Food For Thought
Posted by
David
at
2/12/2011 09:53:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Original Essay
Imagining the Worst: Just What Was That "Assault" Precisely?
The next time you read in the papers or, more likely, hear on television, of an adult male being arrested for the sexual assault of a juvenile male, take a moment to ponder what could possibly be meant by the term "sexual assault'' or one of several other terms, such as "rape'' or "molest".
If you're like most people, you probably imagine the worst, or something close to it, such as forcible penetration (of the youth) or forcible fellatio (of the man). In other words, a non-consensual act with a goal of sexual satisfaction for the man but with wanton disregard for the pleasure or welfare of the youth.
If these are the first possibilities that come to mind, then the government agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting these cases are perfectly happy to have you believe so.
And, for that matter, those who pass for journalists today clearly take personal satisfaction in injecting additional scandal into any story involving "sexual assault" of a child. They are loathe to report any detail which either mitigates the circumstances or humanizes the adult "perpetrator". Getting public approval very much depends upon the level of outrage expressed by the reporter in any case involving children and sex.
But the reality is that simple "touching" of the youth of any part of his body-shoulders, arms, back, legs, hair- can and frequently do qualify as "sexual assault" or "molestation". Both parties can be fully clothed with all touching occurring over the clothes. It can still be charged as "sexual assault".
In their own assault on civil liberties, the grand alliance of sex-hating religious conservatives and sex-hating gender feminists have been wildly successful in defining "sexual assault" ever more widely. Indeed, they are still doing so. What was once considered to be affectionate became "inappropriate" and finally, "abusive" and "assaultive" and can now be prosecuted as a crime.
In addition to being distinctly inconvenient for the authorities to release those details constituting a "sexual assault", there is also a long-standing social taboo against openly discussing specific sexual acts in detail, especially when they involve children. This cultural prudishness further serves to obfuscate the true nature of a "sexual assault".
It should be obvious that any detail shedding light on the true nature of an alleged "assault" is necessary in forming an opinion upon its veracity. The media-consuming public seems unaware and unconcerned that they are being robbed of this opportunity.
So, the next time you read or hear of a case where an adult has been charged with "molesting" a child (or adolescent), ponder for a moment how little was actually communicated about the alleged "crime".
Posted by
David
at
2/05/2011 10:03:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice, Original Essay
If Oprah's Lying About Being Sexually Abused As A Child, Who Else Might Be?
I want to be clear at the outset, I have no idea whether Oprah is lying about being sexually abused as a child or not. I have no way of knowing.
It has been alleged by her cousin, however, that she made the story up, as well as the story about growing up amongst filth, in order to help advance her career. Indeed, one could argue that Oprah's life-narrative of abuse and deprivation was essential in catapulting her to stardom and beyond.
Her cousin claims that, when asked why she had lied, Oprah replied "because that's what people want to hear" and that the abuse story "helped make me what I am today.''
But of course, I really don't know if she was abused or not. And I cannot know, since we only have Oprah's words asserting that she was abused and her cousin's words saying that she's a liar.
And that's just my point: hundreds of thousands of individuals, the great majority of them men, have been tried and convicted in this country for sexual abuse of children on the basis of their accuser's testimony and nothing else.
And often, the child accusers have themselves been arm-twisted into giving incriminating testimony by others, usually the police and prosecution team or even, perhaps, by one of their own parents.
Few people realize just how little evidence is needed to successfully convict someone of child sexual abuse.
After the Michael Jackson trial ended in an acquittal, many journalists, who should have known better, attributed his success in beating the conviction to "a lack of evidence.''
Actually, no. They're wrong. The evidence presented at his trial would have been plenty to convict him had he not had a defense "dream-team" and an adoring fan base who would have been scandalized to discover that it is really very easy to be convicted of sexual abuse in America.
Virtually everyone else of less-than god-like fame and fortune would be languishing in prison today with little hope of getting out within their lifetimes had they faced identical charges supported by identical victim testimony.
All it takes are words, painstakingly extracted from a kid on the stand, to convict. Testimony resulting from days of coercive coaching, cajoling and arm-twisting send men to prison in this country, in this day and age, for the rest of their lives. And it forever brands and marginalizes them should they ever be so lucky as to get out.
Let that truth sink in.
Posted by
David
at
2/01/2011 06:40:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice, Original Essay
Family Extorts Paedophile of more than £50,000
Posted by
David
at
2/01/2011 11:42:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: Targets of Violence
Words Are Weapons -- Salem Revisited
This, from Norm Pattis' legal blog, www.pattisblog.com
There will come a time in which our incredulity about the words of children looks as troubling as the manner in which we treated accused witches in Salem, Massachussetts. In 1692, 19 men and women and two dogs were convicted and executed for consorting with the devil. These deaths were the product of the words of children who claimed to have been seduced by a Satan-worshipping household servant named Tituba.
Arthur Miller wrote a play about the trials in 1953, The Crucible. He viewed the Salem trials as a parable through which the activities of the House Un-American Committee's prosecution of Americans for disloyalty could be viewed. What gives so much power to mere accusation?, he wondered. Why are some times ripe for an hysteria that is so easily seen to be false in a calmer time?
I wish Miller were writing now. I'd like to see what he would make of the moral panic present in our courts whenever the state chooses to adopt the words of a child as a truth worth fighting for. We do not permit children to make contracts and regard them as incapable in most of life's serious affairs. But yet, if the state chooses to take the uncorroborated claim of a child as truth, to treat it as a disclosure based upon which it can and should deprive a man or woman of liberty, then a defendant is left often as helpless to combat the claims as were the true victims at Salem.
I re-read The Crucible a few weeks ago to prepare for a civil trial in which a client sued the mother of a child who made extravagant claims. The mother defended by saying that it was her job to believe and support her child. I asked the jury to conclude that it was also the mother's job to behave responsbily, and to provide guidance to her child. Treating children as oracles is always dangerous. We won, proving defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, known in some states as outrage. It was an encouraging verdict.
