Sex Offenders Sue for Playground Access (courtesy of your local ACLU)

[bjk15]

Sex Offenders Sue for Playground Access (courtesy of your local ACLU) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/31/sex.offender.suit.ap/index.html)

there really isn't much else to say. its pretty much unbelievable to me. i'm sorry people, but there are points where it is either your rights or anothers rights. you can't have both. it's like that whole space-time continuum. deal with it or in this case build your own private playground where kids can't access unless a parent/guardian legally signs off on it. un-freakin-believable... access to playgrounds for sex offenders, sheesh! :mad:

[Breeze]

Sex Offenders Sue for Playground Access (courtesy of your local ACLU) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/31/sex.offender.suit.ap/index.html)

there really isn't much else to say. its pretty much unbelievable to me. i'm sorry people, but there are points where it is either your rights or anothers rights. you can't have both. it's like that whole space-time continuum. deal with it or in this case build your own private playground where kids can't access unless a parent/guardian legally signs off on it. un-freakin-believable... access to playgrounds for sex offenders, sheesh! :mad:

Why not just work to make the law more specific, since that seems to be the issue?

[Duemellon]

man,... u guys & sex offenders.

We've already been over this a few times... define what makes a person a sex offender. Define how long in their lives they will be considered one. Explain how dangerous they are & how often the recommit the crimes.

Then start complaining about them being near your kids.

The ones that you guys fear the most are the extreme cases. The ones where they ritually abuse young children, kill them, or otherwise terrorize them. They are NOT the normal "sex offender".

It'd be like assuming every thief is a kelpto & every person who smoked pot is an addict. Our laws are designed to lump them into the big monolithic & boogeyman-ish category of "monster" but it's not so decidely delinated & they are not all the same depraved sociopathic pedocidal sex-crazed sadist you see written about in the papers.

They are kids, parents, some misunderstood, some just made a mistake, some haven't done such a thing in decades (not because they're away from kids, mind u).

[drougan]

Doesnt any sex offense conviction carry with it the defined limitations on access to childeren anyway?

Besides, I believe the category "sex offender" is also applied to adult rapists. But I guess according to that law its ok for them to be in the park, at night, when there are not childeren present, but young ladies jogging; thats ok....

It also seems like the local ordinance is stepping on the state gov't toes.

[frizgolf]

The 19 year old who screwed his 17 year old gf, and the guy who got caught taking a pee in the alley behind the bar will now be forever (?) banned from taking their (or any) kids to a playground without a chaperone. Silly.

[bjk15]

Why not just work to make the law more specific, since that seems to be the issue?
i'd find that passable if thats what the aim was:
The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists
but, that is not what they as a collective are aiming for really.

it's not so much i am "against second chances" due, but c'mon, they're arguments for themselves are normally just as weak. and yeah, i understand that our law says innocent until proven guilty, but guess what? even if an individual has served their time, their record is not expunged from history, therefore by law they will carry that guilt with them forever.

and you are talking about violating some very intimately when they do these acts. this isn't a simple taking advantage of a situation. it is an intimate, physical, psychological, and sociological act. as far as i'm concerned, if the violated person still has issues with the act, then yeah, i still have issues with the act. but if the violated person is ok, then i can be ok with that. thats my definition, period. no time or attitude adjustment will make up for that, imo. and i have no qualms with separating the sex offenders in terms of children vs. adults. but c'mon, are you going to let an adult sex offender be in a class of other adult sex offendees? you're adding water to acid my friend and that isn't a good thing. either the sex offender can adjust, but then one of the offendees can't and flips out or the offender can't. now are those the only possibilities, theoretically no, but realistically yes.

but you still have a problem b/c you can't just test them for how they will react to a physical encounter b/c if it is a test, then they know it as it is under a controlled environment, but if it is uncontrolled, then you are putting others at risk... hence more lawsuits. i'm sorry, but i don't see how you can test them to see if they are under control reliably.

but i would love to see your definitions due. so if an offender is caught after their first attempt, then they are no worse than a habitual offender? that is interesting. but then we would still digress to prison systems and their rehabbing. and yeah, the media sensationalizes everything, so what? i'm not saying every offender is equal, but you want definitions, i want test scores. in a perfect world you have more interest in rehabbing and defining, etc, but then again as always in a perfect world, we wouldn't have these problems.

[Duemellon]

1st

Having the playground off limits to sex offenders (whether or not the crime included children) because there's this chance (no matter how small or large) that they will do something is enough to want to just prevent it altogether.

What about those who were physical abusers of children? Shouldn't they be prevented from interacting with kids too? U'kno, just anyone with a police record about assualt. Why limit it to just those who hit/hurt kids? The physically confrontational person might take advantage of the situation to do so.

Then murders. Okay, not even murders, anyone convicted of a death due to negligence or higher. I mean, really, if we want to protect the children's intimate parts, don't we also need to keep them alive?

Theives. Even petty ones. Kids don't need to be near anyone who would steal from them, or, well, steal them. Shoplifters, burglars, & muggers really need to stay away from kids because they can influence them.

Drug users, well, even former ones, need to be kept at bay. They could regress, start selling to the kids or just bring drug violence & culture to the kids.

