Sex Offenders Not Even Welcome at Church
Published October 07, 2009 @ 03:36PM PT
Once again, sex offender restrictions are doing more harm than good.
People with sex offense convictions in Georgia and North Carolina are challenging state laws in court that restrict them from going to places of worship if they also have daycare centers or schools.
James Nichols was arrested on a Sunday in March after he got home from church services. He had no idea a state law banned him from entering the church because it also had a day care center. In fact, he had been invited and welcomed by the church pastor. Now, he's suing the state with the help of the ACLU, arguing that his rights were violated by the state law. He told the AP:
"I just started asking the question, 'Why? Why am I being treated this way after trying to better myself?'" said Nichols, a 31-year-old who was twice convicted of indecent liberties with a teen girl and again in 2003 for attempted second-degree rape. "The law gives you no room to better yourself."
I've written repeatedly in this space that overzealous sex offender restrictions and registries stop people from improving their lives - limiting their job options, breaking up families and even driving some to homelessness. A restriction from practicing religion is about as clear cut as this Catch-22 gets.
But some people just don't get it.
"I'm not denying him the right to go to church. He denied himself that," said state Sen. David Hoyle, the Democrat who sponsored the North Carolina bill. "If they are a convicted pedophile, they have given up a lot of their rights."
Photo by PhillipC
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
The Job Search and the Stigma of a Felony
-
Shipping Prisoners Out of Sight
-
Green Prisons, Reentry and the New Economy
Comments (96)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Matt has worked and volunteered in various capacities in criminal justice reform for several years. When he's not blogging, he works as the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project. Views expressed here are Matt's, and don't represent the positions of the Innocence Project.
Featured Criminal Justice Actions
-
-
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
193 People
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
Well that is crazy. I understand about sex offenders being strictly monitored and accounted for their day to day actions; but why deny them church? Jesus will forgive ANY sin; he died for us, and Church is the one place which can truly help change a person's soul and perspective on life.
Posted by Rachel Russell on 10/07/2009 @ 06:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree that everyone should have access to church, however I don't think this guy should be put in a position of power at a church. This church says that he won't be allowed access to these children but children do attend this church. I would never let my child around a convicted sex offender, better safe than sorry.
Posted by Amanda Cooke on 10/14/2009 @ 05:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. Nichols has 3 sex offense convictions before he reaches the ripe old age of 31 and he is complaining about how people treat him?!? LOL! Sounds kind of backwards to me. If he really wants to better himself, he can always find a church without a daycare, or better yet, just stay home and listen to sermons on the radio. He should be thankful that he is somehow not behind bars after these 3 convictions. I applaud North Carolina for keeping this known recidivsit away from their young people. Sen. Hoyle has the right idea.
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/07/2009 @ 08:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
People can make mistakes and do horrible things, but if someone wants to repent from their sin and change their life for the better, shouldn't he be given the opportunity to?
Posted by Casey Williams on 10/10/2009 @ 08:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Absolutely, that's why Mr. Nichols is free to go to mass...as long as he is not near a daycare or school. He should have thought about religion before he attempted to rape a woman and molest teen girls. Shouldn't the public be given the opportunity to protect their children from known sex offense recidivists?
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/10/2009 @ 08:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If someone who has been found to be a sex offender wants to attend church he or she can pick one at which there are no children. I think making an issue out of this person's requirement to stay away from facilities in which children are present is ridiculous, and further, offensive to those of us with some experience in these matters. Not all crimes are equal.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 02:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with what you are saying. Never allow him to teach or work at a daycare or with kids. But many churches have daycare and children, so what is he supposed to do. Never go at all. I understand what you are saying but this guy should still be able to go to church and change his life for the better.
Posted by Casey Williams on 10/18/2009 @ 10:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It will be practically impossible to find a church without kids because almost all churches have a community of kids.
Posted by Casey Williams on 10/19/2009 @ 08:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Then he can damn well stay home and read the bible there...
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By the way, here is an example of the people you are trying to protect. Anyone have a problem with the 200 year sentence? I don't!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1372312/mother_who_sexually_abused_daughter.html?cat=17
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/07/2009 @ 10:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Fine by me!
Posted by J C on 10/07/2009 @ 11:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Id rather see people like that get the death penalty...
That child's gonna be paying for their actions for the rest of her life.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, please! Why should a church be any different than any other place with children? He made very bad decisions and needs to realize that the world is not going to cater to him. This is not about his precious rights anyway, it's about the safety of children and the community. The safety of children is the most important thing. If his presence scares people, then he should find another place to go to church to better himself. He did this. He chose this life for himself. Do not forget that!
Posted by J C on 10/07/2009 @ 11:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Indeed...
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sen. David Hoyle, jumps on the "vote getting "pedophile word." As most are ignorent of this clinincal word, it has to do with "prepubsent" children. 1percent or less of the 674,000 sex offenders are pedophiles. Yet the same old fear and hysteria band wagon from politicians who constantly approve sex offender laws that endanger children and do more harm than good.
I'm sick and tired of the entertainment news media and politicans who for ratings and votes will tell you anything you want to hear. All these laws have no foundation in "EVIDENCE BASRED RESEARCH!" None of them. The laws are but hysteria creating, knee jerk, blood lust, waste of Billions of tax payers dollars.
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/08/2009 @ 05:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It seems you like to throw around numbers and statistics. Where is your information to back up these claims. What about the hundreds of thousands of rapes that go unreported? I would also be inclined to believe that children are even less likely to report being abused. Let's stop enabling sex offenders and try to keep the public safe.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/08/2009 @ 10:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Violating a person's body is a horrific crime regardless of the age of the victim.
I do not view someone guilty of committing this most atrocious of crimes to be in any way a 'victim' because of the requirement to stay away from places in which children or prospective other victims may be present and/or may simply feel uncomfortable. Think of the person whose body was violated.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 02:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If the pastor of this church was comfortable inviting James Nichols to this church, why should the law be so inflexible regarding this? Aside from the Christian view that God gives everyone the opportunity for redemption, because we are all sinners, the purpose of "correctional" facilities is allegedly to rehabilitate people.
