Opposition to Jessica's Law [Archive]

John Bentley

27th March 2007, 11:53 AM

Jessica's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica%27s_Law) opponents are driving me nuts, and I want to see if I am just woefully misinformed as to their position.

I realize that opponents of Jessica's law fall into several camps, but I would really like to limit at least the initial discussion to one subgroup, whose positions I will summarize:

The law puts pedophiles into prison for extended periods of time without any recourse to rehabilitation.

Now here's where I have a problem. Would it be fair to say that a lot of the same people who seem to want to try to rehabilitate these vile, scumbag pedophiles, are the same people who also believe that homosexuality is not a mental condition that can be altered through therapy?

Before anyone accuses me of gaybashing, I am NOT saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent in any moral or sociological way. My point is that it would appear that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but rather just the way you are made. In other words, you cannot pick and choose what sexually stimulates you. You either are or you are not.

My contention is that pedophiles are who they are, and that no amount of rehabilitation will change who they are. As such, they are a danger to the most helpless members of our society, and once identified, they should be eliminated from society.

Overman

27th March 2007, 12:02 PM

Heavy.

drkitten

27th March 2007, 12:05 PM

Now here's where I have a problem. Would it be fair to say that a lot of the same people who seem to want to try to rehabilitate these vile, scumbag pedophiles, are the same people who also believe that homosexuality is not a mental condition that can be altered through therapy?

Not at all fair.

You're confusing actions with urges.

Being sexually stimulated by underaged children is not a crime. Nor, for that matter, is being sexually stimulated by members of the same sex, by goats, by high-heeled shoes and leather, or by Angelina Jolie. I suspect that the vast majority of American males would admit to being sexually stimulated by Angelina Jolie, and that there's nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, raping Ms. Jolie would be a crime. I hope that most of the same men who admit to being aroused by Ms. Jolie have enough self-control to avoid acting on that arousal. And those who don't should be appropriately punished. At the same time, merely having sex with Ms. Jolie isn't a crime, as long as she is happy with it -- and those same men who aren't raping here would probably be delighted to consentually service her.

See the difference? Being turned on by children isn't a crime, but not having enough self control to avoid acting on it is. If you can teach a sexual predator that self-control, that's sucessful rehabilitation.

That, of course, raises the question about whether such self-control can be taught (or otherwise instilled, perhaps via therapy or chemicals). My understanding is that the results so far tend to be negative, but that's a technological issue instead of a moral one.

ChristineR

27th March 2007, 12:07 PM

There's a key difference between attraction to children and attraction to person's of the same sex, or for that matter, attraction to high heels or dead fish.

Acting on your desire for children will harm helpless and innocent human beings.

In practice, homosexuals can learn not to have sex. I have no doubt that there is less gay sex in cultures where gays are executed for acting on their desires.

Therapy may or may not be able make pedophiles stop desiring children, but it can, to some extent, teach them not to harm others and give them more positive coping skills.

Then there's another point. If you assume there is something in the human brain that points most women to men and most men to women, and that this thing can sometimes get switched in the less usual direction, then you have a fine biological basis for homosexuality. No one has found any correlations between homosexuality and environment. On the other hand, there is a very high correlation between being sexually assaulted as a child and pedophilia, which suggests a traumatic coping response, which should be unlearnable to a degree.

Cleon

27th March 2007, 12:12 PM

My contention is that pedophiles are who they are, and that no amount of rehabilitation will change who they are. As such, they are a danger to the most helpless members of our society, and once identified, they should be eliminated from society.

If that's the case, then the recidivism rate for pedophilia should be close to 100%. According to this page (http://www.uua.org/cde/ethics/balancing/background.html), a 1998 study showed that the recidivism rate for child molesters was about 12.7%--slightly lower than the 13.4% rate for sex offenders in general.

So right there is a fairly good indication that your contention is off-base.

My contention is that when it comes to sex offenses (particularly pedophilia-related), questions such as logic, reason, and justice are given a back seat to emotion-laden hyperbole.

Miss Anthrope

27th March 2007, 12:23 PM

I'm only going to touch on part of this.

I most definitely support VERY long sentences for violent sex offenders. What has always bothered me is getting those notification letters saying that an offender with a high likelihood of reoffending has moved into my area. Ummm, excuse me, if they have a high likelihood of this, WHY ARE THEY OUT?!?!

If we let people out of prison, they should be free to go about their lives as normal, without being harassed by neighbors et cetera. The key is not letting those assessed to be a danger out into society to begin with. If they are deemed very likely to be a threat to children, they should not be out. Period.

