Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a perfect example of why we need to seriously reform laws on sex offender registration all over the country. A 29 year old woman named Wendy Whitaker is suing the state of Georgia to get her name off the sex offender registry. Her "crime"? She had consensual oral sex when she was a sophomore in high school with another sophomore.
For that horrible act, she is still required to register as a sex offender and has to comply with all sorts of laws on where she can live and what she can do. In fact, she has a second lawsuit going to save herself from being evicted from her home because she can't live within 1000 feet of any place where children congregate and it turns out there's an unadvertised daycare center at a Catholic church near her home.
Whitaker, 29, is on the registry for having consensual oral sex with a classmate three weeks before his 16th birthday. Whitaker had just turned 17. Both were high school sophomores.Because of her 1997 sodomy conviction, Whitaker must register as a sex offender for life and comply with the law's residency restrictions that bar her from living within 1,000 feet of designated areas where children congregate.
"I am at my wit's end and in a constant state of stress because I never know what's going to happen to my family and our home," Whitaker said in a statement issued Friday.
The suit was filed on Whitaker's behalf by lawyers for the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta.
Russ Willard, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, declined comment, saying the office had yet to see the lawsuit.
Whitaker's designation as a sex offender is grossly out of proportion with the severity of her crime, the suit said.
It isn't just out of proportion with her crime -- there was no crime, for crying out loud. In fact, Georgia law has since been changed so that what she did is not a crime at all anymore, but legislators intentionally made sure that the law was not retroactive, so she still gets tarred as a sex offender for the rest of her life. This is absolutely appalling.
Politics
Comments
I hope her lawsuit succeeds, and I hope at least one major "news" outlet gives this issue the exposure it needs. (Can you put something about this in the Michigan Messenger?)
There needs to be a grass-roots popular movement against this hysteria, and the resulting Gitmoization of our justice "system."
Posted by: Rqging Bee | November 24, 2008 9:51 AM
While considered somewhat extreme by those preferring the more traditional "Sit Ins", in the end everyone agreed that last weeks mass protest "Eat Out" was far more enjoyable, although the group chant did come out a little too muffled/breathless to be effectively heard.
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 24, 2008 10:15 AM
Not just her. The entire sex-offender idea is a canard designed to improve political power. Much like the "traditional marriage" issue, there is no issue. Many "sex offenders" are predators, and indeed they have a very high recidivism rate--but it has nothing to do with "sex". Rape isn't a sex crime, either; it's a crime of violence, and, if anything, the general sense of identifying degenerate immorality that informs the sex-offender-crusaders increases the incidence of rape by utterly failing to get at the underlying causes.
We've created--and, worse, confirmed and accepted--a massive straw-man for politicians to beat up on. Whenever the real problems of a society get tough or complex, the leaders trot out a case and a law and "pump it up." In Minnesota, governor Pawlenty routinely attempts to crank up the sex-offender statutes--add this or that new requirement. Register. Can't live within 1000 feet of, basically, anybody. Wear a locator. Names on the web. Various other forms of public humiliation, etc. If opponents don't start chanting 'amen' they are painted with negatives. Anyone who dares to point out how grotesquely unfair and unrealistic these laws are is tarred. Anyone who tries to separate the threads of the various offenses that constitute the ridiculous global appellation "sex offender" is hounded by victims' rights groups with photos of raped and murdered children.
I sympathize with Ms. Whitaker, who happens to be a good example of only one thread of this vile tactic, but in general the problem is yet another example of how demagogues simultaneously keep people ignorant and fearful about sex, then use sex to demonize people, then use their fresh demons to create power for themselves. It has been a winning combo for a long time.
Here's a grotesque example of this "journalism" on one of those local-goes-national-because-we-have-tape stories:
http://www.kare11.com/news/whatsup/whatsup_article.aspx?storyid=529539&catid=333#comments
Not mentioned: the man was not unregistered, was not behaving illegally, and had just been the subject of a meeting in which people had publicly advocated that he be sent back to prison, assaulted, kidnapped, tortured, and killed. He had served his sentence and been released.