I read the following words from The Crucible to the jury during my opening statement and closing argument. "Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God's fingers? I'll tell you what's walking Salem -- vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law."
Children do not deserve privileged status in our courts. Perhaps it is time to reinvigorate the Mosaic "two witness" rule, once required in homicide cases, and apply it to child sex cases. In those cases in which liberty hangs solely on the word of a child, and in which there is no other witness or any physical proof of harm, it should simply be too risky to prosecute merely on the word of a child. Massachussetts learned that the hard way in Salem; why do we need to learn the lesson all over again?
Posted by
David
at
1/31/2011 07:54:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice, Witch Hunt
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us".
- William O. Douglas
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
- Noam Chomsky
Posted by
David
at
1/29/2011 07:06:00 PM
0
comments
"It is awful" to prosecute a 15-year-old girl who told a rape lie that got a boy arrested, says women's rights advocat
In the news story posted below, at the end of this post, a 15-year-old girl was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice for telling a rape lie that caused the boy she accused, who was just 14, to be arrested. She claimed she was raped, but the court rejected her defense, and she was convicted. Yet, according to the news story: "The decision to prosecute the girl, now 16, was criticised by anti-rape campaigners. Lisa Longstaff, of the campaign group Women Against Rape, said: 'It is awful that a girl so young has been prosecuted in this way.'"
Read that again, and let it sink in.
If the girl's lie had its intended effect, would anyone have objected if theboy had been tried (and in many jurisdictions, he might have been tried as an adult) for the rape of an innocent young woman? Would anyone have said "it's awful" that a boy so young should be prosecuted?"
The question scarcely survives its statement.
So, why the double standard, Ms. Longstaff? Why are you intent on treating 15-year-old young women -- who, on average, are more mature in every measurable way than 14-year-old boys -- as if they are infants and not free moral agents who ought to know better? Why is the sexual grievance industry so intent on shielding false rape accusers from the responsibilities of their vile acts?
For every other criminal act, our society believes that punishing the wrongdoer, among other things, has the effect of deterring other would-be criminals. Why is that not a concern when women lie about rape?
When anti-rape campaigners inject themselves into cases where there was no rape, when they advocate on behalf of rape liars, they aren't helping rape victims. In almost every false rape case, judges and police officers bemoan the harm done to actual rape victims by the lies told by false rape accusers. The advocacy here by Women Against Rape trivializes rape by conflating rape victims with false rape accusers; by enabling would-be false rape accusers to spin their lies and possibly hurt other flesh-and-blood men and boys; and by diminishing the integrity of every woman who legitimately cries rape. In short, this unconscionable advocacy hurts not only innocent men and boys but actual rape victims.
Somehow, it seems they don't care that their advocacy is having the opposite effect of its stated intent to help rape victims. How could that be, and what, exactly, is really going on here?
When anti-rape crusaders advocate on behalf of rape liars, they are pursuing what can only be described as a politicized, gender-divisive agenda that seems intended to announce to all that world that the victimization of our sons is not worthy of society's attention. When it comes to even far-fetched claims of rape, men and boys have no entitlement to the mantle of victimhood.
This mentality, of course, smells of feminist bloodlust, an ugly desire for payback for the purported past sins of the "patriarchy." Even though the 14-year-old male victim in this case is a real victim, and even though he had nothing to do with any past sins of the "patriarchy."
Shame on you, Lisa Longstaff. Your advocacy here is disgraceful.
I hope that Ms. Longstaff doesn't have a teenage son who someday might be falsely accused of rape. Perhaps then she will understand that the falsely accused are treated no better than flotsam, collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. In "he said/she said" rape claims involving two teens, even though either one of the parties might be guilty of a crime (rape for him, perverting the course of justice for her) the boy alone is routinely arrested and charged, while the girl is treated as a "victim." Boys are often subjected to indignities in detention, inflicted either by the staff or other inmates. Even when they are exonerated, they are expected to just "take it like a man." The experience of being falsely accused of rape is inhumane generally, but doubly so when it happens to a teenage boy.
The district judge concluded that the girl knew that claiming she had been raped would get the boy into trouble. It was possible, the judge added, that the girl had lied because she feared she was pregnant or it could be that she had lied to "cover her tracks."
In other words, just another day in our false rape society.
(If you want to read more about how false rape claims are treated in 21st Century America, with all its supposed enlightenment, see here.)
Posted by
David
at
1/29/2011 04:32:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice
Virginia lawmaker wants to castrate sex offenders, as alternative to costly state treatment programs
Ed: The underlying assumption behind all such hysterical and hateful legislation is that:
1. All of those sex offenders convicted and sent to prison are guilty.
2. Of those who are guilty, their crimes were "sexually violent", "heinous" or otherwise "castration-worthy". (please do see previous pieces defining "sexual violence")
Those sane individuals who understand this issue in sufficient depth to hold a rational opinion do not believe either of those assumptions.
They know that every aspect of the laws and social zeitgeist surrounding sex hysteria are informed by ignorance and an atavistic hatred of "other".
They know that the term "sexually 'violent' predator" is a complete perversion of language and a baldly cynical attempt to inflame the fires of hysteria, invariably with a hidden agenda of gaining power, funding, or influence.
The ultimate goal of those propagating such laws and ideas is TOTAL, SOCIAL COMPLIANCE, and it will NOT stop with sex offenders.
This can only get worse as society's ignorant and brutal classes organize and act while the rational and the intelligent sit on the sidelines merely observing.
DAILY NEWS
Virginia State Sen. Emmett Hanger has proposed a bill that would have Virginia state agencies study whether castrating sex offenders would save the state money.
