Voix de Raison - Sex Offenders

And the MEDIA shall lead them...

2006-11-21T23:42:00.000-08:00

I don't have a lot of time tonight, so I'm going to cheat and cut and paste portions of an unpublished 2001 dissertation by L.L. Sample. Her dissertation is spot on with what I've been thinking and writing about the media hysteria driving the public to pressure legislators into passing laws that don't really achieve the desired results.

Since her dissertation is unpublished, I found this information through another article from the Arkansas Crime Information Center.

Between 1991 and 1998, Sample (2001, 34) noted a 128% increase in articles pertaining to sex offenders and offending...The increase in these types of articles gives the public the impression of a growing sex offender problem (Sample, 2001, 69).

Sample then observed the relationship between media driven perceptions and the policy making process. Sample interviewed 35 legislators from Illinois. Of these 35 policy makers, only four were confident that sex offender registration and notification laws were effective; however, nearly all . . . agreed “that current sex offender legislation . . . successfully addressed the public’s demand for action”(Sample 2001, 96). For these public officials, “the media indirectly influenced the enactment of sex offender legislation by affecting the public’s perceptions” and the media directly influenced policy making because the politicians “freely admit that the media serve as their major source of information”(Sample 2001, 99).

Sample (2001) then examined aggregate data sources to examine further the relationship between media accounts and policy maker legislation. She found that from 1990 to 1997, sex offenders represented only 1.2% of the total criminal charges in Illinois, and the number of sex offenses remained stable over this time period. Most importantly, sex offenders did not re-offend at a higher rate than other types of offenders, which goes against the commonly held perceptions of the public.

In the conclusion of her study, Sample wrote:

"Popular conceptions of sex offending influence public officials’ reactions to the problem. Officials’ reactions [to the public] lead to the passage of the statutes that law enforcement personnel use to enact arrest charges."

Media sensationalism and the outright distortion of the true facts and numbers behind sex offenses drives popular opinion, which results in the passing of emotional legislation that lawmakers agree is ineffective, but support simply because it addresses their constituents' demand for action. Furthermore, the legislators themselves get their "information" from the media hype.

The media whips the people into a frenzy, then tells the legislators what laws to pass. A government of the people, by the MEDIA, for the MEDIA?

A "Justice" System Gone Mad, Redoux

2006-11-19T22:50:00.000-08:00

Well, once again the American hysteria over "sex offenders" is extended to the detriment of the children. Last year in Utah, an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY was charged with sexual conduct with his babysitter.

Apparently the 14-year old babysitter got the boy to play, "truth or dare." At one point the girl dared the boy to touch her breasts, and he did. By "agreeing" to touch the girl's breasts, the county district attorney decided both the 8-year old boy and the 14-year old girl were, "equal participants" in the "sexual act."

Though the charges against the boy were eventually dropped, once more I have to ask, is this extreme sexual taboo we have in the US truly of benefit to anyone? How can children develop into healthy sexual adults when 8-year olds are being charged with lewd conduct for normal childhood sexual exploration? For an 8-year old, was this even a "sexual" exploration? How will this extreme reaction affect the poor child's future sexual interactions, when something so innocent nearly labeled him as a sex offender for the rest of his life?

The charges against the girl were not dropped. While we can all probably agree that some type of chastisement might be appropriate for the 14-year old girl, should she really be charged criminally as a sex offender? Is that what we want for our youth and children?

Is this what passes as justice in the United States today? I hate to be crass, nor minimize anyone's experience if you have suffered abuse, but does an 8-year old touching a 14-year old's breasts really warrant criminal charges? And while the 14-year old obviously crossed some boundaries, does that warrant criminal charges?

We have got to get over the sexual taboo, and sex crimes hysteria in the Untited States. Yes, child sex abuse is not good. Yes, we need to punish those who willfuly take advantage of a power differential. But, please, let's have a little logic at the same time. Not all crimes are the same, nor require the same response, not all victims suffer the same consequences, and not all offenders should be locked up forever and the key thrown away.

