The evidence shows that the majority of sex offenders are repeat offenders and 'incurable'. Given this fact, the severity of the crime and the devastating, long lasting impact it has on the victims it's understandable that people would want them locked away for a long time to protect the community and give justice to victims. Sadly the fact remains that very few sex offenders are punished adequately or convicted at all, so I don't see the imprisonment .of sex offenders as an issue. It's the low conviction and imprisonment rates of sex offenders that we should be concerned about.
In my previous posting to this site, “Is it Automatically OK to Hate Sex Offenders?”, I discussed the various types of sexual offenders, noting that some are more likely to respond to treatment and less likely to re-offend than others. In this follow-up post, I discuss the fact that even though not all sex offenders are created equally, they are uniformly subjected to the same highly punitive and largely inflexible sentencing laws. Both my previous posting and this post are drawn from an academic report I was asked to write for Sex Offender Law Report. That article appears in their Dec/Jan 2017 issue.
To sum up my previous posting, I will state that there are five basic categories of sexual offenders:
- Violent offenders
- Fixated/dedicated child offenders
- Situational/regressed child offenders
- Situational offenders (non-child)
- Sexually addicted offenders
As discussed in my previous article, the initial two categories, violent offenders and fixated/dedicated child offenders, typically do not respond well to treatment, and they are relatively likely to commit further offenses. Conversely, situational and addicted offenders generally respond well to treatment, and, in general, they are relatively unlikely to commit further crimes.
Interestingly, two offenders can be charged with the same crime (possession of child pornography, for instance), but fall into very different typologies. For instance, a fixated/dedicated child offender might be caught with half a dozen illegal images on his computer, as might a situational or addicted offender. The difference is the fixated/dedicated child offender has no sexual interests beyond his or her attraction to minors, and because of this may feel that he or she has a right to satisfy this “God-given interest.” Most likely, this offender found child porn when he or she intentionally went looking for it. Meanwhile, situational and addicted offenders typically stumble across child porn while perusing legal porn, finding it arousing and perhaps looking for more of it. Generally, these offenders feel great shame and remorse, and after they are caught they admit what they’ve done and gratefully accept counseling designed to help them. However, the American legal system provides little opportunity to differentiate between these offenders, and they will likely receive the same highly punitive sentence even though one of them presents little danger to self, family, community, or society.
A simple and undeniable truth about sex offenders and the American legal system is that punishments have escalated significantly in recent years. Between 1994 and 2007, for example, the mean sentence for a child pornography conviction rose from 36 months to 110 months.1 For the most part, this escalation is a direct result of changes to federal (and sometimes state) sentencing guidelines—mandates mostly enacted as an over-the-top response to an ongoing series of media misrepresentations, in particular sensationalist television shows like To Catch a Predator, plus a single piece of now heavily criticized research known as the Butner study.
The Butner study, co-authored by a U.S. Marshall, looked at 155 men convicted of child porn offenses, finding that many of these individuals had also committed a previously undisclosed and unprosecuted hands-on offense.2 However, because of its inherent bias and some blatantly obvious design flaws, more equitable researchers believe (and have stated rather vociferously) that the Butner Study does not definitively establish a causal relationship between the viewing of child pornography and contact sexual offending.3 In fact, better designed, less biased, peer-reviewed scholarly studies almost uniformly show results that are diametrically opposed to the Butner Study.
Much of the recent credible research into sexual offending (especially offending against children) has been done by renowned Canadian scholar Michael Seto, Director of Forensic Rehabilitation Research at Royal Ottawa Health Care and author of the 2013 book, Internet Sex Offenders. In a 2005 study, Seto and his colleague, Angela Eke, looked at 201 convicted child porn offenders, finding that both recidivism and escalation into hands-on offending are relatively predictable among this population. Moreover, the most likely indicator for both recidivism and escalation is a prior history of other criminal offenses rather than a sexual attraction to minors.4 In other words, Seto and Eke found that a child porn user’s attraction to minors is not a primary risk factor for future sexual offending, while a history of criminal behaviors in general is a major risk factor—perhaps indicating an ongoing propensity to disregard laws in all areas of life.
And this is hardly a lone finding. Seto and Eke’s groundbreaking work has been backed up by other researchers, most notably a 2009 European study by Swiss and German scientists. This study found that among people who had not previously committed a hands-on sexual offense, the viewing of child pornography—even the extensive viewing thereof—was not, by itself, an indicator of future hands-on offending. In fact, only 1 out of 220 test subjects without a prior contact offense went on to commit one.5
Thanks to these and other studies, the Butner study is now thoroughly discredited. Nevertheless, the unforgiving laws it helped to create remain in place, adversely affecting numerous sexual offenders—most notably situational and addicted offenders who might better respond to treatment than imprisonment. And there is little opposition to this, because what media personality or politician would advocate for offenders when there is so much to be gained with the opposite stance. Thus, our current sentencing guidelines are for the most part highly punitive and one size fits all in their approach, with the vast majority of sex offenders treated as if they are an ongoing high-level danger to society, even though their motivations for offending, their likely response to informed treatment, and their potential for reoffending may vary greatly.
Unfortunately, many members of the clinical and legal communities are not fully versed in the clinical intricacies of sexual offending. Instead, like the general public, they possess only a rudimentary and sensationalized view of sexual misbehavior. The criminal justice system, thanks to harsh mandatory sentencing guidelines, is especially deaf, dumb, and blind in this regard. At best, therapists, defense attorneys, and other officials can work together to evaluate a particular offender’s motivations, history, and likelihood of future wrongdoing, and to present, when appropriate, an argument for therapeutic rather than purely punitive sentencing. However, even when that occurs the court may still be required to mete out a harsh mandatory sentence.
So what can be done, you might ask? For starters, those of us who work in the mental health profession, especially those of us who work with sexual trauma survivors (as I do), can learn the truth about the different types of offenders. And then we can educate and advocate with the media, the judicial system, and the general public, working to ensure outcomes that are best for the client as well as the public. In becoming better informed, we can combat the highly biased media vision of sexual offenders, working to end the fearmongering and to put a more accurate face on the issue.
Those of us who research, treat, and manage this population are well aware of the fact that most sex offenders are neither violent rapists nor snatch and grab child molesters. Sure, that depiction makes for exhilarating TV, but it’s just not accurate. Such individuals are in fact a very small percentage of the overall offender population. The less exciting but much more accurate reality is that most sex offenders are relatively normal people who’ve simply made a mistake that they deeply regret. They typically don’t deny what they did, they generally feel great shame about it, and they are nearly always motivated to accept treatment and to make whatever life changes are necessary to avoid repeating their problematic behaviors.
