Dangerous offenders who commit crimes causing serious harm face harsher sentences and stricter supervision. In some countries, they may face indeterminate prison sentences. Laws requiring sex offenders to be registered and monitored have been upheld as constitutional, but some argue they are an extension of punishment. Indeterminate sentencing for dangerous offenders is controversial, with opponents arguing it violates human rights. Some countries have a reverse burden system, placing the burden of proof on the accused. Balancing the rights of the accused and public welfare is a difficult task.
A dangerous offender is an offender who has committed a crime determined to cause grievous bodily harm. Criminals labeled as dangerous offenders are subject to harsher sentences and stricter supervision than average criminals. Depending on the offender’s jurisdiction, a dangerous offender is subject to additional supervision after jail time, longer prison sentences, dangerous offender registration, and even indeterminate prison sentences.
In the United States, the dangerous criminals legislation has been touted as unconstitutional. For this reason, indefinite sentences are not allowed, those without specific duration but merely of minimum and maximum duration. Contrary to this legal position, however, laws requiring sex offenders to be classified and registered have been upheld as constitutional, despite protests from critics.
Laws like the popular “Megan’s Law” require that sex offenders be logged and monitored, and that a notification be sent to any potential new neighbors warning that a sex offender is moving into the area. Limitations are placed on where the offender can live, work and recreate. Those against these laws argue that they serve as an extension of punishment, set up offenders for failure within any community, and are unprofitable. Proponents argue that knowing who sexual predators are and what they look like gives other people a better opportunity to protect their children.
In Canada and England, dangerous offenders could actually face an indeterminate sentence. The Canadian government argues that some criminals pose a significant danger to the public. This designation is sought at the request of the Crown Attorney and, if granted, carries an indeterminate automatic sentence without review to seven years’ probation. Crimes that meet the criteria for applying for dangerous criminal status include specific sexual assault crimes, especially violent crimes or potentially violent crimes that carry a potential maximum sentence of 10 years or more. In Denmark, such a designation and sentence is usually reserved for repeat sexual offenders or very violent offenders whose crimes would not otherwise merit life imprisonment.
Many who oppose indeterminate sentencing for the dangerous offender argue that this type of punishment is a violation of human rights. Opponents say these governments predict and punish a crime that has yet to be committed. In some countries, there has been a trend towards imposing a reverse burden system, to place the burden of proof on the accused to prove that they do not deserve designation, as opposed to the government’s burden of proving that they do. Human rights activists warn that this is a dangerous trend that could harm existing systems of fundamental rights in these nations. These activists say protecting the rights of the accused while protecting the welfare of the public has proven to be a difficult balancing act.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
