On Restorative Justice re Sex Offenders...

[Bemidjiblade]

As usual, you make some great points, Standing Wolf.

I think one of the difficulties with setting up programs for victims of abuse is that the victims I know and/or deal with largely want to deal with things on their own.  Having had their freedom and sense of control taken away from them, they tend to flinch away from anything they feel they are being "pushed" to do.  Also, for many victims of sexual abuse I find that they choose to take years before wanting to deal directly with what happened, if they choose to.

I have a very hard time trying to figure out how anyone could set up an institution or law to take care of the problem of victimization beyond what is already set up.  There are professionals and non-professionals, compassionate people in the clergy and in the mental health fields who deal with issues of abuse every day or every week.  But again, you don't find out about it so much because of the victims' rights for privacy, which I believe must be respected as much as possible.

So, it's not that there aren't people to help, or people who feel compassion.  I'm not a health care professional or member of the clergy, but I think I've spent 15 hrs in the past week working w/ victims in one way or another.

To try and make a quick list for you, Standing Wolf:
1]  There are opportunities for group and individual therapies with the mental health field in every community I've ever been in.
2]  Every member in the clergy that I know of is trained in counseling in one fashion or another within my own church, and anecdotal things they've said makes me believe that some of them deal with victims of abuse almost as much as any other issue in their ministries.
3]  Perhaps the greatest thing we can do for actual and potential victims today is to be aware and alert that abuse does happen, and if we're suspicious, to do what we can to make sure that NO ONE is being hurt.  But we can also love and share our lives w/ victims, showing them that they are not damaged goods no matter how much they struggle with what was done to them, and how they have reacted to the abuse.  And I firmly believe that supportive family and friends can be the greatest tool to minister to any wounded person in the whole world.

I want to try and talk about what is done w/ offenders and keep an eye on how it affects the victims.  One of the things that surprised me a great deal when I started dealing with these issues is that I have found that a LARGE minority, (well, the majority of people I have encountered, but that's hardly an objective sample), struggle with mixed feelings about their abusers.  There are many people who seem to feel valid and horrible anger at what was done to them, but find that they still care about the person who offended against them.  I believe that this is largely due to the fact that so many perpetrators of abuse are family members or friends of the family et cetera.

And while, for the sake of preventing future abuse, it's VITAL for victims and perpetrators both to come to an understanding that what happened was NOT ok, was NOT the victim's fault in ANY way...  I don't feel comfortable standing in judgement of victims and telling them that they should not feel however they want to about the people who abused them, as long as it's THEIR choice and not simply a result of conditioning etc.  That's obviously a really hard call on a case-by-case basis.

So here is why I think that MORE punitive measures for sex offenders are BAD for victims (As in harsher or more punitive than what already exists, which basically already puts offenders at being punished 2x as harshly as murderers etc.  No one here is advocating NOT punishing sex offenders):

1]  I know that victims internalize an INAPPROPRIATE guilt about what was done.  I'm learning that this feeling of guilt becomes a life-long burden for many victims.  I believe that we must strike a balance between punishment and compassion for the fact that victims will struggle even more harshly with guilt that they shouldn't have to feel at all.

This is a really tough one for me, because I also know that one of the things we as a society need to do to teach victims that was was done to them was NOT ok is to punish the offenders, legally and socially.  I just don't feel that we have struck a healthy balance between those two things yet.  And they're both victim-centered issues of compassion for me more than anything else.

2]  I heard a mental health professional who works with victims and offenders both tell me that the thing she hears most frequently when victims ask about their offenders are these two things:  "Are they being honest about what happened?"  And "Are they getting better / are they being helped?"

I think that victims of sexual abuse have every right to want the people who hurt them to be punished forever.  But it's simply not my experience that ALL or perhaps even MOST want that.  My personal experiances with both victims and perpetrators bears out exactly those two thoughts.