There needs to be some rehabilitation methodology to enable people like Mr. Nichols to earn the right to rejoin the mainstream of society. To forever cast him into the darkness after he had served his debt to society is not consistent with us being an "enlightened" culture.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/08/2009 @ 06:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Because there are children involved. Someone with three sex crime convictions should not be allowed around children. Would you want him around your kids?
Posted by Amanda Cooke on 10/14/2009 @ 05:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So much for separation of Church and State. And freedom to practice ones faith.
There are churches with approved sex offender programs which assign a chaperone to them while they are at the church. This is not only to protect the children but also to protect the SO from false accusations.
Posted by Phil Barberg on 10/10/2009 @ 07:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would question the goodness of any church that thinks its ok to allow pedophiles to be around children even with a chaparone...
As far as Im concerned...If your a convicted sex offender then you have no rights in society.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
An Open Letter to the Church and Ministers
A Home Missions Project
http://tinyurl.com/yzguqzr
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/12/2009 @ 12:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As someone who had been a repeatedly raped child between ages 8 and 10, I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone convicted of sex crimes and especially if they are crimes against children. There is no fire hot enough for them to suffer through.
The crime of violating another person's body is among the lowest of lows a person may ever stoop to. I say keep them out of church, keep them out of public service, keep them out of every place at which they may be introduced to new potential victims. The world sure doesn't need this variety of people who ruin others lives and then claim 'victim' when they bear the consequences of their actions. What about the people they consciously chose to violate in the first place?
Good for the churches for keeping their congregations safe.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 06:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Most of the sex offenses happen to those near the children, not "strangers" and this simply is horrific.
Yet fear tactics have been used by legislators looking for a "vote" and allowing the public to think stranger / predators are all around us, and this is not true. Legislators can gain a 'vote", there is GRANT money in all this, as they write knee-jerk laws that put all at risk for false allegations. How have your legislators helped you? I'll bet they've done nothing except grow themselves.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Most of the sex offenses happen to those near the children, not 'strangers' and this simply is horrific." - EXACTLY. So why are people like you and Matt Kelley against a registry that would warn citizens about the people who should not be near the children. Without the registry, people will never know if their neighbor is a convicted child rapist, for example. If the public does not have such information they may trust said neighbor to babysit their children or something of that nature. Thank you for this post, Camille. You demonstrated EXACTLY why we need a sex offender registry and how it would be useful.
You also demonstrate how housing restrictions and other such orders of protection are effective in keeping our communities safe. Thanks again!
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/03/2009 @ 08:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't understand. Said sex offender must stay away from kids by some manner of court order. He can't go hang out at a day care, or probably even near a day care, so why would the fact that the day care is in a church change anything? Many churches are without day care facilities, he is free to practice there.
Seems like the problem isn't the law or even his sentence. Rather, it stems from the convict's understanding of his own situation. It doesn't matter that the pastor invited him, he should've asked about the day care. If he didn't think to ask, he doesn't grasp the seriousness with which the law treats crimes like his. That's his problem, and maybe his lawyer's problem, but I can't see that this rule does anything that is a detriment to him beyond what is reasonable.
Posted by sarah karp on 10/12/2009 @ 09:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Office of Sex Offender Management "Myths and Facts" Current Research on Managing Sex Offenders
http://tinyurl.com/ykoy6h3
It may suprise many that 1 percent or less of registered sex offenders are pedophiles. Pedophila has to do with PREPUBESENT children.
We need to understand the EVIDENCED BASEDRESEARCH if we are to intelligently direct our lehislatures on how to better write laws that protect children because the laws as they are written DO NOT PROTECT children. They "DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD."
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/12/2009 @ 10:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I really do not care what percentage of sex offenders rape what percentage of which age groups of which people, the point is, they have violated a person's body. It's a horrible crime. It's especially horrible if against a child.
Which segments of "evidence based research" in particular do you wish to direct people's attention to and how do you feel that this requires revision of legislation, toward what end?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 02:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
NO it does not suprise me. Pedophile or not if you have commited multiple sex crimes(hello, attempted rape!) then you should not be around children.
Posted by Amanda Cooke on 10/14/2009 @ 05:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
SEE STUDYS:
Basically all sex offender law across this nation was written by legislators as knee jerk, feel good law. Not one iota of "Evidence based Research went into them. Hense, we have laws that endanger children as opposed to "PROTECTING."
All the studies that I have read ALL say the same thing, "MORE HARM THAN GOOD"
Unfortunately, the politicians will tell you anything you want to hear, and all for VOTES. The entertainment will drum up hysteria and lie for the sake of better ratings.
http://cfcoklahoma.org/New_Site/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=0&func=listcat&catid=83
I also have a couple thousand articles available in the "News Forum."
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/12/2009 @ 03:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I read many studies. Most of the ones I read focus on the conservatively estimated $108 billion spent every year by the U.S. on care for children who have been victims of violent crimes including rape. That care doesn't reset their minds to a time before the violations happened. Nothing can do that for them. Their suffering doesn't end just because a sex offender has completed the term of his or her imprisonment.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 06:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said, Christine. That is why those who commit such offenses against children should be given much, much longer prison sentences. This would not only protect other children from possible recidivism, but it would give the offender just a little taste of the suffering that he has inflicted upon his victim. Yes, that may sound vengeful, which is a no-no on this soft-bellied criminal justice forum, but let's face reality...some people deserve it.
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/12/2009 @ 09:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And it is a proven fact that sex offenders, especially of the pedophile variety, are particularly prone to recidivism. I have friends who have worked with sex offenders in the prison system, and most of them are repeat offenders.
Am I saying that everyone will do it again? No. But like I said, they do have a higher rate of repeating the crime. If you molest a child, or rape an adult, or anything of that sort, it's not like you accidentally caused an car wreck, or made a tiny boo-boo. You did something that will have long-term, lifetime ramifications on your victim.
It's not something people just get over. Subconsciously, that will always linger in their minds, and usually warps their ability to engage in meaningful relationships, or their ability to trust.
