Who Is Teaching YOUR kids? Part II

This post has caused an awesome discussion in the comments and via e-mail.

First, contrary to what some read between the lines, I wasn't indicting teachers as perverts across the board nor inciting vigilantism in assuming or implying that teachers are somehow more likely to harm children. The vast majority of educators are solid people with good intentions, as are most parents. Being vigilant about who is allowed access to your children is not the same, at all, as assessing all teachers, coaches and volunteers to be potential threats to children.

Second, while it's true that most heinous acts against kids are committed by family or people known by the family, predators across the board are the minority. The exception to the rule. Therefore the accusation of twisted logic fails because it doesn't lessen the offenses of teachers that parents are a larger part of the already small minority of offenders anymore than it makes more serious those same acts perpetrated by parents or caregivers.  People, regardless of their parental status or vocation, who violate and harm children should be known for their predilections and  punished accordingly. Period.

Third, I am not sure how a conclusion of serious versus less serious offenses can be used to defend the sensationalism surrounding what is deemed newsworthy or of import to society. I realize it will appear that I am responding only to joistmonkey's comment but I have had several email conversations regarding the same and I have to say that I have been shocked at the approach of, ''inappropriate touching isn't as serious as rape or murder'' because: WHAT? Sexual deviation, much like other compulsions, doesn't develop overnight. Obsession with images leads to intrusive thoughts and fantasies leads to testing the water with inappropriate touching leads to taking it as far as circumstances allow. Harming more kids with lighter offenses isn't a defense so much as it is excusing the breeding ground wherein predators gain the courage to take the next step. And that doesn't need to be ignored simply because it ''isn't rape''.

Fourth, just so we're absolutely clear, my intent in linking to Ann-Marie wasn't to stand shoulder to shoulder with her in accusing all teachers. I mean, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Ann-Marie because she's awesome like that but she also writes for Parents Behaving Badly which is in the exact same vein as Teacher Smackdown. Because again, people who harm kids, their own or someone else's, deserve to be known for what it is they do and the fallout left in their wake.

Finally, this has, to me, been an enlightening conversation both on and off-line. If you guys are up for it, I wouldn't mind continuing it in the direction of what you, personally, do to help ensure the safety of the kids you love. Do you utilize online registries? Do you know the screening process used by the schools in your area? This is of interest to me because in some of the more recent teacher-student sex scandals (particularly in the NorthWest) it's come to light that some school districts do not take legal action or involve the police in suspicious activity or relationships but choose instead to simply not renew teaching contracts, leaving those teachers free to move along to other schools and students. Much like the action, or inaction, of the catholic church with problem priests.

With the focus not solely on educators, how do you screen or vet coaches or the parents of your children's friends to decide who is worthy of unsupervised access to the kids in your life? What did your own parents do (as a comparative exercise) that you mimic and what measures do you take that never would have occurred to your parents? I firmly believe that demographically there aren't necessarily more predators now than in older generations, we are just more willing and able to talk about them now than was the case in the past.

So. Let's do just that....Aaaaaannnnnnd GO!!

Comments

[Heather]

When we move into a neighborhood, I always check the sex offender registry. While I know not every pedophile hasn't been caught, it's a good start.

When it comes to other parents, I go with my gut. I watch how they look at children, the way they talk to kids (both their own and other people's), how they show affection, etc. If something seems "off" or "funny," I don't let them get my kids alone. Sometimes it's just a matter of getting to know someone better. For instance, people who don't hug their kids at all always weird me out. However, I have known one couple who didn't because it was how they were raised and physical affection was always awkward for them. *shrug* No biggie. In other cases, parents or other adults don't hug because they can't handle even that level of physical interaction without wanting more, etc.

My parents were pretty trusting, for what I recall. But then, most of the people they should have been worrying about already lived in our house. *ANYWAY* I don't remember my father ever "screening" my friends' parents. I know he met them before he would let me spend the night or go to their houses after school, but there was no in-depth interviewing or anything like that. When I got older and moved to be with my mother, she was a bit different. She wanted to meet people and anytime I went somewhere, she'd call the other kids' parents to see if we were going where we said we were, etc.

When the kids get old enough to particiapte in sports and other activities in which they are entrusted to the care of other adults, I will request references (and I don't care how long you've been a YMCA soccer coach, I want PERSONAL references, and I don't care how weird or paranoid you think I am!). I'll run through the registry, do an internet search for their names and see what comes up, and thoroughly go through those references. While 10 people may say that coach was great, it might be the one you dont' call that tells you their child was never comfortable with that person, you know?

In addition to "screening" adults, we will also heavily brainwash, I mean TEACH our children what is appropriate and what is inappropriate behavior for an adult. Sitting in a grown man's lap in private is not okay. Letting someone take pictures or touch you where your underwear covers is not okay. I think one of the best defenses is a good offense. Getting your kids to understand that those "secrets" are not okay is crucial. In most cases, a bond or trust has to be established before most pedophiles feel "safe" to touch a child. We're not talking about the crazy abductors, but the "commmon place" ones that teach and coach. If they don't think your kid will keep a tight lip, chances are that they will move on to another child. In the mean time, my kid just told me that Mr. So-And-So approached him about a "favor" or a "special study session," and you can bet your ass I won't keep my mouth shut, either. After all, molestation is not a subject many children will lie or even fib about.

*sigh* I just know that nothing better happen to my kids. Because God help the son of a bitch that ever lays a harmful hand on my children. When I get done with them, there will be nothing left.