3]  Sometimes, FAR more often than I thought possible, victims have chosen to have their offender back in their lives.  This MUST be done only after everything possible has been done to make sure that both parties are as safe as possible.  (For example, a high school student who is a victim of statutory rape has to wait until they are of age before they can make a decision as an adult, AND the perpetrator is far enough along in treatment that there's little to no chance of them committing a new offense in the relationship.)  But I believe that taking away that right of the victim to choose only hurts the victim, once again taking away that sense of control and safety that seems so vital to healing.

Thanks all for your time!

[Justin]

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!

Heh.  I know you're being contentious just because you enjoy it.  Granted, I probably sat in the hyperbolic chamber a bit to long today.



Bemidjiblade contends that we should have compassion for those who commit a heinous violation of another's civil rights, just so long as they're really sorry about it afterwards, and promise to never do it again.

Call me a moralizing prig if you must, but it seems to me that sexually molesting a child, or raping another is one of those things that you don't need to try out before realizing that it's wrong.

I mean, I've never murdered another person in cold blood, but I'm quite concretely certain that it would be not only wrong, but downright evil.

[Sean Smith]

Bemidjiblade,

OK, so how much of an additional risk to the victims, and population at large, are you willing to accept in return for improving the quality of life of rapists and child molesters?  Because that's what you are really asking for, in lieu of killing or incarcerating them for life, which of course reduces their risk of re-offense to zero.  Unless you are claiming rehabilitation has a 100% success rate...

[Bemidjiblade]

Nothing has a 100% success rate.

And incarceration does not reduce their risk of re-offending to zero.  But what does anyone here care if someone in prison is raped, abused, et cetera.  It's been made quite clear that once someone has committed a terrible crime, they're not human any longer.

As far as 100% assurances, why should we demand this of offenders when we do not demand it of any other destructive lifestyle?  Men guilty of manslaughter, vehicular homicide, drunken driving, drug dealing, murder, non-sexual assaults such as wife beating or beating their children, political activists in the past who spike trees or bombed buildings in the 60's and 70's, and terrorists who have dedicated their entire lives to destroying the lives of others...

Every one of the people I've just mentioned is guilty of a crime that destroys life, cripples it, or has the potential to end or cripple life.

Every one of them now has a better chance of freedom than a sex offender, even though my own research seems to indicate that, except for murderers, every single one of them is more likely to commit another crime than a treated sex offender.

What I'm against is allowing our disgust and revulsion at a terrible act lead us to an extreme that will cause suffering not just to the offenders, but to the victims themselves.

"Prof. Frenken is wrong with his believed 90% recidivism rate; it is only a belief, not a result of research. I have never seen any reference to any research report that supports his 90%. Careful meta-analytic research results in an average recidivism rate of 13.4% generally, and 12.7% for 'child molesters'." -Dr. Frans Gieles in an overview of 61 different studies of recidivism in sex offenders.
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/recidivism.htm

http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/pdf/Sex%20Offender%20Programs.pdf
This is the state of MN DoC review of sex offender treatment programs.  Treatment continues to improve, with offenders treated from 97-99 having less than half the recidivism of those treated in 92.  That's a drop from 11% committing new sex offenses to less than 5% committing new sex offenses.

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legaldefinitions.php/recidivism.htm
Here is another quick byte overview about recidivism that includes a statistic for rapists in particular, since everyone is alarmed that they're so certain to offend again:
The U.S Department of Justice conducted a three-year study of prisoners released in 1994. Among the findings were:


Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
Here is another overview of recidivism by crimes.
The quick version is that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other sexual assault offenders are the least likely to be arrested again out of all prisoners.
That being said, sex offenders are 4 times as likely to be arrested for the same crime, whereas other felons tend to find new felonies to commit.

If you're looking for re-arrests, then sex offenders are in the low to mid 40's for percentile as opposed to 67.5% for felons in general.
46.9% of felons were convicted of a new offense within 3 years.
27.4% of rapists
22.3% of other sexual assault offenders.
only homicide offenders were lower at 20.5% new convictions in 3 years.

Those are the statistics for those who are released from prison.  And again, 70% of sex offenders in my research, the SAFER portion of them, are never sent to prison, but spend time in jails.  They are even less likely to re-offend.

The bottom line is that more people who are not going to offend would be locked away forever than people who would re-offend would be kept from hurting someone.  And sex offenders have nearly 50% lower rates than felons in general.