And shut up about the debt to society bullcrap! What about their debt to the VICTIM? Or the possibility of saving someone else from such a horrible incident?
He attempted to rape someone in what, 2003? Give him 20 more years to think about it, then get back to me. Or better yet, when what he did stops affecting the people he did it to, then he can carry on like he isn't a pervert, and live his life like normal, law-abiding, non-sick bastards do.
Posted by Prop Kid on 10/27/2009 @ 04:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
People who have injured or killed others for economic gain or other motives have also violated persons' bodies, but once they serve their time, they are free to live where they wish. In essence, the restrictions on sex offenders once they have completed their sentences is getting punished twice for the same crime.
We need to move beyond the vengeance mindset that has bequested us such non solutions to crime as executions and banishment for life from the mainstream of society for sex offenders. I don't have any easy answers, nor do I believe that there are easy answers to such serious crimes as murder, rape and pedophilia. But, as a social services professional and American, I feel that we must be tireless in our pursuit of methodologies by which each person can earn the right to rejoin mainstream society, if this is what they wish.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/12/2009 @ 03:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To do away with the vengeance mindset, we would first have to ban spanking, because it is an early introduction to the idea of justified vengeance. I think we're about 30 years out from that conversation happening at the federal level.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/12/2009 @ 06:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Did you read the article Andrew? The offender was convicted of 3 seperate sex crimes, including violating 2 teenagers, and he is free to walk the streets at 31 years old. Obvioulsy this repeat offender hasn't spent much time behind bars. All we ask is that he stay a reasonable distance from places children gather. I hardly consider that vengeful. More like a slap on the wrist!
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/12/2009 @ 09:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There are endless examples of people being treated either leniently or harshly by today's standards. As a social services professional, I prefer to look at what works for the greatest percentage of people regarding such alternatives as various types of punishment and treatment.
I also feel that we should look at early intervention strategies to be proactive regarding people at highest risk to become offenders, whether it be sex offenders or others. In the case of sex offenders, one high risk group is those who were abused themselves. Part of the counseling/treatment of these individuals should be to minimize the likelihood that they will become offenders and thus continue the cycle of abuse.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/13/2009 @ 04:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One factor that shouldn't be forgotten is that as with such other childhood victims of abuse, such as those who were punished severely by their parents or who had parents who engaged in spousal abuse, the victims of childhood sexual abuse are more likely to become sexual abusers than the general population. So, as abuse appears to beget a cycle of more abuse, there needs to be an emphasis on attempting to end these destructive cycles of abuse. Apparently the counseling and treatment that we currently give to the victims of sexual abuse has not been effective thus far in ending this cycle.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/12/2009 @ 07:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, your exactly correct. There is a 'blood lust' mentality in this country, promoted by the entertainment news media and politicians for ratings and votes. The 'sheeple' as I call them will believe anything and everything that these two catagories want to hear.
They don't call it the 'boob tube' for nothing.
my favorite Youtube videos are:
http://cfcoklahoma.org/New_Site/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=0&func=view&id=1039&catid=3#1039
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/13/2009 @ 05:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually, the only "blood lust" in the case mentioned in the blog is the offender's own "blood lust". He is the one who continues to harm others. His "blood lust" is what you are supporting and protecting. Quite twisted if you ask me.
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/13/2009 @ 10:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Those who seek to harm others were often harmed themselves. We need to find ways for our "correctional" and counseling services to end this cycle, instead of exacerbating the problem by a purely punitive approach.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/13/2009 @ 04:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with counseling perpetrators of this variety of violent crime toward ending cycles. But I also know that people in this day and age do 'know better' before they choose to act, regardless of how they were raised. Several years of research into familial violence only confirms that.
Prior history isn't an excuse for current behavior. Punishment is absolutely appropriate, and luckily for the perpetrators the punishment has an end term. For the victims, it never does.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/14/2009 @ 05:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I love the real christian and the Church, they have genuine compassion of Christ.
http://michaeljamesstone.blogspot.com/2009/10/compassion-and-humanity-on-behalf-of.html
It strengthes my faith.
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/13/2009 @ 06:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The focus needs to be more on what works regarding reducing recidivism and and what works regarding protecting the community. Clearly far too many people are being labelled as sexual predators, which both hurts the alleged offender and makes it harder to keep track of the more dangerous offenders. Then, there are the inequalities in the law that favor the rich, well connected and educated. Plus, there needs to be more research and development of programs and strategies to lower recidivism among this population. The prisons are doing a lousy job regarding "rehabilitating" any population.
This may be because they want return business?
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/18/2009 @ 10:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Okay, here's a profile for you, you tell me what would work for this person.
The man who raped me for two years when I was a little girl is presently in jail on a 20 year sentence because he has raped, at minimum, four other little girls the very same way: by dating the mother and moving in to the mother's home, gaining her trust, becoming the babysitter for when she is out, locking the siblings in another room and raping the daughter, violently and with emphasis upon the point that if she tells he'll kill her whole family.
He may be released on parole this year. You tell me, what would rehabilitate this person so that if and when he gets out, there are no more children whose lives are ruined and whose 'sentence' never ends, because of his crimes?
Do share. What "rehabilitation strategy" would work?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/19/2009 @ 07:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately Christine, there is no "rehabilitation strategy" that will work in a case like you described. The sex offender apologists on this site wont tell you that, but it's true. That's why we must do our best to keep them away from children. My suggestion for an offender such as yours would be life in prison and/or chemical castration.
I admire your ability to work through this horrible situation and do the outstanding work that you do. It is a great accomplishment!
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/19/2009 @ 10:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Dennis!
Someone once told me that E + R = O. Event + Reaction = Outcome. By taking the 'event' and reacting to it by treating it as a call to help children escape violence, legally and otherwise, the outcome becomes positive instead of horrific. Or at least, that's my thinking on this.
But I agree. I have great faith in the ability of counseling and rehabilitation services in cases where someone may have made what they themselves felt was a justified mistake, or an act on behalf of someone (maybe stealing to feed a family?). But when someone deliberately, over time, threatens, intimidates and hurts a child? Multiple times, multiple victims, multiple ways? The only way I see there being a guarantee that they won't do it again is to keep them behind bars.