ETA: My position on this issue also agrees with the posts made above. The part I touched on above was only in regards to sentencing and release of those who have already committed predatory acts against children, especially violent ones.

billydkid

27th March 2007, 12:26 PM

If that's the case, then the recidivism rate for pedophilia should be close to 100%. According to this page (http://www.uua.org/cde/ethics/balancing/background.html), a 1998 study showed that the recidivism rate for child molesters was about 12.7%--slightly lower than the 13.4% rate for sex offenders in general.

So right there is a fairly good indication that your contention is off-base.

My contention is that when it comes to sex offenses (particularly pedophilia-related), questions such as logic, reason, and justice are given a back seat to emotion-laden hyperbole.I agree and I believe people should be held accountable for the things they do, not what they might or could do. I also think it is important that we don't blur the line between genuine child molestation and under legal age sexual contact. I simply do not believe that a legal adult who has sexual relations with a sexually mature 17 year old should be considered equivalent to an adult who has such relations with a six year old.

I realize the line has to be drawn somewhere - but when 14 year olds are free to marry and have children in some states, it strikes me as absurd to label as a sex offender a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, even though legally that may be the case. The 19 year old is in no way equivalent to the person who molests the 6 year old. Also, what about the issue of those who are not competent to give their consent whatever their age? What about a person who sexually exploits a severely autistic 25 year old? These are difficult questions.

Beerina

27th March 2007, 01:23 PM

10% recidivism rate for pedophiles? 12% for general sex offenders? It sounds like we definitely need tougher sentences regardless.

One might have a case for lighter sentences if it were around 1/10 of 1%, or if there were some way to test for those likely to relapse. But knowing nothing else, 10% is way too high a danger if you ask me.

steverino

27th March 2007, 01:39 PM

... raping Ms. Jolie would be a crime.

Ok. I guess I'll have to try the legal way, but she might say "no." :(

drkitten

27th March 2007, 01:54 PM

10% recidivism rate for pedophiles? 12% for general sex offenders?

What's the tate against which you're comparing it? My understanding is that the recidivism rate for things like armed robbery is on the order of 40%.

It sounds like we definitely need tougher sentences regardless.

Do we? Sounds like released sex offenders are much less dangerous than the general criminal population.

drkitten

27th March 2007, 02:02 PM

Ok. I guess I'll have to try the legal way, but she might say "no." :(

Life's just full of these little frustrations for you, isn't it?

steverino

27th March 2007, 02:04 PM

Life's just full of these little frustrations for you, isn't it?

You're catching on.:D

pgwenthold

27th March 2007, 02:09 PM

10% recidivism rate for pedophiles? 12% for general sex offenders? It sounds like we definitely need tougher sentences regardless.

At best, it sounds like we need "tougher prison sentences" for only 12% of those offenders. However, perhaps the problem for those 12% isn't the length of prison team but that prison alone isn't enough? Heck, maybe for that 12%, a completely different approach is needed?

Short of incarcerating them all for life, it's not obvious that more jail time is the answer in any way.

Alt+F4

27th March 2007, 02:12 PM

Katana

27th March 2007, 02:13 PM

If that's the case, then the recidivism rate for pedophilia should be close to 100%. According to this page (http://www.uua.org/cde/ethics/balancing/background.html), a 1998 study showed that the recidivism rate for child molesters was about 12.7%--slightly lower than the 13.4% rate for sex offenders in general.

So right there is a fairly good indication that your contention is off-base.

My contention is that when it comes to sex offenses (particularly pedophilia-related), questions such as logic, reason, and justice are given a back seat to emotion-laden hyperbole.

Actually, the recidivism rate is probably a lot higher than that. That statistic came from a meta-analysis of studies the bulk of which gathered their data through repeat convictions, arrest reports, or parole violations. Only a quarter of the data came from self-reports. So that figure likely doesn't reflect the true number of repeat crimes committed.

I found a paper that discusses some of the limitations in studies about recidivism among pedophiles.

Link (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/1990/9419sotp/9419litreview.pdf)

The article cites studies that used self-reporting rather than arrest reports and found some interesting numbers:

Many of the studies dealing with reoffense note the unreliability of convictions and arrest records, indicating a need for a self-reporting system for sexual offenders (Hall & Proctor, 1987; Weinrott & Saylor, 1991; Groth, Longo, & McFadin, 1982). In these studies, sex offenders admitted to committing two to five times as many sex crimes, indicating that arrest records are not the most reliable measure of sexual reoffense. With a questionnaire of only five questions, Groth, Longo, and McFadin (1982) were able to learn that 67 percent of seventy-six known rapists had committed one or more undetected sexual assaults. Fifty percent of convicted child molesters had committed one or more undetected involvements with children (p. 456).