I am the Senior Vice President of National Clinical Development for Elements Behavioral Health and the author of several highly-regarded books, including Sex Addiction 101: A Basic Guide to Healing from Sex, Porn, and Love Addiction; find more information at robertweissmsw.com or follow me on Twitter @RobWeissMSW.
References
1. Stabenow, T. (2008). Deconstructing the myth of careful study: A primer on the flawed progression of the child pornography guidelines. Office of Defender Services/Training Branch, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
2. Bourke, M. L., & Hernandez, A. E. (2009). The ‘Butner Study’ redux: A report of the incidence of hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 183-191.
3. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. American Psychological Association.
4. Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 17(2), 201-210.
5. Endrass, J., Urbaniok, F., Hammermeister, L. C., Benz, C., Elbert, T., Laubacher, A., & Rossegger, A. (2009). The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending. BmC Psychiatry, 9(1), 1.
Very relieved that somebody
Very relieved that somebody else questions the need to be more sympathetic to pedophiles and child rapists.
Almost any other criminal has hope to rehabilitate once their debt has been paid. Yeah, people make mistakes. Yes, people also intend to do terrible things and later regret it. I don't believe there's such a thing as an irreversably BAD person. With the exception of intentionally abusing children. In any fashion.
Very relieved that somebody
Anonymous wrote:Very relieved that somebody else questions the need to be more sympathetic to pedophiles and child rapists.
Yeah, but those aren't the only people who get caught up in legal situations and labeled as "sex offenders". It also includes, for example, a guy around 17 who went to a party and got a BJ from a girl who was 14 but said she was 16 in a state where 16 is legal, her parents went to the police, and he ended up having to register as a sex offender. Or a similar a couple of similar ages who were in love and she got pregnant, so the DNA evidence proves he was a "child molester".
Or in the extreme case, an underage girl takes pictures of herself to send to her boyfriend, so she could in some jurisdictions have to register as a sex offender because of three serious felonies -- creating, possession, and distribution of child pornography. But hey, like you say, we should not be sympathetic to people like that who create child porn and get a kick out of viewing it (even if it's just a picture of themselves) and send it to a boyfriend.
wrote:Almost any other criminal has hope to rehabilitate once their debt has been paid. Yeah, people make mistakes.
Yeah, there are young people who've made mistakes like that. But hey, we gotta be tough on a young girl who takes pictures of herself and doesn't know any better, right? Or a high school kid who got a girl pregnant, right? Gotta be tough on them and teach them a lesson.
"Romeo and Juliette" laws
That's why there are laws that protect minor teens who are the same age or close in age (within a couple of years of being the same age) from being prosecuted for pedophilia on themselves. Young teens need supervision or they will tend to experiment sexually with each other. The laws exist to protect young, naive aka stupid teens from older teens and adults who should know better.
......................................
Yes: older teens/young adults have to bear the responsibility of *knowing the person you want to have sex with well enough* to know his or her age. All children, boys in particular, need to be raised to be scared as shit about going to jail for having sex with a minor. If parents don't drill that fear into their minor children and if they don't supervise their children properly (how is it parents allowed a 17 year old and a 14 year old to be mingling at a party in the first place?) then they were crappy, irresponsible parents.
..................................
ALSO: "Just" looking at child pornography is supporting and contributing to the continuing abuse of the children and minor teens who are made to participate in it, you jerk-wads. So there should be no compassion and no break for those caught "just" with child porn; they are perpetrators by proxy.
And Gary: stop collecting naked teen selfies. Teens are stupid and naive, but that doesn't excuse YOUR behaviors.
That's why there are laws
Anonymous wrote:That's why there are laws that protect minor teens who are the same age or close in age (within a couple of years of being the same age) from being prosecuted for pedophilia on themselves.
Sure, but they don't cover all the needed age ranges and don't exist in all jurisdictions. If you're outside the specified age range by a day, you're sex offender instead of an innocent teenager.
wrote:Young teens need supervision or they will tend to experiment sexually with each other.
You can recommend "supervision" until you are blue in the face. The question is still, what do you do with those cases where things happen. And to suggest that you're going to keep high school students, and even college students from having sex is simply beyond ridiculous. So you will have, for example, a 21 college senior having sex with a 17-year-old college freshman girl in a state where the age of consent is 18, and for some reason, her very conservative parents decide to take it to the police, and boom, you have a problem and maybe even a "sex offender". Not to mention high school girls sneaking into college frat parties and saying they're freshmen at the other college, etc. -- I've personally witnessed that in my college days.
wrote:The laws exist to protect young, naive aka stupid teens from older teens and adults who should know better.
Kind of a dumb statement -- so the laws only protect teenagers who are smart and know the laws, not the dumb ones! Hilarious.
......................................
wrote:Yes: older teens/young adults have to bear the responsibility of *knowing the person you want to have sex with well enough* to know his or her age.
In other words, you haven't solved the problem at all. You've just pronounced, "tough shit". Good job. Love your "creativity".
wrote:All children, boys in particular, need to be raised to be scared as shit about going to jail for having sex with a minor. If parents don't drill that fear into their minor children and if they don't supervise their children properly (how is it parents allowed a 17 year old and a 14 year old to be mingling at a party in the first place?) then they were crappy, irresponsible parents.
Uh huh. Right. Any lamebrain realizes this. OK, we see your point. "Tough luck" is your answer.
..................................
wrote:ALSO: "Just" looking at child pornography is supporting and contributing to the continuing abuse of the children and minor teens who are made to participate in it, you jerk-wads.
You must know more than me because I wouldn't even know where to find it.
wrote:So there should be no compassion and no break for those caught "just" with child porn; they are perpetrators by proxy.
So, in other words, an underage girl who takes a picture of herself and is therefore "caught with it" is a perpetrator too? A perpetrator of herself, so she needs to be registered as a sex offender?
@anonymous/Gary: so wrong
@anonymous pedophile:
"Sure, but they don't cover all the needed age ranges and don't exist in all jurisdictions. If you're outside the specified age range by a day, you're sex offender instead of an innocent teenager."
..........
That's right; you just want laws to favor your desire to have sex with minors. Ain't gonna happen.