We're talking in this case about a person who has been offending since the mid 1980s, over and over again. I don't think there's help for him. I'm genuinely interested to hear what people might propose though. I'd like to learn more about this.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/19/2009 @ 10:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, I am just wondering if you personally work in prisons to rehailitate child rapists and other sex offenders. I don't think the blame should be on prisons. People ultimately do what they want to do and you cannot make someone change. By blaming everyone except the offender, you are really saying that they are not responsible. By not taking responsibility, how can someone be rehabilitated?
Christine, thanks so much for sharing. I agree with Dennis and you are an inspiration!
Posted by J C on 10/19/2009 @ 11:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, your incite and knowledge is appreciated in this blog on a painful subject.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, your insight and knowledge is appreciated in this blog on a painful subject.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If a person is a sexual predator there is nothing wrong with labeling the person as such. People deserve safety. It's one of their American entitlements. The fewer sexual predators we have preying upon innocents the better.
I would agree that there are degrees, as for example public exposure may be lesser than violating a person's body directly, but they all are varieties of indecency that the violators know better than to commit and that familes and other persons should not have to deal with or tolerate.
What would you suggest as rehabilitation reform? Have you done research into this area? What are your recommendations for rehabilitation strategies that you don't presently see in place?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/19/2009 @ 07:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The content of my comments should matter more than my occupation, but as I'm being "outed" I work in the vocational services department of a non profit that serves people with developmental disabilities. However, in the past I have worked with prisoners and ex-prisoners, but in terms of HIV, substance abuse and employment services. I have never worked with sex offenders. I don't recall there ever being a program to counsel/rehabilitate sex offenders in any prison or non profit that I ever dealt with, and that is one of my issues with the system.
There is also practically no research into treatment of sex offenders. In addition, sex offenders are pariahs among prisoners, as well as with other segments of the population.
Many sex offenders were victims themselves and thus are part of a cycle of such violence. There are similar cycles of violence involving parental and spousal abuse.
White we do differentiate the sex offenders into Categories 1, 2 and 3, we are tracking too many low level offenders. The more offenders that we track, the harder it is to track the most serious and dangerous offenders.
While making the names of sex offenders public may help in terms of public safety, this makes it harder for the ex offender to find housing or employment and creates a greater likelihood that the ex offender will be the subject of a false allegation.
It's questionable how effective restricting the sexual offenders from being with 1,000 feet or some other distance from any place involving children (supermarkets? department stores?) is in preventing repeat offenses.
There continue to be inequities in the law that favor those with money, education and connections for all crimes, and that due to such inequities there are people who are wrongly convicted of these crimes.
The plea bargaining system encourages those accused to plead to lesser charges to avoid the possibility of being convicted of more serious charges. Occasionally, this creates situations where innocent people plead guilty to crimes.
With any other crime, when you complete your sentence, it's over. It never seems to be over for sex offenders. This should be clearly spelled out by the legal system from the beginning.
I could go on, but I need to get ready for work, as in an employment program, I need to regularly model good workplace behaviors by being punctual.
The bottom line is that issues such as this involve a lot of complicated societal factors and are not amenable to simplistic solutions. In addition hatred, ostracism and the throw away the key mentality have not shown to be productive attitudes in dealing with any crime.
I agree that to my knowledge there isn't any current treatment that has been shown to be effective. But, there has been practically no research into such a treatment.
I feel that social services and "correctional" professionals need to move beyond the disgust and hatred that such crimes engender toward researching and creating methodologies that are more effective in terms of early intervention, preventing repeat offenses, having the ex offender more likely to become a productive citizen and in terms of protecting the public.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/20/2009 @ 03:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Many sex offenders were victims themselves and thus are a part of a cycle of such violence" - True. That's why there should be more focus on counseling of victims in order to break that cycle. If a victim is properly counseled after a crime is commited against them, they will be less likeley to become offenders. You will not find that information on this particular "criminal justice" page due to the fact that the bloggers and participants are too focused on apoligizing for and enabling offenders rather than focusing on victim services. I could go on, but I too have a job to go to. Perhaps I will continue later.
Posted by Dennis G. on 10/20/2009 @ 09:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When speaking of what you seem to view as the social cruelties of 'giving up' on sex offenders, factor in that we're also talking about attempting to rehabilitate and release people who are sexually oriented toward finding certain age groups and/or harmful behaviors towards people attractive. To pose a few questions related to this:
- How in the world could someone really expect to make a pedophile stop finding children sexually attractive?
- How can someone expect to make a habitual rapist stop finding the act of raping his/her victims to be a turn on?
- How can someone expect to convince a person who likes to be openly sexual in public places to stop getting turned on by engaging in that behavior?
- How can we call a sex offender rehabilitated unless their orientation has changed so that the illegal, harmful and/or offensive behaviors are no longer behaviors they are drawn to engage in?
Are they rehabilitated if they have been given enough motivation to avoid the temptation of sexual crimes?
Or, are they only rehabilitated when these crimes are no longer a temptation?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I don't think that modern psychiatry does either.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/20/2009 @ 11:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By the way ... I don't think it's fair to find fault with society at large for refusal to accept sex offenders back into our communities without bias, because even though there isn't a wealth of information yet about sex offenders (which will come in time, just as the body of research surrounding stages of childhood development has evolved over time too), there IS enough knowledge to warrant avoidance and concern.
The effects of their crimes upon the victims are longer lasting than the sentences any of them serve in punishment for the offenses. Society is smart to avoid victimization by known offenders.
Besides, if it is true that sex offenders were often childhood victims of sexual crimes themselves, doesn't it make sense to warn potential victims with whom they may come into contact, to avoid repeat crimes and to reduce society's burden long-term in dealing with these behaviors by enabling less of these crimes to take place?