A story about the incident from KUTV.com

A "Justice" System Gone Mad

2006-11-11T21:36:00.000-08:00

A 12-year old boy in Utah was charged with abusing a 13-year old girl. The 13-year old girl was charged with abusing the 12-year old boy. They engaged in consensual sex. In an ironic twist to all except the children and their families (to whom it must be simply tragic), each child was convicted of being a child molester while simultaneously being labeled a victim.

Even worse is their unequal treatment under the law. Had they been 16 or 17, having sex with someone their own age would not have qualified as a crime. Had they been 14 or 15, having sex with someone their own age would have made them guilty of misdemeanor unlawful conduct with a minor. But, since the children were 12 and 13, they were both charged and convicted with felony child abuse. What an injustice!

The girl appealed, and her appeal was denied with the following comment: "Lawmakers can constitutionally give greater protection to younger juveniles." Doesn't sound like either one of them received "greater constitutional protection," does it? It actually sounds like the courts used "greater constitutional protection" as an excuse to convict these poor kids.

Thanking God for small mercies, though sentenced to remain under the supervision of the state Division of Child and Family Services and various other conditions, including providing a DNA sample, it does not appear that the girl was placed in a juvenile detention center. It is unclear what the boy's sentence was. Both will now be subject to the increasingly harsh ex-post facto sex offender registry laws, most of which are now being applied to those with crimes as juveniles as well. As sex offenders, they will continually be required to abide by ANY new sex offender law for the rest of their lives, including residency restrictions, "safety zones," etc.

In addition, if either is ever charged as an adult (not unlikely since current trends indicate that 1 in 15 American will be imprisoned in a State or Federal prison), they may face "habitual offender" penalties, become labeled as "Sexually Violent Predators", if convicted of another sex crime, and will be more likely to face longer sentences and more prison time because of this "crime."

I believe that 12-13 years old is too young to be having sex. But should we label these poor kids as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because of it?

Again, for the record, there is no justification for the abuse of a child. But, we also need to have just a little bit of common sense. The hysteria and media sensationalism driving these knee-jerk reaction laws has got to come to an end. Can we please get a little bit of logic back into these laws? When are we going to realize that "one-size-fits-all" sex offender laws just don't work?

We need to get away from painting everyone with the same brush, and return to the foundation of the American justice system, a system that in the past provided individualized justice and punishment, at least prior to the advent of the sex offender laws.

Now, if you are a sex offender, there is no individualized justice, nor is there ever a point after which you can be free of changing laws which allow for continual punishment, shame, and ostracism. Never before in the history of the United States have we allowed "open-ended punishment" for a crime, where an offender is continually punished, even years and decades after that crime was committed.

Does anyone really believe that we are NOT in the grip of "child sex abuse" hysteria?

California Proposition 83

2006-11-08T18:02:00.000-08:00

With over 70% of California voters approving of Proposition 83, I feel the need to address the issues raised. Giving voters the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they are truly interested in protecting children rather than simply lashing out at sex offenders, let's dispell some myths, and show the voters what they really voted to approve.

False Assumptions
As most of these laws, this one is based on false assumptions and outright lies. In subsection 2-b, under the heading of "Findings and Declarations," the act alleges that "Sex offenders have very high recidivism rates," that they are the "least likely to be cured and the most likely to reoffend," and that, "Sex offenders have a dramatically higher recidivism rate for their crimes than any other type of violent felon."

