On Restorative Justice re Sex Offenders...

[Bemidjiblade]

I've been away for a while, sorry, dealing w/ my own stuff.  Hope y'all have been well.

Sorry to bring up a touchy subject, but it's in the news every day, so... *shrug*

I ran across this article yesterday and it made me think of numerous past debates here on the topic of punishing sex offenders.  I'm not going to start off w/ any agenda.  I'm just going to post the article here and see what shakes loose.  I know for myself, I was completely surprised to read what I read on a forum FOR victims of sexual abuse.

****

"On Restorative Justice -- Because Pedophilia Cannot be Legislated or Punished Away,"

by Deborah Ingraham
Keynote Address: Dialogue between Offender and Victim: A Panel Discussion with Geral Blanchard, Fred Berlin, Debbie Ingraham, and Wayne Bowers

The National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity 1998 Conference: "Creating Community/Celebrating the Diversity Among Us." March 1998, Louisville, Kentucky

Thank you all for coming to this Dialogue tonight. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Griffin, the program committee and Geral Blanchard and Fred Berlin for their willingness to keep this dialogue an "Open One."

In working with organizations and groups, we often hear things like "don't say this/don't say that," "don't say this NOW," "don't say this Now to THIS GROUP." "A pedophile can't say this," "A victim can't say that." Please remember that this is a dialogue - a discussion. It's not public policy.

It is, however, our truth and our story. It is our hope that this dialogue will contribute something useful to public policy.

We recognize that some of what we talk about is politically incorrect. In fact, it was our frustration with the results that we were seeing from "politically correct," particularly in the areas of courts and laws, that created this dialogue.

With genuine respect for all who have been hurt, or affected by the hurt that comes from sexual abuse and sexual trauma, this dialogue is an attempt to "listen to both sides of the story at the same time - for a change." This is not a 1-2-3 solution. It is, however, inviting everyone to the table for discussion and problem solving.

I'm Debbie Ingraham and I'm a former litigant who filed a civil suit against a family member for childhood sexual abuse in 1991.

I filed that civil suit hoping to find justice, validation, and financial compensation. Those goals were, and still are, important ones for victims of sexual abuse. My approach of using the courts to achieve these goals was a failure. I didn't get justice, validation or compensation. I also didn't get an apology or an admission. A legal approach did not create dialogue in my family, nor did it bring healing or restoration to family members who DO acknowledge that incest IS part of our family history. We recognize incest, but we share very different views about the effects of sexual trauma AND about the importance of the whole family being able to talk about it in an open and honest way. And when families do acknowledge incest but can't talk about it - we have a long way to go. And perhaps different approaches to confrontation should be considered.

My failure with the courts and ongoing estrangement from my family caused me to think very carefully about what is really in the best interests of victims? and more important -- when we identify what is in the best interest of a victim - how do we get there? We ARE breaking cycles of abuse. But the question I want to address is, can we break cycles of abuse in ways that heal and restore, rather than hurt, destroy and deplete us in the process. I wish that 7 years ago I knew what I know today about how we should EXPECT a perpetrator to behave when he or she is afraid someone will expose their behavior.

My legal failure launched me into victim advocacy. And I was on a mission. My view was a narrow one, and I focused my time and energy on educating our legislators about sexual trauma, so that laws could be changed that would demand and ensure punishment and stiffer sentences for sex offenders. I don't think I quite fit the definition of "vigilante" but I might have been pretty close. And if three years ago, someone had suggested that I might be part of a panel with Geral Blanchard, Fred Berlin, and Wayne Bowers, it would have been hard to measure which of my reactions would have been strongest -- anger, denial, or resistance.

Two years ago, I stopped victim advocacy to study and talk directly with sex offenders and those who treat sex offenders. I must admit that I really didn't want 'listening to the other side of the story," to be part of the solution. I expected to find and probably even hoped that I would learn things that would help me to not just hold onto "being mad," but perhaps even to strengthen my resolve that "punishment" was the only answer. But I didn't find anything at all like that.

As a matter of fact, some unexpected things happened to me on my way to punishing sex offenders. I began to see in a very real way that when court is over -- and regardless of whether you win or lose in the courtroom -- all victims and their families have a life to live -- every single day. I started to wonder if when I approached the court system looking for justice, I may also have been looking for something else -- a quick fix -- perhaps an instant cure -- for an injury that needed healing. As time went on I also realized that this "injury" is a very difficult one for not just offenders to see and understand, but also for victims, families, and our culture. As I went on with my life, and particularly as I raised my children, I began to see the effects of sexual trauma as ones that extend way beyond symptoms that require treatment in a clinical setting or punishment.

I began to see sexual abuse and sexual trauma as more than an inappropriate and an illegal sex act that called for punishment. My own life reflected that sexual trauma is about loss, and fractured relationships that might better be served by restoration than punishment -- but how could we ever figure out a way to do that? Until very recently the idea that a sex offender could say "I did it and I'm sorry," was foreign and unbelievable. I began to see the effects of sexual abuse within the full context of my life and in my relationships. The problem today is not in accepting that child sexual abuse exists, but in our individual and collective inability to confront offending behaviors in healing ways; and in ways that allow victims, offenders, and their families to go on with their lives in safe and productive ways.

Our collective efforts to break cycles of abuse have created at times, a very large and confusing picture. There has been so much information and it's come so quickly. And even though we have SO much information about so many aspects of child sexual abuse, when we try to find solutions or when we make policy decisions, we narrowly draw the public's attention to high profile cases and landmark legal cases, which often leave behind the majority and the every day. In 1996, my experiences with sexual trauma, the courts, legislation and victim advocacy caused me to re-think not just how we disclose and confront sexual abuse -- but also 'from in the trenches -- not the textbook," can we take "healing" from sexual abuse to a new level? to a restorative level?

I wanted to get past stories of victimization and polarized scientific debates particularly about treatment issues. I saw the importance of recovery and empowerment for victims that goes beyond criminal and civil justice. Have you noticed that regardless of your attitude, there's one thing that just about everyone agrees on -- and that is that today's courts are NOT the place to deal effectively with just about any aspect of sexual abuse; and yet over and over again, it seems to be the place that most of us put the bulk of our energy and resources?

Despite our best intentions and efforts to advocate for victims and protect children, it seems to me that we have forgotten that, at the center of abuse relationships, are two people. With all that we know and all that we advocate about today, little if anything is spoken about the victim/offender relationship in a restorative way, and as a result, we therefore watch families and the culture distance themselves from victims, offenders and each other around the subject of sexual abuse. Also missing is something that Wayne and I talk about a lot; and that is the need for victims and offenders to "extend healing" in a way that allows both to "go on with their lives.

When we lose sight of the humanness of a victim or an offender, it is difficult for people to care. victims remain victims and offenders reoffend when they perceive themselves or are perceived by others as "non-persons." Treating sex offenders is the first step that helps us to break barriers that isolate us and keep us from talking about the victim offender relationship. A focused return to this relationship in a restorative way creates a foundation for justice that will extend to families, communities, and the culture.

Requiring accountability, compensation and victim empathy from sex offenders is the right thing to do. Treating sex offenders is also the right thing to do. For those who are opposed to treating sex offenders, my question is "how are we doing by denying them treatment?" Are our communities safer" Families stronger? Families healing?

I would like to repeat what Dr. Carnes said last night about the need to look at outcomes. In particular, we need to look at the outcomes from current policy around punishment, reporting and community notification. If it's true that a sex offender can only stop if he receives treatment, and if our reporting laws are such that when one asks for treatment they go to jail; and if upon release from jail they have received little or ineffective treatment; and they enter a community in which Megan's law now requires that everyone in the community knows what they've done; and it will be difficult for them to find a place to live or a job -- is this helping?

We need to listen to Wayne, Geral Blanchard, and Fred Berlin to find out if current policies on reporting and community notification are ones that encourage sex offenders to come forward, accept responsibility and seek treatment.

As someone who has spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill trying to affect laws and policy, it is my opinion that victim advocates should have a pre-requisite - a requirement -- that they do like I have done -- talk with a recovering sex offender, attend a group meeting of sex offenders like I did at Dr. Berlin's, and talking with someone like Geral Blanchard or Fred Berlin who have treated sex offenders.

It is my opinion, that because of the information that is available to us today (if we are willing to listen to the other side of the story) -- that if we fail to not just encourage, but "require" treatment for sex offenders, we will be colluding with the secrets and secret keepers of fear and silence that have dominated and sustained incest and child sexual abuse for years.