You might think this is an absurdist point, but I really don't see the difference in threat to the child when considering this other people with a searchable police record. Would you rather have a doped up junkie kid or one that was raped? Killed in a violent rage or sodomized cruelly? Have them slapped & everything robbed or flashed?

If you just focus on protecting them from possible sexual assualts, but leave the door open for all others, it makes it seem more like a witchhunt than broad, informed, & genuine, parental concern.

2nd
Being branded a Sex Offender is inclusive of a lot more than just child molestation. For some reason our society associates the term only with perverse sadastic old men who ritualistically brutalize children strange to them, sell the media depicting it & eventually leads to murder of the child to protect themselves.

Even though I described what monstrous thing the term "sex offender" invokes, it is, in no way, descriptive of the typical "sex offender".

2nd(a)
The sex offender label is placed on individuals for the entirety of their life. Whether it was an honest mistake, never repeated again, falsified, or just a misunderstanding of the situation, it doesn't matter & can't be repealed. They are a "sex offender" for life.

2nd(b)
The title "Sex Offender" is a very literal meaning. It is not limited to crimes of penetration of children. It includes the 50 year old man who rapes 90 year old men. It includes the 19 year old kid who slept with a 15 year old one even when they're 75. It includes women who flashed some men at a party. It can include mothers who's own children downloaded illegal pictures on the family machine. It can be anything from public masterbators to someone who actually thought he was 18.

To be more specific, those are the ones that make up the bulk of "sex offenders", not child rapers.
________________________
In conclusion to those points I say:

"You should be afraid of more than what you thought you should be afraid of."
- Sanchez.

or just less afraid of the thing u were

[dannyboy]

and you are talking about violating some very intimately when they do these acts. this isn't a simple taking advantage of a situation. it is an intimate, physical, psychological, and sociological act. as far as i'm concerned, if the violated person still has issues with the act, then yeah, i still have issues with the act. but if the violated person is ok, then i can be ok with that. thats my definition, period.

A crime doesn't have to necessarily involve a sexual act to meet this criteria. I think it's silly that we, collectively as a society, have such a HUGE hangup over sex.

[lawdog]

This is tricky. For the sorts of sex offenders people fear (child molesters, rapists, people who perform frottage on statues of Abe Lincoln, etc.), recidivism is extraordinarily high. So I can understand the fear of them being around kids.

On the other hand, you've got to draw the line somewhere. You can't possibly banish them from every part of the public space in which children might possibly be found. If we let the most paranoid elements of society dictate what happens to them, they'd be shipped off to an island somewhere, 5,000 miles from any kids. It can't possibly be that when someone commits a sex offense, they forfeit all of their civil rights for the rest of their lives.

Then, of course, there's the already discussed fact that this law will apply to more than just child molesters. There's a lot that can be categorized as a sex offense that's not all that sinister.

I tend to think that this particular law is not all that unreasonable, but on the other hand, I'm having a hard time figuring out where a reasonable line would be. If 1,000 feet from parks and pools is okay, why not 5,000 feet. And hell, there are kids in the mall and restaurants, too. And sometimes out on the street. We ought to include those places in the ban. Pretty soon, sex offenders won't be able to leave the house without a non-sex-offender chaperone.

Yes, I realize that's a classic slippery slope fallacy argument there, but really, I'm having a tough time trying to articulate a bright line for finding the balance between the rights of the convicted offenders and insulating children from any possible threat.


*It does occur to me that if you're worried about Chester the Molester fucking your kid in a park, you might want to, you know, keep an eye on them. Maybe go to the park with them, throw a frisbee around? Just a thought.

[Chespo]

Thanks for saying it, Lawdog; I think too many people are so caught up in their hatred of the crime (particularly anything involving children), that they'll revoke any right the perpetrator has to traditional concepts like "reform", "civil rights" or paying your debt to society and not being labeled a pariah for the rest of your days. I believe that nothing (e.g. the desire to molest a child) comes out of nowhere, and that the vast majority of molesters were themselves molested in their youth; although the crimes they might commit are terrible, I also can't help but feel sorry for them because someone else fucked them up. And it's such a deep wound (which for generations was too taboo for a child to even bring to light or for families to acknowledge for fear of stigma/turmoil) that the victims are really damaged for life and end up damaging others.

The biggest thorn in the issue is, as you said, the high recidivism rate. While you'd hope child molesters could be cured, the simple fact is that most aren't; it's too deep for even sterilization to erase. But at what point do you lock someone out of society because of what you're afraid they might do, and what segment of society will you take that tack with next?

[the happy prole]

Sex offenders DO NOT have a high recidivism rate compared to other violent crimes.

[Duemellon]

From the Bureau of Justice itself (1994 stats, sorry, didn't want to work to hard at getting information available to everyone if they just tried searching for 10 sec)

Recidivism (referring to all types of crimes) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism)

...an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex)
Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
__________________________________

Okay, can we stop talking about how sex offenders are "more likely" to return to prison than other ones? It's just not true. They're more likely to return to prison for a sex crime than non sex offenders if they do return to prison, but when only 5% are returning compared to the 47% (actually conviction) of non-offenders, that's an amazingly stark contrast.

The idea they're more likely to return is a MYTH. A scare tactic. An assumption. A declaration of mental deviance & permanent state of depravity that is not supported by numbers.

