A Frightening Myth about Sex Offenders

[Syne]

Again, does that in any way diminish the atrocity of molestation or an adult sharing child porn?

Should it be a slap on the wrist that doesn't deter any future predators?

Again, no, but the punishment should fit the crime.

Exactly how often are you willing to say that, each time reiterating your sympathy for sexual predators?

So how would you go about establishing recidivism rates for different offenses? How would you determine whether one type of offense were predictably isolated from another? And where did that source say anything about the "highest court"?

The answers are not on the page that you linked, but they are within the site that you linked.  The source that mentioned the "highest court" was in my original post.

Jeez, talk about lazy.

Oh, you mean like this:

"While much progress has been made regarding the ability of professionals in the field to accurately estimate the likelihood of future sexual reoffense, no one is presently able to estimate either the timing or the severity of such future criminal conduct (J. Levenson, personal communication, May 23, 2011). Therefore, it is critically important to establish a clear understanding of exactly what risk is being assessed and to frame expectations accordingly. Current methods at present allow, in most cases, only for an estimate of the likelihood of both future sexual and nonsexual offending over a specific timeframe. The accuracy of these estimates depends in part on the degree to which the individual offender being assessed matches a known group of sex offenders and the degree to which the factors included in the risk assessment accurately reflect the known universe of relevant risk factors." - https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch6_risk.html

When you quote my source and then say:
"They’re right. We should be able to look to our highest court and expect decisions to be based on reason and science rather than fear."
It certainly sounds like you're trying to mislead readers into thinking my source validated your own (i.e. making a sophist argument).

Since you can't be bothered to actually cite what you claim supports your argument, it's obvious you're the lazy one, deary.

[Secular Sanity]

When you quote my source and then say:
"They’re right.  We should be able to look to our highest court and expect decisions to be based on reason and science rather than fear."
It certainly sounds like you're trying to mislead readers into thinking my source validated your own (i.e. making a sophist argument).

I understand. I just assumed that you had read the article in the original post.


Matthew Grottalio was ten years old. His sister was 8. His name is still listed in the sex offender’s archive.

http://www.sexoffendersarchive.com/offen...ew/1240713

I’m not condoning the behavior, but I don’t think that childhood experimentation is abnormal.

You said that you’re a professional therapist, right? So, tell us. What and when is it considered normal childhood sexual experimentation vs. sexual abuse?

[C C]

Driven by a pervasive fear of sexual predators [...]

Definitely should fear them more than murderers (when both traits aren't combined together in an individual, with a dash of sadistic torture and maiming prior to the coup de grâce). Any drunken guy or gal at a party who wanders out and moons a group of trick or treatin' kids or obliviously takes a leak or dump in front of them deserves to endure a lifetime of knocking on the doors of each neighborhood they move into and reporting that they're a sex fiend. Sock the stigma to them as many years as possible.

I know, right?  Jamar Pinkney’s and Phillip Alpert’s stories got to me.  

Dangerous Myths about Juvenile Sex Offenders

Man Executes His Own Son

'Sexting' Lands Teen on Sex Offender List

I vaguely recalled a news story of one woman who couldn't get a job because she was still listed, having wound up being aggressively prosecuted and officially classified as a perv because years before she was caught in some location of her school performing oral sex on a boy a year younger than her.

Once chanced upon a trio of loitering tween boys Einstein-ingly half-whispering and gazing at each other's phones while I was sitting not five feet or so from them on a waiting bench. Their collections of sexting photos persist over time, too. I can thank my gossipy friends for remedying my naiveté in regard to what the older ones are still hanging onto.  

Many twenty-ish males still harbor on their smart phones (etc) the selfie nude-photos they received back in school days from girlfriends, fellow classmates, and distant acquaintances. Granted that the latter are adults now, too, but that hardly counts if these guys are caught with child / minor pornography.