Confronting an abuser in a way that is empowering for the victim, ensures treatment for the offender and allows both to transforms their lives and experiences is not easy. I don't see this through rose colored glasses, think it will be automatic or that it will work for every victim/offender relationship. But one thing I do know -- and that is, for the first 35 years of my life, I and we as a culture couldn't say the word "incest" out loud -- AND we've come a very long way since victims and the culture have started talking about it!

Copyright, 1998 Deborah Ingraham, All rights reserved.

***

[RevDisk]

I think the lady might suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome


She seems to forget that the freaks are the enemy.  They destroy lives, and continue doing so.  They are not sorry for their crimes, they are generally only sorry that they are caught.  Rape is not a "relationship between two people" that are in need of restoration.   The offender needs jail time or execution.  Repeat offenders need life imprisonment or execution.  

The victim needs therapy, lots of it.  They should not feel sympathy towards their torturer.   That SHOULD be part of the therapy, removing lingering Stockholm Syndrome.   "This is not your fault.  The rapist is at fault.  He is to blame, not you."  


I'm trying to debate if this piece is "enemy propaganda", a confused lady, or I'm simply misunderstanding it.  It's 2am, I'll re-read it tomorrow.

[Bemidjiblade]

Oops.  I forgot the link.
http://www.malesurvivor.org/Prevention%20&%20Education/Articles/ingraham.htm

I sort of doubt that someone who spent years in Washington DC as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

As far as "They are not sorry for their crimes."  Well, how do you know what they are and aren't sorry for?  I think that's one of the points that she's trying to make.  Until or unless you've worked w/ or spoken with people in treatment, how can you know what they are or aren't sorry for.

Please re-read the article.  Mrs. Ingraham first started talking with perps expecting the exact thing that you describe, license to hate more etc.  Instead, she found out a different perspective.

"This is not your fault.  The rapist is at fault.  He is to blame, not you."  You're 100% right there.  And this article actually comes from a website dedicated to supporting and helping male survivors of sexual abuse.  INCLUDING victims of sexual abuse who themselves act out.  Please don't take my word for it.  Check out the website.  It's moderated by professional therapists and abuse victims themselves.

As far as "They need jail time or execution."  Well, who does that really help.  Are you telling me that in order to get help, this woman as a minor girl would have had to sentence her father or brother or sister or mother to death?  

"They should not feel sympathy towards their torturer."  Who are we to dictate what someone who should or should not feel until we have been through what they have?  I think, if someone wants to be angry about sexual abuse, then more power to them.  THey have every right because it is a horrible thing that should never happen to anyone.  But who are we to say that some things must not be forgiven, must never be healed or reconciled?  Shouldn't we leave that choice up to the victims themselves?

I may have misunderstood Mrs. Ingraham's point, but I think she was saying that the way the legal system is set up actually kept her family from healing.

Thank you for replying, though, RevDisk, and taking the time to read the article.

[critter]

Of course, the vic needs support, help, counselling, time and a lot of other help in order to heal enough to go on with their lives.

BUT-the perp needs to be, shall we say, PUT AWAY forever (in one way or another). Why?

Because the vic-as well as society!- needs an end, closure, revenge, punishment, payback, their power back, the CERTAIN knowledge that that perp WILL NEVER return to re-offend them or anybody else.

It HAS to be done no matter who it was or how close a relative it was! Lets STOP this bleeding heart slobbering over how bad the perp had it before in his life, how he watched too much TV, didn't eat his carrots or whatever. HE is responsible for his actions and there MUST be a payday!

So? I already KNOW I am a redneck-no need to point that out.

[Bemidjiblade]

Critter.

If the laws were what you implied, and any sex offender was automatically shot or locked away for life, how many children or friends or students do you think would actually report the abuse?  More or less than now?  How many kids would choose to get help if someone they loved would die or live in prison forever because of it?

If the way the laws are set up keep people from getting help they DESERVE and NEED, how does that help the solution either?

As for "bleeding heart slobbering", I think you're setting up a straw man argument.

I certainly haven't advocated not being held responsible.  And I don't believe that is Mrs. Ingraham's point either, as she says:  "If it's true that a sex offender can only stop if he receives treatment, and if our reporting laws are such that when one asks for treatment they go to jail; and if upon release from jail they have received little or ineffective treatment; and they enter a community in which Megan's law now requires that everyone in the community knows what they've done; and it will be difficult for them to find a place to live or a job -- is this helping?

We need to listen to Wayne, Geral Blanchard, and Fred Berlin to find out if current policies on reporting and community notification are ones that encourage sex offenders to come forward, accept responsibility and seek treatment. "

Her stated goals are for sex offenders to come forward and accept responsibility, and to seek treatment.  I guess I don't understand how that is bleeding heart, if it stops victimization and more crimes.

[BillBlank]

"If it's true that a sex offender can only stop if he receives treatment, and if our reporting laws are such that when one asks for treatment they go to jail; and if upon release from jail they have received little or ineffective treatment; and they enter a community in which Megan's law now requires that everyone in the community knows what they've done; and it will be difficult for them to find a place to live or a job -- is this helping?"

Cart before horse argument their methinks. No it won't help them get a job or a place to live. That's called a consequence of their behaviour. They have done something that society dis-approves of. My heart bleeds. Is detterence not a valid concept?

How about seeking treatment BEFORE they commit a crime? Novel concept eh?

Fetch me some rope........

Bill

PS. Bear in mind this is me after therapy and not angry any more. I just think that if you have caused someone that much pain then you have signalled that you are no longer human and need to be removed from the gene pool in the manner of a rabid dog. Not their fault, they're just broken. Nothing you can do except end their suffering.

[RevDisk]

I sort of doubt that someone who spent years in Washington DC as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

One could be surprised.   I've seen weirder things in my day.

As far as "They are not sorry for their crimes."  Well, how do you know what they are and aren't sorry for?  I think that's one of the points that she's trying to make.  Until or unless you've worked w/ or spoken with people in treatment, how can you know what they are or aren't sorry for.

Because I've seen that battlefield.  Perhaps there are a few truly remorseful individuals.  Very few.  If they were truly remorseful, they would seek therapy before they commit their evil.  If therapy did not work, they'd have the COMMON HUMAN DECENCY to blow their own brains out rather than harm children.  

I've dealt with many many abuse victims at an old job I had.  I wasn't even a shrink or a doc, and I saw walking horror stories.   Of the few complete stories I heard, I will forget none.   A girl turned into a walking art piece, with an x-acto knife.  (Scar tattoos, over the course of years.)   Children sold or rented out by drug addicted parents.  Discipline freaks.  The list goes on and on.   Whatever sympathy I might have had for the freaks died after the first few stories.   Are all as bad as the ones I know?  Probably not.  

None of these freaks had a gun to their head when they commit their crimes.  They did so of their own free will.   Are there mitigating circumstances?  Sure.  Most freaks were abused as children, or had other bad things happen to them.  This should be studied for the specific purpose of stopping future freaks, not excusing today's batch.   It's an explanation, but not an excuse.

As Sun Tzu wrote, know thy enemy.   Studying the freaks is manditory in order to fight them.  If they cannot stop themselves, or do not wish to stop, they need to be dealt with.  Serial chronic freaks will not stop unless they are made to stop.  

Please re-read the article.  Mrs. Ingraham first started talking with perps expecting the exact thing that you describe, license to hate more etc.  Instead, she found out a different perspective.

Are there any control groups?   Has she interviewed any freaks that went for therapy before they were caught?   I admit, I am automatically suspicious of someone that only shows remorse after they are caught.

"This is not your fault.  The rapist is at fault.  He is to blame, not you."  You're 100% right there.  And this article actually comes from a website dedicated to supporting and helping male survivors of sexual abuse.  INCLUDING victims of sexual abuse who themselves act out.  Please don't take my word for it.  Check out the website.  It's moderated by professional therapists and abuse victims themselves.

As far as "They need jail time or execution."  Well, who does that really help.  Are you telling me that in order to get help, this woman as a minor girl would have had to sentence her father or brother or sister or mother to death?

Getting incest victims to come forth is not exactly an easy job.  Then they have to deal with the trauma of a court case.  Watching victims being raped a second (or hundredth) time on the stand is gut wrenching.   It made me hate the lawyers in question nearly as much as their client.  (Yes, I know the accused are and should get legal council, I'm not arguing against it.)  

My brain had a hard time accepting the advocate in question saying it is not a good idea to put the freaks through the legal system.   Here's a clue, if a family member repeatedly rapes another family member, "restoration" should be the last thing in question.  

If sibling A rapes sibling B over the course of many years, one of the two of them will have to go away.  Is that a hard choice for a parent?  I would imagine so.  If the parents in question were upset at sibling B for coming forth, sibling B needs OUT of that house.   If any parent is upset that their child refused to cover up rape, it is not a healthy environment and I truly question the value of "restorative justice".