Okay, so you might ignore this statement & move to the "yah, but would u want it to be your child for that 5% percent?" Let's not move on b/c I'm tired of hearing it. Recidivsismcmsm is NOT a problem with 94.7% of the released sex offenders.

Say it with me now:
95% is larger than 53%. There are even less of them to begin with!

234,000 at the time of the study versus, yah, that's right 1,300,000. Now, I don't think they really had an even 0 at the end for both, so let's assume they were estimating. Anyway, that's 18%.

0.9% of the current population of prisons are statistically expected to return in 3 years for recommitting a sex offense.

[the happy prole]

Exactly. And you know things are f'ed up when Duemellon goes all statistical on your ass.

[Dirk]

Sex offenders DO NOT have a high recidivism rate compared to other violent crimes.
Yes and no. they have a lower rate of recidivism of crimes in general. MUCH lower in fact. They do have a slightly higher rate of recidivism of the same crime.

So you can look at it 2 ways. Either they are more likely to commit the same crime again (which is the way most people look at it) or they are less likely to commit a crime in general again. Sex crimes (by this I mean true sex crimes, not public uriniation or statutory rape) are generally done by a very few, specific types of people. These people generally do not commit other types of crimes, because there is something very specific and unique about sex crimes. Other type of crimes are very interchangable to people because they are generally caused more be circumstances. People rob/embezzel/mug/etc because they need money, not because of something internal.

[Shlep]

From the Bureau of Justice itself (1994 stats, sorry, didn't want to work to hard at getting information available to everyone if they just tried searching for 10 sec)

Recidivism (referring to all types of crimes) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism)

...an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex)
Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
__________________________________

Okay, can we stop talking about how sex offenders are "more likely" to return to prison than other ones? It's just not true. They're more likely to return to prison for a sex crime than non sex offenders if they do return to prison, but when only 5% are returning compared to the 47% (actually conviction) of non-offenders, that's an amazingly stark contrast.

The idea they're more likely to return is a MYTH. A scare tactic. An assumption. A declaration of mental deviance & permanent state of depravity that is not supported by numbers.

Okay, so you might ignore this statement & move to the "yah, but would u want it to be your child for that 5% percent?" Let's not move on b/c I'm tired of hearing it. Recidivsismcmsm is NOT a problem with 94.7% of the released sex offenders.

Say it with me now:
95% is larger than 53%. There are even less of them to begin with!

234,000 at the time of the study versus, yah, that's right 1,300,000. Now, I don't think they really had an even 0 at the end for both, so let's assume they were estimating. Anyway, that's 18%.

0.9% of the current population of prisons are statistically expected to return in 3 years for recommitting a sex offense.


Well, after spending the same amount of time searching, I found still more stats from the same organization from the very same year.

LINK (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm)

Presents, for the first time, data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994. The study represents the largest followup ever conducted of convicted sex offenders following discharge from prison and provides the most comprehensive assessment of their behavior after release.

Highlights include the following:

* Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.
* On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.
* Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. (emphasis, of course, my own)
* The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.

[Shlep]

From CSOM, the Center For Sex Offender Management (LINK) (http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism_review.html) circa 2001, we find:

One review of recidivism rates (p.7) found: "Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent. Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent. Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent. Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent. Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent."

And this, bearing in mind the following factor which I think bears consideration:

The underreporting of sexual assault contributes to the underreporting of recidivism which leads to sex offenders having a low base rate (defined as the overall rate of recidivism of an entire group of offenders). This low base rate problem decreasesour ability to accurately predict recidivism.

Several studies and interviews of sex offenders support the claim that sex offender recidivism is highly underreported, with imprisoned perpetrators having many times more victims than the official criminal reports record.(p.3)

Clearly, the personally invasive/troubling/shaming/humiliating nature of many sex crimes leads them to go unreported; people are far less likely to be anguished or tormented by reporting they were mugged or robbed and gunpoint as they are to report they were inappropriately touched or much, much worse. And still, the recidivism rate is rather high.

[Duemellon]

Yes and no. they have a lower rate of recidivism of crimes in general. MUCH lower in fact. They do have a slightly higher rate of recidivism of the same crime.Incorrect, they are 4x more likely, if they are to return, to return for a sex offense.

So, 5% of them are returning & of those 5% they are 4x more likely to return for a sex offense. 46% of other criminals are 25% likely to return for other offenses.

There are so many differences between sex offenders & other criminals you have to ask yourself why. Most sex offenders are "functional" people who get everything else done in their lives & range from huge successes to typical failures just like everyone else. They look & talk like everyone else & they do all the things everyone else does except they also committ sex offenses.

They are doing it out of the feeling they lack control. There are some who make honest mistakes in judgement (ie: he really looked 18 & didn't ask for an ID before we did the deed) and some are just like hitman, they don't do it b/c they like it, but b/c it gets them money/prestige or something like that. TThe bulk are people who express their frustration of powerlessness at something (real or imagined) by doing this to others.

Most child molestors actually were not sexually abused themselves (SURPRISE!) but they were most likely abused in some way. The abuse makes them feel powerless & w/o proper perspective on things, they repeat the cycle of abuse by demonstrating their current powers on someone else. Whether that ends up being sexual, emotional, or beating.