I don't think that it's a stretch of the imagination to say that the 12.7% doesn't tell the full story.

drkitten

27th March 2007, 02:37 PM

doj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm[/URL]
In addtion, the other study said that recidivism rates continued to increase gradually with extended follow-up periods.

I'm afraid that this gets the big "duh.". Any study of behavior will find that more people do things over a longer period of time than a shorter one. That says nothing about recidivism and everything about methodological artefacts.

Aoidoi

27th March 2007, 09:01 PM

"We're taking a survey Mr. Chyldrapest. Have you sexually abused anyone since your release?"
"Yeah, I've slept with the Olson Twins, Harvey Birdman, and Angela Lansbury."
"You're under arrest for 2 counts of bad taste, half a count of bestiality, and a count of necrophilia. Thanks for participating in the study."

This Guy

28th March 2007, 05:00 AM

Ok. I guess I'll have to try the legal way, but she might say "no." :(

If she happens to say yes, send me here phone number please.

:D

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 07:54 AM

Dr. Kitten,

Thanks for the reply. I see what was causing my confusion was my erroneous assumption about the goals of rehabilitation.

Cleon,

Your stats are pretty bogus and misleading. The type of pedophile I am talking about are the adults who prey upon prepubescent children. Here are two cites that should make you and everyone with kids think about this problem:

Cite 1 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0q5j523440j76u7/)

I can't post a link to the whole article that you can view for free, but the bottom line is that the type of pedophile I am talking about has a recidivism rate of 52% in this study.

Cite 2: Hanson et al.
Long-term recidivism of child molesters
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 61(4) 646-652 (1993)

Can't get an online view of this one, but bottom line is that male pedophiles who prey on prepubescent boys and have never been married (gee, I wonder who they're talking about here?) have a recidivism rate of 77%. Hanson also concludes that rehabilitation has only a marginal effect on recidivism rates.

I say put these creatures away for good or execute them. They are a lasting danger to our children, and at the least, should never be allowed out of prison.

corplinx

28th March 2007, 08:01 AM

I think its safe to say that someone who has strong and constant sexual urges regarding children has some sort of brain defect or or a genetic disposition that we don't want in the gene pool for a stable society. I'm sure we could study it, find out what's misfiring, and treat it chemically.

Or we could simply terminate those people to take that bad gene out of the pool.

drkitten

28th March 2007, 08:26 AM

I think its safe to say that someone who has strong and constant sexual urges regarding children has some sort of brain defect or or a genetic disposition that we don't want in the gene pool for a stable society.

Actually, I think it's safer to say that that's exactly what they do not have.

As has been pointed out, homosexuality -- more accurately, homosexual urges, not homosexual behavior -- seems to be largely environment-independent. There is little or nothing that you can do in the process of child-raising, for example, to ensure that your child grows up to be gay or straight, any more than there's something you can do to ensure that your child grows up to be blue-eyed. It appears that a substantial fraction of the cause of homosexuality is genetic, so the possibility of "fixing" it via eugenics or genetic engineering is real.

Pedophillia appears to be almost entirely dominated by childhood environmental factors; the single strongest predictor of whether or not someone becomes a pedophiliac as an adult relates to the abuse he suffered as a child. You can do things to make it substantially more or less likely that your child becomes an adult pedophiliac. Break the cycle of abuse, and you have a good chance of reducing or eliminating pedophilia -- but that's specificlaly not genetic.

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 08:44 AM

And since the type of abuse they suffered was sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted adult, my contention still stands. Get rid of these people to protect our children.

ChristineR

28th March 2007, 08:47 AM

And since the type of abuse they suffered was sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted adult, my contention still stands. Get rid of these people to protect our children.

Well, from the point of view of the abused child, you have just suggested killing Daddy.

drkitten

28th March 2007, 08:59 AM

Well, from the point of view of the abused child, you have just suggested killing Daddy.

Yup. I would like to think that there's some other method than simply "get rid of them " The bathwater to baby ratio of your ill-advised proposal seems a little high to me.....

Kerberos

28th March 2007, 09:05 AM

Yup. I would like to think that there's some other method than simply "get rid of them " The bathwater to baby ratio of your ill-advised proposal seems a little high to me.....