Republican State Sen. Emmett Hanger's bill would have state agencies study whether Virginia should start castrating sex offenders instead of confining them to treatment programs after they get out of jail.
Former Gov. Timothy Kaine vetoed a similar bill in 2007.
Hanger's critics call the idea barbaric, but he said it would save the state money and could provide a cure.
"I don't think it's radical at all," Hanger told the Associated Press. "It's just something that's not typically the thing you want to bring up in polite conversation, but again the whole subject area is not for polite conversation.
"We're talking about people who are so driven because of the tendencies from the chemicals and the hormones inside their body to perform heinous acts."
Virginia is one of 20 states with a civil commitment program, whose purpose is to keep violent sex offenders off the streets by allowing the government to keep them in custody – in psychiatric hospitals, for example – after they are released from prison.
The state's commitment program ballooned to $24 million this year, up from $2.7 million in 2004, and Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to spend $70 million over the next two years.
Hanger's bill wants state agencies to study the option of physical castration – cutting off a man's testicles or removing a woman's ovaries. Louisiana and Texas have legalized physical castration, while six other states allow for some form of castration of sex offenders, including chemical, which uses pharmaceuticals to stop a person's sex drive.
The bill doesn't only aim below the belt, though.
It also would require the state to consider changing the criteria for entering the civil commitment program, as well as creating housing options for those released, who are forbidden from halfway houses.
Some critics argued that castration would not be effective because it would not address the motivation that causes sexual predators to act on their impulses.
"When abuse and mutilation of a human being is presented as an acceptable alternative to responsible treatment and housing for those deemed as sexually violent predators, there exists a fault of reason," Mary Devoy, founder of Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, told the AP.
Posted by
David
at
1/26/2011 05:20:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice
When A Boy Wants To Be A Man
Ours is not a time and place in which a man can easily wax rhapsodic about his childhood sex with married men and priests; but Sergio - an accomplished, handsome and quiet middle-aged resident of Wilton Manors, in a fifteen year relationship - wanted his story told, albeit anonymously. What happened to Sergio is not unique, but his conclusions constitute a confession usually never given voice. Over dinner, I recorded that story and deliver it to you in his own words. Without judgment. Without commentary.
“I grew up in a city on the Italian Riviera that had been devastated by World War II. It was rebuilt but it had lost its soul and its prosperity. My father struggled to find work to support his family of seven. In the 1960s, he took a second job running the movie theater owned by our parish church. My mother was the cashier and I sold candy in the lobby. My father was a deeply religious man. When the canisters of film arrived on Fridays, he would pre-screen them and if he saw a kiss or even a bedroom, he would cut and splice them. He didn’t know that I was downstairs in the theater watching the uncut versions. My job was to clean up the projection room for him. I would save the scraps he had cut and hold them up to the light in my bedroom. Very Cinema Paradiso.
“Parents dropped their kids off at the theater on Saturdays because it was safe. Before the movie started, the priest would get up on stage and make us say ten Hail Marys. The church was the center of our life and I was leader of the altar boys. We each had a card that the priests would sign every time we served Mass. After twenty times, we got a prize, like candy or a soccer ball. If you didn’t go to Mass on Sunday, you couldn’t play soccer on the church team or use the church recreation field.
“Even as a small child, I learned that sex was a sin. I confessed it all the time. There were seven priests in that parish. Each one had his own confessional with his name on it and a bell. When you rang the bell, that priest would come to the church and hear your confession. I went all the time because of sex and because they taught me that in confession I could wipe the slate clean. I had to lie in each confession because I didn’t want to admit I had just gone the day before. Each day I rang a different bell and confessed to a different priest so they wouldn’t know it was me again so soon, and I never said that I masturbated, only that I had ‘done bad things behind my mother’s back.’
“One of the altar boys who was my age took me alone into a room at the church youth center. He put my hand on his dick and taught me how to rub it. I loved it and wanted to do it every chance we got. Soon there were other altar boys in our group. This kind of fun is how we ended all our Catholic activities until one time, one of the boys ejaculated and that scared the shit out of us.
“When I was about ten years old, I was in the movie theater in the back row on the aisle. One of the priests was sitting next to me. He was the youngest of the seven, maybe 25 or 30, and he was in charge of the youth groups. The other altar boys were spread throughout the theater. I felt his knee against my leg. I didn’t move away. It felt very nice, all through the movie. Next week, the same thing, only I put on a lot more pressure. I started leaning against him. He took my hand and drew it into his robes and into his pants and I grabbed his dick, and I have to say it was the best thing I ever felt in my life. I didn’t want to let it go for the rest of my life. I didn’t move it. I just held it. I felt that either I had died and gone to heaven or that I was home. Next day, I went to the church and rang his bell. Instead of the confessional, he took me into the storage basement of the church where we were surrounded by statues and all the stuff used on feast days. The only thing I wanted was to take out his dick. I was really the aggressor. We did it frequently. I only knew that it felt good. He never asked me not to tell. He never forced me to do anything I didn’t want to do. Sometimes it was with the priest and three altar boys. Never kissing or hugging. Just the sex organ. No incentives offered, just my own pleasure. If I did not have that experience with the priest, I would have found it somewhere else.
“One time, my father kicked a man out of the theater because a boy said he had been touched by him, and my father chased him down the street yelling insults at him. The only thing I wanted to do was to run after that man, grab him by the hand and say, ‘Take me with you.’ I had fantasies about our family doctor, that he would take me away and we would live on an island where everyone was just like us. No wonder I live in Wilton Manors which is exactly that kind of island.
“After the priest, I started seeking other opportunities. There were always several married men at the church who I was having sex with. With one I had a code. If his wife was not home, there was a white towel on the door. With another one, I would go to the cemetery with him when he bought flowers to place on his wife’s tomb in the little chapel over the family vault, and that is where we had sex. In my little head it began to click that I should get married like them but still do this forever. The other altar boys I had sex with all got married. I did not want to be a priest. I hated the priests who came into our church to recruit for the seminary. They would take me for a walk and put their arms around me and say that Jesus was calling me.