[Duemellon]

Clearly, the personally invasive/troubling/shaming/humiliating nature of many sex crimes leads them to go unreported; people are far less likely to be anguished or tormented by reporting they were mugged or robbed and gunpoint as they are to report they were inappropriately touched or much, much worse. And still, the recidivism rate is rather high.Iit's saying that it's counting "underreported" crimes & unknown victims reported by the criminal.

You're talking about an individual who is in jail being interviewed for their crimes while in jail & confessing to many different victims but they're never brought additional charges.

You're talking about a person who may have many more victims but still isn't returning at a high rate.

You could interpret the reasons why they don't return as:
1) They aren't committing the crime
2) Their victims don't say anything

Make a note: The report you're citing left out the amount of additional victims, even an average of how many of the molesters reported such things. It didnt' say "most" offenders it said "many" which gives us no quantifiable clues to the percentage except that there had to be more than 1.
Many robbers are in jail for the crime the got busted for & not all the crimes they did.
Drug addits are in jail for the drugs they got busted for & not all the drugs they did.
Dealers might get busted for tax evasion & never for drug possession or trafficking.

You get the people for the crimes you can get them for.

Let's clear what you said:
And still, the recidivism rate is rather high.
This is based on the theoretical assumption that crimes are not being reported & that for X amount of molestors caught X+(large number) are not being caught. Your statement does not have the factual & recreatable numbers nor the proper source (theoretical v. quantifiable) as what we see in actual practice.

But, just like any belief system whether a religion, racism, or political structure, if you believe your conviction to be true you won't let pesky things like facts get in the way.

[lawdog]

Exactly. And you know things are f'ed up when Duemellon goes all statistical on your ass.

Yup. But, despite the statistal bitch-slapping, it's good to see him back.

Where ya been hidin', Roy?

[the happy prole]

I wrote a paper on this one time.

I think what Dirk is referring is recidivism within the class. There really is a pattern there. Overall the recividism rate for other offenses AND for sex crimes in general is low, but within the class, there are patterns.

In other words, those who have recidididividaded are likely to do it again within the same subclass. Rapists stay rapists, molesterers stay molesterers, etc. Which to me, just indicates the stupidity of treating all of them they same.

Along the same lines, schlep is right that male child molesters are a problem. They really do have an abnormally high rate of recidivism, and beyond that there is evidence (admittedly scant, since it is hard to do a mass comparison) that they tend to choose similar victims, methods, etc. But it's also another example of how bad the public is being manipulated that every time wants to show how hard they are in crime, its always a girl victim.

The underreporting thing is an legitimate issue, but the same groups who always cite this as evidence for sex offense legislation tend to be the same people who sneer when some women's group claims that 4 in 10 women are raped and it isn't reported.

There's a flip-side to the coin as well. And that is the same factors that lead to underreporting (the humiliation and terrible nature of the crime) also apply to the offender. That is, the offender is humiliated by their crime and this serves as an disincentive to do it again. Which is one reason people postulate that the rates are so low. Beating up a dude within an inch of their life is considered manly in some circles, and even among general society we tend to be forgiving of this as a "hot-headed" mistake. Whereas no one cuts the sex offender the same slack. And maybe they shouldn't. I'm just sayin', is all.

Also, what hasn't been mentioned is that studies indicate that intervention programs may make quite a difference, especially for certain sex crimes. This cuts against the notion of the sexual predator as raving madman. And also raises the possibility that it may be cheaper and more effective to simply provide counselling rather than banning them from all public areas.

As to how much recidivism is acceptable, I don't know that there's an easy answer to that. But if you think 15% or whatever is too high, then we ought to ban violent criminals from everywhere and everyone because they repeat-offend more and there are more of them.

[markalot]

I just want true sex offenders to be kept away from kids.

We need to define true.

[Homsar]

JESUS CHRIST! What I want to know is why these "sex offenders" want to go near these places anyway. Tell me that.

[the happy prole]

Excellent point. We should just arrest anyone who sets foot in a park, as it's obvious the only reason anyone would go is to molest kids. Better yet, let's just close down every park entirely.

[Duemellon]

JESUS CHRIST! What I want to know is why these "sex offenders" want to go near these places anyway. Tell me that.It could be...

...but don't quote me on this...

...they could be going there to play with their own kids?

Idunno, sometimes you just have to go with the obvious. If they aren't doing it anymore, what's the threat? If they're doing it to their own kids, don't the kids deserve some "happy time" with Pappa Rapist & Momma Sodomy?

[george]

Hopefully, child molestors don't have any children.

[Duemellon]

Hopefully, child molestors don't have any children.?

wha?

More than 2/3rds of the perpetrators of child molestation were known by the family b/c MOST of them were the family. What's easier? to molest someone who lives somewhere else who is actually outside of your realm of control for days at a time or one that you can lord over 7 days a week, every moment they're at home?

It's not to say that every parent who is a child molestor molests only their children, nor that, if they molest some child they are molesting their own. Heck, many of them don't molest every child they have, only a "special" one or something like that.

Finally, it is possible, as proven statiscally, that a person who was a molestor can stop. This is the thing you guys are missing. The theoretic recidvissmmzms brought up by a report based on conjecture by Shlep is muddied by unclear numbers & even clear that it is just theory (it's also not even recidivismsmmz anyway, they did NOT go back to jail).

