T Nation

Sex Offenders

http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/0126brk-faketeen26-ON.html

This is a new spin on things. How negligent were the teachers involved in this situation to not notice a 29 year old man in their classroom?

Just the other day at work we got an Amber alert about a registered sex offender who kidnapped a 6 year old girl and was leaving the state. Luckily for her they were stopped a few hours later when someone recognized the license plate and called the police.

Something is obviously not working in the system of punishing and “rehabilitating” sex offenders. Why do they get let out to hurt and possibly kill more and more children? Should they be killed? Should they be kept locked up?

“Rodreick camouflaged his age by shaving his body hair, wearing makeup and dressing the part, investigators report.”

I substitute teach in middle schools often, and I can tell that this guy would easily be able to look the same age as them. I would have been surprised if they did suspect something based on his looks.

Well, in my opinion, I’ve seen enough evidence that they cannot be rehabilitated. It’s like saying that it’s possible to turn a gay person straight. Sexual preferences are fairly predetermined.

Should we kill convicted sexual predators? It would be a lot cheaper that way (50 cents for a 9mm round as opposed to many thousands of dollars per inmate). I’m not a huge fan of capitol punishment in most cases.

Victims’ lives are ruined by sexual attacks (especially children), no doubt about it.

Tough choice here. One thing for sure is that when a judge gives someone only a couple years for their crime, it’s yet another slap in the face to the victim. One of the many flaws in our legal system. You can go rape a little child and get a slap on the wrist, but they sure seem real keen on giving people hefty sentences for possession of steroids and marijuana.

My problem with killing people convicted of crimes is that without the proper legal safeties, the executions could get out of hand.

On second thought, maybe it’s time we cleaned the fucking filth from our society. Let’s shoot the bastards.

They obviously have severe mental and emotional problems.

A mentally and emotionally healthy human being just doesn’t do this kind of shit.

Imagine yourself at your best. Your healthiest. You’re getting up and taking the world head-on, you’re accomplishing, you have a healthy social life, self-confidence…

In this mental and emotional state does the thought of kidnapping little girls even cross your mind? Of course not!

Is it possible that people who wind up committing horrendous crimes don’t have the skills to maintain their own mental and emotional health?

Seeing as people who usually end up committing abusive crimes towards other people were abused by their parents, it seems bloody well likely to me that their parents didn’t have the skill-set to teach them in the first place. Family pattern of shitty self-control, self-awareness, self-help skills…

It seems a lot more plausible to me than the idea that “some people are just born bad” (although in cases of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome where people are incapable of reasoning consequences for their actions, or Antisocial Disorder where people don’t care about the consequences of their actions, some sort of “weeding out” process for the gene pool, I think, needs to take place).

As for prison, if you follow Robert Anton Wilson’s psychological theories, a lot of prisons seem set up to just create more career criminals. If we looked at prisons as psycho-social indoctrination and brainwashing centers instead of “punishment”, we’d better accomplish our goal of “fixing” problem individuals.

For example, there’s a cultural cliche that in prison, the guards are sadistically abusive toward the prisoners. True or not, this might have roots in reality where the guards are seen as a constant threat and aggressor.

Following R.A.Wilson’s theories on brainwashing, what this does is force prisoners to revert to an infantile mental state where they crave maternal protection. If maternal protection isn’t available, paternal protection may be substituted.

In a prison environment, the closest thing to paternal protection you can get is other male prisoners associating in groups or “gangs”.

If guards were trained to act in a moral and just manner at all times. Exhibiting mature traits of restraint, fairness, and self-control, along with other prison factors it might help influence the prisoners to see the other prisoners as the threat and bond with the guards and social workers (“the system”) as their paternal protection, leaving them more open to programs for rehabilitation, group therapy, education, and the like.

(A good therapist may even be emotionally interpreted as maternal protection, which according to R.A.Wilson’s ideas automatically trumps paternal protection, gangs in this case, meaning the prisoner’s mind is left as a mound of clay, ours for the moulding).

In Alberta here we even had a highly successful program where after the judgment and sentence were handed down, the option was open for the victim, aggressor, and their immediate families and loved ones to participate in group therapy – together!

