Sexual crimes are heinous, of that there’s no doubt. Not many things can threaten one’s personal sense of security and safety more than being sexually assaulted. Nevertheless, the hitherto approach of incarcerating offenders and blacklisting them upon release ought to be overhauled in favour of an approach which focuses on rehabilitating and reintroducing offenders into society.

On the surface, it is almost intuitive that the more morally reprehensible an act, the harsher the punishment. As an extension of the principle of representative democracy, we expect the judicial system to act on laws which represent our prevailing moral attitudes.

To this end, one would think it only appropriate that sex offenders — and criminal offenders as a whole — are punished in accordance to the severity of their crimes.

However, these standards are hedged when dealing with offenders who are judged not sound of mind. As opposed to the standard legal proceedings that involve jail time and other punitive measures, the ‘straightening out’ of offenders whose sanity cannot be legally proven is delegated to mental health institutions.

The punishing realities of an iron bar cell are traded in for a regimen of psychiatric evaluations and treatment, with an emphasis on mental health improvement so that the convicted no longer poses a threat to society.

Lower income inequality and higher standards of living decrease recidivism rates.

Treating sex offenders as individuals who require medical aid instead of hard-hearted criminals deserving the full scorn of society, would, to an extent, be equating sex offenders to the clinically insane.

The problem here is that, while the clinically insane can be argued to be unable to comport their actions according to the dictates of what is moral, sex offenders are generally aware of why the act of sexual assault is criminal. So why should sex offenders be given the same legal treatment as those who are clinically insane?

The superior recidivism rates of Nordic countries could serve as a good reason. Compared to the rates of recidivism in the US and the UK, which fall between 50 and 60 per cent, only 20 per cent of prisoners in Norway end up re-offending. The effects of lower income inequality and a higher standard of living on recidivism rates is worth exploring.

In the US and the UK, the longstanding role of the judicial system -— as legislators of retributive justice — means that those convicted of breaking the law are sentenced to punishments that are deemed equal in severity to the crimes committed.

Contrast this with the angle taken by the Nordic judicial systems, in which a stronger emphasis is placed on rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders back into society by providing educational and vocational opportunities. This approach mirrors the current treatment of clinically insane offenders in that the focus is on building them up instead of tearing them down.

Perhaps the judicial system should continue to represent prevailing moral convictions, as there are other institutions in place that focus on rehabilitating individuals. But moral convictions are continually evolving, as evidenced by the history of what we thought was the right way to treat one another.

We are better off focusing on the flourishing of society as a whole, rather than bickering about what kind of hell a sex offender should be put through.