So, it's possible for a child molestor to be caught, sent through counselling & return a different person, have more kids or marry into a family with kids & be alright.

You guys appear to be operating on a full 15-gallon tank of misinformed fear.

[george]

As a rule of thumb, if you fuck your children, you should lose your children.

[Duemellon]

As a rule of thumb, if you fuck your children, you should lose your children.A parentless child is worse off than a child of a parent who overcame their own problems.

I'm not saying that this goes for all victims, but there is a genuine bond outside of sex or the abuse that takes place between a victim & their parents & when you so decidedly state that all victims & perps should be separated forever u completely miss out on a very important opportunity for reconciliation, healing, & a healthy lesson for the child that people can change &, even though their parent is also their persecutor, the love & relationship they had beyond the horrible things that happened is genuine.

Sorry, if you just yank a child from under their parents & tell them they were never loved by the ppl that, even though they did other horrible things, were their parents, it will cause other problems.

Heck, that's part of that continual victimization & increase of guilt for the victim that I talk about so often when I try to say that the actual crime against the child is no where as near as painful as the actual punishment they experience from society.

[george]

the actual crime against the child is no where as near as painful as the actual punishment they experience from society.

Sorry, but I think that sounds like crap.

[Homsar]

You mean the punishment of creating the molestors in the first place?

[Duemellon]

Sorry, but I think that sounds like crap.Misinformation about child molestors, relations to victims/perpetrators, recidivism, sexual stigmas, gender imbalance, victim self-perception, & perp recovery are to blame.

But all-in-all, I'm sure there are many people who have a deep & truly heartfelt belief system about it that will prevent them from believing anything else,...

...like numbers, facts, testimonies, & logic.

[george]

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply blinded by their own (flawed) belief system.

Carry on.

[Breeze]

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply blinded by their own (flawed) belief system.

Carry on.

And anything you don't agree with is crap. That's a better outlook why?

[george]

And anything you don't agree with is crap. That's a better outlook why?

I didn't define it as factual crap, I said "I think it sounds like crap."

It's an expression of my opinion.

[the happy prole]

I have no problem with the idea that if you molest your kids you should lose custody.

However, I look at it like this. If you go through a counselling program and Child Protective Services okays it, I think you should have visitation rights. And if you do, I would much prefer you take your kid to a park or other public place than be alone with him/her.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Nobody here wants to put children in harms way.

With that said, this is yet another example of how we are tying the hands of our judges too tightly.

Yes, there should be guidlines, but the judge is called a judge for a reason. We elect them (or they are appointed), because they exercise good JUDGEment. & that is exactly what they need to do. We cannot paint these people w/ a broad brush. There are different levels of offense, different types of offenders, etc. Let the judge exercise her/his good judgement & decide on a case-to-case basis.

We shouldn't be mandating that the courts treat everybody the same, because each case is different & the punishment needs to fit the crime.

[Breeze]

I didn't define it as factual crap, I said "I think it sounds like crap."

It's an expression of my opinion.

Tapdance all you like--you factually got caught doing the very thing for which you were condemning someone else.

Being hypocrite probably isn't hard; what's hard is when you get called out for your hypocrisy. Then it's time to start dancing...

[Duemellon]

I didn't define it as factual crap, I said "I think it sounds like crap."but that's my point about the:

"Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply blinded by their own (flawed) belief system."

Mine is based in fact but you were able to disarm/dismiss/marginalize it for your own interpretation with something as objective & factual as "sounds like".

Yes, you didn't define it as factual crap b/c, well, it's fact. What do you have to support your view? I ask b/c I'd like to know. Logic works for me better than facts anyway, so, if you can demonstrate the logic to how my facts can & should be dismissed as "crap" (instead of the unsupportable "sounds liks") then that'd be something of use to me.

[Homsar]

George, if I was you, I'd back away quickly.

[Breeze]

George, if I was you, I'd back away quickly.

If only. But I don't see it happening.

[the happy prole]

Unless Duemellon has a degree in child psychology, he just posted his opinion on what is right for the child.

People who molest their own children (or those they are in close contact with) don't just grab the kid one day and have sex. They initiate it little by little over sometimes over years with lies and pushing the envelop a bit more each time, etc. This leads to a messed-up relationship with the parent even if they never does it again.

It also means that those people are probably not much risk in a public park.

[Duemellon]

George, if I was you, I'd back away quickly.Why should he?

If he has facts or logic I'd love to hear (read) it. If he just has a gut feeling then, yah, he should just review his gut & accept that the world is different.

[markalot]

The facts vs opinion argument is getting really old. No one here posts facts, they post tidbits of factual information that can be turned into supporting evidence of whatever stance they are taking.

[Breeze]

The facts vs opinion argument is getting really old. No one here posts facts, they post tidbits of factual information that can be turned into supporting evidence of whatever stance they are taking.

Gosh, you guys, he's on to us!

[the happy prole]

Sheesh. Calm down, people. I don't know why everyone's so chippy today?

Due, if you have a source supporting your stance on child custody and child molesters then post it. I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't know that much about it. I could change my mind.

[Duemellon]

The facts vs opinion argument is getting really old. No one here posts facts, they post tidbits of factual information that can be turned into supporting evidence of whatever stance they are taking....and now we get down to something else I had talked about right before I left.