I think I've stated this every time I've posted, but I'll say it again.  I don't want anyone to be hurt by sex offending, ever.  But when we're punishing the majority for the sake of preventing the minority, we need a different solution.

If you want to say that no one sent to prison for a violent crime should ever be let out, or any drug dealer etc, then fine.  That's consistent.

But it's hypocritical to lock away some of the safest of all prisoners because we find their behavior more repulsive when we let other life-destroying criminals far more likely to hurt others walk free.

And AGAIN, I'm not ignoring victims.  In order to get help and to see justice, sex offenders need to be turned in.  I believe that excessive punishment prevents victims from seeking justice, and that is something else that I cannot stomach.  It's hard enough for a child to send their father away for years.  How many more victims would remain silent if simply trying to stop getting hurt and to get help meant condemning someone they cared about or trusted to death or life in prison?

[Bemidjiblade]

Bemidjiblade,

OK, so how much of an additional risk to the victims, and population at large, are you willing to accept in return for improving the quality of life of rapists and child molesters?  Because that's what you are really asking for, in lieu of killing or incarcerating them for life, which of course reduces their risk of re-offense to zero.

I firmly believe that killing offenders would reduce caught and convicted sex offenders risk to zero.

I also firmly believe that if this were the case, none of them would turn themselves in, almost no family members or friends of offenders would ever report it... so instead of reducing the amount of sex offending in our society, we would be helping to continue a tradition of silence and pain that will pass and grow from generation to generation just as it did in the early half of the 20th century, when we didn't talk about such things.

There are three impoverished areas near my home town that live with that sort of code of silence, where reporting a sex offense is considered almost a betrayal of family, which is a high virtue there.  The result is that an estimated 80% of the people there are victims of sexual abuse by the time they reach 18.  (Reported to me by a professional, and I can't say more.)

Silence only allow sexual abuse to grow and flourish.  Any policy that encourages silence is unacceptable.

As the original article I quoted stated:  We need to find a system that ENCOURAGES offenders to come forward, accept responsibility, and seek treatment.

The victims need it.  The offenders need that.  And our society needs that.

[RevDisk]

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.

Did you just seriously claim that rapists and child molesters are being persecuted like the homosexuals, Gypsies and Jews under Hitler?  Mano...   I'm having a real hard time trying to be objective and non-insulting on this one.

The difference between the two groups is so far apart, it boggles the mind.   Rapists and child molesters are criminals that commit inhuman acts of torture on often defenseless victims.   Which side does this sound like?  The Jews in the camps or the Nazis?  As you recall, we shot a lot of Nazis and tossed a lot in prison for the remainder of their natural life.  I'm not just arguing that it's a bad example you came up with.  I seriously question the mind that came up with it.  Claiming that monsters deserve compassion too because they are human is one thing.  Understandable, even.  I question how human they really are, but that's a personal opinion.  Saying that they've been persecuted like homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews, etc is another.

Maybe I'm overreacting.   But a friend of mine just got back from Poland, where she saw the Nazi concentration camp where her father stayed.   Want some photos?  

1]  There are opportunities for group and individual therapies with the mental health field in every community I've ever been in.
2]  Every member in the clergy that I know of is trained in counseling in one fashion or another within my own church, and anecdotal things they've said makes me believe that some of them deal with victims of abuse almost as much as any other issue in their ministries.
3]  Perhaps the greatest thing we can do for actual and potential victims today is to be aware and alert that abuse does happen, and if we're suspicious, to do what we can to make sure that NO ONE is being hurt.  But we can also love and share our lives w/ victims, showing them that they are not damaged goods no matter how much they struggle with what was done to them, and how they have reacted to the abuse.  And I firmly believe that supportive family and friends can be the greatest tool to minister to any wounded person in the whole world.

1)  They vary greatly in quality.  I know of more than a few cases where sex crime victims were put in therapy groups with "normal" crazy people.  Schizophrenics, manic depression, etc.    Sex crime victims are NOT crazy, and should not be treated as such.