Both aggressor and victim usually leave the program with a good understanding of the other’s thoughts and feelings. Aggressors felt more guilt and were far more motivated and receptive to rehabilitation. Victims better understood the psychology of their aggressor, were far less likely to blame themselves, and were more likely to forgive and recover.

Sadly, the program was cut because some bureaucrat looked at the description of the program without checking the numbers on its success rate, said “that’s ridiculous”, and cut the funding.

Aaaaand, I’m spent.

– ElbowStrike

The teachers must be fucking ignorant, or too inattentive, to notice someone like that. They should be punished. I mean, c’mon, suddenly a new face pops up and no one has a question?
As for the actual sex offenders, I think a sex offense against a minor should be punished cruelly, medievel style.

Make a pervert AFRAID to attempt a sex crime against a minor or a woman. Stuff like dropping them in a wood chipper, or electrocution, or even surgical torture. Imagine the trauma of a sex victim, and then ask yourself what example you should make of someone, what consequences should be emplaced to prevent such a crime.

As brutal and calloused as this sounded, it isn’t half the crime as a child/teen/woman being made a victim to such a heinous act, and living with the memories that even affect their partners in the future.
Foul death upon those who hurt our children and damage our loved ones.

I agree that they should be locked up for much longer than they are. Maybe for life. The recidivism for this crime is NOTORIOUSLY high.Much moreso than for most any other crime at near 100%. Rehabilition with current methods does not work except for exceedingly few rare cases. There are many theories of punishment.

But I’ve always favored incapacitation as ample justification in its own right though other theories make sens in some cases. When the recidivism is as high as it is in child sex offenders, I think incapacitation is potent reason in its own right.

[quote]djoh615893 wrote:
The teachers must be fucking ignorant, or too inattentive, to notice someone like that. They should be punished. I mean, c’mon, suddenly a new face pops up and no one has a question?
As for the actual sex offenders, I think a sex offense against a minor should be punished cruelly, medievel style. [/quote]

Devil’s advocate. This guy had an older man pose as his “grandfather” (the same guy he was having sex with who ALSO thought he was underaged) and enroll him at the school. He fooled a lot of people, and if you look at that picture, with makeup, his facial features could easily pass for someone much younger. If he is very thin and short, most would not notice. There were guys in my junior high school who looked like they were over 20 years old. Some of these “kids” are held back enough times to be damn close to that.

If he fooled the old guys who were using him for sex (and all that implies), it doesn’t surprise me he fooled some people with clothes on.

What should be focused on is BACKGROUND CHECKS. Were birth certificates faked? If so, then that is also how he passed.

I don’t doubt that one school may now become the safest school in that state after this.

[quote]csuson wrote:
Well, in my opinion, I’ve seen enough evidence that they cannot be rehabilitated. It’s like saying that it’s possible to turn a gay person straight. Sexual preferences are fairly predetermined.

Should we kill convicted sexual predators? It would be a lot cheaper that way (50 cents for a 9mm round as opposed to many thousands of dollars per inmate). I’m not a huge fan of capitol punishment in most cases.

Victims’ lives are ruined by sexual attacks (especially children), no doubt about it.

Tough choice here. One thing for sure is that when a judge gives someone only a couple years for their crime, it’s yet another slap in the face to the victim. One of the many flaws in our legal system. You can go rape a little child and get a slap on the wrist, but they sure seem real keen on giving people hefty sentences for possession of steroids and marijuana.

My problem with killing people convicted of crimes is that without the proper legal safeties, the executions could get out of hand. [/quote]

You’re way out of line, hahahaha. 22 rounds are about 2 cents a piece. why waste all that money on a 9mm?

Are Sex Offenders worth being hated? Whether the reason for their actions are genetic or behaviorally developed, does it really matter? Is it less hurtfull for the victim if the perpetrator was abused as a child, or their condition was the product of many insignificant things? We can only see if a pattern exist in their behavior and act so as to limit the hurt.

