Abstract
This paper argues that the United States criminal justice system fundamentally fails in its treatment of sexual offenses by retraumatizing survivors while simultaneously relying on punitive mechanisms that undermine meaningful accountability and rehabilitation. Through an examination of adversarial courtroom practices, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, sex-offender registries, and civil commitment regimes, the paper demonstrates how American law prioritizes punishment, political performance, and moral panic over truth, dignity, and public safety. In contrast, comparative analysis of France, Canada, and the Nordic countries reveals alternative models grounded in consent-based legal frameworks, trauma-informed procedures, and rehabilitative justice. These systems emphasize proportionality, reintegration, and institutional accountability while maintaining protections for due process. Ultimately, the paper contends that the United States lags behind its peer democracies not because of legal incapacity, but because of deeply rooted cultural commitments to retribution, exceptionalism, and punitive politics. It concludes that meaningful reform requires both procedural transformation and a broader philosophical shift away from vengeance and toward restorative, evidence-based justice.
Recommended Citation
Hannah J. Flannery,
Justice for None: How the United States’ Sexual-Offense System Fails Victims, Defendants, and the Public,
3
Journal Abbr.
2
(2026).
Available at:
https://ir.library.louisville.edu/sexoffenses/vol3/iss1/2