Beliefs.

Religion is called a "belief". Many religions have characteristics that allow the follower to fall back on when their practice conflicts with reality. Usually we refer to those things as:
Miracles
Will of an unknown & mysterious superpowerful being acting in ways we can't (or shouldn't try to) comprehend
Is marginal in it's relation to what's really important
Those fallback characteristics that allow believers to suspend belief in other things such as science, tactile experience, logic, & expert testimony.

If someone "Just believes", then such things generally accepted as fact become vulnerable to those fallback characteristics.

People can believe in other things too. Such as the nature of racism, a political party's appropriateness/necessity for them, or even about child molestors. If they believe in that strong enough they will dismiss those "factual" reports using one of the tactics (maybe others, I haven't really thought thru the list) to maintain the "truth" they refuse to review.

Unless people review their deeply held beliefs critically, you'll run into situations where they just "don't listen".

[markalot]

So is it a miracle you came back to the boards, or can it be explained by science?

[Breeze]

So is it a miracle you came back to the boards, or can it be explained by science?

It was the will of an unknown and mysterious superpowerful being acting in ways we can't comprehend.

[frizgolf]

If you could get classicgrrl back in here regularly, I might be born again.

[george]

Tapdance all you like--you factually got caught doing the very thing for which you were condemning someone else.

Being hypocrite probably isn't hard; what's hard is when you get called out for your hypocrisy. Then it's time to start dancing...

lol.

Duemellon said he "is sure." Sure means certain. Certain means it is not debatable but is expressed as a fact. He also reinforces by saying "Mine is based in fact."

I said "I think" meaning, it's a personal feeling or belief. I also said "sounds like." If I wanted to express it as fact, I would have simply said "That is crap," which would mean that is factually crap.

[Breeze]

lol.

Duemellon said he "is sure." Sure means certain. Certain means it is not debatable but is expressed as a fact. He also reinforces by saying "Mine is based in fact."

I said "I think" meaning, it's a personal feeling or belief. I also said "sounds like." If I wanted to express it as fact, I would have simply said "That is crap," which would mean that is factually crap.

Dance on. Dance on.

[Homsar]

http://chicagolife.uchicago.edu/images/city/cl_ballet.jpg
http://www.pleasantmorningbuzz.com/pics/napoleondynamite.gif

[george]

I doubt this is something that could be settled with objective facts, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion at all.

My opinion that "society does more damage to a sexually abused child than the child molestor does" sounds like crap is based on common sense and those victims who I have known. The greatest fear those persons had was that they would be exposed to their molestors again.

Moreover, regardless of whether you believe that 5%, 25% or 50% of child molestors commit the same crime again, it is acknowledged by everyone that some will repeat. Can you really justify it to the repeat victim that he was knowingly put back in harm's way because of some nebulous hope that the perpetrator was "cured?" Or rationalize it by saying that some other kid didn't get molested again? Essentially, it's gambling with a child's well-being.

Furthermore, these pseudo-psychological apologies for the molestor sound like something from NAMBLA. "We fondle them because we love them...."

The Happy Prole's solution sounds much more practical. If a child molestor can show that they have addressed their issues and do not pose a danger to their children, then they should be given the chance to get their kids back. Still a gamble perhaps, but one with much better odds.

[george]

Dance on. Dance on.

Whomever attempted to teach you reading comprehension should also be barred from going within 1000 feet of a school.

[Breeze]

Whomever attempted to teach you reading comprehension should also be barred from going within 1000 feet of a school.

You're flailing now.

[Shlep]

So is it a miracle you came back to the boards, or can it be explained by science?

It was the will of an unknown and mysterious superpowerful being acting in ways we can't comprehend.

Just got off the phone with Falwells' people. Apparently, Due's return is punishment for us not hating gays enough.

[bjk15]

You're flailing now.
and your hypocrisy is just as clear.

[bjk15]

A crime doesn't have to necessarily involve a sexual act to meet this criteria. I think it's silly that we, collectively as a society, have such a HUGE hangup over sex.
i also think it is silly for those who are anti-religious to have such a HUGE hangup over people having an opinion (i.e. beliefs) that is not of their own. talk about hypocrisy.

[frizgolf]

Six of one.
Half dozen of another.
Geez, guys, get a room.

[sayer_of_nay]

A crime doesn't have to necessarily involve a sexual act to meet this criteria. I think it's silly that we, collectively as a society, have such a HUGE hangup over sex.

i also think it is silly for those who are anti-religious to have such a HUGE hangup over people having an opinion (i.e. beliefs) that is not of their own. talk about hypocrisy.

WTF? Anti-religious? Why? Where in dannyboy's quote does it say anything about religion?

HUGE hangup? db said it was silly. When does feeling something is silly equate to having a HUGE hangup? I thought silly was synonymous with trivial?

"...to have such a HUGE hangup over people having an opinion (i.e. beliefs) that is not of their own" - db said "we, collectively as a society". Society is a collection of individuals. So isn't society a collection of people most likely having opinions different from our own? But db made sure to include himself when he said "we". So does that mean he has a HUGE hangup about himself or just society in general?

Where's the hypocrisy? Find it and then we can talk about it. We've got religion in the mix now so it should be easy to find.