“Also in my head it began to click that sex was forbidden by the church but that everyone did it anyway. We were strictly forbidden even to watch when the bull was brought to a neighbor’s house to stud the cows; but every time we saw the truck go by with the bull in it, all of us boys would say, ‘Okay, we know where we’re going later.’
“When I was 18, the pressure was on me to get married. For two years, I had a girlfriend who broke off our engagement because I would not have sex with her. I left the country and went to London where I joined a huge gay community. I met mostly older gay men and one friend brought me to an Anglican church that hosted gay nights with dances and raffles and events. My friend said, ‘Honey, you’re home.’ I went home with someone on my first night there. It’s funny that some church is always involved in the milestones of my sex life. The experience of religion is the experience of the erotic, and that is something people won’t talk about.
“They say we repeat our early sexual experience, but I would never have sex with a boy. I shy away from young people. I’m not comfortable. I don’t know why. I owe a lot to what some older guys did for me. Maybe I should be helping younger guys.
“I was absolutely not abused. After the first contact with his knee, I was going after that priest more than he was going after me. That is the truth. There is no doubt in my mind, that I wanted it more than he did. I have a very difficult time with these people who are suing priests because for me, there was no coercion. He didn’t even offer candy or gifts. There was no incentive but my own pleasure. All these years when all of these abuse stories came out, I never felt sympathy for those who brought charges against priests. I know that I was very young when it happened to me but I could have stayed with it or walked away. Some of my friends walked away. I didn’t. I went back. I rang that bell. I liked it.
“Today kids don’t have the same opportunity. Those married men would today be classed as predators. It never occurred to me, never crossed my mind that I would turn in any of them. I believe that now kids 12-16 are a lot more aware of things than I was. I think they have some malice that I didn’t have. I believe that what I was doing was not wrong. It was consensual. Some would say that you can’t have consensual sex when one of the parties is a kid. That’s bullshit. I was the aggressor. I had to ring that bell. I had to go up the stairs. I had to seek it out. Either I am a freak or there is something else that I either can’t explain or don’t understand.
“Sex comes with the baggage of guilt. The fact is that when I was a kid, I couldn’t talk about sex with anybody, and this sense of sin screws you up with your whole life. I think I am a better person because of what happened to me. That’s how I was able to understand who I was. That so many people in the church did what I did, there is not anything wrong with it. We are sexual beings. We can control our urges as we get older only because they diminish. The church gave me not just my sexual identity but my whole identity. It showed me that what they preach is not the truth, and I think the priests wanted me to know that. My experience freed me from big baggage.”
Comments
#4 Martin D. Goodkin 2011-01-24 13:39
JP, there is a difference--I, and in most cases Sergio,did the pursuing--we knew what we wanted and went for it.
I knew I was gay by the time I was 10--hey I played 'doctor' with the older boys of 12-13, not the girls--but didn't act on it til I was 12.
I was VERY active in NYC as a teenager going to the baths, bars, Rockefeller building 8th floor tearoom, the subway restrooms, etc. but, again, I did the pursuing.
I am sure some of the guys I picked up were predators but I didn't care--I got what I want.
I am, and always will be, indebted to those older men who taught me so much including not to be ashamed of who I am.
Sorry you had a 'bad' time and it sounds as if you are still carrying the baggage of what happened that long ago time.
Maybe I was lucky because all I have 50+ years later are kind warm thoughts and memories, including remembering many names, of those 'old' men.
Quote
#3 JP 2011-01-24 13:08
Marina Fontanascura's story rang several bells for me since there were aspects in the narrative concerning my own pursuit of adults when I was a teenager. But I have to say that there were also aspects that disturbed me a little. As an eight year old I was sexually abused by the verger of the church where I was a choir boy and it was a very unpleasant experience. For someone that age, I truly did not have the ability to say "no' and although it would be wrong to say that the encounter coloured the rest of my life, it did awaken my sexuality at much too early an age which brought its own problems. The other important point is where the person telling the story says he has a difficult time with the people who are bringing cases against the priests. I think it's worth pointing out that for a heterosexually inclined boy, being molested by a man would have the same adverse effect as a homosexually inclined boy being molested by a woman. It is a trifle naive to believe that all children have the ability to resist. Recently there was a TV program concerning four middle-aged men who had been systematically abused by a school master. As they recalled the abuse, their distress was absolutely genuine and very hard to watch. One man said that the worst thing about it was that he felt terribly guilty for enjoying the attention the abuse was giving him. I think when young, it is extremely difficult to sort out emotions aroused in these sort of encounters. We are all different and we all react to situations in different ways which is why I sincerely believe that adults have an absolute responsibility concerning the way they treat young people and therefore no form of sexual abuse of the young should be tolerated.
Quote
#2 sam 2011-01-21 20:44
I have to agree. When I was a kid of about eleven or twelve I started actively pursuing older men. I remember one man I knew liked me, he was my father's friend, but he kept turning me down. Finally one weekend I knew his wife was out of town I went over to his house and succeeded in my quest. I was thirteen at the time. Those are the best memories of my life.
Because of the hysteria, the gay community of America has become extremely hostile to boys who want to express their sexuality. It's really sad, and I think very damaging.
Quote
#1 Martin D. Goodkin 2011-01-21 11:38
At the ages of 12-13 in the late 40s I was cruising 'old men' of 20, 21 in the Bronx at the local movie theatre. By the time I was in my mid-teens I was going to the bars and baths in Manhattan going after the older men in their 30s-40s.
I looked older, was never questioned about my age, and agresively pursued the older man. I have many tales and in fact wrote a book called "The Free Prisoner", published a couple of years ago telling the story.
