Sex offenses shatter lives, yet scandals often overshadow justice, reducing accountability to mere apologies.
That is exactly the problem with the case of Josef Fritzl, whose crimes outraged the world. Now that parole is an option, some argue he has served long enough and is no longer a threat. We must, however, avoid the temptation to downplay the seriousness of his offenses. Fritzl’s continued incarceration is not only justified—it is necessary in reasserting our responsibility to safeguard victims and punish offenders.
Josef Fritzl is no common prisoner who prays to be let out early; he is the perpetrator of one of the world’s most horrific cases of prolonged abuse. Fritzl was accused in 2008 of keeping his own daughter, Elisabeth, captive in a secret cellar for 24 years, repeatedly raping her, physically abusing her and psychologically tormenting her. She gave birth to seven of his children, one of whom died from neglect.
The psychological and physical harm he caused is incalculable, and the impact will last a lifetime. And yet, despite the unimaginable pain he inflicted, Fritzl is now eligible for parole after serving just 15 years—barley over half the 24 years his captive spent in bondage.
Society tends to squirm at the uncomfortable truth of sexual abuse by trying to rationalize the perpetrators’ actions. Sympathy for such offenders as Fritzl tends to overwhelm victims’ pain, leading to a culture that rewards power and manipulation with leniency. It is essential to keep in mind that regardless of age or perceived rehabilitation, sexual crimes demand severe and life-long punishment. Allowing perpetrators to escape after serving their sentence only incentivizes further exploitation and discourages survivors from coming forward.
One of the fundamental principles of justice is that all people are equal before the law. Not punishing criminals sets a bad precedent in which sex offenders such as Fritzl can do what they want without fear of reprisal. Fritzl’s case is a prime example of this dilemma: is he to be let out because time has passed? The answer must be a resounding no. To do otherwise would be an insult to the victims who have been denied justice for far too long. His ongoing imprisonment assures that sexual assault, like this most egregious type, cannot be downplayed or dismissed.
Others argue that Fritzl’s age diminishes him as a threat or that he has served his punishment. But what of his victims? They did not have the choice of ending their suffering. A justice system that is more concerned with the convenience of the perpetrators than the rights of the victims is flawed to begin with. At least, if anything, such cases should be an eye-opener that society will no longer stand for these crimes. Rehabilitation and second chances cannot come at the expense of justice.
Fritzl’s current incarceration is not retaliation but necessary in upholding the rule of law. Sentencing him asserted an important claim: sexual abuse is not something we will indulge in, and its perpetrators will be held accountable. Now that there is talk about parole, we need to ensure that we back up what the statement we are making holds. Justice needs to be unconditional, rather than time-and-situation contingent.
Taking sexual crimes seriously is to refuse to make excuses, to demand accountability and to demand a justice system that prioritizes the victim over the offender. Fritzl’s case is a challenge to the world’s response to sexual assault. If we cave now, we risk continuing to perpetuate the same culture that enables these crimes to be committed. Justice must be done, regardless of years gone by.