"They should not feel sympathy towards their torturer."  Who are we to dictate what someone who should or should not feel until we have been through what they have?  I think, if someone wants to be angry about sexual abuse, then more power to them.  THey have every right because it is a horrible thing that should never happen to anyone.  But who are we to say that some things must not be forgiven, must never be healed or reconciled?  Shouldn't we leave that choice up to the victims themselves?

Ah.  This would lead me to my first experience as a young man with a rape victim.  She was my age.  Not responding well to therapy.  One on one with a trained shrink, group therapy, drugs, everything.  They were even considering electroshock.   (I didn't know this at the time.)    On my breaks, I practiced kendo with a bamboo stick.  One or two of my coworkers were also into it, also I always had a couple spare sticks.  

I was buddies with one of the shrinks.   He asked if I'd mind showing showing the young lady a few basic moves.  So I did.  I didn't know it at the time, but in her interaction with me, she spoke more than she had in the past six months, combined.  We did some mild, slow speed sparring.  Then she tried to kill me.   After I disarmed her, she sort of broke down and apologized for trying to kill me.  We talked for a couple of hours.   The basic jist of the conversation was that she blamed herself for everything.   If she had been better, none of the problems would have happened.  It was fairly gut wrenching, and I literally intended to kill the guy.  (He was in prison so it was out of the question.)  

Anyways.    My point is that the victim did not know what to 'properly' feel afterwards.  Anyone that would have agreed that she should have kept quiet and gone along, blaming herself, is either misguided or evil.  Misguided, I can somewhat understand.  Evil on the other hand, is not negotiable.  

It's apparently fairly common for the freaks to mentally condition their victims.  "If you tell, I'll kill your mommy."   "If you tell, I'll kill you."  "If you tell, I'll kill myself."   etc, etc.

If they want to forgive the freak long after the incident(s), that's their choice.  And it should be THEIR choice, not emotional conditioning by the freak or PTSD.   Most assuratively, not because someone else tells them that they should (or have to) forgive the freak.   Plus, there might be lingering Stockholm Syndrome.

I may have misunderstood Mrs. Ingraham's point, but I think she was saying that the way the legal system is set up actually kept her family from healing.

Yes, I can understand that point.  Emotional healing after the danger is past is fine.  However, keeping the legal system out of the equation usually just enables the freak to keep hurting the victim.   Especially with incest.    Better Mrs Ingraham is alive and unhealed with her family, then still being abused.

I re-read the article, and stand by my thoughts of possible "Stockholm Syndrome".

[Bemidjiblade]

Bill Blank, I think you raised a really good question when you asked, "Is detterence not a valid concept?

How about seeking treatment BEFORE they commit a crime? Novel concept eh?"

Did you know that until you're convicted of a crime, you cannot be admitted to a treatment program in the state of Minnesota?  So the short answer would be:  You can't, not the sort of treatment that you really need, anyway.  You can get individual therapy with someone who isn't specifically trained and experienced in working with the problem.  Sort of like only having your family doctor allowed to perform heart surgery on you.

And if I understand what you said correctly in your last post when you said "this is me after therapy".  Please let me say I'm really sorry you had to go through that.  No one should ever have to go through that.  Ever.  I think everyone's goal is to make sure that, as much as possible, no one is abused ever again.  And I'm not saying that as a random, removed thought.  I haven't said this before, because I wanted to appeal to everyone intellectually.  (Plus I don't exactly like to talk about it around people who aren't close friends.)  But I'm right there with you.  Multiple crimes from multiple people from the ages of 11-16.  And Mrs. Graham is also right there with us.  Also, there are three offenders in my close family.  One in treatment, one who is out of treatment and has been living a productive life not hurting anyone for 20 years now, and the other who as you say, should have been put down like a dog.

I think, if we're being honest about how people really think, one of the large contributing factors to sex crimes are what I've heard sex offenders call "stinking thinking".  I'm out of time to continue discussing this, and I apologize.  Because when I decided to start this post, I seriously wanted to be as fair and thorough about this as I could.

Here is an excellent article about what I'm talking about.
http://www.malesurvivor.org/Prevention%20&%20Education/Articles/dt.htm

But a quick answer would be that sex offender treatment is based on the same principles as chemical addiction treatment, and anger management, or any other addictive behaviors.  How many drug users, alcoholics, people addicted to pornography, or gambling, or anything else destructive (and yeah, drug and alcohol users tend to hurt and kill people too), seek help before they experience destructive consequences.

Such people, by and large, tell themselves "they've got it under control" until something horrible snaps them out of it.  And that's just how people act about drugs and alcohol, that people are relatively accepting about.  How realistic is it to expect sick individuals to seek help with something so hated that all they hear about are the very things you all are saying.  "lynching, shooting, in prisoned for life."  I'm willing to bet if we were being honest with ourselves, we would do everything in our power to hide and try and manage ourselves rather than throw ourseves on the tender :sarcasm: mercies of the general public.

I'm simply trying to be realistic about the motivations and behaviors of the people we're discussing.

I'm sorry I don't have more time at the moment.  Be back in a few hours.

[Standing Wolf]

I've known both victims and perpetrators of sex crimes, more victims than perpetrators.

Some of the victims heal and can get on with whole, complete, happy lives; sad to say, however, they're by no means the majority, especially when the crimes were committed when they were children.

Most of the women I've introduced to shooting were or apparently were victims of sex criminals at one point or another. One woman told me taking up shooting was both for literal protection and a symbolic way of claiming or taking back power over the chaos of her life. She didn't need my encouragement, but accepted it with thanks.

One of the victims I knewquite well, actuallywas a man who'd been sexually trashed by assorted relatives, male and female alike, as a young boy. We were pretty good friends for several years, until he began to lose his whole life to what he called "dissociation." He fell apart. He lost his job, his house, his family, and so much of his sanity he checked himself into a psychiatric facility. That was 30-odd years after he left his horrendously abusive family and went into his first foster home.

Some of the victims can heal; some are crippled in myriad ways for life.

Many sex crime perpetrators were themselves victims as children. Their criminal behavior is the result of having been grotesquely abused and crippled for life by perpetrators of their own.

Much of the "help" that's touted is worthless. Some of it is incomparably valuable. None of it works for everybody; in fact, I think it would be safe to say very little of it does very much for very many people. It's fashionable to think of psychology and psychiatry and social work as sciences, but they're not: they're healing crafts with very, very little actual scientific knowledge behind them.

I'm certainly no expert on any of this stuff, but can assure you of this: there are no good, dependable one-size-fits-all answers, and searching for them only leads us deeper into the morass of misunderstanding.

[RevDisk]

Did you know that until you're convicted of a crime, you cannot be admitted to a treatment program in the state of Minnesota?  So the short answer would be:  You can't, not the sort of treatment that you really need, anyway.  You can get individual therapy with someone who isn't specifically trained and experienced in working with the problem.  Sort of like only having your family doctor allowed to perform heart surgery on you.

So...   Because one supposedly cannot get into a specific sort of treatment program in Minnesota, one should overlook all possible avenues of therapy or help?   Sorry, but I'm slightly suspicious.  

Yes, most shrinks are not specialized in dealing with such issues.  But they have professional networks where they can find specialized shrinks, facilities or programs for just about everything.  These are  called "referrals".  I'm not sure it's legal for a shrink to flat out refuse to help a patient whatsoever because the shrink is not specialized in the patient's specific problem.

Your family doc might not want to perform heart surgery, but he should know the proper doc to send a patient needing said surgery.  If not, he shouldn't be a doctor.  Period.

But a quick answer would be that sex offender treatment is based on the same principles as chemical addiction treatment, and anger management, or any other addictive behaviors.  How many drug users, alcoholics, people addicted to pornography, or gambling, or anything else destructive (and yeah, drug and alcohol users tend to hurt and kill people too), seek help before they experience destructive consequences.

A good number.  I know more than a few people that went to detox for alcoholism.   I know some that went to detox for a number of different additions.   I do not off-hand know the statistics of sex offenders who sought help before commiting crimes.  I will research it and get back to you with the DOJ statistics, if you wish.

I do know that 43% of all sex offenders are re-arrested within 3 years of release from prison.  46% of rapists are re-arrested within 3 years of release from prison.  ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders
Released from Prison in 1994", Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice)

Such people, by and large, tell themselves "they've got it under control" until something horrible snaps them out of it.  And that's just how people act about drugs and alcohol, that people are relatively accepting about.  How realistic is it to expect sick individuals to seek help with something so hated that all they hear about are the very things you all are saying.  "lynching, shooting, in prisoned for life."  I'm willing to bet if we were being honest with ourselves, we would do everything in our power to hide and try and manage ourselves rather than throw ourseves on the tender :sarcasm: mercies of the general public.