..........
"You can recommend "supervision" until you are blue in the face. The question is still, what do you do with those cases where things happen?"
..........
You enforce the laws.
..........
"And to suggest that you're going to keep high school students, and even college students from having sex is simply beyond ridiculous."
The "R&J" laws protect minors close in age. So it's important to teach teen boys that they CAN and WILL get into DEEP, DEEP SHIT if they have sex with someone they don't know who could be 3 or more years younger.
..........
"So you will have, for example, a 21 college senior having sex with a 17-year-old college freshman girl in a state where the age of consent is 18, and for some reason, her very conservative parents decide to take it to the police, and boom, you have a problem and maybe even a "sex offender". "
..........
Yep. That's the way it works.
..........
"Not to mention high school girls sneaking into college frat parties and saying they're freshmen at the other college, etc."
..........
That's why you drill it into teen boys and young men that they CAN and WILL get into DEEP, DEEP SHIT if they have sex with someone they don't know who might be a minor.
..........
"I've personally witnessed that in my college days."
..........
Yes, I bet you have.
..........
"- so the laws only protect teenagers who are smart and know the laws, not the dumb ones! Hilarious."
..........
That's the parents' job, to drill into their children the consequences of having sex when you are a minor; that you CAN and WILL pay a very, very high price for a little fun.
..........
"In other words, you haven't solved the problem at all. You've just pronounced, "tough shit". Good job. Love your "creativity"."
..........
Love your (1) bitterness, (2) inability to accept the consequences of your own poor judgement, (3) lack of impulse control, (4) lack of a conscience. You have the emotional development level of a 5 year old, or a psychopath.
..........
"Uh huh. Right. Any lamebrain realizes this. OK, we see your point. "Tough luck" is your answer."
..........
Yes. That's how laws work. You seem to expect to be above the law, another psychopath trait.
...........
"You must know more than me because I wouldn't even know where to find it."
..........
Right. And I'm sure everyone reading this believes you.
..........
"So, in other words, an underage girl who takes a picture of herself and is therefore "caught with it" is a perpetrator too? A perpetrator of herself, so she needs to be registered as a sex offender?"
..........
Now who is being stupid?
(Hint: its you)
..........
P.S. You're not fooling anyone, Gary the Perv.
That's right; you just want
Anonymous wrote:That's right; you just want laws to favor your desire to have sex with minors. Ain't gonna happen.
Your irrelevant ad hominem pivot is tantamount to admitting you have no point at all.
wrote:The "R&J" laws protect minors close in age. So it's important to teach teen boys that they CAN and WILL get into DEEP, DEEP SHIT if they have sex with someone they don't know who could be 3 or more years younger.
You're pointlessly repeating yourself. The question is what do you do with those who are uninformed and "fell in love" with someone across an arbitrary age boundary?
wrote:Yep. That's the way it works.
That was my point. You have not solution other than "tough luck".
wrote:Love your (1) bitterness, (2) inability to accept the consequences of your own poor judgement, (3) lack of impulse control, (4) lack of a conscience. You have the emotional development level of a 5 year old, or a psychopath.
You're off the deep end. Teens do a lot of clueless things and don't deserve to be labeled registered sex offenders in many cases.
As for you ad hominem nonsense and your "Gary" buddy, TLDR.
Oh, I can't believe that's your argument
Your point is that laws that define minority are arbitrary?! Surprise, surprise! All laws are arbitrary! Speed limit laws, drinking age laws, fishing permits.... they're all arbitrary. And they can vary from state to state, and they are subordinate to federal laws.
..........
So yes; if an 18 year old is driving on the freeway at 70 mph when the speed limit is 60 mph, he will get a ticket.
..........
If an 18 year old had a few beers and is then caught driving over the speed limit he will get worse than a ticket, probably much worse.
..........
If an 18 year old is caught having sex with a 15 year old, then the 18 year old is going to pay a heavy price for it.
..........
All laws are arbitrary, so if irresponsible, negligent parents haven't raised their children to understand the serious consequences of stupidity RE impulsive decisions and law-breaking then it's the children who will pay the price.
..........
Perhaps if the laws were changed so that if their underage child breaks the law, the parents go to jail, parents would be a little more serious about supervising their minor kids and teaching them about the consequences of poor judgement and impulsive law-breaking.
..........
PS: teenagers are particularly naive, vulnerable, and frankly kind of stupid when it comes to not understanding that their impulsive decisions to "have fun" can easily get them arrested, hurt, raped or killed, so yes, teens do need heavy supervision.
When bad things happen to minors I put the full blame on the parents.
Your point is that laws that
wrote:Your point is that laws that define minority are arbitrary?! Surprise, surprise!
Your tiresome rambling response is just a repeat: tough luck. Not much of an answer to real problem.
I think the laws are sensible
See, I think the arbitrary laws defining minority, defining the drinking age, defining the speed limits, etc., are fine.
..........
If you think there are laws that need to be changed, then there are groups you can join that lobby for changes in the law. Go for it.
..........
But me, I think that the three-year age difference for teens makes a lot sense, and that if a teen wants to have sex with minors who are *three or more years younger than he is*, then that kid already has a big freaking problem: Pedophilia.
..........
I don't buy it that pedophiles can be "cured"; it's the same as thinking that gay people can be "cured". It's just not true. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I'm hetero; there is no amount of therapy or drugs in the world that could "cure" me of being heterosexual.
..........
It's a genuine tragedy that there are those whose sexual orientation is against the law, but that's the situation. Those who are sexually attracted to children or to young teens aren't "fixable", but if they're caught early they can have the crap scared out of them so badly by incarceration that they won't likely act on their sexual desire for children or young teens in the future.
..........
I feel sorry for pedophiles but I feel much more sorry for their victims.
..........
The needs and the safety of children and minor teens far outweighs the pedophile's issues.
See, I think the arbitrary
Anonymous wrote:See, I think the arbitrary laws defining minority, defining the drinking age, defining the speed limits, etc., are fine.
This discussion is about the severe consequences of being labeled a sex offender. The punishment for drinking under age doesn't even compare. You're presenting a weak "argument" by simply saying "I'm OK with arbitrary laws because, hey, they're all arbitrary". Not a compelling argument. Rather, it's just an "I don't care" argument.
wrote:If you think there are laws that need to be changed, then there are groups you can join that lobby for changes in the law. Go for it.
