Justifications of Sexual Assault Sentencing
Why is it that sexual assailants are allowed to coexist in our already fragile society? Most importantly, how can their prison sentencing be justified after the moral ruin they left behind?
Dear Future President:
As a rather progressive citizen of the United States, I am concerned with the justifications of sexual assault sentencing. In today's world, drug paraphernalia and sexual assault are deemed equivalent in the eyes of the sentencing judges. Although, there are times that the possession of drugs will land an individual in jail longer than a sexual assaulter, where you can only get fifty years for the sexual assault of a minor. I do not believe that there are ways to justify sentences that allow local rapists and assaulters to roam the streets freely. This essentially violates the moral code that we as a nation try to convey by allowing our assailants to coincide with the rest of society as a whole. This reflects terribly onto us as a nation by allowing our sexual offenders to roam the same streets as our children. As a young, female citizen, I wish to walk amongst the sidewalks of my city without considering that a sexual assailant is walking the grounds that I am standing. As of today, I live in a nation that protects our government before our people, but your presidency could end that.
When you are elected on November 8, 2016, I hope that the considerable mistreatment of our society will be diminished in our nation. Through you, I wish to ultimately extend the prison sentences of sexual assaulters and provide support programs for the survivors and victims. As a nation, we are required to give back to those who essentially need help. With your presidency, I hope to end the immoral justifications of assault sentences by abiding by our moral outputs and establishing a longer maximum sentence.