I'm simply trying to be realistic about the motivations and behaviors of the people we're discussing.

Sorry mate, but I see a big difference between alcoholics and sex offenders.  Yes, alcoholics are a danger to themselves and those around them.   If a sick individual does not carry out his sick desires, why would anyone "lynch, shoot or prison for life" him?   These sick individuals who prey on children are a threat to the future generations.   If they cannot stop themselves, they must be stopped.  

How do you propose to stop these sick individuals from abusing more children?  Chemical castration isn't effective.  Depo Provera is easily countered with testosterone injections.   Prison?   Again, 46% of rapists who go to prison are re-arrested within 3 years.   Therapy is only effective if the person wants to get better.  If they have no desire to improve, a shrink can't fix their brain.  

How do you recommend dealing with the sick individuals that do not want to stop?  

Much of the "help" that's touted is worthless. Some of it is incomparably valuable. None of it works for everybody; in fact, I think it would be safe to say very little of it does very much for very many people. It's fashionable to think of psychology and psychiatry and social work as sciences, but they're not: they're healing crafts with very, very little actual scientific knowledge behind them.

I'm certainly no expert on any of this stuff, but can assure you of this: there are no good, dependable one-size-fits-all answers, and searching for them only leads us deeper into the morass of misunderstanding.

Nothing in medicine is 100%.  Drugs can have unpredictable side effects.  Surgical procedures can go wrong.

Yes, psychiatry is less of a science than educated guesswork.  We know very very little of the brain.  Even much of the physical makeup of the brain is still a mystery.  We're finding new neurotransmitters all the time.  The mental aspects of the brain are even more of a mystery.  Unfortunately, we have to do the best with what we have.

Just a FYI, but group therapy seems to have the best success rate for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).   Not a sure fire solution, of course.   But those that can find a mentor figure or a group of people who have been through exactly the same traumatic experience are the ones who deal the best.

[BillBlank]

I have to admit something that colours my thinking on "treatment".  I worked for the probation service for some time. Some days I would work late. The building was used for weekly groupwork with sex offenders after hours. I have bat like hearing when it comes to footsteps and whispered conversations. Remorse or regret were not in evidence when they thought they were not being overheard. Only positive to come out of it was their surprise when they got kicked off the program and sent to jail. I love mp3 recorders.  Legally sticky if they weren't convicted felons in our "custody" at the time. UK law btw, before screams of "unconstitutional" echo through the land.

Thanks for the thought out repllies bemji, always interesting to get someone elses opinion when they've obviously put a great deal of thought into it. Excuse my "General Melchett" ranting .

[Tallpine]

My B-I-L went to some kind of therapist and asked for help because he had molested his daughters.  Mandatory reporting kicked in and now he is serving a long prison term and cannot even write to his children.  

OTOH, my F-I-L (his father) has never been prosecuted for what he has done.  Disgustingly, he masquerades as a "devout christian" all the while seeking out little girls to be alone with.  I tolerated him for years in respect for my wife, but no longer.  Since we moved out of state 8 years ago, he does not know where we live (only a PO box).  If he ever finds out and does show up on my property ... well, let's just say he better leave awfully fast!

[RevDisk]

I did some digging around.  A good resource on these freaks is http://www.vachss.com .  Andrew Vachss was a federal investigator for sexually transmitted diseases, a social caseworker, and director for max-security prisons for youthful offenders.  He is now a lawyer in private practice, representing children and youth exclusively.   He also wrotes books, which I rather recommend.


http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9408_b.html

"How Many Dead Children Are Needed to End the Rhetoric", New York Daily News, August 12, 1994


"The real problem with "treatment" for sex offenders is that they like what they do. Psycho-babble aside, the motive for sexual assault is sexual assault. So sex offenders don't volunteer for treatment unless it will avoid prison or shorten their sentence (which it often does), and they don't continue "treatment" a minute longer than the law requires. An offender can "max out" his sentence and be released without the annoyance of a parole officer to monitor his conduct."



http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9207_a.html

"Pragmatically Impotent", ABA Journal, July 1992

"Violent sex offenders are not victims of their heightened sex drives. Rapists may be "expressing their rage." Predatory pedophiles may be "replaying their old scripts." But any sexual sadist, properly interviewed, will tell you the truth: They do what they do because they want to do it. Their behavior is not the product of sicknessit is volitional."

"Castration validates the sex offenders self-portrait: He is the victim; he cant help himself. It panders to our ugliest instincts, not the least of which is cowardicethe refusal to call evil by its name. Nor can castration be defended because the perpetrator chooses it. Leaving aside the obvious issue of coercion, under what theory does a convicted criminal get to select his own (non-incarcerative) sentence?"

"Even the most liberal of Americans have become suspicious of a medical model to explain sex offenders. Such offenders may plot and plan, scheme and stalk for months, utilize the most elaborate devices to avoid detection, even network with others and commercially profit from their foul acts. But some psycho-apologist can always be found to claim the poor soul was deep in the grip of irresistible impulse when he was compelled to attack. Imagine the field day the expert-witness fraternity will have explaining how the castrated child-molester who later killed his new victims was rendered insane as a result of the castration itself."



http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html

"Sex Predators Can't Be Saved", New York Times, January 5, 1993

"A chronic, calcified sexual sadist, Mr. Dodd stated in a recent court brief, "If I do escape, I promise you I will kill and rape again, and I will enjoy every minute of it."


"Some predatory sociopaths can be deterred. None can be rehabilitated, since they cannot return to a state that never existed. The concept of coercive therapy is a contradiction; successful psychiatric treatment requires participants, not mere recipients. What makes sexual predators so intractable and dangerous is that, as Mr. Dodd candidly acknowledged, they like what they do and intend to keep doing it."

"A 1992 study of 767 rapists and child molesters in Minnesota found those who completed psychiatric treatment were arrested more often for new sex crimes than those who had not been treated at all. A Canadian survey that tracked released child molesters for 20 years revealed a 43 percent recidivism rate regardless of the therapy. The difference between those simply incarcerated and those subjected to a full range of treatments appears statistically negligible. And the more violent and sadistic the offense, the more likely it is to be repeated."



http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ellis_amdur.html

(Warning, the link describes some rather uh, graphic incidents that actually occurred.  No photos, but the text is disturbing enough.  It also deals with the philosophy of killing those that need to be killed.)

"Am I a moral failure in that I did not kill him?

When I interviewed that boy, I knew what he was capable of doing. I had no expectation that treatment would help him, but that was the best suggestion I could come up with. I knew he would, sooner or later, do something horrible to some poor child.

Is it my responsibility merely to do the best I can, offer therapy to those I can, teach as many people as I can how to protect themselves from violence, saving myself to raise my sons, saving myself, therefore, to fight on other days, thereby saving myself from the consequences of a knowledge that I knew was accurate?

I could have saved that child he raped an unimaginable world of pain, and probably other children, as well, when he finally gets out of prison. Were you to hear that I had killed him, solely based on my intuition and assessment, what would be your reaction?"



And I saved the best for last.

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html

"The Difference Between "Sick" and "Evil' ",  Parade, July 14, 2002

"But that very natural reaction has, inadvertently, created a special category of "blameless predator." That confusion of "sick" with "sickening" is the single greatest barrier to our primary biological and ethical mandate: the protection of our children."

"Sickness is a condition.  Evil is a behavior.  Evil is always a matter of choice. Evil is not thought; it is conduct. And that conduct is always volitional."

"If a person has desires or fantasies about sexually exploiting children, that individual may be sick. (Indeed, if such desires are disturbing, as opposed to gratifying, to the individual, there may even be a "cure.") But if the individual chooses to act upon those feelings, that conduct is evil. People are not what they think; they are what they do."



Anything else, Bemidjiblade?   I read the articles you meantioned, and posted my thoughts on them in detail.  I ask you to kindly do the same, and then explain to me why this evil should be mollified?


And I finally found a solution to your qualms about killing these evil individuals.

http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/miccdescription.htm

McNeil Island Corrections Center, aka "Remora" to the freaks.




Edit : The more I read about Remora, the more I love the facility.  

http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/07/3f833ed907780


"The island is not a prison, but rather a mental-health facility", McElfish said.
"Civil commitment is indefinite. It could be a lifetime, but the court has to decide," Wilson said.