Does the registry lead to bias and unfair treatment? Maybe. Personally, I don't know. I do know three sex offenders, and not by choice - one of whom I've already mentioned, two through other people. False allegations have not been brought against the three of them. They are not 'victims' either. Each is a skillful liar and manipulator. Each is smooth, charismatic, and very capable of not only committing their offenses again but leading people to believe they no longer represent a threat either. They have had no trouble finding employment. One was a savvy, smooth talking business owner (presently in jail for a 20 year sentence for his third and fourth known long-term raping relationships with children). One has a regular job, doing what I'm not sure, but he managed to get on a volunteer fire department squad before his history was discovered by someone in the company. The third offender works in computer programming, behind a desk, and comes across as that 'nice grandfatherly type' so his presence does not hint of any potential danger. In fact, someone who knows better recently told me he's a "nice guy." (You know, aside from his sexual desires for children or history of acting out on those.)
In my opinion their charisma makes the three of them all the more dangerous.
If we can not keep sex offenders behind bars because its too severe a punishment for some of the offenses, and if we can not guarantee that they will not offend again, and if no attempted rehabilitation program to date has ever been successful at changing a person's sexual orientation, then what else are we to do but be aware of these people's crimes and take precautions to avoid endangerment?
What would you suggest as a better full circle solution to addressing and preventing sex crimes, and protecting innocents from victimization by repeat offenders?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 10/20/2009 @ 11:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. heugal...
I want to address your theory/belief that its ok to go easy on a sex offender/pedophile because of said criminal having been abused...
Bullshit...
I grew up in an emotionaly and mentaly abusive situation...
That fact in no way would justify or excuse me if I turned around and abused someone in a similar manner.
Killing and robbing someone is bad...Just as assaulting someone is BUT none of those things are near as bad as molesting a child or raping a woman or even a man for that matter.
Indeed...I would wager that many a victim of sexual assault would prefer to either be killed or robbed or even just beaten rather than have to live day in and day out with the memory of having been molested or raped.
In any case, its my firm belief that some criminals can never be changed or rehabilitated and pedophiles fall well within that category.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think that he should be able to go to church but just not allowed to make contact with children or go with a supervisor. It is not right to have a law stating pedophiles may not go to church. They are the ones who need church more than the rest of us it seems like.
Posted by Laura Gilliam on 10/20/2009 @ 10:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dennis,
I agree. Counseling the victims so that they don't later become offenders themselves would be a major step in the right direction.
Andy
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/20/2009 @ 10:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In my last post I should have said: Counseling the victims so they are significantly less likely to become offenders themselves would be a major step in the right direction. There are no perfect solutions.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/20/2009 @ 10:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
personaly i dont believe in church but i also believe if you banish them from everything then all your going to create is a bounch of child abusers that cant go anywhere or live anywhere and their going to be on the streets or lurking around playgrounds because they cant go anywhere where there is adult supervition, so yea go ahead and let them live on the street down the raod from you, so they can look in your kids windows all night instead of being in their house where the belong, i have a kid and i personaly would rather have them live in a house than on the street where ever they want too
Posted by teresa desper on 10/24/2009 @ 11:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Those nations and states who use the "death penalty" lower themselves to the level of those who they seek to punish. And, aside from being barbaric, we should not forget that there are many wrongly convicted people rotting away in prisons. In this country, "guilt" or "innocence" is more often decided by money, connections and/or education, or lack of these things, rather than whether somebody actually committed the crime.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/27/2009 @ 05:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bullshit...
There are some criminals that are too far gone into the dark to ever be brought back into the light.
Death is the only cure for them and the only way to ensure that our children will be safe.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 10/27/2009 @ 05:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, You hit at the core of the problem that are also victims in what has become a "child abuse industry". Once those who file false reports of child molest face the same harsh penalties as the accuser, then these case will evaporate along with the money and political gain.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What do you feel the penalty should be for all the crooks, war profiteers and hate mongerers in the Bush, Jr. Administration, Mr. McHugh? Perhaps something Biblical?
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/27/2009 @ 05:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great question. They have taken our country off the cliff into an abyss and destroyed lives like nothing more than commodities. If an ordinary citizen can be thrown into prison for decades on a non-violent first offense in the zero tolerance mentality they created, they should face the same. How are they allowed to be treated differently then how they want people treated. Their abuse of power and disregard for people's rights has damaged our nation and future society.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 10:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kids Safe Ministries
http://www.kidssafeministries.com/
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/28/2009 @ 06:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
He is not being denied the right to practice his religion, he's being denied access to children. Seeking help and counsel from the pastor is still an option for the man.
Posted by Sarah McUmber-House on 10/28/2009 @ 08:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I truly can't believe that people are defending a sex offender's "right" to go to church. You can't prevent a child molester from being attracted to kids any more than you can prevent me from being attracted to men. For those of you who defend these disgusting beasts, try living through a 200lb man taking your virginity from you, and tell me then if you believe these people deserve the "right" to go to a public church where your children romp around.
These pedophiles should be harvested for their organs so some good can come from their existance on this planet.
Posted by Carrie Lachapelle on 10/28/2009 @ 10:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Carrie,
You and others are dehumanizing the convicted (I use the word convicted because our criminal "justice" system is flawed and makes many mistakes) sex offenders and thus leads the path to darkness and our becoming beasts to subdue these "beasts."
We need to look for ways to address inequities in the criminal "justice" system regarding wealth, connections and education.
We need to be proactive regarding the victims so they have a statistically lower likelihood of becoming offenders themselves.
We must look for methodologies that have a statistically significant likelihood of decreasing recidivism and are humane.
The long term goal with this population, as with every other type of offender should be to find a humane methodology where these people can safely be reintegrated into mainstream society.
This is a simplified version of what I have said all along; that we must use logic and compassion in all our decisions regarding this and everything else and do meaningful research and develop humane methodologies which can be shown to have have a statistically significant positive effect and keep up this research until we get acceptably close to the mathematical limit of zero.
If this still seems as if I'm 'defending sex offenders" and ignoring the rights and safety of the victims and society, please tell me how.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 10/29/2009 @ 03:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew,
I understand what you're saying, and I understand that you are not defending sex offenders. There should be better programs to stop the cycle of abuse, but once that line has been crossed it is often too late.
They should be given opportunities to have a somewhat normal life if they rehabilitate, but when it's the choice between protecting the innocent and letting the convicted sex offender have free reign over where ever they go, I lean toward protecting the innocent.