[thordora]

My mother believed that the neighbour was a kindly old man who needed help, and sent me over to his house, alone, all the time. Little did she know about the touching and the pictures his friend took.

So I will not be replicating what my mother did in teaching me only strangers are dangerous. I rarely, if ever, let them near men aside from my husband alone-even my husband I watch, I'm sorry to say. (But that's my hang up, nothing he did). When they start school, I'll research as much as I can, but we don't have the same registries up here as some states do.

I will do everything in my power to be a mother they can talk to if something goes wrong, something my mother was not.

And if anyone harms my children, ESPECIALLY someone in a authority position like a teacher or a coach, I will not feel bad about what happens. To have a teacher betray this kind of trust is nauseating.

[StickyKeys]

I think the most important key is teaching your kids, by education and example, what is considered appropriate and allow them to communicate with you. You can't quiz every parent, you can't be everywhere your kid is. And being overly careful, while warranted, can lead to a type of cynicism that can be extremely unhealthy.

I said in the last post it's always good to have an idea of who your kids interact with. When I was young I couldn't do anything without my mom talking to the kid's parents first and it was so commonplace that I didn't know there were people that just let their kids do whatever.

I learned that if something was wrong, no matter what it was I could always trust my mom to believe me and find out the truth. This practice help me understand the importance of honesty and good communication.

That way at the very least you know if you can't get the lowdown on someone, that your kids are aware and will tell you if something is out of the ordinary.

Poor joistmonkey was kind of ganged on in the last post, and I think he did pick the wrong place (a blog read mostly by mothers) to make light of the subject (of sorts), but overall I don't think he thinks it to be unimportant. If I read it correctly originally he thought it was just the pics and the porn which is gross enough on its own, but being that we all have naked pics of ourselves as children he found it slightly less offensive than someone who actually touches the child. I think there's a difference in age and intention and familiarity that does matter though and looking at kids for sex always has some outward evidence that will eventually manifest itself.

I don't know if those things on their own count as abuse, but what does is the kids who find out and then have to live with knowing they were lusted after and photographed, and basically stalked. That can set the bar for a lifetime of emotional issues.

The snuff films are just unspeakably horrific.

[joistmonkey]

I'm in agreement that there should be strict guidelines into who is allowed to teach and supervise (i.e. swimming coaches, scout leaders etc.) or kids. I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in England we have to undertake a criminal records check if we have a job that puts us in contact with kids (i.e. even if you are a cook in a school kitchen). With larger countries like the USA, I guess collaberation between different police forces is a big problem. Surely a centralised computer would solve this?

The onus is on people to report activity to the police, but at the same time, we have to remember that 'suspicious activity' does not make someone a paedo. One of my friends (who is a teacher) was almost prevented from being a teacher because ten years earlier, when he was fifteen, he 'mooned' out of a minibus window. To call this father of two a pervert was daft :-)

For that sort of reason I am unhappy with the idea of parent groups or other teachers or hearsay or rumour being the reason someone is suspected or barred from teaching or living in an area. We mustn't forget the 'innocent till proven gulity' thing (after all "I don't like the look of that man and am suspicious of him" is simlilar to what people were saying about Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, Gypsies etc. fifty years ago - people disliking people because of prejudice and hearsay. I'm not saying that these ethnic minorities or gays are comparable to paedos, but our attitude to suspected unproven paedos mirrors our attitudes to blacks etc. in the past)

I'm not 100% comfortable with the way some released sex offenders are treated after they fginish their sentance. I accept that I'd feel different if I lived near an ex-offender (though there is some evidence that SOME sex-offenders remain sex-offenders for life, there are plenty that are rehabilitated) but there is an extent to which these people are entitled to thier own quiet lives after extended therapy, so long as they try very hard not to put themselves back in situations where kids are.

There have always been deviants within us. I don't believe there are significantly more (related to population) but we hear so much more about them in the media, and technology has enabled transfer of indecent films and stuff, hence possibly 'increasing' the likeliness of each potential paedo reaching the point at which they'll offend.

Balancing that, we have better detection, more awareness, better rehabilitation and therapy etc. I've seen very powerful documentaries about ex-offenders who have been cured by chemical and physical sterilisation, but who have had no life after release, because everyone 'suspects' with no real cause, that they'll be a threat to thier kids.

I mean, a twenty-year old necking and fondling (or even sleeping with) his fourteen/fifteen year old girlfriend has legally committed a serious offence. Compare that to a 60yr old who has indecent pictures of 8yr olds. Both are offenders, both could be released from prison, but you would argue that they pose very different threats.

I mean, does the first guy pose any threat to our kids? Probably not. Does the second pose a threat? Possibly. But what if he only abused little boys and we have daughters? He's clearly been a sicko in the past, but whether he is now, and whether he poses a threat now is uncertain. There is NO JUSTIFICATION without proof, whatever we believe about 'a sex offender once, a sex offender for life', for some of the appauling blanket discrimination against ex-offenders

[StickyKeys]

Erm, I don't know that equating the plight of pedophiles to that of racial minorities, and homosexuals is going to get you anywhere babe (you're killing me man!). ;)

I understand the gist of what your saying, but being attracted to kids is never going to have a political lobby, you know? People have gotten over their stigmas (and some still are) about gays, and blacks, etc, by realizing they are not morally wrong. There's never going to be a time where we advocate for someone who molests or seeks to molest, or inwardly desires to molest children.

I realize the push to not completely judge a person by their cover (or in this case criminal record), but for something as sensitive as this I'm okay to give it a pass. If the person convicted is fully rehabilitated it is up to them to relay the information about the case, and priors and be as upfront and honest as possible and to understand there's going to be some apprehension towards them until they prove themselves and even then.

