Should a pedophile be granted parental visits? - Page 3

souggy · 05-10-2011, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yes, and that "too great a danger" is not based on anything factual, but is simply an emotional reaction.

Isn't it documented not all pedophiles are the same? Some will never harm a daughter or son, but would readily harm a cousin. Or some will never touch a child within the family, but only strange ones they haven't met before. And some will only make their move on someone close to them.

So really, shouldn't these issues about visitation rights be handled on a case-by-case basis?

netrox · 05-10-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

So, would you be okay with your child/niece/nephew/sister/partner being a victim of the "mere" 3% who are -caught- for an additional crime in a narrow study in a short period of time?

After all, 97 "non-reoffending" (more specifically, not caught reoffending) people got freed, it just happened to have the price tag of at least 3 new victims of sexual offenders. A fair price, in your estimation, yes?

You're not understanding my point. I am refuting what most say about sex offenders. Most don't re-offend. A lot think they should be killed because they're going to re-offend and that's wrong. Most don't.

It does NOT mean that you can have them around your children, unsupervised. You shouldn't.

If an adult has a sexual relations with say a 17 years old, that could be considered sex offense. What about 17 years old with 15 years old? It goes on and on.

That's why I always believe it should be left to courts to decide individually. Courts have more experience and will decide accordingly.

And if you think justice should be based on punishing all offenders based on 3% of offenders, you have no clue what justice is about.

jillio · 05-10-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Isn't it documented not all pedophiles are the same? Some will never harm a daughter or son, but would readily harm a cousin. Or some will never touch a child within the family, but only strange ones they haven't met before. And some will only make their move on someone close to them.

So really, shouldn't these issues about visitation rights be handled on a case-by-case basis?

Absolutely correct. And again, we need to keep in mind that pedophillia is a psychiatric diagnosis. The crime is identified as sexual activity with a minor. Not all people who meet the criteria for pedophillia are guilty of sex with a minor child.

Glenn · 05-10-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Isn't it documented not all pedophiles are the same? Some will never harm a daughter or son, but would readily harm a cousin. Or some will never touch a child within the family, but only strange ones they haven't met before. And some will only make their move on someone close to them.

So really, shouldn't these issues about visitation rights be handled on a case-by-case basis?

Yes, yes, and yes. Good post.

**TWA** · 05-11-2011, 09:48 PM

Lol, what bunch of armchair psychologists here. Word to the wise: stop basing your opinions on emotion and limited observation (if any) and start doing your research.

Beach girl · 05-11-2011, 10:19 PM

I'm curious where this 3% figure came from. Here's a bit of research that shows higher figures. The rate for incest is lower than for non-familial child molesters, although still higher than 3%.

CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders

This paper is an overview of several research findings. Here's an example:

"Child Molesters Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. A study involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent). In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly, the recidivism rate for same-sex child molesters for other crimes against persons was also quite high, with 26 percent having reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly, a number of other studies have found that child molesters have relatively high rates of nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984). "

"Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period. "

jillio · 05-11-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

I'm curious where this 3% figure came from. Here's a bit of research that shows higher figures. The rate for incest is lower than for non-familial child molesters, although still higher than 3%.

CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders

This paper is an overview of several research findings. Here's an example:

"Child Molesters Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. A study involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent). In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly, the recidivism rate for same-sex child molesters for other crimes against persons was also quite high, with 26 percent having reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly, a number of other studies have found that child molesters have relatively high rates of nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984). "

"Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period. "

These numbers generally come from prison statistics, and are applicable to only thise that have been charged, found guilty, and served a prison sentence. If they are reincarcerated for any reason a second time, the number is fed into the system, so that these statistics are often artificially inflated.

I use professional, peer reviewed studies, in combination with forensic psychology studies done in prisons, and those offenders who were never jailed but part of a treatment study. It is a much wider data base and provides more accurate numbers that are realistic and pertain to all offenders and not just those that have been jailed. When we talk about re-offending, we aren't talking about criminal reoffending necessarily.