Think of it as Alcatraz for the freaks, with no possibility of escape.   They wanna argue that they're sick, rather than criminals?  Okey dokey by me.  Civil commitment can be forever.  If the shrinks and courts think a person is mentally unstable (as they themselves argue) and a danger to society, they can be locked up indefinitely.  A large number of child molesters count.  Described as " impressive walled front with gates, large wired fences, gun towers, and three and five-tier cells."  Accessable by boat or helo only.  2.8 miles away from land, in freezing water.


Bwahaha, we need more of these facilities!  Very acceptable solution to the problem.   It's not a horribly inhuman punishment through evil, evil legal system.   The docs truly understand that it's not the freak's fault, that he's really just a sick individual, not an evil criminal.   So they spend the rest of their natural life in civil commitment on an island far away from future victims.   Seems fair enough, even by the freaks' version of reality.  What?  If they were really sorry for their actions and claimed they couldn't stop themselves, why shouldn't they mind being removed from society so that they couldn't cause further harm?

[Bemidjiblade]

Bill, for confidentiality purposes, I cannot go into too much detail.  But I have personal exprience w/ remorseful sex offenders.  I also have experience with miserable pieces of work like my uncle, who I would personally be pushing for life imprisonment for if he weren't already basically dead from diabetes and in a nursing home as an invalid.  I don't think that anyone is saying that all sex offenders are remorseful, but I know for a fact that some are.  In my experience, it's particularly family members who don't know how to stop themselves who demonstrate the most remorse.  An excellent article I read by one of my state's leading therapists in the field also points out that many families and other relationships that are damaged by sexual abuse are healed.  There are wives, children, and other victims who choose to do the hard work to make sure everyone stays safe while providing healing and reconciliation.  Obviously, this isn't a solution for everyone, but I sympathize with your brother-in-law, and I hope that there may be either healing or peace either way.  However, part of getting better is accepting responsibility for what has already been done.  But the prison term is not forever (thank God, and that's what I'm pushing for here).  And if people are willing, miracles of healing and forgiveness can and do exist.  I think it's vital that we do not pass laws that take away the possibility of healing.

As far as your experience w/ offenders, I'm sorry that you found it so disheartening.  From what I know of offender treatment here in the states, I would be willing to bet that none of the perps were allowed to speak about their own sides of the stories in treatment, for legitimate reasons.  So you may have been hearing a slightly unballanced, or sort of venting, deal.  But that's just an off the cuff deal.  If you managed to discover or stop someone from committing a new crime, then more power to your MP3!!!

[Bemidjiblade]

Standing Wolf,

It's good to hear from you, as always!  I've never found your posts to be anything but balanced and well thought out!  Thanks for participating in this thread!!!

I think you made a good point that some victims are crippled by the abuse while others find the resources and help they need to heal.  I don't know the right way to phrase that, and I'm not trying to be offensive.  I absolutely don't want to sound like I'm saying one or the other is better, that would be like saying that someone is better for not being in a wheelchair when hit by a drunk driver.

And I'm really grateful to know that there are caring people like yourself who are willing to help victims of abuse find ways to express their anger and work to feel secure again, which, I'm learning, is something that most all of us who have been victims have a hard time with.

Thanks again for your post!!!

[Bemidjiblade]

RevDisk,

Looking at the resources that you're quoting, I can understand how you've come to the conclusions you have.  In the sake of taking The High Road, can I suggest that we find words other than 'freaks'?  There's a fair chance that I'm not the only one at APS or THR who knows someone who has committed a sex offense without hating them.  And I am trying to keep this as rational as possible.

I've spent some time thinking about the best way to respond to your points.  And I think that I'd like to take a look at the statistics and sources that you're quoting, since that seems to be the most non-inflammatory way of looking at this.  I hope you'll extend me the courtesy of considering what I have to say.  I wish I could give you more solid examples in some cases, but I've got some legal boundaries of my own regarding confidentiality and privacy to consider.  Please bear with me as I do my best.

The first article you quoted was from the New York Daily News, and I understood the main point to be that sex offenders don't actually sign up for treatment as anything but a legal dodge.

That is not accurate.  I know several cases of sex offenders seeking treatment before any crime was known by the authorities, and that is simply in my county.  I'm willing to bet that my county is not a complete freak of coincidence.  However, even if it was, the NYDN article seems to be based upon an absolute assumption that is not accurate.  I have no reason then to trust the rest of what they say.  If, as I know to be the fact, some sex offenders DO seek treatment on their own, then the premise of the article is untenable.

Taking that back to my point with this post, even if there are merely a handful of penitant sex offenders (though in reality I believe that there is a significant portion of them), aren't their lives worth considering when we advocate for national policy?  If your answer is no, then I have to start asking how many lives are we willing to condemn more harshly than they deserve?  5%, 10%, 50%?

I'm afraid that I'm about to run out of time once again.  I won't have time to post until tommorow.  One thing that I am noticing is that you're quoting a lot of sources from the popular media, as opposed to Dept of Corrections, and psychological sources that would be more reliable.

After all, how many times have we all sat here on the Round Table, (before and after it was here on APS), and moaned that the lib media are idiots who will twist anything to their own agenda?

Also, to be brief, I would like to remind you that the arguments I'm presenting come from a forum dedicated to the victims of sexual abuse.  It is run by victims and professional therapists who work with both victims AND offenders.  I'm not sure that you're giving the people with 1st hand, ongoing, direct knowledge about treatment and victimization the wieght that they merit.  I'd like to point out once again that the article I originally posted was given from a woman who was A] herself a victim, B] had years of experience as a victim advocate, much like your Mr. Vachss. and C] originally presented this to a forum of professionals in the field being discussed, who would hardly give her a pass if she were as off-base as you seem to believe her to be.

Finally, your sources seem very fond of quoting unrepentant cases from maximum security prisons.  Since my research has led me to discover that 70% of sex offenders do not commit offenses high enough to qualify as felony 1 or 2's, they are never sent to prisons, but rather serve times in jails.  That only makes me feel more secure in my assertion that making laws because of the worst 30% of ANY population group and applying it to 100% of that group is a gross miscarriage of the principles of justice and equality I support and admire.

There is a vast difference between re-arrests and re-convictions on new charges.

And while no one is saying that ANYONE should be sexually abused, it's a little hard to find the strength to recover from being murdered, killed by a drunk driver, or shot in a drug deal.  But you can take a human life forever and regain your place in society in about 60% of the time that you have to pay for a sex offense, which, while TERRIBLE!, CAN be overcome and lived with.

[Sean Smith]

There is a semantic issue here.  If you lump every sexual impropriety under "sexual offender," then yes, locking all of them up for life makes no sense.  Compassion for minor offenders makes perfect sense, because the harm they have done is marginal and the prospects for their rehabilitation may be quite good.  I am all for vigorous efforts to rehabilitate such people.

But it is extremely deceptive to lump rapists and child molesters together with minor offenders, however.  Our priority has to be dealing with the worst offenders, the ones that as a group are the greatest danger to society at large, who are also the ones with the worst prospects of rehabilitation and the highest rates of recidivism.  Frankly, I believe it is both ethically sound and eminently practical to sentence rapists and child molesters to death or perpetual incarceration.  Last I checked, the dead are not repeat offenders, and the overwhelming priority has to be the safety of the past victims and potential future victims.  The violent criminal's quality of life should *never* be placed on an equal footing, as a moral or practical priority, as the safety of the past victims or the public at large.  They aren't even in the same universe... it is infinitely better to kill a rapist or lock them up indefinitely, than it is to let them go with some barmy rehab with a double-digit failure rate, only for that rapist to rape again or even kill.

To be blunt, the attacker (and recall that I am talking about rape and child molestation here, not trivial offenses) is not entitled to anything at all, but death or perpetual incarceration.  Anything else we do is simply gambling with the lives of the public at large, something I am not willing to take on as lightly as you seem to.

I agree that a line has to be drawn between violent offenders and child molesters on one hand, and minor sexual offenses on the other.  The former should be killed or removed from society indefinitely, consistent with due process of law.  I can't see how any other course of action is remotely ethical or practical.  The latter should be given reasonable punishments and be provided appropriate rehabilitation so they do not become more serious offenders later.

Given that we mistakenly let violent sexual offenders free, it is practical to try to rehabilitate even them.  But this does not make letting them free in the first place any less of an immoral act, or any less practically stupid.  What do you say to somebody who was raped because a known rapist was set free on the basis of some touchy-feely therapy that failed?  "Your rape was a risk I was willing to take so the rapist could have a better quality of life"?!?  Because that's what it boils down to, isn't it?