A news crew appears with bright lights and inflammatory questions. He becomes angry and makes threats. Now he's back in jail. Fair? Perfectly fair--because he's a sex offender, you see. If he'd been a burglar or even a murderer it would never have happened.
The comments are particularly instructive--more threats, not to the news crew manufacturing a story, but to the man himself.
And, rest assured, all those people consider themselves Constitution-loving patriots.
bleh.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 24, 2008 10:28 AM
The article isn't very descriptive. What law did she break? Did Georgia have a law against oral sex, or were they on opposite sides of the age of consent? And how did the state find out about it anyway? Somebody must have reported the act to the police. Was the boy convicted too?
And how exactly can a legislator make a repeal non-retroactive? Doesn't the Constitution say they can't do that?
Posted by: Brandon | November 24, 2008 10:28 AM
How the hell do you get charged with sodomy for performing fellatio? Couldn't the conviction have been struck down with a common sense argument?
This is beside the fact that sodomy laws are backward and stupid.
Posted by: Father Shaggy | November 24, 2008 10:46 AM
Brandon,
She broke the statutory rape law that says you can't have sex (any kind of sexual activity) with anyone under the age of 16. She was 17 and he was not yet 16, so she became the guilty party when his parents discovered the sexual activity and freaked out. It was obvious that she had tempted him into the sinful act (that was a snark by the way). The boy was not convicted because he was the 'victim' (ah if only I was a victim more often if this is the crime). The state does not need to make anything retroactive. They were specifically responding to another situation where a young man is in jail for similar type problems (except it was a girl that was a 'victim') and they needed to change the law, but didn't want to admit that that young man was jailed inappropriately (because the girl's parents are well connected and irate still). This state is generally full of the stupid.
Posted by: Scott Reese | November 24, 2008 10:49 AM
You hit the nail on the head ice9, a massive strawman indeed.
I hope the suit goes well for her. If not, the only option I can think of is to start dating a crime lord in the hopes she'll witness him committing a major crime. Then she can rat him out and get a clean slate in the witness protection program, assuming she survives of course.
I wonder if that would make a good plot for a movie. Hey Hollywood, give us a hand will ya?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2008 11:11 AM
Brandon, I assume that she was tripped up by those clever Georgia laws that make every young man and woman's secret desire into a crime. Now that she's of age, she can't ever have under-age sex again, and can never receive such cruel favors any more. It's kind of sad.
One mark of a deteriorating society (according to Charles Dickens, anyway) is the practice of increasing penalties for crimes even as the rate of those crimes do not decline. It didn't work for drugs and rock-and-roll, and it won't work for sex. When grownups run the government, I hope somebody separates sex from the other stuff.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 24, 2008 11:23 AM
Man, where was Wendy when I was a sophomore in high school?? =)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Carry on.
Posted by: FastLane | November 24, 2008 11:39 AM
The problem is that true sexual predators are almost never rehabilitated. (So said a criminal psychiatrist that I heard speak many years ago - he actually said "never").
I think any parent would want to know if a true sexual predator moved anywhere near their children. And I daresay most folks here would agree that disclosure to the community is a good thing.
So, anyone have concrete suggestions for amending the wording of current law?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 24, 2008 11:53 AM
You mean many of us were serial offenders in high school?
Man, if we'd have known it was criminal...we'd have done it more often.
Although I never understood how consensual sex is statutory rape but it's all good if you get a parental dispensation to marry, although still legally underage. Can't legally drink, vote or join the army. But you can marry and start popping out kids.
Just don't get it.
Posted by: Constance Reader | November 24, 2008 11:54 AM
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
First, let me get this out. I am totally against ANY form of abuse to any human being. And I believe anyone who murders another human being should be in prison for the rest of their life (until they die). I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. Also, I believe that once a person has been in and out of prison and has served their probation and parole, done everything required of them, and what was signed on the "contract" when they took the plea, none of this should be required of them, none of it. The state cannot tear up a contract like this, which they are basically doing, it's unconstitutional. Many people, if they had known they would be faced with all this, they would have NOT taken a plea deal. And the courts are very aware of this and this is why they made it retroactive; thus violating ex-post facto laws! They should be allowed to get on with their life as if nothing happened. I'm not saying for it to be removed from their record, but, the crime should be removed from public view and background checks, they should not have any more restrictions, shaming, etc. If they commit another crime, then they face a lot more punishment, like everything else is treated.