And what makes you think I haven't? I made sure that when my family voted for our local judges, they all voted against any that had not taken proper judgement into account on these and other issues. We have a disproportionate effect through our extended family on that count because so few people bother researching local judges on the ballot.
wrote:But me, I think that the three-year age difference for teens makes a lot sense, and that if a teen wants to have sex with minors who are *three or more years younger than he is*, then that kid already has a big freaking problem: Pedophilia.
Wrong on several counts. First, pedophilia is an attraction for children 12 and under, not teens. The name for attraction to young teens is hebephilia. Second, pedophilia is only an attraction, not the act -- it's a problem only if you act on it. Third, it's often virtually impossible to tell the difference in age by only a few years, even in the teens, and a lot of them have fake ID's. In fact, comparisons with Europe has shown for years that strict punishments against sex and teaching abstinence, etc., leads to a MUCH higher teenage pregnancy rate compared to Europe, where sex among teenagers is encouraged in a supportive environment.
wrote:I don't buy it that pedophiles can be "cured"; it's the same as thinking that gay people can be "cured". It's just not true. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I'm hetero; there is no amount of therapy or drugs in the world that could "cure" me of being heterosexual.
Exactly. But you're failing to grasp the most basic concept. Just because you're a heterosexual doesn't mean you're gonna try to rape every woman you meet. I have to assume that adult women don't consider you "dangerous" just because you're a heterosexual. Likewise, most men don't have to worry about being raped just because they meet a gay man. And likewise, many pedophiles realize that having sex with children is a very bad thing, and they don't do it. What's absurd is to make the assumption that if you're a pedophile, then that particular orientation makes you "out of control". In fact, it used to be assumed that being gay made you "out of control". In fact, it was also assumed that if you were gay, you were also automatically likely a pedophile, which would be about as dumb as assuming that if you were heterosexual, you would be interested in females of all ages, not just adults. Also, you shold know that recidivism for sex offenders as a group is considerably lower than with other crimes. THUS, WHILE PEDOPHILIA CANNOT BE "CURED", LEARNING TO ACT ON IT CAN BE PREVENTED. You're apparently unable make that distinction for pedophiles, while you apparently reserve that ability as being second-nature and obvious for heterosexuals like yourself. It's always interesting how in arguments like this people reserve special status for their own sexual orientation.
wrote:It's a genuine tragedy that there are those whose sexual orientation is against the law,
Comprehension fail. It's acting on it that's illegal, not the orientation. Just like a priest can be heterosexual, but celibate.
wrote:Those who are sexually attracted to children or to young teens aren't "fixable", but if they're caught early they can have the crap scared out of them so badly by incarceration that they won't likely act on their sexual desire for children or young teens in the future.
Interesting assumption you're making there -- apparently that pedophiles are incapable of compassion. They have to be scared. So as a heterosexual, the only reason you don't rape is because you're scared-as-crap about incarceration? Like I said, it's interesting how people assign a "special" status of self-control to a particular sexual orientation, which just happens to be their own orientation.
wrote:The needs and the safety of children and minor teens far outweighs the pedophile's issues.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The issue is when people who are not pedophiles, like when a teenager who just turned 17 has sex with a girl who's still 15 and about to turn 16 (and therefore barely a year younger), and who is therefore underage even in a state when the consent age is 16, gets labeled a sex offender for life. In some cases, such couples had children, and even married, yet 10 years later, when the guy is 27 and the girl is 25, he's still a "sex offender", can't get a job, and has to stay away from children's playgrounds. If the law can't deal more reasonably with the particulars of such sexual situations, and has these legal "cliffs" at certain age limits that fall outside the exact laws and are not covered by R&J laws, then perhaps a legal limit like Germany makes more sense -- namely age 14 for age of consent. As it is in the USA right now, since a high percentage of teens have taken pictures of themselves on their cellphones in jr. high and high school, perhaps as much as 30% of all jr. and high students are technically in possession of child porn. I guess you would say that, hey, it's arbitrary and you're ok with that and tough luck, but 30% of everyone in jr. and high school should be labeled sex offenders and live under bridges. OK, if you think that, fine. That's your opinion, and a clear statement that you have no real solutions other than the status quo and holding parents responsible. So how do you hold responsible parents who've divorced, moved away, or teens who've run away?
@anon: I entirely disagree with you
I entirely disagree with every point you and the blog author are making.
I have read government studies that say that the recidivism rate for those who sexually molest children is high.
Those who collect child porn are contributing to the continuing rape of children and need to be prosecuted.
And if a teenager is acting on his impulses to sexually molest another minor 3 or more years younger, that teen has a huge problem and needs to be incarcerated.
The Romeo and Juliette laws are rational and fair, and it's rational and fair to arrest and prosecute anyone who engages in the sexual molestation of minors.
I wish that TV show "To Catch A Predator" was still running, I think it did a great deal of good.
The sad truth is that incest is the most common form of child sexual abuse and all the research says that it's massively under-reported.
Children/teens who are sexually molested by a trusted relative are statistically much more likely to wind up with serious, long-term emotional damage and stress-related physical illnesses.
Children and teens need more supervision by trusted female caregivers, as close to 95% of all sexual abuse is committed by males.
If it was up to me I would make sure that the existing laws against child/teen sexual molestation were even more draconian.
I entirely disagree with
Anonymous wrote:I entirely disagree with every point...
You haven't cogently counterargued a single point I've made, nor the author's. Just rambling feckless opinions with no support whatsoever, not to mention false data.
wrote:I have read government studies that say that the recidivism rate for those who sexually molest children is high.
You're making that up. But first, please learn how to read. I wrote "sex offenders as a group" with regard to recidivism, not "child molesters". But it turns out it also applies so child molesters. So you're wrong even on your incorrect comprehension.
wrote:Those who collect child porn are contributing to the continuing rape of children and need to be prosecuted.
Last I checked that was already the case. Are you ignorant?
wrote:And if a teenager is acting on his impulses to sexually molest another minor 3 or more years younger, that teen has a huge problem and needs to be incarcerated.
Yeah, you've said that about 10 times now. The vast majority disagree. We get that you're a hard-liner with no real constructive answers to a problem you will never solve that way.
wrote:The Romeo and Juliette laws are rational and fair, and it's rational and fair to arrest and prosecute anyone who engages in the sexual molestation of minors.