The problem with saying "oh they've been through therapy, and are medicated" is that the repeated rates of incidence are ridiculously high when it comes to sexual deviance. And it could be a matter of days, months or even years since prior conviction that those desires re-manifest themselves, but they very rapidly do.

I've heard the 20/15 yr old argument before, but honestly that's just knowingly breaking the law because you're horny. Why even risk that? If this is the girl/guy you're planning on being with for the rest of your life, I believe you can wait the 3-4 years until they're legal. I'm suspicious about those kind of relationships anyway, but I understand there are different cultural differences in regards to age of consent and everyone feels differently.

Also, just on the side of good common sense, if you have an attraction to kids, shouldn't the first place you apply for a job be at an old folk's home? Seriously, why give yourself the temptation unless you're looking for trouble? I think that's what burns me most about these cases, the complete lack of wanting to change. Teachers and coaches, and whomever else who swear they are good people but know they've had these urges and still surround themselves with the one thing that will put them in.

So yeah, you see someone lurking around your kids that's looking at their hemline a little too hard find out about them or get your kids away from them. If it's an organization let the administrators know you're uncomfortable about the person and you'd like to know about their background, then hold them to it.

I wouldn't support egging their houses or camping out on their lawns or starting a gossip trail, but get good information for the protection of your children.

[Deb]

All our activities here REQUIRE that a parent or someoene the parents has designated to be at all sporting practices and events so that they are being watched by some one they know.

[CharmingDriver]

I flatly reject the premise of comparing the discrimination faced by black people, jewish people or gays to that of known pedophiles. I know the gist of what you're saying is that mob-think or ''suspicion'' can cause unnecessary hardship to those accused but not convicted but that is not at all what I, me, personally meant about ignoring suspicious activity and failing to involve law enforcement. Not liking the way someone looks isn't in the same realm as not being comfortable with how they present themselves with children.

Also, just as an aside, I don't believe anyone is born a pedophile or wants to have those urges. But it is one hundred percent their choice what to do with themselves as an adult. Comparing a behavior or reaction based on choice to that of someone born black, gay or Jewish with no say so in the matter is ludicrous.

I meant specifically cases like that of Jennifer Rice, a teacher in Washington who was disciplined and terminated several times for inappropriate relationships and involvement with students but the police weren't ever notified therefore other than personnel records that are accessible by few, there wasn't a way for parents to know there was a problem.

She was arrested this month for kidnapping and raping a ten year old student. She has admitted to having sex with him several times, even after the child's father had told her to stay away from his son (and this is without him having knowledge of her past troubles).

Nobody here is advocating witch hunts but instead involvement and awareness.

As for treatment or rehabilitation, I am not certain what to think. I wouldn't want a ''reformed'' pedophile in my neighborhood or close to elementary schools or day cares. At best, at the very best let's say that treatment works (and it only works when a) treatment is available and b) the sex offender participates) in all but 10% of sex offenders. It's not true, at all, but let's say that it is and that of 3500 convicts ''only'' 350 will re-offend. I am not bold enough to chance that the one or even a dozen who want to live in residential neighborhood isn't one of the 350 and is instead one of the 3150 deemed cured. I wouldn't buy a car that had a 10% chance of exploding on impact in a collision, why would I want ''just'' a 10% chance of sexual assault.

As for where they live and how they live following confinement, that isn't an advocacy flag I am willing to fly. Surely they have done their time but I disagree that they are ''entitled'' to quiet, peaceful lives if they have chosen to violate a child. Some crimes don't have a societal statute of limitations and with very good reason.

[joistmonkey]

Sorry, yes. I apologise for seemingly drawing any comparison between gay/black/jewish minories and paedophiles - that really wasn't the intention. I was more drawing comparison between the 'mob' attitude of people many years ago to 'different people', compared to now w.r.t. paedos. Gays/blacks etc. are not paedos, but the way people treated them 50 years ago is like how people treat ex-paedos now (regardless of right or wrong)

There is, of course, a prevailing opinion in a prejudiced section of the population that still equates homosexuality with perversion, and there's a long-lasting assumption from some people that gay men are 'after young men/boys'.

W.r.t. being born a paedophile or not, I agree that people probably are not. However it is likely that many do not 'choose' to be paedophiles, but are turned like that by abuse or incidents in thier life. This isn't an excuse, it is just a reason why I think many sex offenders are 'ill' and deserve pity and treatment as well as hatred and imprisonment. It is also why I think therapy can 'reverse' or control some cases of paedophilia - in the same way that we can apply therapy to help people with other mental illnesses.

I was trying to touch on the whole area of attitudes of suspicion to ex-offenders. Yes, there is evidence of reoffending in a number of 'rehabilitated' released sex offenders, but there is also a number who don't reoffend (and a number who fall into the bracket of people who were convicted of having sex with minors close to thier own age) who should be entitled to live normally.

It is 'emotion driven', but parents are much much more wary of ex child sex offenders than they are of numerous other types of ex offender, (rapists, murderers, thieves etc.) including those who are much more likely to reoffend. It's understandable w.r.t. no-one wanting to put their kids at any possible percieved risk, compared to the fact we all are happy to risk our property to a greater degree w.r.t. theft, but it is 'illogical' w.r.t. how the percieved threat and the actual statistical threat are diffenent. I accept that the damage caused in the very very few cases of child abuse is much greater and much worse to consider happening to your kids, but it is statistially pretty uncommon.