When are we going to move away from being "TOUGH ON CRIME" and move to being "SMART ON CRIME?" If you locked every single s*x offender up, at this moment, or killed every one of them, do you think the problem is over? No, more will follow.
I've heard many people say "If these laws protect one child, then they are worth it!" And at the same time, if millions are tortured, it's ok. Offenders are losing their homes, jobs, families, and children and cannot find new jobs or homes due to the insanity of these laws. The families are also made into outcasts for associating with or being related to an ex-offender and their own children are harassed and bullied at schools due to a family member being an ex-offender.
I know these laws are a sensitive issue, but as all issues, they must be discussed and we must come up with a valid solution that will work. The laws, as they exist now, DO NOT WORK! People are always saying they cause unintended consequences. These laws have been on the books for years now, so nothing is unintended anymore. When are we going to set aside fear, hate, rage and anger and come up with a real solution? History has proven that these feelings NEVER get good laws passed but only create bad ones that punish and torture many people. These knee-jerk reactions to a slim number of high-profile crimes, like Adam Walsh and Jessica Lunsford, MUST STOP!
When an ex-offender is forced to move from his/her home, thus having to sell it, cannot find another home within the law due to the residency "buffer" zones, get fired from their jobs due to being on the registry, cannot find a new job due to being on the registry, their husband/wife lose their jobs due to a significant other being on the registry, their children lose their friends and are harassed and bullied in school due to a family member being on the registry, thus destroying the children's lives, ex-offenders are forced into homelessness and to live under bridges, harassed by police, neighbors and probation/parole officers, have to wear "I'm a s*x offender T-shirt" or have a neon green license plate on ALL their cars, have "s*x offender" on their drivers license and forced to renew their licenses every year, forced from shelters during tornadoes or hurricanes, cannot give blood at some places due to being discriminated against for being on the s*x offender registry, denied housing due to being on the registry, signs placed in their yards inviting harassment and ridicule from the neighbors, forced to move when the neighbors start picketing outside the ex-offenders home, the list is endless.
I THINK THIS IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, BEYOND THE EXTREME!
Posted by: SexOffenderIssues | November 24, 2008 11:58 AM
The problem is that true sexual predators are almost never rehabilitated. (So said a criminal psychiatrist that I heard speak many years ago - he actually said "never").
I've heard that opinion questioned recently. Basically, if someone has sex with someone else (adult or minor) for pleasure, and somehow gets caught, shamed, humiliated, ostracized, or whatever, then there will henceforth be a LOT less pleasure associated with the act in the person's mind, and he/she will be less likely to want to do it again.
Do child-molesters really have greater rates of recidivism than other criminals? Do real-life statistics bear this out?
I also doubt the current conventional wisdom about how pedophiles are somehow uniquely incapable of keeping their hands off kids, and therefore need extraordinary measures to keep kids safe from their clutches. Didn't we used to say the same thing about gays? Don't we tend to say it about every kind of person we identify as a "sexual deviant" or "pervert?"
Posted by: Raging Hussein Bee | November 24, 2008 12:15 PM
Well said, ice9.
I live in a typically middle class neighborhood in Austin, Texas, and thanks to similar politically motivated (tough-on-crime) policies, I can look up a map and see that there are at least a dozen "sex-offenders" living just in my own neighborhood!
However, when I looked up the information on their crimes, there wasn't one that seemed particularly risky to have living around children. The problem is one of crying wolf. Simply putting every person guilty of a vaguely sex related crime on the sex offender register serves only to make the register useless. It's almost impossible to live in an area in Austin where there isn't a sex offender nearby, yet only a handful of these people are truly dangerous, and thanks to overuse of the system, they are once again able to hide in amongst the rest of them.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2008 12:17 PM
Wow, I was the "victim" of a sex offender! Actually, I've never been offended by sex, especially while being "victimized" in this way. So how would it complicate things if they were engaged in a 69?