Beach girl · 05-11-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

I use professional, peer reviewed studies

Such as....??

deafdyke · 05-12-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

ust five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate."

I really think we need to treat child sex offenders as mentally ill. Meaning place them in the hospitals for the criminally insane, and make sure they have a very very tough time getting out.
In this case I do not think that the sex offender should get visitation. Notice he preyed on little boys. I know exactly the type of sex offender he is. He preyed on kids who didn't exactly fit in, and manipulated their emotions to make them feel "special"
THAT is HUGELY dysfunctional. Why the hell would you want to even know a parent who was so screwed up?

messymama · 05-12-2011, 06:51 AM

What a though topic!!
Emotionally the first thing that comes to mind is "never let him meet a child again"... Especially when you think that child could be yours...

I also had some friends who were abused as children so it's easy to think "lock him up forever!!!"

But then... As far as I know, abusers are almost always ex-abused children, right? So to think there's no hope for them to come out of it is somewhat equal to saying there's no hope for abused children, too. And this is simply unacceptable.

I think it should be decided case by case, and with a lot of thinking and care too. Not an easy thing to decide, really.

jillio · 05-12-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

Such as....??

Like you would actually pay the money to access them and read them.

jillio · 05-12-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by messymama

What a though topic!!
Emotionally the first thing that comes to mind is "never let him meet a child again"... Especially when you think that child could be yours...

I also had some friends who were abused as children so it's easy to think "lock him up forever!!!"

But then... As far as I know, abusers are almost always ex-abused children, right? So to think there's no hope for them to come out of it is somewhat equal to saying there's no hope for abused children, too. And this is simply unacceptable.

I think it should be decided case by case, and with a lot of thinking and care too. Not an easy thing to decide, really.

I love the fact that you are open minded.

jillio · 05-12-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdyke

I really think we need to treat child sex offenders as mentally ill. Meaning place them in the hospitals for the criminally insane, and make sure they have a very very tough time getting out.
In this case I do not think that the sex offender should get visitation. Notice he preyed on little boys. I know exactly the type of sex offender he is. He preyed on kids who didn't exactly fit in, and manipulated their emotions to make them feel "special"
THAT is HUGELY dysfunctional. Why the hell would you want to even know a parent who was so screwed up?

That is happening more and more, and is one of the reasons that treatment has advanced and been refined, and is showing better results.

deafdyke · 05-12-2011, 11:58 PM

That's good at least! Is the therapy basicly trying to help them recover from the issues their abuse brings up? I can totally see how someone who was sexually abused as a kid, might think " oh if I can recreate what has been done to me, I can "heal" Yes, it's strange thinking. However, women who have been raped often follow the same thinking " If I can sleep around, I can "heal" from this rape. They don't understand that it was not about honest to god healthy sex, but more about using them, and manipulating and controlling.

**TXgolfer** · 05-13-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Like you would actually pay the money to access them and read them.

I would......

So.....such as?

**Jiro** · 05-13-2011, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I would......

So.....such as?

I have university library access as well.

netrox · 05-13-2011, 04:28 PM

Just a quick ref:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

Statistics can be difficult... at first appeance, the numbers seem high like this: "Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison."

and " the study found that 43% (4,163 of 9,691) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were rearrested"

But it's misleading. Read the statistics carefully.

"Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period."

Most of the returns were not related to same sex offense but a different crime.

jillio · 05-13-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I would......

So.....such as?

Sure you would.

And you would read all the way through them, and understand all of the treatment implications, too.

**deafskeptic** · 05-13-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

It's a common myth that most sex offenders would re-offend. I used to think that but it was my friend who worked as a cop in sex offense dept in police who told me it's untrue.

I looked up and it turned out he was right. Statistics show it's not the case. All the attention is often paid to hardcore dangerous pedophiles who have trouble not to re-offend but the majority of sex offenders with a minor don't repeat. After all, a lot of them have kids and understand it's wrong.

"The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate."