[RevDisk]

RevDisk,

Looking at the resources that you're quoting, I can understand how you've come to the conclusions you have.  In the sake of taking The High Road, can I suggest that we find words other than 'freaks'?  There's a fair chance that I'm not the only one at APS or THR who knows someone who has committed a sex offense without hating them.  And I am trying to keep this as rational as possible.

I chose my words carefully.  My use of the term "freaks" was very intentional.  But if it makes you feel better, I will use the terms "rapist", "child molester", etc.  Sorry, I'm afraid that "sex offender" is a rather genetic term that doesn't do much justice.  Statistically, sex offenders are cases of 'trivial offenses' (boy is 18, girl is 17, et al), incest or family friend, or the serial child molester.  (Yes, other types of sex offenders exist, but they are not the majority of cases.)   The trivial offenses I don't bother to include in my definition of "freaks".   Serial rapists and serial child molesters are indeed "freaks".

Out of curiousity, why do you object to the term?   I'm merely trying to point out the severity of their mental issues and the evilness of their behavior.  I will henceforth not use the term, but I stand by its usage and very real implications.   Taking the High Road does not mean taking an amoral stance, in my opinion.   My usage of the term is based on cold, calculated, rational introspection rather than irrational thought.

I've spent some time thinking about the best way to respond to your points.  And I think that I'd like to take a look at the statistics and sources that you're quoting, since that seems to be the most non-inflammatory way of looking at this.  I hope you'll extend me the courtesy of considering what I have to say.  I wish I could give you more solid examples in some cases, but I've got some legal boundaries of my own regarding confidentiality and privacy to consider.  Please bear with me as I do my best.

No problem.   I'm not attacking you, mate.  Just strongly disagreeing with your ideas.  I like to think I'm making a rational argument and attempting to make valid points.  

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/saycrle.htm

I think that was the only source I sited without including a URL.  The Bureau of Criminal Statistics is the official source of DoJ statistics, and has extremely good resources.  Feel free to browse.

Examples and ancidotes are very important to making one's own opinions.  (I know they are to me.)    We are largely made up of the sum of our personal experiences.  However, unbiased nation wide statistics are probably a better way to decide policy.   I'm bound by confidentiality laws myself.  Ugh, some stories I won't be able to tell for many many years.  Still, I'll listen to you.  Actually listen.  

The first article you quoted was from the New York Daily News, and I understood the main point to be that sex offenders don't actually sign up for treatment as anything but a legal dodge.

That is not accurate.  I know several cases of sex offenders seeking treatment before any crime was known by the authorities, and that is simply in my county.  I'm willing to bet that my county is not a complete freak of coincidence.  However, even if it was, the NYDN article seems to be based upon an absolute assumption that is not accurate.  I have no reason then to trust the rest of what they say.  If, as I know to be the fact, some sex offenders DO seek treatment on their own, then the premise of the article is untenable.

Do you think the majority of sex offenders seek treatment specifically for their impulses, or the minority?   Sorry if I'm mistaken, but if a shrink thinks a patient is a imminent danger to themselves or others, isn't that shrink supposed to contact authorities?   I KNOW shrinks are supposed to deal with patients who express that they are very much inclined to commit violent crimes and do not think that they can stop themselves.

So, if these sex offenders were receiving treatment, why weren't they institutionalized before they committed their crimes?   Either they were not being completely honest with their shrink, or their shrink failed to follow the law and protect the community.   Which is it?

Taking that back to my point with this post, even if there are merely a handful of penitant sex offenders (though in reality I believe that there is a significant portion of them), aren't their lives worth considering when we advocate for national policy?  If your answer is no, then I have to start asking how many lives are we willing to condemn more harshly than they deserve?  5%, 10%, 50%?

Not 5%, 10% nor 50%.

100%.  Victim is more important than the rapist or child molester.   Always.  100% of the time.  Or 0% if you look at it from the point of view that it is impossible to condemn rapists or child molesters more harshly than they deserve.   I'm not saying kick the Constitution out the door when it comes to these criminals.  Obviously, their Constitutional rights still mostly apply.  (Sort of, felons are not allowed some rights.)   However, the Constitutional and human rights of their victims and potential victims obviously take presidence.

If a shrink is virtually 99.999% certain that a rapist or child molester fully intends to continue raping or molesting more victims when they are released, why should they be released?  

I'm afraid that I'm about to run out of time once again.  I won't have time to post until tommorow.  One thing that I am noticing is that you're quoting a lot of sources from the popular media, as opposed to Dept of Corrections, and psychological sources that would be more reliable.

Bureau of Criminal Statistics don't count?   Not popular media, Andrew Vachss.  If you read more about Vachss, you'd realize he's rather knowledgable about the subject.   He has practiced law on the subject for a good number of years, before then working as an investigator.   He only defends kids and youths.  Not their parents, only the kids and youths.   He's on the front line of this epidemic, defending kids/youths and sending rapists/molesters to prison.  

But fine, gimme a couple more days.   I will not make my comments on YOUR psychological sources until I'm sure my evidence is airtight and proven with mountains of paperwork.

After all, how many times have we all sat here on the Round Table, (before and after it was here on APS), and moaned that the lib media are idiots who will twist anything to their own agenda?

Hmm.  If I didn't know better, I think you just accused my sources of being liberal media.   Very cute.  Sorry if I am not impressed.   Please prove, in detail, that my source is showing a definite ideological bias that is political in nature.

I'd like to point out once again that the article I originally posted was given from a woman who was A] herself a victim, B] had years of experience as a victim advocate, much like your Mr. Vachss. and C] originally presented this to a forum of professionals in the field being discussed, who would hardly give her a pass if she were as off-base as you seem to believe her to be.

Indeed.  I still question her judgement.  Anyone who tries to convince me that the legal system shouldn't send rapists or child molesters to jail is fighting an uphill battle.   For the sake of pure interest, I read her justifications for this.  Simply put, I do not agree that reuniting families is more important than the safety of the victim, especially underage victims.

Freud made a career out of blaming victims for their mental issues.  Look his "research" on hysteria.  Shifted all blame onto the victim.  He was not only given "a pass", but he was widely received as a genius for doing so.  

Finally, your sources seem very fond of quoting unrepentant cases from maximum security prisons.  Since my research has led me to discover that 70% of sex offenders do not commit offenses high enough to qualify as felony 1 or 2's, they are never sent to prisons, but rather serve times in jails.  That only makes me feel more secure in my assertion that making laws because of the worst 30% of ANY population group and applying it to 100% of that group is a gross miscarriage of the principles of justice and equality I support and admire.

No one seriously suggested applying the worst penalty to 100% of the cases.  There is obviously a difference between cases of stat rape (boy 18, girl 17, etc etc) and serial rapists/molesters.   What do your propose to do about serial rapists and child molesters?   Besides mending the "victim/offender relationship in a restorative way".

And while no one is saying that ANYONE should be sexually abused, it's a little hard to find the strength to recover from being murdered, killed by a drunk driver, or shot in a drug deal.  But you can take a human life forever and regain your place in society in about 60% of the time that you have to pay for a sex offense, which, while TERRIBLE!, CAN be overcome and lived with.

Some of us think rapists and child molesters are infinitely worse than murder.   Murder just ends a life.  Rape and molestation puts the soul through hell.  Overcoming rape and child molestation can happen, indeed.  But that is no excuse for the actions of the rapist and child molesters.   It's possible to survive ebola, but I don't think I want to experience that either.  

I understand that we likely have different values on human life and "morality", I suppose.   I'm having a rather hard time understanding why you are trying to discount the behavior of these "people".   You post an article that claims that victims should not report rapists or child molesters to the legal system, and instead focus on restoring relationships between victim and rapist/molester.  You advocate sympathy for rapists and child molesters.  

Yet, you offer no solutions to dealing with serial rapists and child molesters.  Besides "restorative justice" that victims should forgive those that tortured them, instead of putting them behind bars.   These are not misunderstood individuals.  They are criminals who find it pleasurable to torture children.   There IS no justification for such behavior.

[Standing Wolf]

Sickness is a condition.  Evil is a behavior.  Evil is always a matter of choice. Evil is not thought; it is conduct. And that conduct is always volitional.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!

Sorry, but tautologies are beside the proverbial "point."

I doubt it does any good whatever to dwell on matters of evil versus sickness. We can slice and dice words until cats take up barking, but all that's useless until we can measure what we're talking aboutand anyway, I'm not convinced sickness and evil are the least bit mutually exclusive.

To be sure, there are plenty of people who want to declare, in essence, "Sex offenders are sick; therefore, they can't be held accountable for their actions." By that same logic, we should just turn kleptomaniacs loose, since it's clear they're sick people. Absurd

I believe the first priority has to be to protect and offer help to the victims. Altogether too much help is offered to the criminals, and the victims are often little more than an after-thought in criminal justice proceedings. First and last, the questions need to be, "What can we do to prevent the victim from being victimized again? What can we do to help the victim recover from this horror and lead a normal, happy life?"