We've got one perverted and messed up legal system.
Posted by: CyberLizard | November 24, 2008 12:36 PM
Just as a reminder as to how broken the American judicial system is -- the American prison population is five times larger, per capita, than all of the western democratic countries we like to compare ourselves with. We even put people in jail at a faster rate than Russia and China, countries we lambaste for violating freedoms and human rights.
Has locking everyone up solved our drug problem? Nope. Violent crime? Nope. High murder rate? Nope.
Yet, did we hear one single comment from any of the presidential candidates on this appalling fact about American society? Nope, not one. Once again, Democratic politicians have been cowed into submission and silence by the propagandists of the right-wing who love nothing better than to scare anyone who will listen into believing that the mere thought of reforming our judicial system will bring about rampant lawlessness in our streets.
Given the numbers, it's no surprise that many foreigners (including some of my friends and family) believe that America is a dangerous and unappealing place to live.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2008 1:36 PM
As Tacitus mentioned, this sort of thing does cause a serious "cry wolf" problem. Here in small-town southern Georgia, my local paper publishes names, addresses, and other identifying data on sex offenders in the want ads section. Haven't figured out if that's a "public service" provided by the paper or if someone is buying ads, but either way they usually include skimpy information on the crime. Sometimes even with that skimpy data, I can see that it is an adolescent affair (e.g., 29-year-old criminal, crime was statutory rape committed 12 years ago). It's fairly impossible to sort out the real problems from the petty persecution.
Meanwhile, these people have no opportunity to make a life - nearly impossible to get a job, rent a home, find an adult relationship, etc. I suspect many of them are effectively forced into further criminal behavior just to put food on their table.
Posted by: BobApril | November 24, 2008 2:42 PM
Me too CyberLizard. My high school sweetheart was a couple years older than me. The day she gave up her virginity she was technically raping me. It bothers the hell out of me that a beautiful expression of our love, this cherished memory, is tainted with a horrific word like rape. We both knew what we were doing and no one was being taken advantage of. If anything I had the advantage, as I was experienced while it was her first time.
Today she is a teacher, well liked and respected by her students and community. She is a wonderful person, both wise and caring. I think about all the lives she touched and how a quirk of the law could have ruined all that. It's just not right.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2008 2:43 PM
These laws can also lead to even worse. My state learned that the hard way and there's a push to reform the sex offender laws here because of it http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5355980
The first victim was exactly the type of person who should be registered and monitored for life, he raped a young child. The other poor man was registered for sleeping with his girlfriend before she turned 16 when he was in highschool. Yet the law made no distinction between them when it came to registering as a sex offender.
Posted by: Noadi | November 24, 2008 3:07 PM
Unfortunately, I imagine that here in Georgia there are plenty of citizens who believe that Wendy Whitaker's situation is an acceptable outcome of this type of law...
Posted by: Michael Day | November 24, 2008 3:58 PM
My younger sister, at 19, got caught on the side of the road with her friend, Chris. He was 17. They were drinking and um, partaking in some other fun. She was arrested (as was he, for underage drinking), and we were SO SCARED that she'd have to register as a sex offender. These two had grown up together, and even at 16 Chris was konwn as a bit of a man-whore. It's not as if she forced herself on him.
Thankfully it worked out in the end, and they both got light probation, but it was a REALLY close call. Ugh.
The sex-offender laws in our country are fucked.
Posted by: marilove | November 24, 2008 4:51 PM
Sodomy is merely a catch-all term for "forms of sex the majority finds icky," and included oral sex in some states.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 24, 2008 5:08 PM
One discrepancy always comes up whenever I read about these registry laws:
If you believe that people CHOOSE whomever they are sexually attracted to (like religious nuts seem to think), then you MUST believe that the arrest and jailing of a pedophile or rapist is sufficient to stop them from doing it again. Yet, by having registries, we have a blatant admission that jailing sex offenders does not work.
Am I the only one who has noticed this?