Yes, but they don't go far enough. Interestingly, just above you basically said you DO NOT agree with R&J laws. Can you make up your mind??? Never mind the confusion in your sentence. So someone only three years apart as teens, is that molestation, or is that "rational and fair". You're all over the place.
wrote:If it was up to me I would make sure that the existing laws against child/teen sexual molestation were even more draconian.
Of course you would, and they would have little effect because they're already draconian. Just all those kids who already don't know they're going to end up on the sex offender registry for just having a girlfriend roughly the same age as themselves. You're a case study in a person who has feckless ideas, only anger and needing to "settle a score" to "teach them a lesson". Like the mentality of wanting to kill someone to "teach them a lesson".
The evidence shows that the
Anonymous wrote:The evidence shows that the majority of sex offenders are repeat offenders and 'incurable'.
Actually, the evidence is quite the opposite. Sex offenders as a group have one of the lowest rates of recidivism, and that's widely researched (just google). Where are you getting your information, or are you just making it up?
wrote:Sadly the fact remains that very few sex offenders are punished adequately or convicted at all, so I don't see the imprisonment .of sex offenders as an issue.
The reason the laws are so harsh and don't distinguish between various situations is because of people who are as misinformed as you.
wrote:It's the low conviction and imprisonment rates of sex offenders that we should be concerned about.
That may be a valid complaint, but is unrelated to reoffending rates, which, again, is low.
ARTICLE
Why does this article bother you so much?
Why does this article bother
Anonymous wrote:Why does this article bother you so much?
Which "you"?
Anonymous on January 27, 2017
Anonymous on January 27, 2017 - 4:28pm:
Actually, reality is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, that is so well known today, you are either completely uninformed or just a liar. Which is it?
If only we really could hold people accountable for what they do
You just made a statement that perfectly illustrates why the system is not working -- an assertion of a fake "fact" (and a declaration of its fact-fullness, to boot). The reality - and part of the point - is that the vast majority of people convicted of sex offences neither re-offend nor even have dangerous proclivities. That is a myth, and a very dangerous one with severe human and societal costs that no one is being held accountable for, because we as a society can't seem to discuss the matter honestly or with anyone's best interests in mind, including our own.
The Department of Justice itself has studied that matter and concluded that sex offenders have the lowest re-offence rate of any category of offender other than for murder, treason, and espionage (we apparently cannot post links, but remove spaces and see, or search on your own: bjs.gov and read pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf). It's so low that, frankly, it's a bit surprising. Others have indicated even lower recidivism and that further breaking down categories of offenders yields differentiated results.
Further, it is true that many sex crimes go undetected, but that does not somehow mean that those that are prosecuted should be punished by proxy to "make up for it". It is another of those long and actually indisputably established facts that disproportionate and irrational sentencing not only does not deter further crime in general, but in many cases increases crime (the going lines of thought being centered around the desperation and hopelessness caused by severe sentences as well as resentfulness towards the system). This holds for sex offences as well. While on this there has not been a definitive study, there are indications that harsh sex offence laws are in fact increasing risk to children and society, not decreasing it.
Sex crime convictions are unlike any other kind. There are no registries for murderers or thieves or arsonists. The restrictions and uncertainty surrounding the registries make life extremely difficult. While some legislatures have contended that registries are meant to be civil in nature and not a punishment in order to survive court challenge, that doesn't really seem to pass the sniff test, bluntly, nor is it consistent with underpinnings of law where people are not punished for what they have not done. Many registrants are subject to harassment or violence in addition to chronic unemployment and homelessness (several studies indicating a majority of persons convicted sex offenders experience significant homelessness and unemployment, and the vast majority underemployment or unemployment). In many cases they may not be physically present around their own families or pick their own children up from school. They must comply with a complex set of notification requirements the violation of which imposes the spectre of further imprisonment and other sanctions; among those re-arrested within three years of release, most were solely for registration violations. Policing resources are expended monitoring them and on having them back in the court and penal system. These costs are born not just by them, but by everyone around them. There are nearly one million people of the registries now, making this a societal burden. Even those that are removed from the registries are not removed from private registries nor do they escape the conviction itself, which anyone can see and effectively consigns them to a lifelong struggle to sustain themselves in any capacity, with little hope of building a meaningful life or establishing or re-establishing personal friendships and relationships. (Speaking purely from a utilitarian standpoint, this likely also increases societal risk from those few offenders that are inclined to re-offend). From a treatment provider's prospective, it makes getting them treatment - whether for sexual matters or for other matters, of which there are sure to be many - extremely difficult and patchwork. I have seen people incarcerated because they did not get mandated treatment (for something that didn't really apply to them, but we'll put that aside), because they couldn't afford it, because they couldn't find regular work.
I am sometimes inclined to say in the case of, for example, a violent or serial rapist, "who cares?". I think many of us are (as evidenced by many comments here). However, we supposedly and are supposed to hold ourselves to certain logical and ethical standards of justice, law, and treatment. Putting such popularized cases of predators aside, we should observe that many (and an ever increasing proportion of) prosecuted sex offences are statutory and many involve no direct victim at all (some in fact none at all). Then we have the absurdities where children are being prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves, often pictures of otherwise lawful acts that would not orginarily be considered unhealthy, or the mentally ill for things they did not understand or did not intend. Changing technology is likely making this a more pressing crises. Take someone, for example, who searches for pornography on the internet and stumbles upon child pornography (whether they know it is child pornography or do not) and is prosecuted for it. They may not be a pedophile at all or any risk to anyone nor (for such an individual in the modern age having not gone to great lengths to seek it as they might have had to in the past and being accustomed to everything online being free) have they likely materially contributed to its production or dissemination. For younger people today especially, this is clearly not a scenario that is hard to imagine or understand. Should we be treating them as if they are no different from those that rape children or would do so? There is a spectrum here, and while the lines between its parts may be fine in some cases, there are clearly fundamental differences between them.
It is utterly irresponsible from a social, legal, treatment and prevention perspective to be dishonest and cavalier with statements like the one made in the comment above. It not only furthers the enormous human costs those in question suffer without due consideration, but confounds efforts to understand and address the matter meaningfully while serving no purpose of (or possibly serving against) public protection and greatly increasing the social and economic burden on society.
Why don't we just castrate
Why don't we just castrate them? It would be cheaper than giving them free housing and 3 square meals/day.
Why don't we just castrate
Anonymous wrote:Why don't we just castrate them? It would be cheaper than giving them free housing and 3 square meals/day.