Has John ever actually said that getting rid of them would involve killing them, as opposed to simply looking them in a room, possibly with rubber walls, and throwing away the key?

drkitten

28th March 2007, 09:15 AM

Has John ever actually said that getting rid of them would involve killing them, as opposed to simply looking them in a room, possibly with rubber walls, and throwing away the key?

'Locking [Daddy] in a room and throwing away the key" doesn't sound like a very good solution from the child's point of view, either.

Kerberos

28th March 2007, 10:09 AM

'Locking [Daddy] in a room and throwing away the key" doesn't sound like a very good solution from the child's point of view, either.

Good, definetly not, but better than letting him out if there is a very high risk he will continue sexually abusing the child, I'd say yes.

Beerina

28th March 2007, 10:31 AM

What's the tate against which you're comparing it? My understanding is that the recidivism rate for things like armed robbery is on the order of 40%.

Even worse for that -- keep them in jail even longer, too.

Sounds like released sex offenders are much less dangerous than the general criminal population.

10% is way too much. 40% is way too mucher. "Less dangersous" does not imply "lighter sentence than they already get."

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 12:08 PM

Well, from the point of view of the abused child, you have just suggested killing Daddy.

Actually, pedophilia is much more common from family friends, counselors, step parents, boyfriends, rather than direct relations. But that is actually beside the point. The child will suffer more if that person is allowed continued access than if that person is removed, or the child is removed from that home.

Has John ever actually said that getting rid of them would involve killing them, as opposed to simply looking them in a room, possibly with rubber walls, and throwing away the key?

No, but I darn well implied it, and would be strongly in favor of a mandatory death penalty for child rapists who subsequently murder their victims.

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 12:13 PM

Yup. I would like to think that there's some other method than simply "get rid of them " The bathwater to baby ratio of your ill-advised proposal seems a little high to me.....

Please feel free to offer suggestions. Certainly allowing repeat child molestors out on minimal sentences of 3 to 7 years, with no enforcement of parole (which is pretty much the current state of affairs in states that don't have a version of Jessica's Law) is not the solution.

At least Jessica's law would keep these creatures from reoffending for quite some time, permanently on a second offense.

This is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is keeping the baby from drowning in the scum.

drkitten

28th March 2007, 01:27 PM

Please feel free to offer suggestions. Certainly allowing repeat child molestors out on minimal sentences of 3 to 7 years, with no enforcement of parole.

Goodness me. You've answered your own question. How about "allowing repeat child offenders out on minimal sentences of 3 to 7 years, with enforcement of parole"?

Other suggestions will no doubt occur to you when you stop engaging in false dichotomies.

This is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater,

No, I'm sorry, that's more or less exactly what it is.

Freddy

28th March 2007, 01:48 PM

The penalty for raping a child should be at least as severe as that for raping an adult. I'm okay with it being a bit more severe, since children are less able to defend themselves and raping them is thus arguably more heinous. Do people who rape adults generally get out of prison in 3 to 7 years? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. If it is "yes," then the punishment for both crimes should be stiffened. If it is "no," then sentences for child rapists should be made comparably harsh.

Does anyone think that the way child molesters are treated in prison should be relevant to how much time they serve? Does anyone think that a convicted child molester should ever avoid prison all together?

Freddy

28th March 2007, 01:51 PM

Yup. I would like to think that there's some other method than simply "get rid of them " The bathwater to baby ratio of your ill-advised proposal seems a little high to me.....

I think you mean that the bathwater to baby ratio is too low, or that the baby to bathwater ratio is too high.:)

drkitten

28th March 2007, 01:54 PM

I think you mean that the bathwater to baby ratio is too low, or that the baby to bathwater ratio is too high.:)

Probably, yes.

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 04:10 PM

Goodness me. You've answered your own question. How about "allowing repeat child offenders out on minimal sentences of 3 to 7 years, with enforcement of parole"?

Goodness me! Why didn't I think of that? And with the parole system so efficient in this country, too! I suppose we could have a parole officer assigned to each offender so that they could be monitored every second of every day. Oh wait, there's a place where that is done... let me think... oh yeah! Prison!

Other suggestions will no doubt occur to you when you stop engaging in false dichotomies.

Those being?... Oh, and some evidence to back up your (IMO) naive opinion?

drkitten

28th March 2007, 04:13 PM

Goodness me! Why didn't I think of that?

I don't know. If you stepped outside of your false dichotomies, it might have.

John Bentley

28th March 2007, 04:28 PM

I don't know. If you stepped outside of your false dichotomies, it might have.

Your glaring omission of the rest of my post is duly noted.