[Breeze]

Just got off the phone with Falwells' people. Apparently, Due's return is punishment for us not hating gays enough.

Falwell?! Piss on him--what does he leg-press?

[Duemellon]

I doubt this is something that could be settled with objective facts, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion at all.The things that were settled by objective facts were that return to jail for sex offenders is remarkably lower than others, as that was the point that I interjected with.

If you want to cloud that fact-based assertion with "..sounds like crap" & other dismissive & marginalizing things, then that's the whole "I believe I believe" *ruby slipper clicking* type of thing.

If you want to use other aspects of sex offenders to talk about how they shouldn't be allowed near a playground, please, let's progress. Just don't go back to that absurdly incorrect assertion that they have a high recidivism rate.My opinion that "society does more damage to a sexually abused child than the child molestor does" sounds like crap is based on common sense and those victims who I have known. The greatest fear those persons had was that they would be exposed to their molestors again.Strange, my experiences talking with victims of abuse were more about dealing with other people in intimate situations, having to explain to someone else about what happened, wanting to tell everyone but not wanting anyone to judge them, or the person who did it to them.

It would seem an elephant is like a snake, not a tree George.oreover, regardless of whether you believe that 5%, 25% or 50% of child molestors commit the same crime again,...No, see, there u go. Didn't I just mention that in this reply earlier? U can't even suggest that it's higher than 5.3%, that is a fact. It's not a belief & to take it & make it a belief is exactly what is irritating about this & just perpetuates the unfounded fear of that aspect. So please, wreck 0'nize, & note: it is 5.3%.Can you really justify it to the repeat victim that he was knowingly put back in harm's way because of some nebulous hope that the perpetrator was "cured?"See, there's this "nebulous" hope part.

Who'd want to release any criminal who uses a crime to cope with mental issues? Who'd want to release any criminal who will re-commit the same crime, or another? Toss "nebulous" in there &, well, u'll get support from nearly everyone except certain pathologically apathetic criminals.Or rationalize it by saying that some other kid didn't get molested again?I do not understand the rationalization for this. Isn't that the indicator that it was time to let them re-enter? The kid didn't get molested again. Am I taking this out-of-context or something?Furthermore, these pseudo-psychological apologies for the molestor sound like something from NAMBLA. "We fondle them because we love them...."Who said that so we can address this person together? This is a place we easily agree & whoever it is that said it, well, we'll both pounce on them, agreed?[/quote]The Happy Prole's solution sounds much more practical. If a child molestor can show that they have addressed their issues and do not pose a danger to their children, then they should be given the chance to get their kids back. Still a gamble perhaps, but one with much better odds.[/QUOTE]Strange, that solution sounds good to everyone. *looks around* maybe,... & this is just a guess,... you've assumed that someone who is saying the things I'm saying is defending molestors & marginalizing the pain of the victims.

OMG! That makes sense now! The reason I didn't know who was saying that "We fondle them because we love them..." thing is b/c you totally made that shit up by assuming someone was taking a stance you expect. Whoa. Wicked. Mystery sovled. Why don't we both tear into me for saying such a ridic thing as that.

Even though I didn't say it. You just assumed I was.People who molest their own children (or those they are in close contact with) don't just grab the kid one day and have sex. They initiate it little by little over sometimes over years with lies and pushing the envelop a bit more each time, etc. This leads to a messed-up relationship with the parent even if they never does it again.all that stuff beforehand, the build-up, twists, lies, & dependencies, are the abuse. The actual sexual contact at the is the coup d'grace, but it is exactly that manipulation of the relationship into something deviant that is the real abuse.

As I've been saying, but with the point u made now can be said clearer, society doesn't look at that part of it as much as focus on the sexual contact. All the rest of the stuff could happen with never having touched a child in that way & the child will still be just as fucked up. It is because society focuses on the actual physical sexual part that the child associates it so strongly/w sex & loses such value & identity & things like that.

Physical abuse is the same as emotional abuse is the same as sexual abuse until you introduce society's pressure/reaction to it. Then sexual abuse become the most heinous, physical abuse the next, & emotional abuse is considered "growing up".

But to also add more to your statement, the abuser can do all those small steps quickly, slowly, or whatever, but there is more to the relationship between the parent & the child & that should not be forgotten. Whether your parents were abusive to you or not, they are your parents & their influence on your behavioral development & the good things they did can still engender feelings of genuine love, compassion, & care for them or others.

[george]

The things that were settled by objective facts were that return to jail for sex offenders is remarkably lower than others, as that was the point that I interjected with.

If you want to cloud that fact-based assertion with "..sounds like crap" & other dismissive & marginalizing things, then that's the whole "I believe I believe" *ruby slipper clicking* type of thing.

My "sounds like crap" comment had nothing to do with your recidivism rate stats:

http://www.woxy.com/boards/showpost.php?p=888766&postcount=29

[Dirk]

OMG! That makes sense now! The reason I didn't know who was saying that "We fondle them because we love them..." thing is b/c you totally made that shit up by assuming someone was taking a stance you expect. Whoa. Wicked. Mystery sovled. Why don't we both tear into me for saying such a ridic thing as that.
And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

[the happy prole]

You're making a ton of assumptions yourself, Due.