The second priority ought to be to protect all the potential victims, which is to say: all the people the criminal hasn't yet victimized. When in doubt, the law ought to err on the side of protecting the innocent from predation by those who have already demonstrated their willingness to harm others.

The last priority ought to be to help the sex offenders themselvesif, of course, they're willing to be helpedand if, of course, there's any help that could actually prove useful to them.

Realistically speaking, I have to say we're not doing much for sex offenders' victims. Our revolving door turns the criminals loose, in many cases, without so much as asking whether the victims are ready to welcome them home. The victims I've knownwithout exceptionwere largely on their own when it came to finding help, and much of the help they found was useless. I knew a woman of about 35 in the late 1980s who'd been to five or six state- and county-funded treatment centers and at least two psychiatrists she had to pay for out of pocket. The individuals who'd victimized her, meanwhile, were living at state expense to the tune of about $25,000 per year. Follow the money, and you'll see where the priorities actually are.

The recidivism rates for sex offenders are insanely high. It seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on the sex offender to prove he's undergone a radical attitude adjustment rather than on the criminal justice system to prove he's not ready to be "returned to society." Taking chances on bank robbers makes much more real world sense than taking chances on sex offenders.

There are no quick and easy answers in that, either. My point is this: until we restack our priorities, it doesn't make sense to quibble over the fine points of terminology. Until we ask first, "What's best for the victim?" and second, "What's best for all the potential victims?" we're wasting our time, or at least, failing to deal at all effectively with a national disgrace.

Here's a mighty pecular number: on average, one American woman in five will most probably be the victim of one kind of sex offender or another in her lifetime. As far as I'm concerned, that's not much of a commendation.

[Bemidjiblade]

Rev Disk,

You accused me of advocating compassion for rapists and molesters.  That is correct.  I also believe that there should be compassion for every single human being; criminal or free, imprisoned or paroled or pardoned, victims, therapists, LEO's, every single person who draws breath on the face of the planet is worthy of compassion, which is nothing more or less than feeling something related to how another person is living.

The short answer for why am I debating this at all, is because no one else will.  It's far too much of a slippery slope for any society to allow a hated segment of society to be judged without representation or advocacy, no matter how heartfelt or understandable our hatred or revulsion.  An excellent example was a series of executions of homosexuals (understood by their society to be sex offenders) and gypsies (understood by their society to be unredeemable thieves and reprobates).  No one raised their voices at that, and then Hitler turned his attention to the Jews.  I would rather stand up and raise my voice for people I disagree with, people I may find repugnant or incomprehensible, than allow such a pattern to begin in my beloved country.  That is one reason why I'm willing to do that here in a forum of people whom I respect.

For starters, I tend to object to dehumanizing terms on the general principle that I do not believe that there is anyone unworthy of basic human rights and respect as a human being.  Neither do I sincerely believe that there is no one who is irredeemable.  There are definitely people who, for the safety of themselves or others, need to be kept from hurting themselves or others.  No one is arguing that.  But because of the worldview of my religious and societal upbringing, I see ALL human life as having value, and I object to de-humanizing terms on that basis.  I do not believe that human life is given value by what we do, nor that it loses value by what we do.  I believe that human life has value because it is created in God's image.  And I believe that I'm neither more nor less entitled to that opinion simply because it has to do with my faith.

No one is arguing most of the things you seem to be arguing against.  

No one has stated that sexual offenders of ANY genre are innocent or not to be held responsible for what they have done.  But for someone who sees being a victim of a sexual crime as an unbearable fate worse than death, it seems hypocritical to then dismiss the endurace of that exact fate on the behalf of the perpetrators.  Either it can be dealt with and lived with, in which case we can, should, and MUST hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes, or it cannot be dealth with and lived with, in which case how dare we dehumanize, destroy, or incarcerate people for things that they cannot possibly have overcome?

As far as your statement that being a victim of a sex offense is a fate worse than death, that it would be better to be murdered, I take offense to that.  You're stating that it would have been better for me to be murdered at age 11 than for me to have had to endure years of pain.  What in the world gives you the right to make that judgement call?  Isn't that my decision?  Or are you saying that being abused by a teenager when I was 11 is a "minor" sex offense?
What about the next time, or the third?  I have not only endured those things, and still endure some of the effects of them every single day in my life, but I do my best to try and reach the lives of others with love, compassion, and mercy.  If taking the High Road does not mean taking an amoral stance on an issue.  Then how dare you tell me that my life as I live it is not worth living and that it would be better that I be dead?  And that is the ultimate extention of what you are saying.

"Anyone who says we sholdn't send rapists and molesters to jail..."  Well... anyone who says that doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence either.  But I'm talking about sending people to prison, not jail or prison, and for life, not for an amount of time a judge determines is appropriate given the circumstances and severity of the crime.  The system that I tend to agree with is largely in place, a system that takes into account differences in ages, differences in power and authority, whether or not there was the use of force, the threat of violence, a history of criminal behavior, etc.  That is in place now and that is exactly as it should be.

But the media right now is full of extreme reactions to horrible and vividly highlighted stories.  How many sex offenders have committed murders in the past year?  How many of them were put on the national news?  How many non-sexually based murders have been committed in the past year?  How many of them made local news?  I firmly believe that if every felony 1 murder, manslaughter, 10x drunk driver who kills a family of 4, drug addict who allows her baby to starve to death while she gets high, if everything that destroys a life or cripples and alters it for life were made national news, then we'd have a better chance of sitting down as a society and determining rules that are in the best interest of everyone.

You've asked me a number of questions.  And I'm going w/o sleep at the moment because I didn't want to get so backlogged that I didn't have time later to give your thoughts a respectful amount of attention.

You asked me about sex offenders and treatment.  Here is what I believe:
1]  I believe that no sex offender is allowed to continue in, much less complete a professional treatment program without demonstrating remorse, without demonstrating an understanding of how his crimes can and/or have impacted his victims, and without demonstrating a comprehensive plan to prevent re-offending.  As I understand it, only about 50% of those who enter treatment are able to successfully complete it.  Anyone who believes that offender treatment is a "slap on the wrists" is either dealing with exprience with a sub-standard treatment program or is not fully informed.  Before I was bound by any confidentiality agreements, I discovered that a SIGNIFICANT minority of sex offenders elect to spend a far greater time in prison than to endure everything necessary to complete the treatment process.  Please remember that these are sex offenders we're talking about.  So they'd rather sign up for a long term stay in an environment where they will be the preferred targets of abuse instead of enduring what treatment entails.
2]  I agree with you that only a minority of sex offenders are repentant before they enter treatment.  However, more than half of the treatment curriculae that I am familiar with are geared around bringing an offender to an understanding of the severity and nature of their crimes until they DO demonstrate repentance.  One of the primary goals in sex offender treatment, one without which no one should be allowed to complete treatment, is that the offender demonstrate a real understanding of and sympathy for their victims.  This is the part that I am given to understand many offenders would rather be beaten and locked up themselves for extended periods of time than to complete.
3]  What I have understood from newscasts is that the people who have been cited or have been in the news in the past few years never completed treatment, or completely refused to attempt it.  I believe that anyone who fails to complete treatment should be reviewed to be locked away for life.  To restate that:  Anyone who cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of professionals of the DoC as well as treatment staff that they
A]  Understand the pain they have caused,
B] feel remorse for their actions,
C] have accepted accountability for what they have done, and
D] have a workable plan to keep from ever commiting a new crime,
Should be reviewed by the appropriate authorities.  In the absence of extenuating circumstances I can't even imagine (but I don't like to pretend that something I couldn't imagine could come up) they should be locked away for 20 yrs to life.  That is at the very least enough time for any of their victims to reach their majority and be able to protect themselves.

You asked, "If a shrink is virtually 99.999% certain that a rapist or child molester fully intends to continue raping or molesting more victims when they are released, why should they be released? "

They shouldn't.  No one is advocating that someone almost certain to continue committing a crime should be released.  That's true of any crime, and this is a prime example of why.

But the question I asked was what percentage of the people who could become treated and safer to be around should forfeit everything for the sake of the people who WILL commit new crimes.