Predator Panic: Reality Check on Sex Offenders | LiveScience

Sexual relations with a child is absolutely wrong but adults must be calm when children discuss sexual molestation.

Pedophilia is a mental illness - it disrupts normal sexual development. Pedophiles have poor relationships with adults. We don't understand them but to call death for them is ridiculous. Kids can recover and adjust well after molestation so don't assume all kids will be permamently damaged goods after the incident. Proper and swift counseling can help them a great deal. I also believe that parents of victims should be counseled as well because it affects them adversely as well.

A lot of pedophiles are not violent and rarely violently rape kids. They develop "relationships" with kids and often seduce them. It's NOT exactly like they're going to kidnap and rape them and throw them out. It does NOT work that way for most pedophiles. It's usually someone close to the kids - it could be uncles, fathers, stepfathers, relatives, friends, and it's rare that it's a random stranger. They "love" kids but have inappropriate sexual attraction to them and that's the problem they struggle to deal with.

So, like what jillio said, you cannot paint all with one brush. It doesn't work that way.

Pedophiles like Westley Allan Dodd are quite rare.

netrox · 05-13-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Pedophiles like Westley Allan Dodd are quite rare.

Damn him and Jeffrey Dahmar - they're totally psychopathic. Glad they're dead. Jeffrey Dahmar was frightening.. he tortured his victims and drilled their skulls and poured acid in them to make them "zombies." How screwed up is that?!?!

And he died a "born again Christian." There's no friggen way he'll go to heaven.

jillio · 05-13-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Pedophiles like Westley Allan Dodd are quite rare.

But people come to believe that the rare cases are really the norm because they get the media attention. The average case is never mentioned.

**TXgolfer** · 05-13-2011, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Sure you would.

And you would read all the way through them, and understand all of the treatment implications, too.

Still waiting..... Is there a reason you don't want to reveal these studies?

Interesting that you would chose to insult 2 posters and ignore a third rather than answer a simple question. Exactly what I have been telling people to watch for.

deafdyke · 05-13-2011, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Pedophiles like Westley Allan Dodd are quite rare.

You mean the pychotic sociopathic stranger type? Yes thank god. But the ones who manipulate kids can be almost as scary and almost as psychotic.

jillio · 05-15-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Still waiting..... Is there a reason you don't want to reveal these studies?

Interesting that you would chose to insult 2 posters and ignore a third rather than answer a simple question. Exactly what I have been telling people to watch for.

Not wasting my time revealing such to people who have already proven they fail to read such. You are not interested in a learning experience, you are only interested in arguing.

Beach girl · 05-15-2011, 01:35 PM

It must be the Super-Secret Archives for the Super-Special, then, which Must Not Be Revealed to the muggles. Interesting that there is apparently absolutely nothing in the generally available literature to support your point.

Oceanbreeze · 05-15-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdyke

You mean the pychotic sociopathic stranger type? Yes thank god. But the ones who manipulate kids can be almost as scary and almost as psychotic.

Um, no. I was the victim of two very manipulative sexual offenders; both relatives. One of them scared the hell out of me. I'll admit that, but the other did not. I also don't believe either of them was psychotic. They were just deeply, deeply sick individuals. But, they knew exactly what they were doing when they harmed me. In my mind, that disqualifies them from being psychotic.

**TXgolfer** · 05-15-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not wasting my time revealing such to people who have already proven they fail to read such. You are not interested in a learning experience, you are only interested in arguing.

Of course...

you are just full of...... Excuses.

A living breathing ad hominem. Provide insults instead of facts

**TXgolfer** · 05-15-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

It must be the Super-Secret Archives for the Super-Special, then, which Must Not Be Revealed to the muggles. Interesting that there is apparently absolutely nothing in the generally available literature to support your point.

Fake it til you make it.....lol

jillio · 05-15-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

It must be the Super-Secret Archives for the Super-Special, then, which Must Not Be Revealed to the muggles. Interesting that there is apparently absolutely nothing in the generally available literature to support your point.