And yes, there are wrongfully convicted in the prison system, but we have to make laws and regulations according to those that are guilty. Some people will fall through the cracks, and that's a terrible thing, but we can't base everything we do on the possibility that the convicted is innocent.
Your argument that we must find humane ways to rehabilitate sex offenders in a way that they will not commit sex crimes again, however, is (not to be offensive) naive. Unfortunately, rehabilitation is not very effective with those types of offenses. Can some be rehabilitated? Yes. Can all be rehabilitated? No. Where do we draw the line? That's where the problem lies.
Many pedophiles will describe seeing a child as being a starving man being offered a sandwich. It's a compulsion, a mental illness, and there isn't any way to combat such a thing. We have to protect the victim of the crime, not the perpetrator.
And to Carrie, it's different than you being attracted to men, in that you can control yourself. Just because you are attracted to men, do you force yourself upon them sexually? No (or, I hope not anyways ;))
Maybe we encroach upon their rights, but if they can't control themselves then we, as a society, have to do it for them.
Posted by Prop Kid on 10/29/2009 @ 08:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
PS Someone said that they didn't know of any sex-offender rehab programs in the prison system? I don't know about the rest of the country, but in AR, for sure, it's a required part of the sentence. They have to complete a rehab program of 9-12 months in a special facility before they even *start* their actual prison sentence. So the programs are there, but they are showing to be largely ineffective.
And not even counting court-ordered treatment, there are several facilities offering voluntary rehab programs. They should step up and acknowledge their illness *before* they commit a crime. If they don't take advantage of the programs offerered, then it's on their head. They make the choice, they suffer the consequence.
Posted by Prop Kid on 10/29/2009 @ 08:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Brilliant AFA Logic
http://tinyurl.com/yhj4z54
Stop grouping together predators and non-predators together under the heading of "sex offender" to dramatically increase the number of perceived threats. For crying out loud, sex crimes of all types have been going down for the better part of two decades, yet these numbers clearly suggest that "sex offenders" are everywhere, virtually ubiquitous and unavoidable.
Posted by cfcoklahoma... OK on 10/29/2009 @ 08:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, it is true, there are people labeled "sex offender" for ridiculous reason. I have a friend who almost lost her teaching license because of "indecent exposure" (public urination... in her own backyard). Unfortunately, it was during a party she threw, where there were undercover police officers on the scene. Luckily, the judge showed leniency in the case.
So yes, the laws requiring the registration of "sex offenders" is waaay too far reaching, but in the context of this article, where the man is a "sexual predator", not just a flasher or what have you... those are the people against whom I argue.
Posted by Prop Kid on 10/29/2009 @ 10:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately the flasher is thrown into the same Pandora's Box as the sickest most depraved predator. A non-sexual touch over clothing, rough-housing in a pool, etc. all face decades behind bars in Arizona - 75 years. Life sentence in California for rough-housing in a pool with minors. The laws do not differentiate and common sense does not prevail with the prosecutors or the courts. Some corrections are needed to poorly written laws. Put the time and resources to the truly sick and violent sex offenders. The laws did nothing to prevent Druggard in CA and others like him. They do what they do. There is no money to pay to follow sex offenders on life time registries. That's the reality.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Brilliant, to answer your comment -- the laws, prosecutors and courts have grouped the predator with the non-predator. That is what concerns us and is created needless tragedies nationwide.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Camille, you argue that sex offender laws and restrictions are too severe. What about the offender mentioned in this particular blog? He sexually assaulted at least 3 women, 2 of which were teenage girls, and he has his freedom as young as 31 years old. Kind of contradicts your assertions, does it not?
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/03/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
See what happens when you release sex offenders?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33563299/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Posted by Carrie Lachapelle on 10/31/2009 @ 10:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree 100 % with Dennis G though i could not say it as well he did. I am a victim of sexual assault and know many others who were assaulted as children. the world and Internet have provided easy safe ways for these people to abuse children. and more then half of them are never caught or get away with it. Never ever should we put other children in the face of people who have a desire to harm them. Even if this man is for change and growth he can find that in a place that does not threaten others children. it must be hard for him as well and to take the temptation away is good. What does a drug addict need to do to get away from drugs. stay away from them. same with porn addicts, gambling ,alcohol, etc....... this is a more officiant way of producing real change. i agree with this law.
Posted by tasha reed on 11/02/2009 @ 06:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you very much for having the courage to post on this forum Tasha. People like you are the reason I do the work that I do. I wish you all the best.
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/03/2009 @ 10:11AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is what one teacher, father, first offense, non-violent faced in AZ. Raises many questions about how the laws are written. All are at risk for the same if you're on your computer. If nothing this is a warning to those reading the blog which is about public awareness and discussion. Meanwhile this will continue to grow as it is a huge "cash cow" for those who profit by all this and the lawyers who get rich over these cases. There is no end in sight and the taxpayers cannot afford the growing criminal justice system and mass industrial prison complex the U.S. has become. It will take places like churches and people like Andrew to help rehabilitate offenders while all involved heal. We speak for those who have been falsely accused of a crime they did not commit who have been thrown into a living Hell with Scarlet Letter like the Salem Witch Hunt that one would never believe could happen in modern day America. Sorting the predators from the non-predators has not been differentiated in the laws.