What allows their "absent-minded negligence" to persist is apparently the sheer number of these "nostalgia" keepsakers (a very significant chunk of the population would probably have to be criminally processed). Obscured in the crowd being also what permits the teens and tweens to keep illegally sending and exchanging such photos amongst themselves to begin with (all the authorities can do is occasionally pick a pair to be made into a public scare example).

Awareness of these post-18 year old males often isn't confined to the family / relative sphere that's worried about and protective of the applicable "idiot", since the latter doubtless still cluelessly displays his illegal gallery visually to buddies and audibly to unintentional eavesdroppers. They were also exchanging and circulating these photos amongst themselves back in school, so it's not even a "but she willingly sent it to me" type of excuse fail for each image.

In the course of being passed / transmitted around electronically, mixes of the individual personal collections wind-up in the hands of even older men (evening news: "Neighbors and faculty members who know this thirty-five year old math teacher were shocked yesterday when he was arrested for possession of child pornography."). Which is to say, it's not anymore just "Our dad or grandfather's brand of child pornography" where everything came from organized criminal rings that abducted minors, payed runaway street girls and boys cash to do a picture session, or indulged in the depravity of baring or sexually abusing their own kids in front of a camera.

- - -

[Secular Sanity]

I vaguely recalled a news story of one woman who couldn't get a job because she was still listed, having wound up being aggressively prosecuted and officially classified as a perv because years before she was caught in some location of her school performing oral sex on a boy a year younger than her.

Once chanced upon a trio of loitering tween boys Einstein-ingly half-whispering and gazing at each other's phones while I was sitting not five feet or so from them on a waiting bench. Their collections of sexting photos persist over time, too. I can thank my gossipy friends for remedying my naiveté in regard to what the older ones are still hanging onto.  

Many twenty-ish males still harbor on their smart phones (etc) the selfie nude-photos they received back in school days from girlfriends, fellow classmates, and distant acquaintances. Granted that the latter are adults now, too, but that hardly counts if these guys are caught with child / minor pornography.

What allows their "absent-minded negligence" to persist is apparently the sheer number of these "nostalgia" keepsakers (a very significant chunk of the population would probably have to be criminally processed). Obscured in the crowd being also what permits the teens and tweens to keep illegally sending and exchanging such photos amongst themselves to begin with (all the authorities can do is occasionally pick a pair to be made into a public scare example).

Awareness of these post-18 year old males often isn't confined to the family / relative sphere that's worried about and protective of the applicable "idiot", since the latter doubtless still cluelessly displays his illegal gallery visually to buddies and audibly to unintentional eavesdroppers. They were also exchanging and circulating these photos amongst themselves back in school, so it's not even a "but she willingly sent it to me" type of excuse fail for each image.

In the course of being passed / transmitted around electronically, mixes of the individual personal collections wind-up in the hands of even older men (evening news: "Neighbors and faculty members who know this thirty-five year old math teacher were shocked yesterday when he was arrested for possession of child pornography."). Which is to say, it's not anymore just "Our dad or grandfather's brand of child pornography" where everything came from organized criminal rings that abducted minors, payed runaway street girls and boys cash to do a picture session, or indulged in the depravity of baring or sexually abusing their own kids in front of a camera.

- - -

In a few states it’s illegal to distribute or show intimate images of even adults without their consent.  It’s even illegal to capture intimate images or video tape a sexual encounter with your adult partner without their consent.

Sexting Statistics

[Syne]

Matthew Grottalio was ten years old.  His sister was 8.  His name is still listed in the sex offender’s archive.  

http://www.sexoffendersarchive.com/offen...ew/1240713

I’m not condoning the behavior, but I don’t think that childhood experimentation is abnormal.  

You don't think incestuous "touching" is abnormal?

This is what the left typically does. They find a few anecdotal stories to make people sympathize with very specific circumstances, and then they use these outliers to advocate for general policy changes. Policy changes that could have disastrous results if implemented broadly.