Art Vandelay

28th March 2007, 10:39 PM

I'd like to take this opportunity to present Art's Law:

Any law named after a girl will be an irrational, hysterical overreaction to a largely nonexistant problem.

I don't understand the thinking behind Jessica's Law.

"You know, I used to live just 100 fet from a school, and every time I was feeling horny, I could just take a stroll down there, rape a kid, and be back in a few minutes. But now with Jessica's Law, I have to live at least 1000 feet from a school. Do you know how far that is? That's more than half a mile. Now I have to get in my car and drive to the school. It's such a hassle. I've decided that I'm just not going to rape kids anymore."

Pedophillia appears to be almost entirely dominated by childhood environmental factors; the single strongest predictor of whether or not someone becomes a pedophiliac as an adult relates to the abuse he suffered as a child.Correction: child molestor, not pedophiliac. Unless you can present some data on pedophilia versus abuse.

Please feel free to offer suggestions. Certainly allowing repeat child molestors out on minimal sentences of 3 to 7 years, with no enforcement of parole (which is pretty much the current state of affairs in states that don't have a version of Jessica's Law) is not the solution. Maybe there isn't a solution? Maybe we need to grow the frell up and realize that there is no way to eliminate child molestation?

My point is that it would appear that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but rather just the way you are made. Be attracted to members of your own sex is not a lifestyle choice. But having sex with them is.

My contention is that pedophiles are who they are, and that no amount of rehabilitation will change who they are.But it can change whatthey do. Also, pedophila isn't just about being attracted to children. An inability to form meaningful relationships with adults, an eroticizitation of exploitative relationships, etc. play a role.

Ummm, excuse me, if they have a high likelihood of this, WHY ARE THEY OUT?!?!Because we put people in jail on the basis of what they do, not what they're likely to do.

If they are deemed very likely to be a threat to children, they should not be out. That strikes me as rather Fascist.

Your stats are pretty bogus and misleading. The type of pedophile I am talking about are the adults who prey upon prepubescent children. No, the people that you're talking about are the people covered by Jessica's law. If you had wanted to start a thread about those people specifically, you should have started a thread about those people specifically. Instead, you started a thread about Jessica's law. Jessica's law applies to a much broader group than just adults who prey on prepubescent children.

Mycroft

28th March 2007, 11:36 PM

The law puts pedophiles into prison for extended periods of time without any recourse to rehabilitation.

You see the problem I have with that is the definition of "pedophile." The guy who rapes and kills a kid can get the death penalty for all I care, but what if some 19 year-old boy and some 14 year-old girl think they've fallen in love and have sex? Wrong? You bet, but it's not 25 years in prison wrong.

Now here's where I have a problem. Would it be fair to say that a lot of the same people who seem to want to try to rehabilitate these vile, scumbag pedophiles, are the same people who also believe that homosexuality is not a mental condition that can be altered through therapy?

Seems like apples and oranges to me.

My contention is that pedophiles are who they are, and that no amount of rehabilitation will change who they are. As such, they are a danger to the most helpless members of our society, and once identified, they should be eliminated from society.

I disagree. My own sexual tastes have changed over the years, I don't see why someone who's attracted to kids can't "grow up" and learn to appreciate adults.

slingblade

29th March 2007, 03:47 AM

How do those who are abused, repeatedly, and not by any family members but by aquaintances alone...how do they grow up NOT becoming pedophiliac, especially if they have never had one moment of therapy, rehab, or any other intervention?

How do they keep from repeating the cycle? Not suggesting there's only one way, either. Just wondering....

Lonewulf

29th March 2007, 04:11 AM

This is how I view it:

Trying to "weed out" genetics through forced execution is shakey ground, and morally inconsistent with a lot of the arguments I've seen in this forum. I just came out of a thread talking about dark fantasies and fetishes; if someone is genetically predisposed towards fantasizing about rape, then should they be killed in case they pass down the genetics? I don't think so, personally.

Also, what if the genes are recessive? And what if, say, 98% of the genes belong to people who fantasize, and not act out on their fantasies? In my opinion, that's rounding people up and putting them in gas chambers to make society a "better place", even if those people have done nothing wrong. This has very very bad connotations for me. I dunno, maybe you guys don't agree.

However, Miss Anthrope brought up a good point. If someone HAS actually molested a child, and have molested SEVERAL children, and is at a very high risk of doing so again, then an argument could be made that a longer prison sentence would be necessary. At the same time, if they could be "rehabilitated" into not doing such an action again, and can be put out on parole; then what? I dunno. Would I trust my child around him anyways? Well, let's just say that I would rather not have him work at an elementary school.