If we as a society deem them “fixable”, and it is feasable to do so, that is the course of action we must take. If they are not, are they to be killed, or simply removed from the population? Torture should not be an option. The moment we use torture, fear, and cruelty to “make an example of someone” is the moment we lose our last remaining shreds of humanity.

I suppose moral questions must be raised on what is a sex offender. I’m sure most would agree there is a difference between a 16 year old couple having sex or an employee sleeping their way to the top, and an archetypal serial rapist committing violent crimes. It would be nice to think people don’t get arrested for the former, but it does happen.

A friend of mine got arrested for giving head to a 16 yo guy in a highschool bathroom (he was 18 and they were both sophomores.) I never heard whether he got convicted, but I know he went to court over it. Does he deserve the same fate as another sex offender?

[quote]Taquito wrote:
A friend of mine got arrested for giving head to a 16 yo guy in a highschool bathroom (he was 18 and they were both sophomores.) I never heard whether he got convicted, but I know he went to court over it. Does he deserve the same fate as another sex offender?[/quote]

The only thing I see he should get pegged on is sex in public - and they should both get it.

Other than that… nope.

– ElbowStrike

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Taquito wrote:
A friend of mine got arrested for giving head to a 16 yo guy in a highschool bathroom (he was 18 and they were both sophomores.) I never heard whether he got convicted, but I know he went to court over it. Does he deserve the same fate as another sex offender?

The only thing I see he should get pegged on is sex in public - and they should both get it.

Other than that… nope.

– ElbowStrike[/quote]

Most states do have the Romeo and Juliet exceptions. Where there is no crime for consensual sex between a minor and adult if they’re within a certain number of years of each other. In the states that have it, I believe 1-3 years is the most common timeframe. I guess it would apply to Romeo and Romeo too.

[quote]csuson wrote:
On second thought, maybe it’s time we cleaned the fucking filth from our society. Let’s shoot the bastards. [/quote]

I’m the first to say that we have gotten too weak and too forgiving as a society. But killing the sex offenders would make us as bad or worse than those we oppose. It is not right to kill a sick person, because they are sick. These are not normal, functional individuals. As the laws are written right now, they get the assigned penalty for their crimes, then regain their freedom. In order to do something about this morally, and ethically, we would have to change the laws from the inside out the proper way, and then enforce the new laws.

When we begin wholesale slaughter, we become no better than Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, or our very own George Washington. GW slaughtered entire native tribes wholesale.

Say we began killing pedophiles, then it would extend to necropheliacs, then rapists, then sadists and bdsm’s, possibly next even swingers and fornicators. But since we can kill sex offenders, why not kill theives? Hell if we can kill theives why not kill vandals? Drunk Drivers? Who would be the deciding line in this slaughter? No man would have the right to play god and decide who dies and who lives. Do we trust our government to decide who lives and dies? Our voters? Supreme Court?

As soon as this can of worms got opened, America as we know it would be in for its final downfall.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But I’ve always favored incapacitation as ample justification in its own right though other theories make sens in some cases. When the recidivism is as high as it is in child sex offenders, I think incapacitation is potent reason in its own right.[/quote]

However much I agree, this violates the rights of the incapacitated. Under the laws of the country, they still have rights. As soon as we deny one persons rights, we are setting ourselves up to have all of our rights taken away.

Once upon a time, the US Government sterilized those it thought would be unfit parents. This was in the 1930’s. If I recal correctly, it was called Erogenics. This was 100% not right. The victims were chosen by the authority for whatever reason, and forced to be sterilized. The sterilized had their rights taken away, with no trial, defense, or recourse against the more powerful government.

By the laws of the US, once the criminal fufills his obligation to society he is free to resume a normal life. He can not possibly resume a normal life being incapacitated. The criminal has paid his debt to society and has earned the right to have a normal life. As the society we do not have the right to take that away from the criminal. If he offends again, and receives a life sentence under the laws of the society, this is the incapacitation allowed by the laws we all live under. Our personal feelings on the issue do not supercede the laws.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
In Alberta here we even had a highly successful program where after the judgment and sentence were handed down, the option was open for the victim, aggressor, and their immediate families and loved ones to participate in group therapy – together!
[/quote]

Many years ago they briefly tried a program like this for juvenile offenders in Houston. A friend of mine was studying it for his doctoral thesis. Turns out it was a waste of time, despite outwardly being very successful.

huh?