Having always gone for older men now at 75 I am not finding too many!!! LOL
Posted by
David
at
1/25/2011 02:09:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Courageous Journalism
Who Screams For Justice For 12 Year Old Jonathan Foster?
Posted by
David
at
1/18/2011 06:48:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice, Original Essay
Eek! A Male! Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer.
By LENORE SKENAZY
Last week, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Timothy Murray, noticed smoke coming out of a minivan in his hometown of Worcester. He raced over and pulled out two small children, moments before the van's tire exploded into flames. At which point, according to the AP account, the kids' grandmother, who had been driving, nearly punched our hero in the face.
Why?
Mr. Murray said she told him she thought he might be a kidnapper.
And so it goes these days, when almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep. I call it "Worst-First" thinking: Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.
Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening."
Now, a guy turned on by diaper changes has got to be even rarer than a guy turned on by Sponge Bob. But "Worst-First" thinking means suspecting the motives of any man who chooses to work around kids.
Maybe the daycare center felt it had to be extra cautious, to avoid lawsuits. But regular folk are suspicious, too. Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said—until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.
Given the level of distrust, is it any wonder that, as the London Telegraph reported last month, the British Musicians' Union warned its members they are no longer to touch a child's fingers, even to position them correctly on the keys? Or that a public pool in Sydney, Australia last fall prohibited boys from changing in the same locker room as the men? (According to the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the men demanded this, fearing false accusations.)
What's really ironic about all this emphasis on perverts is that it's making us think like them. Remember the story that broke right before Christmas? The FBI warned law-enforcement agencies that the new Video Barbie could be used to make kiddie porn. The warning was not intended for the public but it leaked out. TV news celebrated the joy of the season by telling parents that any man nice enough to play dolls with their daughters could really be videotaping "under their little skirts!" as one Fox News reporter said.
This queasy climate is making men think twice about things they used to do unselfconsciously. A friend of mine, Eric Kozak, was working for a while as a courier. Driving around an unfamiliar neighborhood, he says, "I got lost. I saw a couple kids by the side of the road and rolled down my window to ask, 'Where is such-and-such road?' They ran off screaming."
Another dad told me about taking his three-year-old to play football in the local park, where he'd help organize the slightly older kids into a game. Over time, one of the kids started to look up to him. "He wanted to stand close to me, wanted approval, Dad stuff, I guess. And because of this whole 'stranger danger' mentality, I could sense this sort of wary disapproval from the few other parents at the playground. So I just stopped going."
And that's not the worst. In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her. You know: A man driving around with a little girl in his car? She ended up at a pond and drowned.
We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.
Ms. Skenazy is a public speaker and author of the blog and book, "Free-Range Kids" (Wiley, 2010).
Posted by
David
at
1/12/2011 01:45:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Hysteria
'Stranger Danger' and the Decline of Halloween
Wall Street Journal
No child has ever been killed by poisoned candy. Ever.
By LENORE SKENAZY
Halloween is the day when America market-tests parental paranoia. If a new fear flies on Halloween, it's probably going to catch on the rest of the year, too.
Take "stranger danger," the classic Halloween horror. Even when I was a kid, back in the "Bewitched" and "Brady Bunch" costume era, parents were already worried about neighbors poisoning candy. Sure, the folks down the street might smile and wave the rest of the year, but apparently they were just biding their time before stuffing us silly with strychnine-laced Smarties.
That was a wacky idea, but we bought it. We still buy it, even though Joel Best, a sociologist at the University of Delaware, has researched the topic and spends every October telling the press that there has never been a single case of any child being killed by a stranger's Halloween candy. (Oh, yes, he concedes, there was once a Texas boy poisoned by a Pixie Stix. But his dad did it for the insurance money. He was executed.)
This Halloween, costumes based on "Jersey Shore" stars Snooki, DJ Pauly D and The Situation are flying off the shelves. WSJ's Elizabeth Holmes reports.Anyway, you'd think that word would get out: poisoned candy not happening. But instead, most Halloween articles to this day tell parents to feed children a big meal before they go trick-or-treating, so they won't be tempted to eat any candy before bringing it home for inspection. As if being full has ever stopped any kid from eating free candy!
So stranger danger is still going strong, and it's even spread beyond Halloween to the rest of the year. Now parents consider their neighbors potential killers all year round. That's why they don't let their kids play on the lawn, or wait alone for the school bus: "You never know!" The psycho-next-door fear went viral.
Then along came new fears. Parents are warned annually not to let their children wear costumes that are too tight—those could seriously restrict breathing! But not too loose either—kids could trip! Fall! Die!
Treating parents like idiots who couldn't possibly notice that their kid is turning blue or falling on his face might seem like a losing proposition, but it caught on too.
Halloween taught marketers that parents are willing to be warned about anything, no matter how preposterous, and then they're willing to be sold whatever solutions the market can come up with. Face paint so no mask will obscure a child's vision. Purell, so no child touches a germ. And the biggest boondoggle of all: an adult-supervised party, so no child encounters anything exciting, er, "dangerous."
Think of how Halloween used to be the one day of the year when gaggles of kids took to the streets by themselves—at night even. Big fun! Low cost! But once the party moved inside, to keep kids safe from the nonexistent poisoners, in came all the nonsense. The battery-operated caskets. The hired witch. The Costco veggie trays and plastic everything else. Halloween went from hobo holiday to $6 billion extravaganza.
And it blazed the way for adult-supervised everything else. Let kids make their own fun? Not anymore! Let's sign our toddlers up for "movement" classes! Let's bring on the extracurricular activities, travel soccer and manicure parties for the older kids. Once Halloween got outsourced to adults, no kids-only activity was safe. Goodbye sandlot, hello batting coach!
And now comes the latest Halloween terror: Across the country, cities and states are passing waves of laws preventing registered sex offenders from leaving their homes—or sometimes even turning on their lights—on Halloween.