2) Members of the clergy are excempt from a lot of mandatory-reporting laws.  I've met more than a few really good priests.  However, I've also seen institutional coverups.   See the rash of 'recent' scandals of priests that were actually child molesters.  They are very much the except rather than the rule, but it is something to keep in mind.  

3) Perhaps the greatest thing we can do for potential victims is increase CCW reform.   Dead rapists shot by their potential victim is a very simple solution, and cost effective too.  20 cents of ammo is cheaper than $20k per year in prison costs.   Oh yes, and work on laws that restrict civil suits from felons injured in commission of a crime.  (ie, if someone shoots an attempted rapist, he can't get the last laugh by suing the victim for defending himself/herself.)

That won't help children, and adults under 21.  But it's a start.   I'm a big believer in self-defense courses and martial arts training for kids.   Encouraging kids to come forth is not easy.   Many are subject to conditioning/coercion/pressure, fear of being blamed, self-blame, fear of/for the molester, etc.  We really need to overhaul the various Child Protective Services.  There are PLENTY of horror stories of kids being handed back over to rapists and child molesters dispite plenty of evidence, and innocent parents being harassed without a single shred of evidence.   Typical govt "we're here to help" behavior, in other words.

"Prof. Frenken is wrong with his believed 90% recidivism rate; it is only a belief, not a result of research. I have never seen any reference to any research report that supports his 90%. Careful meta-analytic research results in an average recidivism rate of 13.4% generally, and 12.7% for 'child molesters'." -Dr. Frans Gieles in an overview of 61 different studies of recidivism in sex offenders.
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbei & divism.htm

Gee, I was real interested in this "Dr. Frans Gieles."  So I did a google search...



http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/ethics.htm

"Ethics and human rights in intergenerational relationships "

Intergenerational Relationships is the polite way of saying "Child molester".



http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/I_DIDNT_KNOW_HOW.html

"The local mores and customs also play a role, as openness about children's sex lives is not always appreciated. Children often have to be sexual in secret. Homosexuality is for many youngsters a big taboo. This can bring many problems and insecurity. If the sub-culture in which they live is relaxed and strong enough, then children can find support in that environment."


YOU ARE QUOTING A PEDOPHILE ON HIS OPINIONS OF RECIDIVISM!   WHAT DID YOU THINK HE WAS GOING TO SAY?

This one takes the cake...



http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti137156/helping/background.htm

"How do we look at our clients, the people with pedophilic feelings? Our view will influence our way of working.

So, if we view perversion or sickness, we try to heal it. Especially if we have moral reasons for it. This has been tried by therapists who for these reasons have treated gays and lesbians, trying to change them 'from sickness into health', thus from homosexuality into heterosexuality. Recent research showed 'success' (which is even doubted by the authors) with only 6 out of 202 respondents.  

Just like having homosexual desires, the feeling of pedophilic desires is not a perversion per se. In my lecture, I referred to Nagayama Hall, Hirschman & Oliver, who say that more than 25% of a sample of normal men reacted to 'pedophilic stimuli'. If we read the article, we will see that only female pedophilic stimuli are given to men. If the researchers had also used boys as stimuli, the percentage would have been higher. If they also had women in their sample, supposedly the percentage would have been even higher. In my estimation, this includes one-third of the adult population. One cannot say that one-third of a population that functions on a normal level, should be perverted. With a supposed a two-third majority and a one-third minority, one can scarcely speak about deviance. In my view, we are speaking about a variance. "

"If sexual experiences of children and youths with adults were always harmful, it would be difficult to defend the self-help method. But there is not always harm. Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch have published a meta-analysis in which they have re-analyzed 59 studies using college samples. Negative effects were reported in about 25% of the cases, especially for girls - not 100%, which is widely thought. In the cases that reported harm, the family environment was a factor that was 10 times stronger than the sexual experiences. "


Want more proof this "Doctor" is a freak?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/

Read and weep.  


Dude, I seriously am questioning your intentions.  You are at BEST attempting to excuse the the preditory nature of these criminals and the damage they cause.   You are trying to validate their behavior.   There is no validation for raping or molesting children, mate.

