern California community of Alturas, the backup choice after Bay Area citizens created a ruckus when it was suggested Carter go there.

Most of us subscribe, if sometimes grudgingly, to the notion of allowing ex-cons the chance at a new life after paying their debt to society. In our minds, though, we’re thinking of the burglar, the forger, the hit-and-run driver and, yes, depending on the circumstances, sometimes even the murderer.

But it stretches anyone’s sense of fair play to ask society to take back someone with more than 100 rapes against his name. Even more dangerous than someone who killed in a moment of passion or anger, a serial rapist who has reached triple figures has, it seems to me, forfeited any legitimate right to live among us.

That’s why the system is so vexing, because Carter is being paroled according to the letter of the law. He’s eligible for early release because he’s been a good prisoner.

It’s almost comical to note that he hasn’t raped a woman during his entire incarceration. For that, he’s entitled to parole.

My impulse would have been to give him, at best, a cookie.

I’m sure the governor doesn’t want Carter released, either, but he sounded horribly callous when he suggested it’s better to have him in a remote area than in a populated one. Lapsing into his sometimes odd-sounding tough-guy talk, Wilson called Carter an “animal” who should be released “out in the wilderness someplace where he will have absolutely the least possible opportunity to hurt another young woman.”

That must have been very comforting to the women of Alturas.

Wilson also supports Bergeson’s bill that would give life sentences without parole to first-time rapists and child molesters. Let’s hope the Legislature is not so far around the bend on crime that it considers passing such an extreme measure.

But it isn’t Wilson’s fault Carter won’t do his 25 years.

So, what to do with the Melvin Carters of the world, who at 49 is not beyond his physical potential as a rapist?

Please indulge me while I borrow from New Yorker magazine. In its lead essay in the March 7 issue, the historically liberal magazine raised the question of voluntary castration of repeat sex offenders in exchange for sentencing considerations. The essay quoted from studies indicating that sex criminals repeat their crimes more often than do other offenders, often committing “an appalling number of them.”

The magazine pointed out that one of every six offenders in state and federal prisons is a sex offender. Ideally, the sex offenders would learn in prison how to curb their tendencies, but, obviously, many do not.

“Why, then,” the New Yorker asks, “resist the demands of men who are willing to risk sacrificing sexual activity in order to be free of their damaging impulses?” The magazine noted that, far from being barbaric, the technique is used in at least eight Western countries.

Arguments that castration, even voluntary, is immoral amounts to “an odd double standard,” the New Yorker noted. Citing for comparative purposes women who choose to have their uterus removed because of excessive premenstrual tension or those who choose to have abortions, the essay then adds, with mock disdain: “But a man who molests children or brutalizes women can’t ask to have his testicles removed, because that would be barbarous.”

The essay concluded by noting, “Our society is so squeamish when it comes to discussing sexual deviance that we tend to demonize sex offenders, forgetting that in many cases they themselves are victims, not only of sexual abuse in their own childhood but also of their overwhelming sexual impulses. Most of them, every time they exercise their sexual preference, break the law. It amounts to fraud when we offer these men treatment that doesn’t work. If castration helps, why not let them have what they want?”

It has been argued over the years that rape is a crime of violence, not sex. Other studies challenge that. Wherever the truth lies, it probably is not a distinction that means a great deal to the vast majority of women.

Two things are certain in the meantime: Prisons will continue filling up with sex offenders, some who may get increasingly violent in light of the new “three strikes” provision, and women will continue fearing the likes of a Melvin Carter suddenly at large in their town.