The text states that this is based on a 1998 report by the U.S. Department of Justice, but no citation is given. The closest I could find was a November 2003 DOJ regarding, "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" within a three-year timeframe from 1994 to 1997 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm. If this is the report Prop 83 is referring to, they have sadly distorted the facts. If this isn't the report, why use a 10 year old report instead of a 5 year old report? The facts from the U.S. Department of Justice report, in direct contrast to the "findings" in Prop 83 are as follows:

Prop 83: "Sex offenders have very high recidivism rates"
DOJ Report: "5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime"
The Truth: 5.3% is not a "very high recidivism rate"

Prop 83: "Sex offenders are the least likely to be cured"
DOJ Report: Not addressed
1996-1998 Colorado Corrections Department Reports: "Sex offenders with 40-50 sessions of sex offender specific treatment have a 0-3% recidivism rate"
The Truth: a 97% to 100% success rate is pretty darn good

Prop 83: "[Sex offenders] are the most likely to reoffend"
DOJ Report: "Sex offenders were more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime –– 5.3% of sex offenders versus 1.3% of non-sex offenders."
The Truth: 94.7% of sex offenders do not re-offend

Prop 83: "Sex offenders have a dramatically higher recidivism rate for their crimes than any other type of violent felon"
DOJ Report: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense: 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders."
The Truth: Sex offenders are less likely than non-sex offenders to commit another crime

Residency Restrictions
Residency restrictions impose an unwaranted penalty on American citizens who have already served their time and successfully completed community supervision. They are also ineffective in reducing sex offenses. If one really wants to create a "predator free zone" then offenders with multiple offenses, or those shown to prey on strangers should be excluded from these areas. The brush needs to be much finer.

There are an estimated 566,000 sex offenders in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 3.3% of sex offenders with crimes against children will re-offend. That means that 18,678 may be at risk to re-offend. 90% of sex crimes against children are comitted by friends, family, and relatives, which residency restrictions do nothing to address. So even if you could say that residency restrictions prevent crime, of the 566,000 American sex offenders, 1,868 would be "prevented" from commiting a crime by residency restrictions. What we have, is residency restrictions baselessly imposed on 99.67% of sex offenders to account for the possible actions of 0.33% of all sex offenders. With those number, maybe the 99.81% of Americans who aren't sex offenders should live 2600 feet away from a school or park so that the 0.19% of Americans who are sex offenders will be "prevented" from committing a crime? Would that make any more sense?
Click here for more information on Iowa's experience with Residency Restrictions

Lifetime Monitoring - Paid for by the Offender
The absurdity of this really gets to me. Who actually believes that the people who have been completely ostracized from society, who can't find jobs, can't find housing, and probably have to live on social assistance will be able to foot the $100 million annual price tag? Sounds good. How about we make prisoners pay for their incarceration, death row inmates pay for their execution, and the accused pay for their trials? Sounds good, won't work. You and I will pay the bill.

Civil Commitment
The potential for abuse in civil commitment is truly frightening. How any civilzed person who upholds the values of freedom and justice could approve of this measure baffles me. It makes sex offenders who have one prior victim qualify as a "sexually violent predator," and it makes sex offenders who have juvenile offenses qualify as SVP's. These people are now locked away INDEFINITELY. They are thrown in prison with no end in sight. During that time, they are not required to be given sex offender specific treatment. And, there are only two ways to get out: The Department of Mental Health, who put offenders there in the first place can let them out (oh yeah, I see that happening a lot), or they can petition a court to be released. Good luck- when you are charged with a sex crime you are guilty until by some miracle you prove your innocense. Do you REALLY think a judge is going to release someone who has been convicted, and "declared" an SVP from prision? Not gonna happen. Essentially civil commitment procedures make an end-run around the constitutional guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. You commit a crime, you serve your time, then your locked away forever. Maybe the choice of some, but not really in line with our constitution. If it can happen to sex offenders, who's next?

For what it is worth, Prop 83 has been temporarily blocked pending a court challenge on November 27th, 2006, as a judge has found it, “punitive by design and effect” and likely unconstitutional. Regardless, the underlying issues need to be considered. Californians, chime in- is this REALLY what you voted for? Did you know the truth when you voted? If this was exactly your intent when you voted, are you not afraid when you might find yourself in a group suddenly deprived of all constitutional protections? Latest statistics show that 1 in 15 Americans will find themselves in the custudy of a correctional system. It could be you much easier than you suspect.