200 years for 20 photos on a computer.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/05/arizona_supreme.html
May 10, 2006
Arizona Supreme Court upholds 200-year sentence for possessing child porn
As explained in this news report, though "some members of Arizona's highest court expressed unease," the Arizona Supreme Court today affirmed "a 200-year prison sentence imposed on a former Phoenix high school teacher for possessing child pornography" over the defendant's claim "that his sentence violated the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment." The court's lengthy and interesting opinion in Arizona v. Berger, No. CR-05-0101-PR (Ariz. May 10, 2006), can be accessed here. I may have some comments in a later post once I have a chance to read the majority opinion and the two concurrences.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with both Dennis' last statement and Camille. I applaud the courage of Tasha to take on this subject, which is a social taboo, even among prisoners. I also like that though there have been widely varying viewpoints expressed, the conversation has remained civil. This is a very difficult area in terms of emotions, societal attitudes and lack of effective treatment methodologies that cries out for new approaches, due to the way that the current system is malfunctioning.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/03/2009 @ 10:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, you are right again. We have a mixed bag here but that's what the sex offenders laws have created. Welcome to the new upside-down, Alice in Wonderland World. Each has come into it in a different way but having the courage to speak and write civilly is how healing and solutions will begin.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 03:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
John 8:7
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
We cannot continue this wild bias persecution well after punishment!!! Do you know if you sit next to a robber in your pew each week? Do you know "their" sins of beating their wives and then attending church on Sundays only to ask for forgiveness or cheating spouses that give you the peaceful handshake at the beginning of each sermon? What about the fornicator, the abuser, the drug addict. You say because it is not against children it is all okay and forgiven? I am NOT advocating for child molesters here at all, I am a mother, a grandmother and any harm against any child is horrible. Any crime against any mankind is horrible. I am advocating for forgiveness, love, compassion and hope for all mankind. This man would have to register with the church, this man would not be allowed to teach or be with children, this man would ONLY be allowed to worship God, ask and repent for forgiveness of his sins and live in eternity forever scared because of what he did, already being punished through our court of law.
Now on the other hand, what about the man that urinated in public? Should he not be allowed to attend a church?? Or the one who had teenage sex, consensual that is. Should he not be allowed to go to church because all of these people are on the registry. If we cannot try to be part of the change then we are worse off than the sinner that wants to repent and change. Is there a verse anywhere, absolutlely anywhere in any bible that says "I love all except these people?" Because if there is then lets line them all up and just shoot them! Problem solved. There isn't one and this world is filled with enough hate, enough pain and sorrow to last eternity. Who amongst any of you can say you have tried to help someone that has sinned so horribly??? If you can't, then keep quiet, you have no voice in this issue. Perhaps a support group within the community to help these people, held at church with a pastor would be a better solution. I don't know, I don't have the answers but I DO know that hate is not going to change anything.
Posted by MaryAnn Lubas on 11/03/2009 @ 01:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
MaryAnn, Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt comment. You and Andrew are leading the way to a much needed discussion on the topic the politicians have swept under the rug now that so much more damage has been created with poorly written laws driven by a moral panic. It has to be horrific to be sexually assaulted and abused and that who these laws should have been meant for, but now it's horrific for those falsely accused, wrongfully convicted and sitting in prison for decades and life sentences for nonviolent, first offense because of these laws. Add life time sex offender registry and no where to live when one is released and we have a mounting Hell on earth building with each passing day. It's time for common sense thinking beyond the pain and horror of all this. Yes, they should be allowed in church in the way you described. Rational re-entry must begin nationwide as we rush to put more women and juveniles behind bars -- humans for $$$'s.
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 03:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One of the problems I see with the current method of dealing with convicted sex offenders is that unlike any other crime, when they have finished serving their sentence, they still must be part of a lifetime sex offender registry, which follows them everywhere they go. They also have more serious limitations on where they can live, where they can go and what job they can do than any other convicted offender.
Yes, rape and pedophilia are horrible crimes, but so is murder, kidnapping, extortion and even such "white collar, non-violent" crimes such as what Bernie Madoff did. Those convicted of these crimes or of being members of organized crime organizations often do such crimes again. Yet, these people don't have to be part of registries and can return to mainstream society, including going to church or visiting a school.
I submit that the current system of treating convicted sex offenders is based on the emotions of the common citizen, the sensationalizing of such crimes by the media to improve their ratings and the pandering of politicians to get votes, rather than any logical thought process. I submit that the current system is a lack of a system and does not protect the community and prevents the convicted offender of ever being able to lead the semblance of a "normal" life. Furthermore, I feel that the restrictions on released offenders are so draconian to the convicted offenders that they are in effect being punished twice for the same crime, something that violates the Constitution.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/03/2009 @ 03:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The sex offender registry is a lifetime registry, so these are essentially life sentences given to nonviolent, first offense, non-dangerous, non-repetitive. 75 years in prison followed by the lifetime registry. Once registries are accepted for one group of undesirables, then why not the others? Those who profit by this are raking in a stream of income for life. The taxpayers do not have the money for this and who will pay if they cannot get a job to pay the lifetime fees and penalties?
Posted by Camille Tilley on 11/03/2009 @ 09:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What Camille says regarding the cost of enforcing the lifetimes registries is both true and typical of our often short term solution, long term disaster government. Consider all the exorbitant lifetime pensions and health care plans handed out to government workers, some who voted in such plans for themselves. Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost regarding any of these lifetime deals...
When you have a lifetime registry that covers too many convicted sex offenders that are not a serious threat to the community, it weakens the enforcement regarding the convicted offenders that appear to be serious threats. It is counterproductive to try to cover more individuals under such "lifetime" registries than the government has the will and/or financial resources to enforce.
Many of our elected representatives are great at grandstanding regarding being tough on crime, etc. But, the real measure of being "tough" isn't the talk, but the money to back up enforcement.
And, lifetime enforcement is a very long time...
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/03/2009 @ 10:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have one question for Camille, Andrew, and other readers of this blog. If there is such a great number of "innocent", low risk offenders on the registry, why was this blog written in support of a high risk recidivist's "right" to be in close proximity to a day care? Aren't there better people to be advocating for? Matt, maybe you can shed some light on this. Seriously, was this an attempt to get a heated discussion started? Was it just a poor choice on your part? Was there some other reason? I'd seriously like to hear what people think about this? I mean, is it really such a problem if we ask that this particular offender find a church that does not house a daycare. For the crimes he's commited, I don't think that's too much to ask.
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/07/2009 @ 09:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dennis,
Perhaps Matt wanted a heated discussion to get some issues out in the open. For instance, my question to you and the others who would not let this person near the daycare center is: Why don't you support research into finding more effective treatment of the serious offenders, as sooner or later these people will be in the community and we don't have the resources or will to follow them around 24/7?