It's odd - I'm not really one who fights for my civil rights of privacy. Usually I believe that if someone has done nothing wrong, he need not fear people knowing about him. However, when it comes down to someones rights to live normally after serving time and treatment, versus parents rights to know if there is a person in the neighbourhood who they FEEL is a threat to thier kids, though he may only ACTUALLY be a very very very very very small risk, it's hard to know what side to fall on.

Maybe I have the right to know that my teachers have no prior convicitons of any kind, but why should I have the right to know that the man along the street thirty years ago had sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend? Or why should I have the right to know that someone was charged with exposure when drunk twenty years before?

[side issue that didn't really fit anywhere else - we'd agree that being attracted to pre-teens is pretty sick and criminal, but how about the whole area of Ephebophilia? We're on difficult ground there in some cases.. I mean, someone doesn't shift from being a 'paedophile' to 'normal' when the object of thier affection turns sixteen or whatever age consent is? It is natural to be attracted to young attractive members of the opposite sex (esp. if you are close in age to them) especially when teens are so oversexualised by fashion, peer pressure and the media. It is arguably 'fine' for people close to that age to find other people just below the age of consent attractive, just so long as they don't do anything illegal. In these cases it is the act, not the desire/intent, that is immoral/illegal - which is clearly not the case with large age difference paedophilia, and pre-teen attraction, where desire and act are both very wrong]

It's different, but I saw parallels in case in the UK where the killers of James Bulger were concerned. This toddler was murdered by two ten year old boys. The two murderers served eight or so years, and were released for good behaviour under the terms of a Life License (so they'll be locked up if they ever offend again, even minorly), aged nineteen or so.

I agreed - aside of whatever views you have on life imprisonment - with the fact that the two lads who comitted the murder deserved to have some kind of a life after they were released, and should be able to have new lives and identities. They were thought to be no threat to the public. There was, however, a massive public outcry when they were released (and numerous people wanting to hunt them down and exact revenge).

Like the Myra Hindley case, where an old woman was refused parole purely because public hatred of her was so large that it wouldn't hav been safe for her to be released. It's a massive shame when someones liberty (even if they are an ex-con) is refused, just because of a public mob rule deciding there is a huge PERCIEVED (yet not factually actual) danger.

[joistmonkey]

sorry - short appendix. I loved the logic behind rehabilitation you gave CharmingBitch. If I was a parent I would be very edgy about the chance of there being one of the 350 (from 3500) 'likely to reoffend' ex-offenders in my neighbourhood. I'd want to know if there was an ex-offender living near me for that reason.

However, making that knowledge available is in some ways discriminationg against the 3150 'safe' ex-offenders too. With no way to know which group an ex-offender will actually end up in, all 3500 released ex-offenders will be suspected.

It is whether you consider suspicious treatment of 3150 'normal' people to be acceptable, as a payoff to protect us - before any actual offence is comitted - against a small minority. Some would argue this payoff is fine, and that some ex-cons don;t deserve a normal life after prison. I'm not so sure.

[CharmingDriver]

I believe that is where we differ greatly; I don't and won't concern myself with what convicted sex offenders deserve in life after prison.

Muddying the waters with the tiny minority of registered sex offenders with a record for having sex with a close-aged yet underage paramour or the literal infinitesimal number with convictions for peeing in public or some such is not even strong enough to be a straw man argument and more importantly, isn't what I, personally, was referring to in keeping our children safe.

Do a select few have records that don't match the offense? Yes. Is that easy to live with or manage? Surely not but it's also not got a thing in the world to do with the actual threat actual predators represent to actual children.

I think too that we must be looking at very differing statistics on rehabilitation. It's not been shown to have a great deal of success in the US for child molesters or rapists. Again, it takes treatment being both available and adhered to and the vast majority of offenders here once released are not and CAN NOT be forced into treatment. Because once their time is served, in prison or on parole, their life is alleged to be their own.

I don't profess to speak for anyone else but I am not willing to trust the judgment of someone who has already made the decision to sexualize kids and therefore, yes, I am absolutely fine with assuming all 3500 will re-offend and keeping them out of my neighborhood and away from kids I love.

[CharmingDriver]

Y'all need to wiki Myra Hindley because: Yeah. That's whose civil rights Imma get het up about.

[StickyKeys]

@ JM

Heh, I hope you packed your passport babe, cause that's a long way to go to prove a point. Honestly, and this may sound rude and I do apologize if that's the case, but it seems now you're just trying to be right by any means necessary, instead of actually talking about the issue at hand. I think in actuality your advocacy is more for the teachers and their privacy and somehow that got segued into a anthem on pedo rights.

I think it was the inclusion of the Myra H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Hindley) case that really flipped a switch, because the utter horror she put her victims through is enough to make even the most cheery forgiving person cynical and hard.

Listen, I don't need to know necessarily about the man who got caught mooning, but if that man mooned in front of a ten year old and told him to anally probe him that's something I need to know. I don't need to know about the man who slept with his 15y/o girlfriend who later became his wife, but I do need to know if he was 30 at the time.

Do I want a man who once killed a child as a boy in my neighborhood? Probably not. Do I want a woman who killed children and even taped the torture of a girl and then presented it to the girl's mother and then took a picture by her victim's graves to be anywhere within a million mile radius of me? Hell naw!

What you seem to be dismissing is born like this or not, predisposed via abuse to this or not, attracted or tempted by it or not, it is nothing until an action to foster or validate those feelings come to fruition. There will always be 100 walls between you and the ability to molest a child and the very fact that a molester consciously decides to pole vault over the lot of them tells me not only something about their sexual deviancy, but their inability to make stable life choices.