Charles Roberts IV and the Amish School Shootings (Part I)

2006-11-03T01:38:00.000-08:00

With the utmost respect for the children and their families, I'd like for you to consider something about this case, because I believe it points to a fundamental flaw in our child abuse and prevention strategy. First, let me say that there is NO excuse for the murder or abuse of children, and I cannot and will not attempt to justify by any stretch of the imagination, in any way, any of Mr. Roberts' actions.

But there are a few things that do stand out for me, and I'll address the first one here.

1) He called his wife and told her that he had molested two relatives 20 years before, and mentioned the same in his suicide note, along with the fact that he was having dreams of molesting again.

Where is someone who is having "dreams" or thoughts of molesting or abusing children supposed to go for help? While there is no evidence of his original crime, and in fact outright denial by his claimed victims, what happens the moment he walks in to try to get psychiatric help for his current thoughts? Who does he go to to help him prevent acting out on his obsession? His doctor talks to him a bit, explores his past, uncovers this self-confessed crime. Mr. Roberts leaves after his first session, and the doctor makes the REQUIRED call to the police, who arrest Mr. Roberts, charge him, try him, and imprison him.

If you've ever spent time in prison, you don't want to go back. If you've never spent time in prison, you don't want to go. We all know what happens there, especially to people accused of sex crimes. So why would Mr. Roberts even consider going to a psychiatrist and ending up in prison? Of course he, and anyone like him anywhere across the country who struggles with the same obsession, know they'd go straight to prison. So, their choices are:

Try to manage this himself,
Go talk to a professional, knowing he'll be thrown in prison and the key will probably be thrown away,
Give up on life and commit suicide, or
Strike back at the society that he feels has put him in this position.

Looking at the options above, we'd all probably go with the first one, but that isn't a true, long term solution. How many mental problems can we "manage by ourselves" for a lifetime, without giving in to weakness or causing other health or mental problems? I believe Mr. Roberts choose option 1 for 20 years, but at some point a few weeks ago he snapped, and couldn't "manage" it himself any longer.

What is the solution? Can we afford to offer some type of limited immunity to prior crimes, if a perpetrator is willing to come in for professional help and counseling? I know, that minimizes the pain and suffering of the offender's prior victims and their families. And, in fact, amnesty would deny them justice, even.

Is it more important to maintain the ability to prosecute for past actions, or protect kids and society from future actions? It doesn't seem right to let a sex offender "get away" with it. And would some type of amnesty just be providing sex offenders with a "blank check" to commit crimes? All tough questions.

With (convicted) offender recidivism rates in some studies dropping as low as 0% with extended treatment, would you rather live next door to someone who is seriously devoted to working on their problems with the assistance of a professional, or would you rather they be "managing" their thoughts and fantasies on their own?

Scars: A Story

2006-10-19T12:31:00.000-07:00

Some years ago on a hot summer day in south Florida a little boy decided to go for a swim in the old swimming hole behind his house.

In a hurry to dive into the cool water, he ran out the back door, leaving behind shoes, socks, and shirt as he went. He flew into the water, not realizing that as he swam toward the middle of the lake, an alligator was swimming toward the shore. His father working in the yard saw the two as they got closer and closer together. In utter fear, he ran toward the water, yelling to his son as loudly as he could. Hearing his voice, the little boy became alarmed and made a U-turn to swim to his father. It was too late. Just as he reached his father, the alligator reached him. From the dock, the father grabbed his little boy by the arms just as the alligator snatched his legs. That began an incredible tug-of-war between the two. The alligator was much stronger than the father, but the father was much too passionate to let go. A farmer happened to drive by, heard his screams, raced from his truck, took aim and shot the alligator.

