Adjusting What We Think About Sexual Abusers

by Diane Dimond

We’re pretty good at punishing people who are caught and convicted of sexual abuse. We’re not so good at stopping the abuse in the first place, especially when children are involved. After all these years of open discussion about this scourge why is it still so prevalent?

Because, we keep attacking the problem the same old way!

A new project from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, funded by the Ms. Foundation magazine, concludes it is time for us to adjust our collective thinking about sex offenders.

Perhaps the A.T.S.A.’s most important conclusion is that media coverage of abuse monsters has warped our sense of who they really are. Television, news, movies and books mainly focus on the most extreme “stranger danger” cases, those in which a child is kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered.

In reality, the sexual abuse of kids doesn’t usually come from outside their circle and murder is extremely rare.

Most often the perpetrator is a relative, a family friend or a trusted authority figure. But if a parent is intent on looking for a monster it’s easy for them to overlook warning signs from those closest to the family.

Another important conclusion? Too often we lump all abusers into one category and label them sex offenders or sexual predators. Not good and not smart.

A serial pedophile is quite different from a teenage boy caught with his underage girlfriend and reported to police by angry parents. Some jurisdictions view an errant nude sunbather or a drunk who exposes himself to urinate in the street as a sex offender. And then, there is the category of children with deeply rooted sexual behavior problems. All have to be handled differently.

It doesn’t keep the community safe when we brand all of these diverse types with the same scarlet letter and make them all become registrants of an official, ever-growing and very public National Sex Registry. Too often that’s exactly what happens.

The just released project paper from the A.T.S.A. calculates that in 2007 and 2008 alone, “More than 1500 sex offender related bills were proposed in state legislatures… over 275 new laws were enacted.” Generally, they did two things: Increased incarceration time and put in place intricate (and costly) monitoring systems and restrictions on where the released offender is allowed to work, live and interact within a community once released back into society.

After the convict does his or her time and returns to life on the outside, it’s as if the deck is forever stacked against them. What chance do they have to succeed if the stigma of being a registered sex offender keeps them from getting a well paying job or finding a place to live that is the mandated distance away from a school or public park? Even trying to join a church is tricky for them. If there is a Sunday school for youngsters on the property many states do not allow the convict to attend services there.

Everything they do for the rest of their lives will be viewed through the lens of their label: Sex Offender.

But, wait a minute, you say, “Once a sex offender always a sex offender, right?" Not necessarily.

Don’t mistake what I write here as being soft on sexual criminals. I am not. In fact, I believe there are career pedophiles that should never, ever, get out of prison. But the latest Department of Justice statistics peg the likelihood of a child molester repeating their crime after they’ve done their time at just 5.3 percent. And, the DOJ study concludes that of the 5.3 percent who do re-offend 40 percent commit another sex crime within a year or less. In other words, that first year back on the outside is a crucial time for them – they either assimilate or they don’t.

The way these offenders are treated – their isolation and loneliness – often causes their closest family members to retreat in shame as well. It has been well documented that relatives of the abusers often struggle with the disgrace and stress that comes with having someone close to them convicted as a sex offender. It’s too bad that our societal scarlet letter brands them as well because family could be our first line of support to help keep the ex-con from re-offending.

I propose we all take a deep breath and stop adding new laws until we can figure out a better way to attack the problem.

First, forget the one-size-fits all category of sex offender. Let’s identify all the varieties of offenders and determine what their range of punishments should be. And, as for our National Sex Offender Registry? Let’s not make the teenaged Romeo carry the stigma around for the rest of his life and let’s give those who have gone on to live law abiding lives for a set number of years the hope – the goal – of getting their names expunged.

We need to start thinking differently about how we define and tackle this problem. We’re smart. We can do better.

Tweet

A Sign of the Times...."Sexting"

by Robin Sax

Sexting is a relatively new term in our lexicon, referring to the sending of a sex image through a text message (combine the word sex and “texting” and you get sexting). You may be surprised to find out that sexting can send a young person to jail. Even more, it can cause him/her to be convicted of the dissemination of child porn and be forced to register as sex offender -- for life.

In October of last year a Texas eighth-grader spent the night in a juvenile detention center after his football coach found a nude picture on his cell phone, sent by fellow student. In January of this year three western Pennsylvania high school girls were charged with child pornography for sending semi-nude cell phone pictures of themselves. Last month in Indiana a teenage boy was indicted on felony obscenity charges for sending a photo of his private parts via “sext” to several female classmates.