Those people should expect harassment in vast quantities and probably deserve it to an extent. I don't know if there's anything you can do about that because everyone reacts differently to those situations. Doesn't mean you shouldn't trust them in the future, but it also doesn't mean you should let them baby sit for you.

Personally I can't bring myself to advocate for someone who knowingly abused someone who couldn't fight back or protest. The point though isn't their civil rights because they lost those when they decided to violate the rights of others. They have to earn their place back into society and there will be tons of people completely unwilling to forgive.

I'm sure they can deal with it just as the child will be able to deal with being molested and their parents will deal with having to explain to their child why they're getting so much unwanted attention and footing the bills for therapy and possible medication.

The end of molestation isn't a jail sentence. These kids lives (if they weren't taken) will be effected in their entirety, and all the offender has to do is serve 20 years?

Especially with you being in the education system I'd expect you to be a bit more sympathetic to the parent's situation, and I think you are, but possibly just got caught up? Sure, everyone deserves a second chance, but how much of one do they get when they've taken someone else's first, you know?

Well it looks like I've joined you on your trip but I'll get off here and say that people should be informed about those who watch their kids. I really like the idea of having a parent rep at every practice like the poster above mentioned. I do think that background checks should be mandatory, but if something comes up the offender should have a chance to explain themselves and be heard by the general public so they can make an informed decision.

[StickyKeys]

Or, you know, what Truck said right above my tl;dr comment.

[joistmonkey]

I'll be brief :-)

Is perfectly natural to not want to live near an ex-sex offender. It's understandable to be very edgy esp. if you have kids.

However, I just think that policies of law etc. should be based on proven stuff. It's not enough that people don't want to live near someone because they believe they pose a threat. We start on that logic and soon you have people saying they don't want to live near trailer trash or blacks or Jews or gays. Again I am NOT comparing these minorities with paedos, I am just comparing the attitude towards them.

Law should be based on actual threat. Here in the UK there are supervised facilities for ex offenders to live in after they leave prison, but they are often forced to close down because people don't want them in their neighbourhood.

It's a matter of opinion, but I think people should be given the chance to prove themselves rehabilitated. If *everyone* refuses to have ex-offenders living near them, then these people will have no-where to go. My opinion would be that they have some basic human rights, regardless of thier crime. We are all humans.

[StickyKeys]

Why consider someone human when they committ acts against humanity? Why grant someone rights when they knowingly violate and take away the rights of others. In this very thread there are comments from posters who have been molested and have had their lives completely changed because of it. If they have limited access to a normal life then why in the world would we grant solace to the person that caused it?

We start on that logic and soon you have people saying they don't want to live near trailer trash or blacks or Jews or gays. Again I am NOT comparing these minorities with paedos, I am just comparing the attitude towards them.

The comparison doesn't work on any level because blacks/gays/Jews/martians/LindsayLohan/the paparazzo/Indians/whatever don't have "abusing children" on their cultural resume's. People who hate racial minorities and gays are people who are actively practicing hatred based on nothing. People who hate people who molest kids are actively practiving hatred because of the severe disregard and disrespect for the life of another person that happens in the hands of a molester.

I don't want sexual abusers in my neighborhood just like I don't want nazis or KKK in my neighborhood. I refuse to allow the victimizer to become a victim. You do something stupid, you pay the cost for it, just like the person you did something to is paying for it every single days of their lives.

If no one wants to live near them subsidize some land in the country and make them farm it, maybe by providing the local townspeople with fresh produce they'll be on their way to becoming productive members of society. Honestly I don't know what the answer is but I can tell you loudly over and over again, I DON'T CARE! The reinstallation of their so called rights is of little importance to me, just keep them the hell away from my kids and my family and any one else that could serve as bait for them to slip again.

[DangerDoll]

CB, I absolutely agree that there aren't more predators now than in years past – sexual abuse is just discussed more openly, watched for more vigilantly, and recognized as the crime it is rather than being minimized to keep the victim from “rocking the boat” or “ruining the reputation/career/marriage” of the predator. Like Sticky Keys, I am not interested in the rights or victimhood of the predator.

Our parents vs. us, I had a very chaotic childhood with a revolving door of stepfathers/boyfriends and was a latchkey kid from age 5 (not an exaggeration). Suffice to say, she did little above-and-beyond to ensure my safety and I learned to take care of myself by any means necessary. Probably the only good thing to come of this is that I have incredibly good instincts and I trust them. This is what I teach my daughter (age 7), and what is MOST important to teach ALL our kids – Trust Your Gut, Respect Your Intuition. We’ve made it snore-inducingly normal to discuss our bodies openly and the fact that there are adults who do things they shouldn’t to children. She’s been taught that no feeling is too unimportant/embarrassing to bring to us, that adults don’t ever ask kids to keep secrets, and that we will never believe an adult’s word over hers. She’s known the “privacy zones” since she could talk. I’ve told her some of the stories of my own youth (age-appropriate, of course), not in a scary way but in a matter-of-fact, this is what can happen so easily way. We go to stores and I’ll give her a pop quiz: “Okay, so you turned around and I’m gone. What do you do?” That’s worked because once she did get separated from her dad, and later said she remembered the rules: *Cool head. *Find someone who works there, or a mom with kids. *Do not leave the store for any reason with anyone. *If someone tries to get you to go with them, scream/spit/bite/kick/vomit and specifically yell, “This is not my mother/father!” We bought The Safe Side (thesafeside.com), a video that teaches kids to differentiate between “safe adults”, “kinda knows” (teachers/coaches/friend’s parents), and “don’t knows” (actual strangers). And they are never, ever called “strangers”, because what? “Mom said I can’t talk to strangers.” “Oh, I’m Fred, your mom’s friend!” There, he’s no stranger now! She’s funny about the video – when her friends come over, she makes them all watch it so they’ll all be safe.