Hey genius, that's already been done. Ever heard of "chemical castration"? If you're still confused, google it.
But if you're going to go that far, you first have to make sure you're not catching essentially innocent people, like the 18-year-old who hooked up with an underage girl at a party who lied about her age. Because of the nearly 1 million registered sex offenders in the USA, there are many who have no business being on the sex offender registry.
But another reason your suggestion would be just plain stupid to apply to sex offenders as a group, and not just the very small group of the worst repeat offenders, is that sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of repeating their crimes of all criminals in general. So in the vast majority of cases, the castration would be pointless, and even counterproductive.
Stumblers
Red Flag: when you read that a man has "stumbled" into any form of child porn. ". . . Meanwhile, situational and addicted offenders typically stumble across child porn while perusing legal porn, finding it arousing and perhaps looking for more of it.
So. My grandchildren will NOT be trick-or-treating at this dude's house. That's eerily similar to stumbling into a vagina you met online.
INTENT. Predators have intent.
@original author and anon RE statistics
I just Googled "recidivism statistics for child molesters" and Google displayed article after article, many of them government research studies, saying that the recidivism rate is high; those who sexually molest children and minor teens are likely to do it over and over.
So you are just making up or cherry-picking a very specific set of statistics to support your point, which is that you think it's OK for older teens and adults to have sex with minor teens, pre-teens and children.
All you 18 year old and up molesters or would-be molesters out there: keep your hands and other body parts away from kids, pre-teens, and minor/underage teens. Do not groom them or pressure them or con them or lure them or seduce them; it hurts them and can damage a young person for life. I know you really don't care that you are damaging your preferred sexual object, but you need to stop yourself anyway.
If young teens want to have sex with each other and they are less than three years apart in age, the Romeo and Juliette laws will protect them. Not you. Go find another 18 year old or older person, leave the younger kids alone.
Parents: you aren't good parents if you do not take the issue of incest and the ever-present danger of sexual molestation of your children by someone the child already knows, seriously, both your daughters and your sons are in danger from those who are sexually attracted to children and teens and act on their desires.
You are crappy parents if you don't drill it into your sons' heads that they will ruin their life if they have sex with a younger teen or preteen or child; drill it into their heads that they should not experiment with sex until they are at least 18, and then only with other 18 year olds or older. Drill it into their heads, over and over, that they do not want to be labeled a sexual offender / child molester for life or worse, go to jail for it. Do your job as a parent, don't be a slacker.
If your 15 year old son has sex with a 15 year old girl, and it's not incest, the R&J laws will be in place for such circumstances. If your 15 year old son has sex with an 12 year old or younger child, then there should be some serious consequences: removal to a residential treatment facility and intensive therapy. No contact with younger children. Monitoring on release.
If parents don't do their job well enough then it's their kids who get hurt.
I just Googled "recidivism
Anonymous wrote:I just Googled "recidivism statistics for child molesters" and Google displayed article after article, many of them government research studies, saying that the recidivism rate is high; those who sexually molest children and minor teens are likely to do it over and over.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I googled exactly the same thing, and here are four items I found at the top of the search results:
wrote:
The analysis revealed that once released, the sex offenders had a lower overall rearrest rate than non-sex offenders
wrote:
Myth:
"Most sex offenders reoffend."
Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case.
wrote:
Once a Sex Offender, Always a Sex Offender? Maybe not.
wrote:
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.
wrote:So you are just making up or cherry-picking a very specific set of statistics to support your point,
Not at all, actually. I just did it. You are making it up.
wrote:which is that you think it's OK for older teens and adults to have sex with minor teens, pre-teens and children.
You really like making up baloney, don't you? As for the rest of your repetitious ramblings, TLDR.
@anon: nope, you are full of it
You are the one parsing statistics and slinging baloney; tomorrow I will post a list of studies and articles about studies stating that those who sexually molest children, preteens and minor teens have a high recidivism rate: they offend over and over.
Reminder: To those who are 18 or older and think of children, preteens and minor teens as sexual objects: keep your effing hands and other body parts off them, creeps. What with cel phone cameras and closed-circuit security cameras everywhere these days, you won't be able to hide your crime so easily.
I doubt it
Anonymous wrote:You are the one parsing statistics and slinging baloney; tomorrow I will post a list of studies
I doubt it. You're making it up.
You contradicted yourself
Anonymous wrote:Reminder: To those who are 18 or older and think of children, preteens and minor teens as sexual objects: keep your effing hands and other body parts off them, creeps.
You just contradicted yourself. The R&J laws that you think are "fair and rational" (Texas, for example) actually allow for 18-year-olds to have sex with minor teens of age 15.
R&J laws are for minors
R&J laws protect underage minors who have sex with each other; once you become 18 you are not considered an underage minor any longer. Creep.
R&J laws protect underage
Anonymous wrote:R&J laws protect underage minors who have sex with each other; once you become 18 you are not considered an underage minor any longer. Creep.
Wrong. Here's how the R&J law works in Texas:
wrote:Under Texas' version of the law, if a young adult over the age of 17 has consensual sexual relations with someone under the age of 17, but at least 15 years old, with no more than a four-year age difference between the two, the new law will not require the older party to register as a sex offender if convicted of statutory rape.
So, for example, someone who just turned 19 could have sex with someone who's 15 years and 1 month old and not have to register as a sex offender in Texas. You might want to do your homework instead of demonstrating your ignorance.
You are completely uninformed or a liar
Actually, reality is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, that is so well known, you are either completely uninformed or just a liar. Which is it?
"S*x Offender" Witch Hunt
There are no informed people today who do not understand that the U.S. governments at all levels have been conducting a "s*x offender" witch hunt for a couple of decades now. They have intentionally and willfully ignored most key facts and reality. It is because of that fact that literally millions of Americans cannot trust any U.S. governments regarding anything to do with "s*x offender" and cannot support them in any way.
Their S*x Offender Registries (SORs) are idiotic social policy that were never support by experts. Not only do they do nothing significantly beneficial, they are counterproductive. Further, they are gravely harming the U.S. to an extent that few people understand.
The SORs have been so anti-factual, immoral, and un-American that nearly 100% of the families that are listed on them have come to the understanding that they no longer have any obligations at all to be good citizens. They have also come to the understanding, as has much of the rest of the world, that most people who live in the U.S. and who obviously support the SORs, are not good people.