But it's hypocritical to lock away some of the safest of all prisoners because we find their behavior more repulsive when we let other life-destroying criminals far more likely to hurt others walk free.

And AGAIN, I'm not ignoring victims.  In order to get help and to see justice, sex offenders need to be turned in.  I believe that excessive punishment prevents victims from seeking justice, and that is something else that I cannot stomach.  It's hard enough for a child to send their father away for years.  How many more victims would remain silent if simply trying to stop getting hurt and to get help meant condemning someone they cared about or trusted to death or life in prison?

Did you just call these freaks "some of the safest of all prisoners"?   Are we talking about the same class of criminal?   People that rape and molest children "safe"?  What class of criminal is worse than a pedophile, someone who rapes and/or molests children?   What class of criminal is more life destroying?

You're saying "excessive" punishment is a bad thing.  What do you see as a proper level of punishment, then?

I firmly believe that killing offenders would reduce caught and convicted sex offenders risk to zero.

Only in my wildest dreams and hopes would it drop it to zero.   If it dropped to zero, it would only be due to fact all of these freaks stopping their behavior.   Killing these freaks would stop them from harming any future victims.  Obviously execution should be reserved for the truly sickest of these criminals.  If it deterred other freaks, good.  

Silence only allow sexual abuse to grow and flourish.  Any policy that encourages silence is unacceptable.

As the original article I quoted stated:  We need to find a system that ENCOURAGES offenders to come forward, accept responsibility, and seek treatment.

Agreed.   Any policy that also gets these freaks off the hook or encourages their behavior is also unacceptable.  

As for your original article, I looked up the docs associated with the web site.

The president of that organization is Murray Schane, M.D.  He's also in charge of the Finance Committee for MaleSurvivor.   License No. 117242.  He was placed on probation (Order #BPMC 01-105) by the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct for professional misconduct for "practicing the profession of medicine with negligence on more than one occasion", with the option of taking his license.

This included inappropriately prescribed medications (Dexedrine, Klonopin, Lorazepam, Prozac and other drugs), failure to create and maintain proper medical records, and "failure to perform an adequate physical examination, if any".

I have the PDF of this.  Want a copy?


On a hunch, I checked the by-laws of MaleSurvivor.  In Section 1.1 Name, they call themselves "MaleSurvivor: The National Organization against Male Sexual Victimization (MS:NOMSV) ".   Under Section 8.4 Charitable Organization, they claim that they are " a charitable organization under the Federal Tax Code known as 501(c)3".  This is also supported by their claims that "All donations are tax deductable (US Residents)"

http://www.malesurvivor.org/About%20Us/bylaws.htm

http://www.malesurvivor.org/About%20Us/legacyfund.htm


I checked Publication 78, the IRS's list of all 501(c)3's and charitable organizations.

http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/eopub78.zip (Warning, compressed it's 12 megs, uncompressed it's 112 megs.)

Guess what's not listed?    "MaleSurvivor", "National Organization against Male Sexual Victimization", "MS:NOMSV", "NOMSV".  That's right.   If I didn't know better, I'd swear the organization was committing tax fraud.  I'd almost swear that's a felony, probably more than one.  Do the search yourself, maybe I missed it.  I doubt it, I did every permutation I could think of.  Even looked up the address and tried that.  No dice.  

I know an IRS investigator that might be really interested in this information....

[Sean Smith]

And incarceration does not reduce their risk of re-offending to zero.

It does for the time they are incarcerated.  That was my point.

I also firmly believe that if this were the case, none of them would turn themselves in, almost no family members or friends of offenders would ever report it...

An extremely silly statement.  The number that turn themselves in is negligible.  And you think that people won't turn in rapists because the rapist might be killed?  Hardly.  A big reason that rapes and the like are under-reported is because of a lack of confidence that the offender will get put away.  Do you really think that parents don't want to see the molester of their child killed or incarcerated for life?  What planet do you live on?

