Opinion  of the Month

This is the first monthly opinion piece. It tackles one  of the most controversial issues that Survivors raises...

What would YOU  do if...You discovered that a member of your community was a  convicted sex offender?

By G. Parker

RE: In the Face  of the Tiger (No.5, Series 2)

I think this episode is an example of Survivors at its best. It's a real moral dilema - how  does society treat (child) sex offenders? What is also interesting  is that this issue is currently being debated in much of Western  Society. The U.S. has Megan's Law, Britain has recently  passed similar legislation, and there have been high profile  cases in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe.

In the Survivors episode (although  I can't remember all the details), a newcomer turns out to be  a convicted child molester/murderer. He is only discovered because  one of the group recognizes him from an old newspaper. The group  contains John and Lizzie - two young children. What do they do?

Obviously there's no easy answer:

Do you let him stay, imprison, or banish  him?

Is it safer to know someone is an ex-sex  offender, so that you can guard those at risk, or not to know?  This is the issue which has produced the legislation in both  the States and Britain - people should be warned. The  problem here of course is that most people don't want to live  near a convicted sex offender. Most people couldn't be friendly  to this person, and it's extremely likely that some would physically  hurt him. Also if this happens, he's likely to leave and go somewhere  else. Survivors shows this well - there's a constant worry  about the safety of the children. It's not good for anyone, especially  in the stressful situation they're in.

Banishing him or allowing him to leave  is also a problem. You end up making the decision that your community  are the one that matters, and it's someone else's problem. I  think this is a morally questionable attitude, but it seems like  an easier decision to make in the Survivors setting because  of the collapse of society. However, it still is an issue and  one which has to be addressed in the contemporary debate.

There is the problem that if everyone  knew what he was, they wouldn't want him in their community,  and he probably wouldn't want to live there. He wants to live  somewhere, with other people, so he'll try to hide his identity.  In Survivors World this is pretty easy, and it's only  chance or his conscience that is going to let anyone know. In  our society it is naive to think that sex offenders can be traced  for the rest of their lives. People skip parole all the time,  a register will be no different.

There's also the problem of whether  or not it is actually possible to cure people, to stop them doing  it etc. I know very little about the success of current treatment,  or what leads people to become sex offenders. I've recently heard  that in California 50% reoffend, and the State is considering  enforced castration (the success of which is debatable). If they  can be cured, you can almost guarrantee that being accused and  hassled about being an ex-sex offender for the rest of their  life is going to flip them over the edge again!

I always end up wondering whether sex  offenders should EVER be released from prison? It could be argued  that Megan's Law and its ilk are a halfway measure. In  the Survivors scenario stopping the guy from leaving the  settlement while living a 'normal' life is virtually impossible,  unless your settlement is one of the miltary style set-ups the Survivors occasionally encounter. The only other possible  alternative I can think of is the Death Penalty...no lack of  moral issues there! But even if you favour the death penalty,  it's still no easy way out! In our society, it costs a fortune,  and takes years and years. In Survivors World, someone  has to pull the trigger...but that's another episode!

So what would I do? I find it a real  tough decision! If I knew of a settlement that could contain  him and would agree to do it without deciding to execute him,  I'd take him there. As this is pretty unlikely, I'd probably  end up voting to banish him, and let him find someplace where  no-one knows him and hope he doesn't reoffend. I know it's a  cop-out and a potentially terrible thing to do (if he reoffends),  but I honestly can't see a better way!

Replies

In my opinion, banishment is the worst  possible moral choice. If you really believe that the individual  presents a serious danger to children, then releasing him and  giving him the chance to prey on children in communitites who  are not fortunate enough to have the information you have is  morally indefensible. Surely the choices are:

a) You let him stay, warn everyone,  and keep him under close observation, giving him a chance to  prove himself trustworthy and a reformed character.

b) You imprison him or execute him.

I don't know which of these choices  I would make, but I believe that banishment is not an option.

C. McVeigh

I enjoyed the debate on the molester. I am baffled myself  about what to do. California just released a CD-ROM with molesters'  names on it to police stations all over the state, and anyone  interested can view the contents at the station. It contains  a few mistakes, though, horrifying the people who were wrongly  named in it!

R.Moore

[See Capital Punishment Discussion] ...The  child killer issue is a little more difficult, as he hadn't actually  offended against the community. He was given the benefit of the  doubt but watched closely - given the people in our community,  that was a believable outcome.

Personally I'd vote for banishment, but warn any surrounding  settlements I was on good terms with about the man. In the absence  of central authority to deal with such problems, you'd have to  look after your own first and foremost.

P.Woodley