She’s not allowed to visit friend’s houses until I’ve been there first and met with the parents. She has one friend whose dad gives both of us a really bad vibe, so she’s not allowed over and I take the heat for her. Overkill or not, I have a whole routine I go through with all her friends’ parents – check PublicData.com for criminal records. Check the state's sex offender registry. Talk to people who know them (our community is pretty smallish). Busybody? I couldn't give a shit. FamilyWatchdog.us, which shows a map of all registered offenders near an address, a photo, their offense, etc. There is an offender in our neighborhood about five streets away, and my daughter knows this, too – she’s seen his photo and how “normal” he looks. With the school staff it’s more difficult. The district does criminal checks and the state maintains a public list of teachers’ disciplinary histories. The state revokes their teaching certification for crimes of “moral turpitude”, but of course that doesn’t cover the bus driver or the lunch lady, so I make sure I’m seen by them and speak to them (hopefully giving them the idea that “this kid’s parents are too involved, she won’t be an easy one”). She’s never been told to always mind adults no matter what. When she’s at gymnastics, one of us is watching. When she’s visiting a friend, she has a cell phone (Firefly) and strict instructions to slide it into her pocket and go to the bathroom if necessary to call if anything makes her feel uncomfortable, and we’ll make an excuse to pick her up.

ALL this is only what we can do with the tools we have. We work hard to instill confidence in her, to let her know that the little voice inside is to be trusted. There’s just so much faith you can put in registries, and they only list the predators that have been caught and convicted. So a lot of our faith is by necessity in instincts and common sense. And the fact that my husband bench presses 355 and that I’m one confrontational, protective bitch.

[Anonymous]

As someone who has lived with years of sexual abuse and neglect, I can tell you that giving a pedophile rights just makes a victim out of me all over again. Why should that person be able to pick up and start a new life all over again when my life is destroyed? I am not the type to wallow in my past and cry, "Woe is me! I have a terrible past, so please have mercy on me and let me do whatever I want without consequence!" However, even with the best of coping mechanisms and the most supportive people in my life, it never goes away.

There are months where I don't think about it. Then my husband will try to touch me, or I will smell something, or hear something and it's like it's happening all over again because of that one trigger. I dream about the evils that occurred in my past. I cry. I write. I talk to others. But none of that makes it go away. I don't get to "serve my time" and then go on as if nothing happens.

While my name might not be in a registry, it only takes spending some time with me to see that something is seriously amiss. Poor self-esteem and body image, intimacy problems, showing my children affection, stopping myself from trying to please everyone all the time, and the list just goes on... Had that person never been in my life, I wouldn't be this way. Period. So why should that person be allowed to enjoy the things I can't?

It's not a "sexual orientation." It's a CHOICE. Nature displays homosexuality - animals that won't mate, males that are killed by other males because they don't follow the "rules" and won't go away. Nature displays different skin, coat, and fur colors within the same species. Nature does not give us examples of animals focring themselves upon other members of the species that are not sexually mature. Period. Pedophiles are sick. Can some be rehabilitated? Possibly. Would I want that person living next to me? F*ck no.

Now that I am thoroughly upset, I'm done. If you're a pedophile, you destroyed a life (or more) and your life should be forfeit.

[joistmonkey]

1) I'm sorry if I appeared to underestimate the damage that sexual assualt etc. can do to the victims. This wasn't meant to be the case. I have worked with kids who have been victims of abuse, and seen just how it can ruin lives, and have a couple of friends who were raped, so have some idea. I'm not wishing to belittle the damage caused - I am just trying to put across how I don't agree with the 'he ruined my life, so I (we/law) should ruin his' argument. It is the same as my views on the death penalty, in that essentially I don't think two wrongs make a right.

2) I also disagree with the 'once a sex offender, always a sex offender' view, which many of you seem to be holding. No matter what the statistics on reoffending are, even if they are high, they are nowhere near 100%. Hence you are making a judgement that discriminates against ALL ex-sex offenders, which I don't believe is fair. You can try to make the theory more black and white by assuming that all ex-sex offenders are predatory rapers of children who will definitely reoffend, but this is not the case. Many did much lower level crimes and have been rehabilitated. Regardless of 'crime against humanity', a human deserves basic human rights, especially if he is in the 'safe' rehabilitated group.

It's massively illogical to assume that someone will *definitely* recommit just because they have before. It is also unfair to treat all ex-offenders like the worst of them.

3) RE: paedophila being a choice - in some cases, yes, but not in all. The frequency of individuals who were abused as kids growing up to abuse thier kids is higher than expected. There are very complex reasons why peadophiles develop - some through element of choice (and if it is choice, these offer a greater chance of rehabilitation), some through thinking it was normal because it's what their parents did, some through mental illness, some through traumatic treatment by women, some for other reasons. To assume that a paedo is choosing to have his impulses is wrong - most fight thier sick desires to a greater or lesser extent.

The 'it happens in nature' thing is an interesting idea. I agree that homosexuality happens in nature, and in humans, and I'm fine with both. I would also suspect that pedophilia also happens in nature - one could argue that humans ARE sexually mature in thier early teens but that as a (western) society we do not encourage mating at that age because teenagers aren't emotionally/mentally mature enough for parenthood (again we are using paedophilia to cover both abuse of pre-teens and teenagers, which adds confusion). There are few similar social constraints in nature, and most species mate as soon as they are sexually mature. Additionally, there are other unpleasant things in nature such as females eating males after sex, gang-banging, 'murder' of rivals etc. We'd not accept them in human society.