There are so many examples of that, and we don't even have to get close to going all the way back to segregated water fountains or certainly slavery, but I won't go into all that. The U.S. has always done stupid, immoral, and un-American things to a hated minority. They have a NEED for it. But, people living in the U.S. are no worse than people living throughout the rest of the world. People are bad unless is it convenient for them to be good. People who support the SORs think they are good but really they are uninformed, lazy, un-American harassers. It is only a matter of to what degree.
Anyway, why do people think that people who commit s*x crimes need therapy more than does anyone else who commits a crime? Do people really think that people who look at child porn are more dangerous than people who shoot people with guns?! Really?! Hard to fathom.
Do people really think that any of hundreds of types of s*x crimes that will land people on a SOR are more dangerous or damaging than a person who has broken into a neighbor's home in the middle of the night and beaten them nearly to death? And the home invader does not need therapy?! Makes no sense at all to me.
Do people who support several years in prison for child porn viewers really think that is not too much punishment? Really? Do they think they should deserve more punishment than people who shoot people or break into their homes?
Frankly, I don't care about therapy for any of them. I just want them to not commit crimes. It is that simple. Nearly everyone knows what is right or wrong and I believe that only a very small percentage actually need any therapy.
Lastly, what these criminal big governments have shown us with their "s*x offender" witch hunt is that if you know anything about any s*x crime, government is that last entity you should involve.
Attempting to fix ....
Wow. I copied/pasted that last comment and it did not preserve any paragraphs. I am going to try to re-post it right here and "edit in" the paragraphs:
There are no informed people today who do not understand that the U.S. governments at all levels have been conducting a "s*x offender" witch hunt for a couple of decades now. They have intentionally and willfully ignored most key facts and reality. It is because of that fact that literally millions of Americans cannot trust any U.S. governments regarding anything to do with "s*x offender" and cannot support them in any way.
Their S*x Offender Registries (SORs) are idiotic social policy that were never support by experts. Not only do they do nothing significantly beneficial, they are counterproductive. Further, they are gravely harming the U.S. to an extent that few people understand.
The SORs have been so anti-factual, immoral, and un-American that nearly 100% of the families that are listed on them have come to the understanding that they no longer have any obligations at all to be good citizens. They have also come to the understanding, as has much of the rest of the world, that most people who live in the U.S. and who obviously support the SORs, are not good people.
There are so many examples of that, and we don't even have to get close to going all the way back to segregated water fountains or certainly slavery, but I won't go into all that. The U.S. has always done stupid, immoral, and un-American things to a hated minority. They have a NEED for it. But, people living in the U.S. are no worse than people living throughout the rest of the world. People are bad unless is it convenient for them to be good. People who support the SORs think they are good but really they are uninformed, lazy, un-American harassers. It is only a matter of to what degree.
Anyway, why do people think that people who commit s*x crimes need therapy more than does anyone else who commits a crime? Do people really think that people who look at child porn are more dangerous than people who shoot people with guns?! Really?! Hard to fathom.
Do people really think that any of hundreds of types of s*x crimes that will land people on a SOR are more dangerous or damaging than a person who has broken into a neighbor's home in the middle of the night and beaten them nearly to death? And the home invader does not need therapy?! Makes no sense at all to me.
Do people who support several years in prison for child porn viewers really think that is not too much punishment? Really? Do they think they should deserve more punishment than people who shoot people or break into their homes?
Frankly, I don't care about therapy for any of them. I just want them to not commit crimes. It is that simple. Nearly everyone knows what is right or wrong and I believe that only a very small percentage actually need any therapy.
Lastly, what these criminal big governments have shown us with their "s*x offender" witch hunt is that if you know anything about any s*x crime, government is that last entity you should involve.
Junky web sites ... just make them work correctly
lol, didn't work. Do I have to put HTML in it or what? Heck with it. Done messing with it. My apologies.
lol, didn't work. Do I have
Anonymous wrote:lol, didn't work. Do I have to put HTML in it or what? Heck with it. Done messing with it. My apologies.
Yeah, PT really broke their posting system. It all runs together and extra lines you put in with the RETURN key are ignored.
There are no informed people
Anonymous wrote:There are no informed people today who do not understand that the U.S. governments at all levels have been conducting a "s*x offender" witch hunt for a couple of decades now. They have intentionally and willfully ignored most key facts and reality.
I'm afraid that "they" also includes voters. As they say, you need an educated public to have a good democracy. Otherwise, you only get laws as dumb and intellectually lazy as the preponderance of voters. What happens in this case is that any time a politician tries to back off the severity of sex offender laws, a vocal minority makes a huge stink about that politician being soft on child molestation, which as you can imagine pretty much guarantees a political loss for most politicians. And that's because the majority of voters are clueless. That's who "they" are. And you can see some of those clueless people here, who in spite of claiming otherwise, are utterly unable to prove with any statistics that the repeat offense rate is virtually 100% and all that kind of complete nonsense, and don't much care if innocent teenagers get labeled as sex offenders in the rush.
wrote:Their S*x Offender Registries (SORs) are idiotic social policy that were never support by experts. Not only do they do nothing significantly beneficial, they are counterproductive. Further, they are gravely harming the U.S. to an extent that few people understand.
All true. And you see some of those dumb non-experts posting right here in this column.
RE: There are no informed people
Anonymous wrote:And you see some of those dumb non-experts posting right here in this column.
Well, as I said - today, it is so well known that the recidivism rate (for the vast majority) is very low, that anyone who says otherwise is either completely uninformed or a liar. Personally, I kind of like that people still say it is high because that let's informed people know immediately that the person is a fruit and can be ignored. No need to worry about trying to figure it out. I never argue with those people because obviously they are too lazy to actually learn any facts or reality.
Truly, the vast majority of people in the U.S. should not be allowed to vote. They don't have the first clue about anything. Truly. And voter referendums are dumb, dumb, dumb. Look at some of the things the uninformed have passed. Shocking.
Informed, intelligent politicians should protect ANY hated minority from the tyranny of the stupid masses. But they are weak. And they do have the real problem of needing to be elected by the uninformed as well. We need an intelligent, benevolent dictator to run the U.S.
We need an intelligent,
Anonymous wrote:We need an intelligent, benevolent dictator to run the U.S.
Well, that's an often-observed wish. The problem, of course, is what happens when that leader dies and gets replaced by someone who is given all that same power and turns out to have different ideas?