Remarkably, after weeks and weeks in the hospital, the little boy survived. His legs were extremely scarred by the vicious attack of the animal. And, on his arms, were deep scratches where his father's fingernails dug into his flesh in his effort to hang on to the son he loved.

The newspaper reporter, who interviewed the boy after the trauma, asked if he would show him his scars. The boy lifted his pant legs. And then, with obvious pride, he said to the reporter, "But look at my arms. I have great scars on my arms, too. I have them because my Dad wouldn't let go."

You and I can identify with that little boy. We have scars, too. No, not from an alligator, but the scars of a painful past. Some of those scars are unsightly and have caused us deep regret. But, some wounds, my friend, are because God has refused to let go. In the midst of your struggle, He's been there holding on to you.

God loves you. You are a child of God. He wants to protect you and provide for you in every way. But sometimes we foolishly wade into dangerous situations, not knowing what lies ahead. The swimming hole of life is filled with peril - and we forget that the enemy is waiting to attack. That's when the tug-of-war begins -and if you have the scars of His love on your arms are very, very grateful. He did not and will not ever let you go.

Never judge another person’s scars, because you don't know how they got them.

Department of Justice Sex Offender Statistics

2006-10-11T14:02:00.000-07:00

Bet you've never heard the following statistics from your local TV news station. When you're trying to sell sensationalism, these facts from a intensive multi-year studies by the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics just don't help your case:

Fact-> Sex Offenders not likely to re-offend:

Of male sex offenders released from prisons, 94.7% were NOT rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
Approximately 96.7% of child molesters released from prisons were NEVER rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense: 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.
A 3-year BJS followup of a sample of felony offenders placed on probation found that rapists had a lower rate of rearrest for a new felony and a lower rate of re-arrest for a violent felony than all other felony offenders except murderers.

Fact-> Rapists and sexual assaulters less likely to be repeat offenders:

Rapists and sexual assaulters serving time in State prisons were less likely to have had a prior conviction history or a history of violence than other incarcerated violent offenders.

Fact-> Sex Offender Registries not helpful:

Only 70% of rapists and more than 85% of sexual assaulters reported their victim was known to them, rendering Sex Offender Registries irrelevant in the vast majority of all cases

Fact-> Lifetime Registration and Monitoring not necessary:

Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.

Do these facts and statistics fit with what you are hearing from your local newspapers, TV, and legislatures? Why do they keep telling you that all Sex Offenders are incurable, and will ALWAYS reoffend, in spite of the nation-wide statistics?

Get the facts straight from the United States Justice Department: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Voix De Raison - Sex Offenders

2006-10-11T00:49:00.000-07:00

What is this blog about?

This will be the musings of a convicted sex offender. I hope to stir thoughts, and I'm sure emotions. I'd like to make you think, and I'd like for you to make me think. I'd like to engage in meaningful dialogue, and I'd like hear your considered opinions. I plan to discuss past and present news that impacts children, sex offenders, crime and punishment, and our society.

If you are one of those people who thinks all sex offenders should be locked away forever, or just taken out and shot, we probably don't have much to say to each other. If it makes you feel any better, I do think there are sex offenders who should be locked away forever. I also think that in some cases capital punishment might be the appropriate response to a sex crime. But I believe very strongly that "one size fits all" is not the correct answer to every sex offense.

If you think there is room for improvement in this country for protecting our children and handling sex offenders, and you really want to hear and learn about feelings on the other side, and maybe even let me hear and learn about your feelings, I look forward to hearing from you. Even better, I'd like to hear your realistic solutions to the problems facing our nation in regards to this issue.

If you are the kind of person who Skypes someone in Bejing so you can try to understand why China would block UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea for nuclear weapons testing, and you actually listen to what your contact has to say, then I'd like to "talk" to you here. If you call them to tell them why they are wrong, then find somebody else's blog.

That said, let's engage in some dialogue!