You see, because it was an option, the participants were basically self-selected and not random at all. It was successful only because the offenders who chose to participate were the type who were innately willing to make amends. Nobody was really rehabilitated because the offender realized his/her mistake from the beginning. The “hardcore” offenders, the ones who needed rehabilitation, chose to not participate.

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
csuson wrote:
On second thought, maybe it’s time we cleaned the fucking filth from our society. Let’s shoot the bastards.

I’m the first to say that we have gotten too weak and too forgiving as a society. But killing the sex offenders would make us as bad or worse than those we oppose. It is not right to kill a sick person, because they are sick. These are not normal, functional individuals. As the laws are written right now, they get the assigned penalty for their crimes, then regain their freedom. In order to do something about this morally, and ethically, we would have to change the laws from the inside out the proper way, and then enforce the new laws.

When we begin wholesale slaughter, we become no better than Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, or our very own George Washington. GW slaughtered entire native tribes wholesale.

Say we began killing pedophiles, then it would extend to necropheliacs, then rapists, then sadists and bdsm’s, possibly next even swingers and fornicators. But since we can kill sex offenders, why not kill theives? Hell if we can kill theives why not kill vandals? Drunk Drivers? Who would be the deciding line in this slaughter? No man would have the right to play god and decide who dies and who lives. Do we trust our government to decide who lives and dies? Our voters? Supreme Court?

As soon as this can of worms got opened, America as we know it would be in for its final downfall.

[/quote]
Killing child molesters and rapists would make us as bad as the perpetrators themselves? How did you come to that conclusion? You obviously aren’t close to anyone who has suffered through this because if you were, your response would be different. The vast majority of these offenders know that what they’re doing is wrong. They just don’t give a damn. You can’t convince me otherwise that if they knew for certain that swift and certain death would await them, there would be much less of this happening. Killing these menaces to society is not going to cause a decline in civilization.

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
[…]

By the laws of the US, once the criminal fufills his obligation to society he is free to resume a normal life. He can not possibly resume a normal life being incapacitated. The criminal has paid his debt to society and has earned the right to have a normal life. As the society we do not have the right to take that away from the criminal. If he offends again, and receives a life sentence under the laws of the society, this is the incapacitation allowed by the laws we all live under. Our personal feelings on the issue do not supercede the laws. [/quote]

Normally I don’t agree with TiDC on almost any issue, but here I do: As much as polite society might abhor the thought, sex offenders have rights, too. The law has set certain standards, and once people have fulfilled their obligations, they are free to restart their lives. In especially extreme cases, the law provides the necessary measures to keep someone under custody (at least in my native Germany, but I presume in the US as well).

What I doubt, is that attempts at therapy - even if not reparative, but simple for the purpose of control - are really consistently made on a broad basis. Therapy costs money and being ‘tough on crime’ is much more popular than investing into sex offenders. Prevention has always been the weakest link in crime fighting - and especially in this emotionally charged matter I gather it is being consistently neglected.

Makkun

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But I’ve always favored incapacitation as ample justification in its own right though other theories make sens in some cases. When the recidivism is as high as it is in child sex offenders, I think incapacitation is potent reason in its own right.

However much I agree, this violates the rights of the incapacitated. Under the laws of the country, they still have rights. As soon as we deny one persons rights, we are setting ourselves up to have all of our rights taken away.

Once upon a time, the US Government sterilized those it thought would be unfit parents. This was in the 1930’s. If I recal correctly, it was called Erogenics. This was 100% not right. The victims were chosen by the authority for whatever reason, and forced to be sterilized. The sterilized had their rights taken away, with no trial, defense, or recourse against the more powerful government.