There is nothing new to the notion that technology has created a bucket-load of new crimes. But like everything else, the technology is ahead of legislators and the criminal justice system. If a 16-year-old girl willingly sends a naked picture of herself to her same aged boyfriend, are we shocked? It seems relatively harmless, right? Maybe… or depending on the jurisdiction and the prosecutor it could be considered a crime (that is, sending and possessing child porn). It all depends on which way you view it. Is it innocent child play or criminally dangerous behavior?

Taking it a step further, what happens when that 16-year-old boyfriend forwards that “sext message” to 100 people, or even just three of his closest friends? Besides the fact that it is mortifying to the young girlfriend (and invading her privacy), the boy could be subjected to charges of disseminating child porn, a crime that can includes jail and a lifetime registration as a sex offender. Now, I am not here to argue that the child should not be punished. Of course there should be consequences. But should that 16-year-old now be a registered sex offender? I say hell no!

We can argue whether or not the boyfriend’s actions should be considered criminal or merely a boyish prank. But the bigger issue is whether or not this 16-year-old can really be considered a sexual predator that belongs on a sex registration list. I do believe the boy should be punished, charged with harassment, bullying, or whatever. Requiring registration, however, in this case only does one thing: undermines the sex offender registry. As parents and citizens, we need to know what we are talking about when we refer to sex offenders. Most people agree that this list should be reserved for the “true” predators and molesters who have a likely chance of recidivism (repeating the crime of seeking young victims as sexual prey). When you hear child porn you think an adult with pictures of a pre-pubescent or barely pubescent child. Not 16-year-olds sending pictures of themselves naked.

Several states see my argument and agree. Here are some recent legislative developments around the country:

Vermont lawmakers introduced a bill in April 2009 to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime. In Ohio, a county prosecutor and two lawmakers proposed a law that would reduce sexting from a felony to a first-degree misdemeanor, and eliminate the possibility of a teenage offender being labeled a sex offender for years. In Cincinnati the proposal to lesson sexting was supported - even by the parents of Jessie Logan, an 18-year-old who committed suicide after a naked picture of herself (which she sexted) was forwarded to people in her high school. Utah lawmakers lessened the penalty for sexting for someone younger than 18 from a felony to a misdemeanor.

But more needs to be done; specifically in the areas of parenting and educating our teens. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen & Unplanned Pregnancy, a private nonprofit group whose mission is to protect children, along with CosmoGirl.com, surveyed nearly 1,300 teens about sex and technology. The result: 1 in 5 teens say they have sexted even though the majority knows it could be a crime, they continue to do it.

So, friends, I ask you…where do you stand on what do about “sexting??” Let me know I what your thoughts....email me at http://www.robinsax.com/.

Tweet

Little Girl Lost

by Donna Weaver

Brooke Bennett was supposed to turn 13 years old last Saturday. Instead, her life was tragically cut short 3 weeks ago. Over 1000 people attended the funeral service for Brooke last Wednesday, July 9th. Pastor Thomas Harty of United Church of Bethel had those in attendance repeat three words after him: “Never, never again.”

On June 26, 2008, Vermont issued its first-ever AMBER Alert after Brooke was last seen the previous day on surveillance film leaving a convenience store with her uncle and cousin.

You see, Brooke never had a chance. Her abduction and murder—allegedly at the hands of her uncle, Michael Jacques, a two-time convicted sex offender—may have been all too predictable and almost certainly preventable. Jacques has since been charged with Brooke’s kidnapping. If it is determined that the kidnapping led to her death, he could receive the death penalty. Brooke was found deceased on her uncle's property on July 2, 2008.

Several factors may have contributed to the foreseeable demise of this little girl. The fact that she was permitted to be in the company of a relative who preyed on children put her in continual contact in the family setting with someone who had already been convicted of perpetrating the most heinous acts imaginable on a child.

Vermont state law also clearly let down Brooke when they allowed her alleged killer out of jail after only serving three years for a similar crime. Court records show that Michael Jacques abducted and brutalized another innocent child in 1992. In 2006, after serving the ridiculously short sentence, Jacques was released to set up a “sex ring,” where girls as young as nine years old were recruited to participate in sex with adult males. In fact, Jacques used one of his former victims to lure Brooke to her initiation in the sex ring, and to her ultimate death.