Hence, I think the 'it happens in nature therefore it is or isn't OK' argument is a poor idea. Nature is very very self-interested and xenophobic - would you justify killing people who compete for your resources on these grounds? How about the fact that animals from one 'pack' are killed for straying into the territory of another pack? That's a mirror of racism.

[StickyKeys]

1. "It's massively illogical to assume that someone will *definitely* recommit just because they have before. It is also unfair to treat all ex-offenders like the worst of them."

It isn't when you're a parent or the caretaker of a child. Because you're dealing with an illogical situation, the logical thing to do would be to assume there is no repeating rate, but with something as sensitive as child molestation it's completely logical to not take the chance that the offender in your neighborhood will do it again.

2) "RE: paedophila being a choice - in some cases, yes, but not in all."

No one is arguing the predisposition to pedophilia in some individuals, what is upsetting is when this predisposition manifests itself outwardly. Whether it's owning pictures of naked kids, or raping a baby, the steps taken to validate the feeling and then foster it are completely choice based and deplorable by any estimation.

3. "would you justify killing people who compete for your resources on these grounds?"

That's... pretty much what war is right? Since we're being technical. I won't get into an argument of animals vs. humans, but I do believe the poster simply noted that pedophilia is not a natural animal behavior. She never said "it happens in nature therefore it is or isn't OK", she said, "these traits are not natural because they are not exhibited in nature." Meaning these traits are the direct result of some sort of abuse, they are not innate to who we are as a species.

4. I don't see this issue as an "eye for an eye" type of issue. Sexual predators are normally just that, predatory. Premeditating and stalking their prey and pouncing again and again. Just because they got caught once doesn't mean a) they didn't do it before and got away with it, and b) they won't do it again.

For every alleged well meaning "ex"-pedophile we assume, we can also assume there are five more who could care less about being rehabilitated and some who even revel in it. The fact that there are so many unknowns, and the fact that a conviction just settles one of the problems is really what I think the point is. Who knows what else lies under the surface? If you can say that people who are abused go on to perform abuse, then why would jail stop them from repeating the offense after being caught?

The percentage for repeat offenders may be well under 100%, but it only has to be over 1% to matter to me. You're not going to win any friends by telling a parent, "Oh don't worry, he only has a 35% chance of molesting your children!" You might win a few kicks in the face though.

I would be interested to hear what you believes the answer should be then, joistmonkey. If we are to forgive and forget as it were, then what do we do to protect our children? How much leniency should be provided to a rehabilitated offender? I've heard a lot of reasoning about why we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but little about how.

[Anonymous]

A mirror of racism? Animals are killed for wandering into other territories for food and breeding grounds, not based on their physical properties. Try again.

In nature, animals "murder" to protect themselves, not because of some impulse. *shakes head*

As for the whole "fighting their impulses" crap... As a bipolar, every day of my life is impulsive. Yet I manage not to dig my family into a financial grave. I manage not to drink or pill-pop myself into oblivion. And as a former abuse victim, IT IS A CHOICE not to re-abuse. Yes, some people become abusers because it was all they knew. But that's like saying that beating your kid with an extension cord is okay because it happened to you. It's still wrong. Once you become an adult, knowing the difference between right and wrong, even if that means re-educating yourself, is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. No one can force you to do anything, short of stringing you up like a marionette. No one makes you into anything. Our past shapes who we are, but it does not define us. Using the "it's all I know" defense is crap.

More things to think about...

The recidivism rate is estimated between 10 and 66%. The average is about 18 to 20 based onre-conviction rates. But how many times do teenagers steal and never get caught? How often do I speed and not get ticketed? And once you HAVE been caught, aren't you a bit more careful?

Most child molesters molest either their own children, or children of strangers, but rarely both. In cases of multiple children, most often, only the child who is being abused is removed from the home. Who do you think the molester moves on to? In cases of stranger molestation and abuse, where would you begin as a parent to find someone your child may have met in a park or other fairly-anonymous, high-traffic region? A past-offender is "rehabilitated" and then abducts a child 2 motnhs after being released because he's off the list...

Once you're a murderer, you're always a murderer. You don't become an "ex-murderer" after you serve time and get counseling. You can never take it back. Pedophilia is the same way.

Being in touch with victims and being one is different. You may think it gives youa good perspective, but just like pregnancy, every victim is different. I can grow up with the same history as another woman and the way we process what happened to us and deal with it from there will make us as different as night and day. Statistics and fact sheets and the like are great, but you still don't understand the devastation until you're the one weeping on your honeymoon and pushing your husband away. You don't understand until it's your child being born and the sensations your labor are causing make you loathe your body and bring nothing but mental anguish. You don't understand until you can't play with your baby in the bath for fear that someone will think you're enjoying it in a way you shouldn't be. Period.

I don't care how much you have been trained in, or think you understand. The crime wasn't committed against you for 16 years, so you don't understand. Period.

I'm all done. *wipes hands*

[StickyKeys]

I must learn to proofread!

Part 1:

*It isn't when you're a parent or the caretaker of a child, because you're dealing with an illogical situation. The logical thing to do would be to assume there is no repeating rate, but with something as sensitive as child molestation it's completely illogical to not assume the chance that the offender in your neighborhood will do it again.