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/07/2009 @ 09:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Andrew, first I'd like to thank you for responding so quickly. As I stated in a previous comment, I believe the most if not the only effective way to break the cycle of such abuse is crisis intervention and counseling for the victims as soon as possible. Resources should be used for this and for quick and strict punishment to offenders so the victims are not intimidated and are willing to seek help.
If Matt did indeed post this blog to spark a heated debate, don't you think there are better ways of going about it considering there are REAL victims involved here, two of which are teenagers? Don't you think he could have respected these victims a little more? I know these blogs are meant to inspire dialogue, but I think Matt used poor judgement on this one.
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/07/2009 @ 10:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A question to you both -
Other than ChildHelp and the 'Good Touch, Bad Touch' program, do you know of intervention programs that go into schools and help teach children of all ages of the dangers of assault, including physical assault (corporal punishment) and sexual assault, regardless of what 'parents may think?'
We've all seen countless statistics that show the greatest dangers to children are people the children trust - parents, uncles and aunts, caretakers and the like. If this is the case, how many groups do you know of who are going and speaking to the kids themselves, to empower them wtih information like, "If you tell a teacher and nothing is done to stop the abuse, tell other teachers?" and "If the CPS contact who visits you doesn't help stop the abuse, call and ask for another person?"
I think some victims and some incidents fall 'through the system' because too little is done toward justice, in a similar way to the idea that some innocent people are being put on the sex offenders list because there was insufficient follow up or consideration given during the conviction process.
What can you tell us about groups that are righting these wrongs? Very curious, and thanks in advance. :)
Posted by Christine Clarke on 11/08/2009 @ 05:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Christine,
You make a good point regarding most of the offenders being parents and other trusted people in the child's life and that corporal punishment is an issue in itself. I'd add that most parents go through no training to be a parent and that people of all stripes become parents and these trusted relatives and friends.
This is why the registries and restrictions on where convicted offenders live, work or can go are generally ineffective. You may stop the convicted offender from committing another offense, if the community has sufficient resources and the will to deploy them. But, there's always the chance that Uncle Charlie is a bad apple?
Plus a lot of this abuse doesn't get reported by the abused children or is covered up by the parents to save the family from being embarrassed. And, there are gray areas regarding when someone steps over the line and affection becomes abuse.
As for what programs there are out there: I work and have worked in the social services with other populations, so this is not my area of expertise. I just know that there isn't much research into effective treatments, and that some social services professionals don't want to deal with this issue and are part of the vocal majority in just advocating for more punishment and restrictions on convicted offenders.
I feel that we have to put aside emotion on what is a very emotionally charged issue and look in all the dark corners regarding abuse and try to find methods of preventing it that can be shown to statistically decrease abuse the best and then keep working on finding better and better methodologies regarding this.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/08/2009 @ 05:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Christine, you bring up a good point about programs that aim to inform children of what to do in case they are victimized in some way. I can't think of any such programs off the top of my head. I think there must be some out there, but not nearly enough. I think those type of programs would be a help, but there would also still be soooo many kids who don't report their abuse due to the incredible amount of intimidation, humiliation, and pressure involved. Many times adults can't even deal with being a victim of assault, especially sexual assault. Unfortunately, the predator still has the upper hand, but your idea is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/08/2009 @ 05:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I currently work with adults with developmental disabilities and abuse protection training is a requirement for the consumers in any program serving this population.
But, I don't know that there is any such requirement for schools and "normal" children. And, even in the case of the population I work with, this training can be quite variable in quality. Plus, if such training became a requirement in schools, how frequently should it be provided?
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/08/2009 @ 05:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would suggest every two years?
I think it would be outstanding to have social health skills taught at approximately two year intervals, as coursework that amounts to more than an assembly or a guest speaker for a day, so that kids can learn coping mechanisms/anger management, conflict resolution skills, recognition of problem behavior and red flags in interaction with others, how and where to look for help, and how to keep asking for help if help isn't given the first time they speak up, etc.
I hold the theory that if we do this, and it works, then kids will not only be able to avoid abuse and/or diffuse situations that could escalate to abuse, but potentially improve relationships with others in their lives, AND stay away from releases that terrify parents (drugs, alcohol, violence) because they'd have better coping mechanisms at hand already.
I've been trying to propose this in state but oddly the answers have been vague and dismissive. The best response I've received thus far has been to find a 'test' school district to try it out. I love the idea, but we'd need more hands and more help to make it happen.
Here's to hope though, right? ;)
My interest in trying to push something like this is geared mainly toward safe parenting, and getting into parents' heads before they become parents. (As was pointed out before, there are no tests or prerequisites to anyone becoming a parent -- and presently in our society, 3 kids die every day from abuse, mostly babies and toddlers.) But maybe we can instill some anger diffusing, situation mastering social skills in our children so that they become calmer, more logical, less impulsive/violent adults? I tend to think it would affect rates of criminal behavior and other social worries as well.
Do you think that something like this could have any effect on the frequency or potential for repeat behavior of sex offense crimes, though?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 11/11/2009 @ 12:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dennis,
Between my jobs and being involved with all the causes at change.org, I have not followed this discussion as closely as you have. Plus, I don't feel that any one of us can totally know what another person is thinking, and there are often unexpected twists and turns in these discussions. So, I would prefer to not judge Matt's judgment.
I feel that the key thing in this discussion is not to point fingers at anyone regarding either their judgment or motives, but instead to look for areas of agreement so we can brainstorm for improvements to a system that we all agree is broken. I feel that in doing this we need to be proactive, as you said in your last post, protect the victims and do as good a job as is possible regarding rehabilitating the offenders.
I also feel that we could agree that there could be improvements in terms of the way offenders are categorized, so that we focus our efforts regarding keeping ex-offenders in check on those who have committed the most serious offenses and are statistically the most likely to commit an offense again. To do otherwise would be stretching ourselves too thin regarding after care when the offenders are released, thus increasing the possibility that a serious offender will slip through the cracks.
And, as with every other type of offense, we need to address the inequities and other flaws in the criminal justice system.
Posted by Andrew Heugel on 11/07/2009 @ 10:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.