Articles and references on reoffending
From the Harvard Medical School, "Harvard Health Publications", Harvard Mental Health Letter:
article:
"Pessimism about pedophilia"
(excerpts)
(a) "Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision."
(b) "Key points
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.
No intervention is likely to work on its own; outcomes may be better when the patient is motivated and treatment combines psychotherapy and medication.
Parents should be aware that in most sexual abuse cases involving children, the perpetrator is someone the child knows."
(c) "Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.
Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals. Oral, anal, or vaginal penetration is less common.
Fears about predatory behavior are valid.
Most pedophiles who act on their impulses do so by manipulating children and gradually desensitizing them to inappropriate behavior. Then they escalate it. Pedophiles are able to do this because in most cases they already know the children or have access to them.
In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child. Strangers are less likely to sexually abuse children — although they are more likely to commit violent assaults when they do.
Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to re-conviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children."
References for this article:
Blanchard R. "The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia," Archives of Sexual Behavior (April 2010): Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 304–16.
Hall RC. "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues," Mayo Clinic Proceedings (April 2007): Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 457–71.
Seto MC. "Pedophilia," Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (2009): Vol. 5, pp. 391–407.
From a different article:
Office of Justice Programs
Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative
excerpts:
Table 2. Sexual Recidivism Rates of Child Molesters
Type of Offense Recidivism Rate, by Followup Period (%)
5 years 10 years 15 years
Molested boys 23.0
(N=315) 27.8
(N=105) 35.4
(N=95)
Molested girls 9.2
(N=766) 13.1
(N=218) 16.3
(N=208)
Committed incest 6.4
(N=416) 9.4
(N=73) 13.2
(N=69)
Recidivism estimates are based on new convictions and charges.
Source: Harris & Hanson (2004).
Table 2 shows that molesters of boys had the highest rates of sexual recidivism.
Different patterns of reoffending within child molester populations have been found in other studies as well, with molesters of boys having higher recidivism rates than other types of child molesters (see, e.g., Seto, 2008).
It is important to keep in mind that the recidivism rates observed for child molesters, and for incest offenders particularly, are impacted by underreporting even more so than recidivism rates for other types of sex offenders, as research has shown that child victims who knew their perpetrator were the least likely to report their victimization (Smith et al., 2000)."
***
"Based on the 25-year followup period, Prentky and his colleagues (1997) found a sexual recidivism rate of 52 percent (defined as those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) for the 115 child molesters in the study. The overall new crime recidivism rate found after 25 years of followup was 75 percent.(33)"
"FINDINGS
*Observed recidivism rates of sex offenders are underestimates of actual reoffending.
*Measurement variations across studies (operational definitions, length of the followup period, populations being studied, methods used) often produce disparate findings.
*Sexual recidivism rates range from 5 percent after 3 years to 24 percent after 15 years."
Conclusion:
Your children are at highest risk of all forms of sexual abuse from people they already know and trust. Men who molest boys have the highest recidivism rate. So keep a close eye on your children and teens: they are too little, too naive and too trusting to protect themselves.
The article fails to support your point
Even in the best article you could find, you've completely failed to prove your point. The article fully supports my point that recidivism rates for sex offenders is lower than crimes overall. The given rates range from small percentages to about 50% for the very highest rate studies. Overall crimes recidivism tends to be a clear majority.
@anonymous: you are literally insane
If you read the articles (more than one) and the reference studies (I doubt you read any of it) you'll note there is a high recidivism rate for child molesters, which the researchers said is a low estimate because children tend to be coerced into remaining silent when the molester is someone they know.
....................
I can see that It's not possible for me to sway you with facts, apparently, which is most likely due to your obsession with YOUR desire to have sex with young teens.
..........
One of the good pieces of news I gained from my research is that because of more awareness of child molesters, and the fact that there are a lot more surveillance cameras around and the fact that most cel phones have cameras these days, it's easier to nail criminal child sexual perverts in court when they can be so easily captured on film.
..........
To those reading this article and the comments: my guess is that those who are fighting hardest against "draconian laws" are those who want to have sex with kids and young teens. Parents: keep a close eye on your children and teens, these men who sexualize them are everywhere.
If you read the articles
Anonymous wrote:If you read the articles (more than one) and the reference studies (I doubt you read any of it)
Actually, I looked at a number of them, including the hits on the exact string you presented earlier, and the vast majority explicitly contradicted your statements. In fact, I quoted the key lines from some of those studies. It would appear you have a poor memory or didn't read my replies.
wrote:you'll note there is a high recidivism rate for child molesters, which the researchers said is a low estimate because children tend to be coerced into remaining silent when the molester is someone they know.
You're having a reading comprehension problem again. So I'll say it YET AGAIN. My statement is that this recidivism rate is LOWER THAN CRIMES OVERALL. Yes, any rate is too high, period. But it is lower than crimes overall, and that statement is made in study after study after study, even in those studies resulting from the string search YOU suggested, and which I explictly copied into this forum. As for the true recidivism rate being higher than the reported one, don't you think that's the case with the majority of property crime too, such as theft, where, because there were no witnesses, the majority are not caught? So your reasoning here is not convincing.
wrote:I can see that It's not possible for me to sway you with facts, apparently, which is most likely due to your obsession with YOUR desire to have sex with young teens.
Wrong. It's not possible to sway me with your made-up statements which contradict even the references you provide. And your ad hominem absurdities kind of undermine your point, as if to indicate that you feel your argument otherwise has no traction.
wrote:One of the good pieces of news I gained from my research is that because of more awareness of child molesters, and the fact that there are a lot more surveillance cameras around and the fact that most cel phones have cameras these days, it's easier to nail criminal child sexual perverts in court when they can be so easily captured on film.
Just about the only thing you seem to have gotten correct in this whole dialog. But the irony here is that to an even greater extent, cell phone cameras have technically made criminals out of a great proportion of our nation's children in jr and high school because they've taken pictures of themselves, and are therefore technically "in possession of child pornography".
wrote:To those reading this article and the comments: my guess is that those who are fighting hardest against "draconian laws" are those who want to have sex with kids and young teens.
I would appear you're wrong. The Romeo & Juliet laws are a strong counterexample to your claim. Apparently, they are the result of people who've fought so hard enough against the absurdity of teens being criminalized that they actually managed to push through the R&J laws in many states in the country. The R&J laws obviously do not benefit the older type of men typically associated with severe child abuse and child porn.