[DangerDoll]

JM, regarding your point #2...I've been through the comments and still do not find where anyone has said "once an offender, always an offender". I do find where people have said there is no real way to know the percentage who reoffend or to guarantee reformation and for these reasons, no one is interested in holding their children/neighborhood/school/youth group up as the offender's test case. This is complicated by the fact that sexual abuse is vastly underreported, which I don't find you acknowledging at all (unless I've missed it somewhere). If your house is burglarized, you are not too ashamed or fearful to call the police. Not so with sex crimes, and especially those of children. Sexual offenses are very different from other crimes, and that is why most larger cities in the US have police units solely dedicated to sex crimes.

I also sense again that you are of the opinion that sex crimes against children hold degrees of harm. Again, this is an area where it is impossible to quantify the repercussions of a lewd act - a 4-year-old "flashed" by a stranger, 8-year-old having nude photos taken of them, and a 14-year-old being forced to perform oral sex on a relative are all victimized, and may indeed grow up with similar issues of trust and betrayal which affect every corner of their lives. Rape adds a physical aspect to the mental anguish inherent in any violation. Period.

[joistmonkey]

Very very very good points. I agree with the majority of them. I do have a couple of queries though:-

"Once you're a murderer, you're always a murderer. You don't become an "ex-murderer" after you serve time and get counseling. You can never take it back. Pedophilia is the same way."

I disagree. There is a subtle difference here. You are a murderer if you commit a murder, and we use the term to mean 'someone who has committed murder' more commonly than 'someone who continues to murder and is likely to murder again' - true a 'paedophile' is someone who continues to have desires for kids, but not every person who has committed a sex crime against children, undergone prison and treatment and maybe castration and the long passge of time, despite being 'a sex offender' (in the sense that they have once comitted that crime) may no longer have attraction to kids, and thus shouldn't automatically be considered a paedophile in the 'active' 'they are still the same as they were all those years ago' way.

The crime is committing illegal acts associated with or against kids, not the pervesion it's self. To label 'past' criminals as active criminals in this way is analogous to labelling all rape fantasies as illegal (as opposed to just immoral, perhaps). Again I am not attacking anyones right to not want to live near ex-offenders, or to be affected by sexual abuse etc., I am just trying to say that there are a number of ex-offenders who are by all means normal functioning people (some less dysfunctional than some members of the public) who deserve some basic rights, and that legislation and attitudes should reflect that.

Secondly, though I accept that it can be difficult to quantify the harm caused by different acts, it is ludicrous to say that because it is hard to consistantly quantify distinct degrees of harm - it's therefore pointless to try. Yes, there's no way anyone can say that flashing a 4yr old will cause more or less harm than an 8-year-old having nude photos taken, or a 14-year-old being forced to perform oral sex. However, one must concede that having sex with the 4yr old or the 8yr old should be treated as a more serious offence than photographing or flashing them. Law needs to reflect the severity of offence (because it can't always reflect the severity of the damage caused to victims) and it does this according to common moral decency ie. (I don;t know if this is the law, but it would be similar) rape is more indecent than non penetrative assualt, which is more indecent than exposure, which is more indecent maybe than non-contact peeping or soemthing. You must then concede that exposure is less indecent than rape (to someone of the same age), therefore - because we need laws that relfect this - should be punished less. One might also conclude that a one-time flasher poses less of a threat to the public after relaease than a serial rapist.

[StickyKeys]

I think everyone understands what you're saying joistmonkey, as you've explained it in great detail, it's just that we (I) don't agree, and frankly could care less. And I think that's where the wall is between these arguments. You're trying to place a logical argument on an illogical act. You're asking for people to use deductive and sound reasoning for something that can make you crazy even if you've never experienced it.

It's not going to happen because regardless of statistics, we've heard enough of the stories of repeat criminals, of sustained abuse going unpunished, or know the effects abuse of that kind can have on a person to feel a responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen to our loved ones.

The system of degrees is one forced by legalities, but parents need not adhere to that system, and for the most part they won't. If they have an abject anxiety over someone flashing their kids, then they will feel the same way about that flasher as they will about a rapist.

Again though, the question was posed, what can we do to protect our children? How much leniency should we afford for the privacy of those in our neighborhoods? How can we ensure safe and respectable environments?

[joistmonkey]

Your last post Sticky was excellently summative. It is pointless for me to want people to take a cold logical view on an emotive issue, and you won't get an argument from me on whether parent's have a right to feel how they do about the complex issue.

So I'll shut up about that, you'll be glad to hear :-)

The question of how to protect children is a tough one. With younger kids you have to reinforce the 'stranger danger' idea, as well as taking care to stress that no-one should be able to touch them or do things that make them uncomfortable etc. even if it is Daddy's friend, or the nice neighbour.

With older kids it is a lot harder, as many may view advice from parents as being meant to stop their fun, as opposed to protecting them. In my opinion the earlier you talk to kids about sex in a sensible way, and the more open you are about what is normal and what is not, the better.

Here in the UK at least, schools have a role to play too, w.r.t. policies on personal, spiritual, health and emotional education, and the mandatory placement of this in the curriculum. Science teachers like myself are often involved in helping with this, as they can answer biology questions as well as dealing with the (probably more important in many cases) questions about the emotions and stuff of kids growing up. Not only are we then protecting kids, we are also allowing them to protect themselves.

[StickyKeys]

Now I can definitely agree with those points. And a lot of those policies (possibly barring spiritual health irt public schooling) are available in US schools, though some would argue they are not nearly on the level they should be.

There are still many advancements to be made though at least progross is continuing in the right direction in regards to healthy communications.