Vermont is one of the states that failed to adopt Jessie’s law, which provides minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual offenders who prey on children. Some form of Jessie’s law—proposed by Mark Lunsford, father of Jessica Lunsford (pictured right), who was abducted, raped, and buried alive by John Couey in 2005—has already been enacted into law in 33 states.

The State of Vermont is now considering the adoption of 25-year mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual offenders. But some, including victims' advocates, are opposed to the measure saying that mandatory minimums may prevent young victims from coming forward or from testifying against family members. It would also negate the possibility of plea bargains and cause the potential for some offenders to walk away free after trial.

Too little, too late for Brooke Bennett and countless other children. Michael Jacques is yet another veritable poster boy for the flaws in our justice system that contribute to the horrific deaths of children like Brooke at the hands of monsters like him.

Tweet

Sex Offender Laws Need Some Work

by Stacy Dittrich

Granted, they're all a good start. Meghan's Law, Amber Alerts, Jessica's Law, and the Adam Walsh Act are headed in the right direction, but they still aren't "correcting" the problem. Here, in Ohio, Senate Bill 10, (somewhere around the range of 450 pages), aimed at sex offenders, has been revamped and corrected so many times I'm not sure what the law is!

What I do know is this: If I come upon a registered sex offender sitting in his vehicle, (watching the children and having no other reason of being there), I cannot arrest him. Furthermore, if he decides to follow the school bus from stop to stop--still no arrest.

Okay, so they can't live within 1000 feet of a school, playground, or daycare center, and all of their neighbors are told a perv is living among them. Big deal! Sexual Predators have legs, and they have cars. There is nothing that prevents them from strolling 1200 feet down to the nearest school to find a "fantasy fix" (a child's image to use while sexually gratifying himself). Or, in the worse case scenario, a future victim.

The possibility of pink license plates for sex offenders was presented before the senate. Their reaction? "Oh, the horror! A violation of civil rights!" Regardless, nothing prevented them from passing a bill that allowed judges to issue yellow license plates to DUI offenders, which is also a joke. Why? Because the judges rarely do this. There's the prospect of the poor soul that gets the judge on a bad day. Issued yellow license plates for his first offense DUI, he finds himself being passed on the roadway by a multiple DUI offender who honks, waves, and is prominently displaying "IDRINK4U" standard Ohio plates.

The main problem is the lack of separation for offenders. The state is pooling together the violent child predators with the guy who had sex with a disgruntled ex-girlfriend. Angry at the rejection of reconciliation, she files rape charges. The Romeo and Juliet cases still have yet to be addressed. The eighteen-year old senior in high school, in love and sexually active with his consenting, fourteen-year old freshman girlfriend is branded for life. Ridiculous!

When I argue the above with "people in the know," I am promptly informed that stricter laws will do nothing but drive the sex offenders underground. What?!!

Read this following story and tell me if it matters:

- A local sexual predator was recently released from prison. No parole, time served. His victims were all under the age of five and spanned from Florida to Ohio. He ultimately became a frequent visitor to local elementary schools and bus stops, and was suspected in an attempted abduction of a seven-year-old. Parents were outraged. As law enforcement, we scared him, watched him, and threatened him (within the scope of the law, of course) every way possible. The outcome of this? He merely drove to the neighboring county and promptly abducted and sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl. Yes, he's back in prison but it took the innocence and stability of a child to put him there--again.

What most people don't realize is this: There is no rehabilitation for pedophiles. Asking a pedophile to no longer be attracted to children, is like asking a homosexual to wake up tomorrow and live his life straight, or vice versa. It's not going to happen! (For chillingly accurate portrayals of child sexual predators, rent Little Children or The Woodsman.)

My solution? Put the violent sexual predators whose victims are under thirteen in a class of their own--restrict their breathing. Give law enforcement the authority to take action. It's not difficult. The law could read something like: "A state registered sexual offender who knowingly engages in a pattern of conduct that causes inconvenience, annoyance, alarm or panic to any prudent person who believes the person is conspiring or about to commit a sex offense." (Take that, Senate Bill 10!)

My "silent" solution? Torture and death to child offenders on the second offense. I've had the extremely unpleasant experience of witnessing the lifetime of damage these monsters inflict on our children. I'm pretty sure that would nip the problem in the bud. Yes, it's harsh, but I'm funny that way. . . .

Just my opinion.

Tweet