You seem to have great difficulty staying on topic in any thread that I am posting in, prefering instead to launch some form of backhanded personal attack. Take it to PM.

jillio · 05-15-2011, 03:21 PM

I see the children have all come out to play.

BTW, anyone that is interested in accessing any form of research has the capability if they are sitting behind a computer screen typing out smart ass remarks on a forum. Therefore, if they do not access said research, learn, and broaden their perspective accordingly, it is no one's fault but their own. I for one, to not respond to innane and childish challanges to produce research for those that obviously have no interest in learning for themselves. Had they any interest in learning and becoming more well informed and less narrow minded, they would have already been reading the research available. Waste of my time to provide it for those that are already so fixated in their narrow minded perspectives. Best just to let them alone in their ignorance.

05-11-2011, 09:48 PM	#65 (permalink)
TWA Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,374	Lol, what bunch of armchair psychologists here. Word to the wise: stop basing your opinions on emotion and limited observation (if any) and start doing your research. jillio likes this.

05-12-2011, 06:51 AM	#70 (permalink)
messymama Registered User Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: italy Posts: 112	What a though topic!! Emotionally the first thing that comes to mind is "never let him meet a child again"... Especially when you think that child could be yours... I also had some friends who were abused as children so it's easy to think "lock him up forever!!!" But then... As far as I know, abusers are almost always ex-abused children, right? So to think there's no hope for them to come out of it is somewhat equal to saying there's no hope for abused children, too. And this is simply unacceptable. I think it should be decided case by case, and with a lot of thinking and care too. Not an easy thing to decide, really. Oceanbreeze and jillio like this. __________________ Proud mum of two blessings: 5yo hearing girl and 3yo profoundly deaf boy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-11-2011, 10:19 PM	#66 (permalink)
Beach girl Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: northern Virginia in winter; NC in summer Posts: 3,760	I'm curious where this 3% figure came from. Here's a bit of research that shows higher figures. The rate for incest is lower than for non-familial child molesters, although still higher than 3%. CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders This paper is an overview of several research findings. Here's an example: "Child Molesters Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. A study involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent). In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly, the recidivism rate for same-sex child molesters for other crimes against persons was also quite high, with 26 percent having reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly, a number of other studies have found that child molesters have relatively high rates of nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984). " "Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period. "

05-12-2011, 11:58 PM	#74 (permalink)
deafdyke Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Trebekistan Posts: 13,234	That's good at least! Is the therapy basicly trying to help them recover from the issues their abuse brings up? I can totally see how someone who was sexually abused as a kid, might think " oh if I can recreate what has been done to me, I can "heal" Yes, it's strange thinking. However, women who have been raped often follow the same thinking " If I can sleep around, I can "heal" from this rape. They don't understand that it was not about honest to god healthy sex, but more about using them, and manipulating and controlling.

05-13-2011, 04:28 PM	#77 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	Just a quick ref: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf Statistics can be difficult... at first appeance, the numbers seem high like this: "Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% (3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were returned to prison." and " the study found that 43% (4,163 of 9,691) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were rearrested" But it's misleading. Read the statistics carefully. "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period." Most of the returns were not related to same sex offense but a different crime.

05-15-2011, 01:35 PM	#85 (permalink)
Beach girl Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: northern Virginia in winter; NC in summer Posts: 3,760	It must be the Super-Secret Archives for the Super-Special, then, which Must Not Be Revealed to the muggles. Interesting that there is apparently absolutely nothing in the generally available literature to support your point.

05-15-2011, 03:21 PM	#90 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	I see the children have all come out to play. BTW, anyone that is interested in accessing any form of research has the capability if they are sitting behind a computer screen typing out smart ass remarks on a forum. Therefore, if they do not access said research, learn, and broaden their perspective accordingly, it is no one's fault but their own. I for one, to not respond to innane and childish challanges to produce research for those that obviously have no interest in learning for themselves. Had they any interest in learning and becoming more well informed and less narrow minded, they would have already been reading the research available. Waste of my time to provide it for those that are already so fixated in their narrow minded perspectives. Best just to let them alone in their ignorance.