The reason? Same old same old: safety. As a panel of "experts" on the "Today" show warned viewers recently: Don't let your children trick-or-treat without you "any earlier than [age] 13, because people put on masks, they put on disguises, and there are still people who do bad things."
Perhaps there are. But Elizabeth Letourneau, an associate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, studied crime statistics from 30 states and found, "There is zero evidence to support the idea that Halloween is a dangerous date for children in terms of child molestation."
In fact, she says, "We almost called this paper, 'Halloween: The Safest Day of the Year,' because it was just so incredibly rare to see anything happen on that day."
Why is it so safe? Because despite our mounting fears and apoplectic media, it is still the day that many of us, of all ages, go outside. We knock on doors. We meet each other. And all that giving and taking and trick-or-treating is building the very thing that keeps us safe: community.
We can kill off Halloween, or we can accept that it isn't dangerous and give it back to the kids. Then maybe we can start giving them back the rest of their childhoods, too.
Ms. Skenazy is the author of "Free-Range Kids" (Jossey-Bass, 2010). She blogs at www.freerangekids.com.
Posted by
David
at
10/29/2010 05:57:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: Hysteria
'Vulnerable' man lured to death with offer of sex act
Posted by
Moderator
at
10/14/2010 05:20:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Vigilantism
Judge Weinstein Takes On Child Pornography Laws
New York Times
In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.
Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”
There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.
Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.
“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.
“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”
The man he has spent three years trying to save from a long incarceration is Pietro Polizzi, a married father of five who collected more than 5,000 graphic pictures of children. If prosecuted in a New York State court, he would have faced a maximum prison sentence of four years. Instead, in federal court, he faced a minimum of five years and a recommended sentence of 11 to 14 years. Because of Judge Weinstein’s intervention, he remains free as he awaits another trial.
“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”
The child pornography industry has flourished through the Internet, with the number of federal cases growing from fewer than 100 annually to more than 1,600 last year. As the number grew, Congress increased the recommended prison terms and established a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for anyone convicted of receiving child pornography. According to the federal defenders office, the average sentence was 91 months in 2007, up from 21 months a decade before.
But the tough penalties have chafed at many judges, echoing previous battles over drug cases. Last year, judges imposed sentences below the recommended range in more than half of all child pornography cases.
“What has caused concern in courts across the nation is that we have a lot of relatively law-abiding individuals sitting in the basement downloading the wrong kind of dirty pictures facing not just prison sentences but incredibly long prison sentences,” said Douglas A. Berman, a professor at Moritz College of Law, who studies sentencing issues.
In one recent case, James L. Graham, a United States District Court judge in Ohio, sentenced a 67-year-old man who had suffered a stroke to a single day in prison, along with restrictions on computer use and registration as a sex offender. As part of a deal with prosecutors, the man had pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, which carries no mandatory sentence.
“When you have to sit there on the bench and look at someone like my stroke victim and say, ‘I have to send this man to prison for six years,’ it just doesn’t feel right,” he explained in an interview. “It’s not right.”
Child advocates like Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, are upset by such thinking. “Real children are harmed in the production of these images,” he said, “and these same children are harmed every time these images are downloaded and viewed.”
At 88, Judge Weinstein is one of the longest serving members of the federal bench. Supporters praise his taking unusual actions in pursuit of his notions of justice, like for a time refusing to handle drug cases out of opposition to mandatory minimums. Critics say that in the process, he disregards the law.
(On Thursday, he made headlines by refusing to dismiss a lawsuit by a public school teacher removed from the classroom for allowing students to use vulgarities during a lesson on H.I.V. He ruled that she appeared to have followed the spirit of a state syllabus that directed that students be encouraged to use sexual terms they understood.)
“Jack is somebody who will step out and do what he thinks is right and take his chances of being overturned by an appeals court,” said John S. Martin, who cited his disagreement with mandatory sentences when he retired from the federal bench in Manhattan. “He sees the injustice in these things and he tries to do something about it.”
Both sides point to his efforts in the Polizzi case as quintessential Weinstein.
In 2005, Mr. Polizzi signed up for a child pornography Web site. He began obsessively stockpiling thousands of images, mostly of prepubescent girls. When F.B.I. agents arrived with a search warrant, he led them to the two-story garage where he kept his collection behind locked doors, saying, “The pictures of the children are upstairs.”
Child pornography cases almost always end with guilty pleas. But when the case was assigned to Judge Weinstein, Mr. Polizzi’s lawyer recommended that he go to trial.
The lawyer used an insanity defense, claiming Mr. Polizzi had been repeatedly raped as a child and had collected the pictures not for sexual gratification, but in hopes of finding evidence of his own abuse — claims the prosecution dismissed as implausible. When the first of the images were shown in court, Mr. Polizzi collapsed and was taken to a hospital.
The jury was given the standard instruction not to consider possible punishment during deliberations. After three days, on Oct. 5, 2007, Mr. Polizzi was convicted of all 12 counts of receipt of child pornography and 11 counts of possession. Then Judge Weinstein broke from the script with a question almost never posed in court: If the jurors had known about the minimum prison sentence, would they have voted to convict?
Five jurors spoke up against imprisonment. Two said they would have changed their votes. Judge Weinstein tossed out the guilty verdict on the more serious receipt counts and ordered a new trial. He sentenced Mr. Polizzi to a year in prison for the possession counts, which Mr. Polizzi has served.
Judge Weinstein declared that Mr. Polizzi had a constitutional right to have a jury know the punishment that would accompany a guilty verdict, a right he said he had violated. He pledged to inform the next jury of the mandatory minimum sentence. That idea, floated by a federal judge in Manhattan several years earlier in another child pornography case but rejected on appeal, would give jurors the option of refusing to convict if the punishment seemed disproportionate, as several jurors had indicated they believed it was in Mr. Polizzi’s case.