You said that you’re a professional therapist, right?

LOL! Again, where? Show me.

[Secular Sanity]

You don't think incestuous "touching" is abnormal?  

No.  Curiosity between siblings is normal.  Sexual behavior in young children can range from typical to problematic.  Parental intervention and education is required in almost all situations.  If it continues, or there is adult-like sexual behavior, coercion, force, or a large age gap, education and counseling may be necessary, but a child under the age of 12 should not be charged with a sexual offense.

Take Charla Roberts for example.  She was 10 years old when she was charged with "indecency with a child" for pantsing a classmate.  It was a harmful prank, but definitely not a sex crime.  Her name is still on a sex offender’s registry.

http://www.sexoffendersarchive.com/zipdi...ts_1243975

This is what the left typically does. They find a few anecdotal stories to make people sympathize with very specific circumstances, and then they use these outliers to advocate for general policy changes. Policy changes that could have disastrous results if implemented broadly.

The article that I linked in the OP said that there are thousands of people who have needlessly suffered humiliation, ostracism, banishment re-incarceration, and civil commitment thanks to a judicial opinion grounded in an unsourced, unscientific study.

May I recommend reading, "Sex Crimes and Sex Offenders: Research and Realities"
By Donna Vandiver, Jeremy Braithwaite, Mark Stafford?

[Syne]

Take Charla Roberts for example.  She was 10 years old when she was charged with "indecency with a child" for pantsing a classmate.  It was a harmful prank, but definitely not a sex crime.  Her name is still on a sex offender’s registry.

http://www.sexoffendersarchive.com/zipdi...ts_1243975

Thanks for continuing to illustrate my following point.

This is what the left typically does. They find a few anecdotal stories to make people sympathize with very specific circumstances, and then they use these outliers to advocate for general policy changes. Policy changes that could have disastrous results if implemented broadly.

The article that I linked in the OP said that there are thousands of people who have needlessly suffered humiliation, ostracism, banishment re-incarceration, and civil commitment thanks to a judicial opinion grounded in an unsourced, unscientific study.

May I recommend reading, "Sex Crimes and Sex Offenders: Research and Realities"
By Donna Vandiver, Jeremy Braithwaite, Mark Stafford?

No thanks. I'm not interested in sexual offender apologists. Leftists always say things like "thousands of people who have needlessly suffered" without any comparable data points. Is it comparable to 100,000, a million, etc. sex offenders getting their just desserts? How many innocent people spending life in prison is worth releasing actual murders and rapists back into society?

"Thousands" are still outliers you are using to advocate general policy.

[Zinjanthropos]

10 year old pantsing girls  should not be on an offenders' list. Perhaps it would be prudent to figure out where she learned the behavior. Things of this nature should have a no brainer resolution,  sooner than later. You can murder someone in Canada and not go on a list as long as you were under 18 when you committed the crime. 

Regardless, the Catholic church has it all figured out, just move the perp Bish to a new parish and don't tell a soul.

[Syne]

We should be able to look to our highest court and expect decisions to be based on reason and science rather than fear.

Did the Supreme Court mandate minimum sentences for these offenses? No?
Is that what you're advocating...since you've mentioned the "highest court" so much?

Maybe it's an issue of local judicial latitude and state policy. You'd have to go state by state to change that.

[Secular Sanity]

We should be able to look to our highest court and expect decisions to be based on reason and science rather than fear.

Did the Supreme Court mandate minimum sentences for these offenses? No?
Is that what you're advocating...since you've mentioned the "highest court" so much?

The cases that the Supreme Court will be reviewing, which are presented in the OP will determine whether or not there’s been a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s important because it is too easy to overlook constitutional violations when they are perpetrated against those the public despises.  

Maybe it's an issue of local judicial latitude and state policy. You'd have to go state by state to change that.

The Supreme Court’s decision will set a precedent in which all inferior courts are bound to obey.