Here is the summary of the National Institute of Corrections in Great Britain in 2002:
"Reconviction Rates of Serious Sex Offenders and Assessments of the Risk
Published Date: 2002
Reconviction rates occurring four and six years after serious sex offenders "were released from long determinate sentences of imprisonment" are examined (p. 1). This report contains sections about: key points; characteristics of the prisoners studied; reconvictions; Parole Board members' assessment of risk; Static-99 compared with board members' assessment of risk; and implications. While only 10% of those individuals designated as high risk were reconvicted, these sex reoffenders committed very serious crimes. "
http://nicic.org/Library/017698

Take a close look at the numbers from the British government:  Only 10% of the HIGH RISK sex offenders were re-convicted of a new crime.  That IS what we're talking about here, new victims and new crimes.  Now, NO re-offending is acceptable, but you are talking about sentencing 9 men who would not be convicted of a new crime to life in prison for every 1 man who would be.  I can't support that ratio.  And I'm not going to sacrifice the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" simply because someone's crimes make me want to vomit.

Re-arrest rates for sex offenders are very high.  But a re-arrest is not a commission of a new crime.  Here are examples of what constitues a re-arrest in the state of MN as far as sex offender registration:  
Having a Probation/Parole Officer place you in custody as a warning that you are being too close to the boundaries.  
Being taking into custody by being seated in the back of a police car while your license and registration is run through.
Serving a week in the local jail for a probation violation, such as going with a friend into a bar when there is a no-drink order.
All of these are re-arrests.  So, for example, if Sex Offender A has to register as a sex offender for 10 years after his release from custody or until the end of a 15 yr probation, and a week before he is finished with probation, he is placed in the back of a squad car because he was speeding, he qualifies as being re-arrested, and must register as a sex offender for another 10 years.

Also, keep in mind that at least in this state (where I get most of my info), a Probation/Parole Officer has the leeway to place a member of their case loads in custody for up to four days without any charges, explanation, or appeal.  This also qualifies as a re-arrest as I understand the legal code.  I believe that because new sex crimes are not acceptable at all, we owe it to ourselves to invest the time and effort not to equate sex crimes with taking an illegal beer or smoking a joint.  That's not advocating anyone violating probation/parole conditions, though.  If you're on probation, it's time to show society how squeaky clean you can be!

So if we're talking about preventing new crimes, then we need to be careful to look at the proper statistics.

Finally, about the article, here is my point:  The way the laws stand, the harsher the punshments get for sex offenders, the less likely victims are to report the crimes so that both the victims AND the perps get whatever treatment they need.  Sex crimes NEED to be reported.

(Standing Wolf, as I understand it, the reason that more money is spent treating criminals than victims is, among other things, that victims are given the right to choose where, when, and how to seek therapy/counseling or nothing depending on how they wish to deal with their own victimization.  I would like to believe that with a crime reported and punished, the victims receive affirmation and are much more free to seek help without shame.)

Reconciliation must NEVER be put above the safety of a child.  But neither should victims be denied the right to choose how to deal with their own abuse.  To avoid misunderstanding, until treatment/DoC/whomever is convinced that the perpetrator is capable of being safe, even the victim's right to choose for or against contact or reconciliation must be superceded by the need to keep everyone safe.

I believe that flexibility in sex offender laws is required so that victims can feel even more free to report abuse and get help.  I believe that a son or daughter is much more likely to report incest if it means their father or mother getting help than if it means their father or mother being executed or locked away for life.  I believe that there should be a more effective method of helping pedophiles or other sexually deviant persons to seek treatment before someone is hurt.  OR, if victimization is already taking place, that it can be stopped without suicide.

To use a non-sex-offender related metaphore:  You all recall the man a month or so ago who fled the courthouse?  Well, he surrendered himself to the cops, and he's probably going to get the death sentence anyway.  I'm not saying that he does not deserve the death sentence.  But after we execute him, what are the odds that another fugitive for murder is going to do the right thing and turn themselves in?

My goal is for there to be no sexual abuse.  Since most sexual abuse seems to go unreported, and most sexual abuse seems to be perpetrated by family members / family friends, anything we can do to lessen the emotional pressure a perpetrator can use to keep their victims silent is a step in the right direction, because ultimately, sex offences need to be reported before they can be dealt with.  Whatever makes it easier for the victims to get help is what is best.

I believe that mandatory executions or life sentences are counterproductive because they prevent victims from getting help.

This is not random or esoteric thought.  To quote an anonymous victim, "I couldn't bear the thought of you being locked away for years getting gang-raped..."

My ultimate thesis are these:  
Victims of sexual crimes MUST be protected.  They deserve to get help, and to know that the people who hurt them are held accountable for their crimes.
Perpetrators of sexual crimes should be helped if at all possible, and if it is not possible, they should be committed for life in as humane a way as possible.
And because I believe that "Lynch Mob" style justice and that mentality prevents BOTH help for the victim AND help for those perps who have a fighting chance at regaining a normal lifestyle, I cannot support it.

[Strings]

ok... OT, I know, but can SOMEONE explain why I can't read half the posts in this thread? Might make any contribution I write make more sense...

 I've been abused: I got over it on my own. When I DID seek a councillor's help, I was told "you're handling this better than any five people I could name". I'm also an oddball in this...

 I've dealt with sex offenders. I've even dealt with a couple that were truely sorry for what they had done. But I couldn't call them "sexual predators": that title seems to say to me that they seek out targets. And I have never heard of a predator giving up their chosen prey...

 With someone that is a predator, I liken them to a rabid dog: said dog may have been a beloved pet, someone's pride-and-joy. Now, they're a danger to society, and we DO have to protect society. "Restoring" Spot to his family with rabbies isn't an option...

[Bemidjiblade]

Hunter Rose, thank you so much for your post.  I agree with you 100% about the ones who are and aren't predators, and what to do 'bout them!

And congratulations on your own survival.  I keep finding that it's the greatest victory I can have over the past.

[12bravo]

RE: pedophiles.  I am a firm believer in redemption thru reincarnation if you get my drift.

[Justin]

You accused me of advocating compassion for rapists and molesters.  That is correct.  I also believe that there should be compassion for every single human being; criminal or free, imprisoned or paroled or pardoned, victims, therapists, LEO's, every single person who draws breath on the face of the planet is worthy of compassion, which is nothing more or less than feeling something related to how another person is living.

In the mind of any rational human being, there should be no consideration of compassion for those who infringe on the rights of others.

None.

[Standing Wolf]

In the mind of any rational human being, there should be no consideration of compassion for those who infringe on the rights of others.

None.

Aw, c'mon, Justin! If I were to steal half a box of ammunition from you some evening, would you advocate the death penalty? Call the brave boys and girls in the bold blue uniforms and demand that I be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? I'll give it back! I'll give it back, dang it all to heck and back!

Seriously: much of what passes for "compassion" is every bit as bad as outright old-fashioned hatred, if not worse. Lyndon Johnson's "compassionate" so-called Great Society, for example, effectively told millions of Americans they're not good enough to compete with the rest of us normal Americans, so we'll give them free housing and welfare checks and food stampsand then we wonder why they live down to our low expectations. I might think I'm being "compassionate" by giving a bum a buck, but it's highly likely all I'm actually doing is enabling him to stay drunk another day instead of confronting the wretched mess he's made of his life.

I think it might be beneficial to pretend there's a limited quantity of compassion floating around. The lion's share ought to go to the victims, since they're the ones who've been injured, and aren't likely ever to be compensated in any way, shape, or form by the predators. I'm not even 1% convinced it's government's responsibility to take care of everybody's least owie and bump; in the case of victims of violent sex crime, however, I haven't seen the churches falling all over one another to do anything for them, and have a hunch most of the psychological resources in our country are government-funded and/or -controlled to one degree or another. I could be wrong about that, but that's my hunch.

The next largest chunk of compassion ought to be reserved for all the potential victims of sex criminals: all the people who'll be turned into victims as soon as we take pity on the criminals and turn them loose.

Whatever compassion is left over goes to the perpetrators.

I realize there's no such thing as a finite quantity of compassion, but as I wrote last evening, we've got our priorities all scrambled up. I care an awful lot less what we do with and/or to the criminals than what we do for the victims and potential victims.

The big topic is never "What should we do for victims of incest?" but "What should we do with sex criminals?" As far as I'm concerned, the criminals can hurry up and wait in line behind the victims and potential victims.

========================= Shift gears =======================

By the bye, the comparison between sex criminals and the homosexuals and Gypsies and Jews of mid-twentieth century Europe isn't apt. Jews, Gypsies, and the vast majority of homosexuals never did, don't now, and aren't likely ever to harm anyone simply by being who and what they are.

That's not to say I think it's okay to persecute sex criminals: merely that they actually are a bred apart, and need to be treated as such if the law-abiding are to be protected from their predations.


========================= Shift gears =======================

Now, in all seriousness: what have we done for the actual and prospective victims today?