[Bemidjiblade]

Sean, you're absolutely right about rapists, if you're talking about the sort of thing you read in the news or see on the television every day.  No one in their right mind would want someone who rapes and murders repeatedly ever to see the light of day again.  I'm not trying to advocate for letting the sort of person who killed Dru Sjodin or the kids down in the south ever walk again.

I'm trying to point out that those people do not represent the majority of crimes labeled as sex offenses.  As far as I know, sex offenses that involve threats of physical harm or physical force are the minority.

But the word rapist is also used for someone who has sex with a fifteen year old who goes along w/ everything but does not have the knowledge or wisdom to give informed consent to sexual intercourse.  Someone who commits statutory rape is a rapist the same as someone who takes a knife and jumps a woman or a man in a parking lot.  I believe that the two behaviors deserve vastly different amounts of punishment.

I think that parents who want to see the molester of their child killed or incarcerated for life are completely justified.  I know parents who do not wish that.  For example, if a son abuses his sister, are you saying that both parents will automatically want their son locked away forever or shot, instead of wanting to see their son get treatment and help?

I agree with EVERYONE HERE that the worst cases and most violent offenders need to be locked away or executed.  NO ONE is disagreeing.

But the fact is that most sex offenses are nothing like what we see on television every other day.  Some people who commit sex offenses need locked away for life.  But two teenagers between the ages of 16 and 18 who film themselves having sex are also considered to have committed a sex offense by producing child pornography, even if they never distribute or even watch the tape.

Making a law for "sex offenders" is so broad that it's impossible to bring about justice for everyone, since there are more kinds and degrees of sex offending than I can count.

I think that in some cases the laws need to be harsher:  Any man who stands in court and says he's going to commit another sex offense, like the man who was quoted before, needs to be locked away for life.  Anyone who commites a rape with violence or force of violence needs to face the same or worse punishment than someone who commits an attempted murder or threats of murder, because he's doing both that AND a sex offense.

Anyone who takes a life involved in a sex offense needs to serve BOTH sentences w/o possibility of parole, which should end up being the majority of their life if not all of it.

But there are many sex offenses of a far lesser degree that are not life-ending and so should not be life-ending.

I think that whoever can be helped to rehabilitate should get that help.  And I think that victims should have a say in the degree of punishment, and whether or not they choose to reconcile w/ perps.

[Bemidjiblade]

Rev Disk,

Yikes!  Well, if you're right, then someone should definitely let the IRS or authorities know.  It's very uncool for someone to pass themselves off as a non-profit organization.

[uvakat]

After reading this post and being torn between anger and absolute disbelief, here is my attempt to address this issue. To be clear, I am not talking about the 16 and 18 year old sexual relationships, which society addresses as statutory rape. I am talking about where the choice is taken away from a woman, a man, or a child. Bemidjiblade, while I know that you are a victim yourself, please stop blurring the lines and using double talk. Every post I have read on here, people are referring to the repeat offender, the violent rapists, the child molesters, or worse. Nobody has been talking about the 16 and 18 year old relationships. There is a difference. Why are you trying to make them seem the same? As a victim myself I can tell you I want nothing to do with the guy who took the choice away from me. I would love for the guy who did it to rot away in jail for the rest of his life, but unfortunately it was not reported. I was scared to report him because of society always saying it is my fault and that it was only going to escalade the situation. Im sorry Bemidjiblade, the majority of rapes and sexual assaults are not reported because the sex offender is scared of the potential punishment, but because victims are scared to come forward. A lot of this is because 1) other females have giving date rapes and rapes by acquaintances a bad name by doing the I regret sleeping with you so Im going to report it as rape case, 2) were scared that its only going to make it worse and the guy is going to get off with a slap on the wrist, or 3) there is stigma attached to it. Im sorry no matter what psycho babble you provide on this thread, it goes against common sense. A victim and somebody who takes away that persons innocence can never have a healthy and good relationship.

[Bemidjiblade]

Uvakat,

I'm doing my best here.  Because of the broad sweep of the term sex offender, I'm having a hard time, I guess, making myself clear.

I'm not advocating letting repeat offenders, forcible rapists, or violent offenders get off the hook at all.  I think I've said it 5 or six times now but I guess I'll repeat myself.

