Here’s an idea: let’s put all criminals, after they’ve paid their debt to society, in an institution and lock them away. Then we can just forget about them and their criminal history.

A new California law is essentially keeping sexual predators in mental hospitals indefinitely, even after they have served their entire prison sentence. SB1128 now requires that those convicted of sexually violent crimes have to prove to a judge that they have been rehabilitated.

I’ll admit, at first glance it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable. Written by state Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, SB1128 imposes tougher penalties for child pornographers and rapists, and puts the burden on sexually violent predators to prove they are fit to walk among the rest of society. So far, so good. What it does not do, however, is offer any suggestions on how these offenders are going to be better rehabilitated. Even if they stay in a mental institution for longer, it’s not clear that this law will have any effect on their mental state.

“Is this a measure for treating people who are mentally ill, or is it designed to add further punishment for people, who have already been through the criminal justice system and served their time?” Nona Klippen asked the San Francisco Chronicle.

Klippen is the head of the sexually violent predator unit at the Santa Clara County public defender’s office. “It’s starting to look like you’re not trying to treat these people, you’re trying to punish them.”

Klippen has a point. This law seems, to me, like a quick and easy way to deny the rights of a group of mentally ill individuals to keep them out of society.

Many sex offenders are mentally sick and stand the chance of being rehabilitated, according to “Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,” the official journal of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. However, psychologist Moss Aubrey, Ph.D., told the American Psychology Association that this assessment can’t be applied to all offenders, and many of them are not at risk of re-offending.

This law doesn’t take that into consideration. In fact, if Proposition 83, which would expand on Alquist’s law, passes in November, even one-time offenders would be subject to indefinite confinement in mental hospitals. It worries me that some judges might just find it easier to keep these people away from the outside world, regardless of signs of improvement in their mental health.

No one wants sexually violent predators to be on the loose. As a woman, the thought of sexual abuse makes me sick and my first instinct doesn’t entirely disagree with this legislation – I want to be assured they aren’t anywhere near me. What I don’t want, though, is for rehabilitated individuals to be denied re-entrance into society. We should be keeping those who are still a threat off the streets, but we can’t lump them all in together.

This law is a slippery slope. It scares me with its implications, and I don’t want to see where it will take us next. It dabbles with the idea that people who have been convicted of crimes should never receive a second chance. We need to focus more on rehabilitation and less on the sweeping generalization that everyone who has a past should be deprived of a future.