By the laws of the US, once the criminal fufills his obligation to society he is free to resume a normal life. He can not possibly resume a normal life being incapacitated. The criminal has paid his debt to society and has earned the right to have a normal life. As the society we do not have the right to take that away from the criminal. If he offends again, and receives a life sentence under the laws of the society, this is the incapacitation allowed by the laws we all live under. Our personal feelings on the issue do not supercede the laws. [/quote]

I agree. But penalties are determined by a [general] consensus in the criminal justice and legal system as to WHEN a debt to society is fulfilled. Whose to say that repeated child molestation is any less heinous than murder. Murder is 25 to life in many states. I see not reason why a repeat child molestor shouldn’t get a similar penalty. Has someone whose raped 5 ten-year old girls fulfilled their debt to soceity by a few years in prison. Many states currently have recidivist statutes for much lesser crimes. Things like 3 strikes rules-where the penalty for petty crimes for repeat offenders is exponentially increased on the notion that they haven’t fulfilled their dead to to society. They continue to violate society’s rule and enact a greater debt by the numerosity of the crimes even if each indiviual crime is minimal. The issue is complicated in single-time sex offenders. But the recividism is so high as said. It’s still somewhat problematic to punish someone to a greater degree because of the high likelihood that they committ future crimes. But I feel more comfortable in this case than others because of the staggeringly high rate of recidivism. And totally comfortable for those who’ve actually repeatedly raped or molested young children. I don’t see this as much less of crime than murder or one where the perpetrator has much less debt they owe to society.

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
csuson wrote:
On second thought, maybe it’s time we cleaned the fucking filth from our society. Let’s shoot the bastards.

I’m the first to say that we have gotten too weak and too forgiving as a society. But killing the sex offenders would make us as bad or worse than those we oppose. It is not right to kill a sick person, because they are sick. These are not normal, functional individuals. As the laws are written right now, they get the assigned penalty for their crimes, then regain their freedom. In order to do something about this morally, and ethically, we would have to change the laws from the inside out the proper way, and then enforce the new laws.

When we begin wholesale slaughter, we become no better than Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, or our very own George Washington. GW slaughtered entire native tribes wholesale.

Say we began killing pedophiles, then it would extend to necropheliacs, then rapists, then sadists and bdsm’s, possibly next even swingers and fornicators. But since we can kill sex offenders, why not kill theives? Hell if we can kill theives why not kill vandals? Drunk Drivers? Who would be the deciding line in this slaughter? No man would have the right to play god and decide who dies and who lives. Do we trust our government to decide who lives and dies? Our voters? Supreme Court?

As soon as this can of worms got opened, America as we know it would be in for its final downfall.

Killing child molesters and rapists would make us as bad as the perpetrators themselves? How did you come to that conclusion? You obviously aren’t close to anyone who has suffered through this because if you were, your response would be different. The vast majority of these offenders know that what they’re doing is wrong. They just don’t give a damn. You can’t convince me otherwise that if they knew for certain that swift and certain death would await them, there would be much less of this happening. Killing these menaces to society is not going to cause a decline in civilization.[/quote]

They knew what they were doing was wrong. But it’s a serious sickness. Something fatally, fatally flawed. And I don’t actually believe that the death penalty for such a crime would much decrease the incidence. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be employed for retributavist reasons. Most of the research shows that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent even for murders. Those who are depraved or desperate enough to do these things are going to do them regardless.

[quote]makkun wrote:
Therapy costs money and being ‘tough on crime’ is much more popular than investing into sex offenders.[/quote]

Exactly right. One therapy session per week doesn’t amount to much when all the other hours of the week are spent watching your back in a prison environment.

On that note, why not save money by rearranging the prison environment to be a comprehensive educational and brainwashing complex based on psychological principles to create model citizens?

Sing it loud!

Could you imagine the potential embarrassment and humiliation of a potential pedophile trying to get help? Imagine yourself walking into a counseling center, looking into the psychologist’s eyes and saying, “I have sexual fantasies about little boys/girls?”

^^^ This was a mental exercise in “understanding and forgiveness” back in my church youth group.

I can imagine my first reaction would just be to put it off and hope it all just goes away.

Maybe there could be a 1-800 number for anonymous counseling for people who feel they are at risk?