“That was quite an unusual way of handling it,” said Amy Baron-Evans, the national sentencing resource counsel for the federal public defenders’ office. “Usually the judges are just stuck with the mandatory minimum.”
The Court of Appeals last year overruled Judge Weinstein’s order of a new trial, but left unresolved whether it was permissible to tell the jury about the punishment. The case was remanded, and Judge Weinstein, after consulting with other District Court judges, again ordered a new trial, though this time on different grounds. And again he pledged to inform the jury of the mandatory minimum sentences. That decision is under appeal.
In the meantime, the cases keep coming.
On Wednesday, Judge Weinstein dealt with a man who had pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. He imposed the mandatory five-year minimum prison term, though unhappily.
“This is an unnecessarily harsh and cruel sentence under the circumstances,” he said. “The court has no alternative under the statute. This defendant requires treatment and a stable life outside of prison. Prison will only harm him and will do nothing to protect society, since he does not constitute a risk of crime or any acting out towards children.”
“I’m sorry,” he added, “there is nothing I can do in this case.”
Posted by
David
at
5/21/2010 02:38:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Injustice
Worst-Case Thinking
"Our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. " http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/12/... Security conference: Precautionary principle: Iceland volcano affects organ donations: Areas where we tend to overestimate the threat: New particle accelerator may annihilate the planet: Movie plot threats: Rumsfeld quote: Making fun of the TSA: The TSA keeps a first-grader off airplanes: Frank Furedi on worst-case-thinking: How we are easily terrorized: Christmas Day underwear bomber: Times Square SUV bomber:
by Bruce Schneier
At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack.
I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios."
There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.
Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes.
Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible.
Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won't arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death.
Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking.
Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine.
Remember Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action.
Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation.
The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong.
Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful!
Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition.
Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats."
Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber.
When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves.
It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.
This essay was originally published on CNN.com, although they stripped out all the links.
http://www.ewi.info/dallas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
http://www.schneier.com/essay-170.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9905448-7.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-087.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/...
Possibilistic thinking:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/...
The TSA harasses a 93-year-old women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHxy5GattLY
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/...
Steven Hawking on communicating with aliens:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422/
http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/326/
http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/386/
http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-315.html
Posted by
David
at
5/16/2010 08:28:00 PM
1 comments
Labels: Hysteria
Nazis Started Pedophile Priest Panic In 1937
"There are cases of sexual abuse that are coming to light every day against a great number of the members of the Catholic clergy. Unfortunately, we are perhaps not talking so much about individual cases but rather a collective moral crisis that the cultural history of humanity may never have known at such a frightful and concerning level. Numerous priests and religious have confessed to the crime. There is no doubt that the thousands of cases that have come to be known to the authorities represent only a small fraction of the true number, since many molesters have been covered and hidden by the hierarchy." - Joseph Goebbels, 1937
Although the above quote could have appeared in any number of editorials in recent weeks, the statement was made by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels in 1937, according to Italian journalist Massimo Introvigne.
In an article published recently for Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, Introvigne says that Goebbels launched a fierce smear campaign against the Catholic Church following its condemnation of the Nazi regime that same year, attempting to convince the public that the Catholic priesthood was filled with child sex abusers.
Introvigne says that Goebbels' campaign followed the same pattern seen in recent media attacks on the Church. Although it was based on a few real cases that had come to light in 1936, and far fewer that the number of cases currently being discussed from mostly the 1960s and 70s, it exaggerated their extent and attempted to revive them after they had already been resolved, in an attempt to discredit Catholics.
"The cases, which were few, but real, produced a very strong reaction from the episcopate," writes Introvigne. "On June 2, 1936, the Bishop of Münster - Blessed Clemens August von Galen (1878-1946), who was the soul of Catholic resistance to Nazism, and who was beatified in 2005 by Benedict XVI - had a declaration read at all the Sunday Masses in which he expressed 'pain and sadness' for these 'abominable crimes' that "cover our Holy Church with ignominy.'"
The German episcopate soon after published a condemnation of the perpetrators, and implemented what Introvigne called "severe measures" to prevent future crimes. The bishops privately pointed out that the Hitler Youth and the schools had a far bigger problem with child sex abuse.
However, in March of 1937, the Nazis growing conflict with the Catholic Church came to a head, with the publication of the papal letter "Mit Brennender Sorge" (With Burning Concern), which was smuggled into the Riech and read from the pulpit of every Catholic parish. In it, Pope Pius XI condemned both the behavior and the philosophy of the Nazis in unequivocal terms, and defended the Church's Jewish heritage against Hitler's racist attacks.
Goebbels responded by reviving the charges of sex abuse against Catholic priests, and created new ones, according to Introvigne, who writes that "It was the anti-Nazi encyclical of Pius XI that led to the great campaign of 1937. [German Jesuit priest Walter] Mariaux proved it publishing highly detailed instructions sent by Goebbels to the Gestapo, the political police of the Third Reich, and above all to journalists, just a few days after the publication of Mit Brennender Sorge, inviting them to 'reopen' the cases from 1936 and also older cases, constantly recalling them to public opinion."
"Goebbels also ordered the Gestapo to find witnesses willing to accuse a certain number of priests, threatening them with immediate arrest if they didn't collaborate, even if they were children," he adds.
However, Introvigne writes that Fr. Mariaux published the confidential documents he had discovered in a two volume work in Spanish and English, which detailed the Nazis' attack on the Catholic Church, thus discrediting it.
"Thanks to the courage of Canaris and his friends, and to the persistence of the Jesuit detective Mariaux, the truth was already out during the war," notes Introvigne.
"The wickedness of the campaign of Goebbels aroused more indignation than the eventual guilt of some religious. The father of all moral panics in the area of pedophile priests blew up in the hands of the Nazi propagandists who had tried to organize it."