I think child molesters should lose custody of their kids. And so should people who physically abuse their kids and people who emotionally abuse their kids if the degree of abuse is severe. And in this case it is.

I couldn't care less that society has a hangup with sex. There's no law against keeping a snake in your kid's bedroom. But if your kid is deadly afraid of snakes and you keep them in his room to torture him, then I think you deserve a harsh punishment.

And that's what I think is happening here. People aren't having sex with their kids because they're on a desert island and this is the only way to perpetuate their species. The people being accused aren't dads with daughters looking like Jessica Alba or whatever.

If we lived in some warped society where having sex with your kids was okay, but you couldn't kick them in the shins. These guys would be kicking their kids in the shins. They do it precisely because it's so wrong. They do it to torture their kids. Even if they love them, the desire to hurt someone is just too strong.

[dannyboy]

I couldn't care less that society has a hangup with sex.

I couldn't care less that society has a hangup with sex either other than it makes so many, including those in positions of authority, act irrational. I'm almost willing to bet that if you take two different kids, one abused physically and one abused sexually; both suffering equal amounts of emotional and psychological trauma, there would be a greater public cry of outrage for the child that was abused sexually. The tone towards the situation of the physically abused child would be something to the effect, "what a horrible thing a person can do to another". The tone towards the situation of the sexually abused child would be something like, "Anyone that does something like that isn't even human". Even if not said, many think and feel this way. Is it because violence is seen and talked about everyday but matters of sex are still considered taboo outside of the bedroom? I'm in no way condoning sexual abusers...I abhor all abuse. I'm just looking for consisentency. We as a society should get equally worked up over ALL forms of abuse. Any form of abuse should make our stomachs turn, because it runs counter to our natural state of being.

[the happy prole]

I agree with you, dannyboy.

I think there's a huge paranoia about sex offenders rooted in the whole Madonna/whore thing, etc. I disagree with mainstream society about that, but on some level ALL ethics are about social mores so I don't know how much right I have to dictate what is right and wrong. I could live with that, I suppose but what's bad is that people use stuff like made-up recidivism rates and other assumptions about criminals to justify their actions, which buries any discussion of "well, how bad is this crime?"

But this is when we're talking about adults. I think adults have a greater ability to bounce back and say "Hey, it was bad but was it REALLY so bad that I'm going to let it screw up the rest of my life." They also have friends they can rely on and all sorts of healthy coping mechanisms.

People who molest their own kids don't go out and rape grown women. They purposely go out and hurt the ones they love in the worst way they know possible. And let's not forget that they typically do it repeatedly. If you're a kid, it's very tough to recover from that. And I don't think telling the kid "Hey, you know what? Rape isn't really such a bad thing, so you ought to forgive the ol' man" works. I think we are all in agreement that the real damage done is that kid will have trouble trusting anyone ever again for the rest of their lives. They will feel like things are out of control and helpless, and they will lash out to hurt people to alleviate those feelings.

Screwing up a kid's life like that is just about the scummiest thing a grown person can do. Having said that, I'm not big on punishment as retribution or the death sentence. My concern is for the well-being of the kid. And I think you should immediately lose custody of that child-- probably permanently-- and it would take a hell of a lot of convincing for me to even grant you visitation rights. If that's not what's happening in the case of physical abuse then it should be. I would say that we would be taking physical abuse too lightly, rather than that we are taking sexual abuse too seriously.

[markalot]

I think this paticular law is wrong.

But I want people who prey on young children locked up, killed, or kept in a zone away from all kids. We all know who these people are and what crimes we are talking about.

[Duemellon]

They do it precisely because it's so wrong. They do it to torture their kids. Even if they love them, the desire to hurt someone is just too strong.& I do believe you are wrong more times then not. There are some abusers that do it (general abusers, not just sexual) that are sadists as you are suggesting, but many are just clueless how to express their frustrations in other areas of their lives or anger towards the children. There are still some who were taught how to express it & they follow that example.

To paint them all as consciously cruel is a mischaracterization. We appear to be agreeing on everything but this aspect, which leads to the disagreement about their capacity for genuine love & earnestly doing what is right for their child.

Just like ppl yell at children, the one who is emotionally abusive does so as well when not considering the bigger picture, how the child feels, or anything like that, they just simply act out in a very limited myopic view of how it effects themselves (parent) or falling back on the motivators/disciplines/expressions they grew up with (generational abuse). Those people aren't doing it be cruel, but cruelty is the only thing they know what to do.

It's much like the sex abuse. Parents who do this make this child the "special one" that they think is prettier, more active, more what they want, etc. even though that whole reality is a figment of the parent's imagination. The thing the parent really wants to express is one of care but they fall back on bad lessons or totally warp the reality of the other relationships they are (or should be) in & make the child into something they are not. They aren't being consciously cruel, in fact, some think they're doing something "right" by it.

We know they're wrong.

When they go through counselling they are shown how it is wrong.

They are given different ways to express themselves, how to digest the world around them, so they can avoid doing wrong.

But where does that leave the child? We know they offer counselling, but this child, the one of the "non-sadist abuser", sees their parent(s) loved them & weren't trying to be cruel, but is being told the very person(s) that loved them all their lives are evil, vicious, & never really loved them. That's not true, they really did love them, but they also abused them.