Those people deserve to be locked up for life.

My point is that not everyone who is labelled as a sex offender is a repeat offender, a forcible rapist, or a violent offender.

Many aren't.

Out of the three people who abused me, one I want to rot in jail forever.
One, I don't ever want to see or know about again.
One, if I knew where he was, I would probably forgive and try and get to know again.

I think that I should have the right to make the distinction, the same as I should have the right never to see or hear from the person again if I choose.  The article that I posted, the one that made me think, was from a woman who wanted to try and heal things in her family and was kept from doing so.

I'm not trying to address people who rape 3 yr olds, or who torture or kill college students to get their sick jollies off.  I'm trying to address the fact that the most common cases simply aren't like that.  We need to be careful in the distinction we make when we talk about 'sex offenders' because lives that can be saved are being thrown away.

The reasons you've given are valid and worth considering.

But I guess I've seen one too many victims in tears, or known one too many people who has carried a scar forever rather than getting help because the pressure not to come forward was too great.

I believe ONE, but not all, of those reasons is the perception that family members or friends might be condemned to death or life imprisoned.  I know of many instances which are like the ones you talk about.  But I also know of families that want to try and survive the abuse while making sure no one gets hurt.  I know of wives who do not want to divorce the man who raped them, but don't ever want to get raped again.  I know of victims of statutory rape, (no one is claiming that isn't a crime) who choose to even marry the perpetrator once they are of age.

I think that every victim should have the right to choose how to deal with his or her own abuse.  And I think that the courts should give more weight to the victim's wishes, tougher sentences for those who need it, and more repairative-oriented plans for those who decide to work past it.

I'm trying to talk about the lower levels of offending, not the big-hype media cases.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

So again, to clarify:  Repeat offenders, violent offenders, and untreatable offenders should be locked away for life.  That's one of the reasons that civil commitment is such a God-send.

People who can be helped should be helped never to offend again.  In society if possible, and out of it, if necessary.  But I do not believe that all sex offenders fall into one or the other of those categories.  Anyone who thinks I'm being 'soft on crime', well, I've turned in a member of my own family because justice needed to be done.

But don't come down on me because I choose to forgive where others might not.  I certainly don't blame anyone for not forgiving where I choose to.

And again, 'cause apparently no one ever reads this sentence whenever I type it.  I'm not talking about repeat offenders, violent offenders, or untreatable offenders.  I'm talking about the fact that every life that can be saved should be given the chance to be saved, everyone who can be treated should be given the chance to be treated.

[Sean Smith]

Well, you started this topic by quoting an article that advocated being nicer to pedophiles.  Most people put pedophiles in the same class as rapists, if not lower, since they rape minors.  If you don't consider pedophiles to be in the same class as "Repeat offenders, violent offenders, and untreatable offenders," that might be the source of the dissonance.

[SteveS]

I have treated both offenders and victims in my practice, though mostly victims.  In terms of treating offenders, I have found a few that were genuinely remorseful and sincere in their desire to "get better."  OTOH, many were not interested in working, blmaed the victim, or kept claiming that they didn't do it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  I don't have exact numbers right in front of me, nor do I claim it would be a representative sample.  I also have other clients that have committed various crimes and have trouble admitting responsibility, so it is not just sex offenders.

I agree with SW, in that we owe a primary responibility to the victims, then society, then the offender.  We need a reliable way to differentiate between someone that can be treated, from someone that can't.  Someone that is treatable still needs to serve whatever punishment, but they will have to get some kind of treatment if they are going to be released.  

As for treatments, there are some good ones with decent success rates, but they only work on offenders that are honest and have some sense of empathy.  There are no treatments that work on sociopaths.  

I think that every victim should have the right to choose how to deal with his or her own abuse.  And I think that the courts should give more weight to the victim's wishes, tougher sentences for those who need it, and more repairative-oriented plans for those who decide to work past it.

I have seen situations where the courts have done more harm then good.  OTOH, i have also seen victims that were bullied by family members to not tell or made to feel guilty for telling.  I have seen families "do the right thing," but unfortunately, I see the wrong thing more often.