Related Links
Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation (English version)
http://www.cesnur.org/2010/mi-goebbels_en.html
Posted by
David
at
5/12/2010 11:12:00 PM
0
comments
Labels: Witch Hunt
Michelangelo and the Hand of God: Scandal at the Vatican
by Fr. Gordon J. MacRae on March 24, 2010
The next day I received a letter from Scott: “I hope you like the calendar!” he wrote. That confirmed it! My brother had gone mad! When I finally reached him by telephone, he told me that the calendar was entitled “Vatican City: Scenes from the Sistine Chapel.”
Posted by
David
at
4/09/2010 02:11:00 PM
0
comments
Calif. bills target sex offenders online
Editor: This is entirely about demagogues like George Runner exacting more revenge against sex offenders. To make their lives impossible into perpetuity is his sole aim. To marginalize sex offenders who have already served their sentences to the point of social slavery is what makes Senator George Runner tick. And, despite the fact that he is a Christian fundamentalist with a deep and abiding hatred for sexual freedom in general, he will, no doubt, receive lots of support across the political and theological spectrum for his continued expansion of governmental intrusion into every nook and cranny of everyone's - not just sex offender's - lives.
That the law is hardly enforceable on first reading is also not the point. The point of this law will be to criminalize acts committed by registered sex offenders that would never be criminal if exercised as a right by anyone else. By so doing, it further instills terror in people who, despite not committing new crimes and attempting to put their lives back together and contribute to society, must break absurd laws such as the one he is proposing in order to work and function in that very society, knowing that at any time they come under scrutiny by the police (a constant threat for the R.S.O.) their "crime" of not registering an email address will land them back in prison.
When are we going to stop taking the lead from the zealots amongst us, whether they are the most extreme sex-hating gender feminists or the religious sex-hating fanatics? The common denominator between them is authoritarianism and a contempt for the individual and, of course, a hatred of other people's sex lives. By dominating our national conversation, we allow them to set an agenda for all of us. When would you ever wish to have these people dictate your personal lives and priorities, demanding each and every email address you use?
Sex offenders would be required to share Internet identifiers.
Posted at 10:55 PM on Friday, Apr. 02, 2010
SACRAMENTO -- New York passed a law a couple of years ago requiring sex offenders to report e-mail addresses to the state's offender registry.
The result: At least 4,336 registered sex offenders were purged from social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace thanks to the new data, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently announced.
Several California lawmakers want to follow New York's lead.
Newly introduced bills would require sex offenders to share online identifiers -- such as e-mail accounts and instant-message aliases -- while at the same time prohibiting offenders on parole from using social networking sites.
"These social networks become a real trolling place for predators," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, author of one of the bills. "I think we should create as many speed bumps as possible to keep them off those social networks."
But the bills are far from foolproof. Supporters concede that offenders could switch e-mail addresses and not tell the authorities. But if they are caught, they run the risk of going back to prison -- and "that's a pretty big risk," Runner said.
In Fresno, an estimated 10% to 15% of sexual assault cases involve victims who were first contacted online, according to the Fresno Police Department. About 1,600 sex offenders live in Fresno.
Lt. David Newton, head of Fresno's criminal investigations bureau, supports the bills, but said they aren't ironclad. "We don't necessarily believe this may prevent many sexual assaults from occurring," he said. But "this is going to provide another arrow in our quiver."
He said the ban on social sites use by offenders will allow investigators to levy additional charges against predators.
Opponents fear the bills would lead to overzealous prosecutions and needlessly send more people to already crowded prisons.
Sex offenders already must register for life, including those who commit less-serious crimes such as indecent exposure, said Ignacio Hernandez, a lobbyist for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which represents criminal defense lawyers.
"All this would do is prohibit people from using these social networking sites for lawful, positive, productive purposes -- and that really makes no sense," he said.
A similar bill failed last legislative session, as concerns arose about the costs of collecting the new information and imprisoning offenders who violate the new rules.
A report last year suggests children face no greater danger online than they do in real life. Rather, the biggest risks on the Web are harassment and bullying among children -- not adults targeting kids, said a report by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, created by 49 state attorneys to study the threats children face online.
"The image presented by the media of an older male deceiving and preying on a young child does not paint an accurate picture of the nature of the majority of sexual solicitations and Internet-initiated off-line encounters," reported the task force, which included academics and representatives of Internet businesses and nonprofits.
However, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped create the task force, criticized the report, saying it relied on inadequate research and downplayed the threat of online predators.
Current law requires sexual offenders to register their home addresses with local authorities every time they move. Under the bills, new e-mail accounts would have to be registered days after they are created.
The bills are SB 1204 by Runner, AB 1850 by Assembly Member Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and AB 2208 by Assembly Member Norma Torres, D-Pomona.
The registry information is sent to the state and portions are displayed publicly at the Megan's Law Web site. Social networking sites such as Facebook already run checks against offender information. Having e-mail addresses would improve the process, said Chris Kelly, a state attorney general candidate and the former privacy officer and head of global public policy for Facebook.
Kelly, a Democrat, said Facebook already has strong protections in place, including a "real name culture" that weeds out users employing fake monikers. The site also flags suspicious users whose friend requests are rejected at a high rate or who overuse the search function.
"None of these systems are foolproof, but they go far beyond what most people assume has gone on," he said.
The state legislation comes after Congress in 2006 passed a law, known as the Adam Walsh Act, setting minimum standards for sex offender registries, including collecting Internet identifiers. States that don't comply by July 2011 risk losing some federal grants -- about $3 million in California.
California's Sex Offender Management Board has recommended the state not implement the federal law, partly because the costs of making the changes would exceed the grant loss.
The reporter can be reached at eschultz@fresnobee.com or (916) 326-5541.
Posted by
David
at
4/03/2010 06:02:00 PM
0
comments