Sex offender registries, as I understand them, are mostly aimed at pedophiles, in an effort to "keep children safe." But the reality is that they're really a waste of time and money. They CANNOT work as intended, because of the simple fact that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children the same way that heterosexual men are attracted to women. They aren't going to stop. Any pedophile that is capable of acting out his desires once will continue until he's stopped for good, registry or not. The desire to have sex is biologically second only to hunger, right?
Is a life sentence appropriate for pedophiles? I don't think so, but (someone help me here, because I swear I've read about this somewhere) isn't there a way to chemically castrate someone and end their sex drive? That seems more appropriate to me.
One thing I can say for sure----lumping promiscuous teens in the same category as pedophiles is just wrong.
Posted by: kshep | November 24, 2008 5:22 PM
Hell, I think lumping a 20 year old who has sex with a 16 year old with a pedophile is wrong. They should be taken out back for a session with the Clue Club, but they sure ain't the same as a pedophile.
Common sense would be a lot more useful than the usual "think of the children! think of the children!" panic.
Posted by: gwangung | November 24, 2008 5:51 PM
Also, there is many studies which show the recidivism rates of sex offenders is LOW, not HIGH like the media and politicians say all the time to increase the fear factor.
http://sexoffenderstudies.blogspot.com/search/label/Recidivism
Posted by: SexOffenderIssues | November 24, 2008 6:17 PM
ice9: How do you know rape is not about sex? I say it is about sex.
Abby Normal: Touching story and excellent point.
Posted by: cm | November 24, 2008 8:57 PM
I've heard that rape is about sex, and I've heard it's about power. I have no way of knowing which is right. I do know that it's about something different than at least my idea of sex. Because there's no possible way that I could chase down a girl in a parking garage, threaten her with a knife, get her pants off if she was kicking, and still manage to have an erection. Maybe it's still about sex, just a different kind of sex than I'm used to. But I'm skeptical.
Posted by: steve s | November 24, 2008 11:16 PM
The argument on what rape is "about" is pretty much pointless. It depends entirely on what angle you're examining. If you're trying to determine whether it's a crime, then no, it really isn't about sex-- not if sex is a voluntary physically pleasurable event between two (or more) people. If you're a biologist, you're likely to have a different perspective-- obviously intercourse of some sort is taking place, and it isn't limited to the human species. I believe ice's point was to distinguish rape from other sex acts which are criminalized in spite of a lack of a victim.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 24, 2008 11:29 PM
Err....by "not limited to the human species," I meant that non-consensual sex isn't limited to the human species-- not that rape by definition involves non-human animals. Urk.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 24, 2008 11:36 PM
Don't you love the argument "we can't legalise this, because it would mean that all the criminals would go unpunished?" or "we don't need to legalise this, because only criminals do it?"
*Bangs head on desk*
"Reefer madness" blowhards use the same argument.
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 25, 2008 12:16 AM
I HATE this nonsensical garbage. A woman I know has a son on the sex-offender list for just this sort of thing - a girlfriend that he thought was his age turned out to have lied about her age and was 18 mos younger. He actually had to serve jail time even though she admitted in court to deceiving him about her age.
My first four or five relationships would have been illegal under these rules...and yet I knew full well what I was doing and everything was consensual...even when I was 17 and "dating" a 34 year old. I hadn't realized at the time the risk I was placing these guys in (and that they were placing themselves in, but heck - I was kinda hot back then *lol*)
Posted by: CanadianChick | November 25, 2008 12:38 AM
Here is another oral sex crusade done by the state of Georgia.
Children are convicted for having consensual sex with another child with only a year or two of difference between them, and then they get treated as if they are serial rapists. Seeing as how Wilson only got out of prison by a 4-3 vote, I don't think that Georgia's going to be reforming its draconian sex laws any time soon.
Posted by: Mr Doubt(hell)fire | November 25, 2008 12:56 AM
Heavy Snark Warning.
Ahh it's good to see a woman getting punished for premarital relations. If only it happened more often.
Posted by: tincture | November 25, 2008 4:37 AM
Raging (Hussein) Bee and SexOffenderIssues: Sorry, but, having worked my way exhaustively through every available piece of literature from the FBI, NCVS and DOJ studies, as well as the SSSI, there is actually evidence about recidivism rates. Convicted child molesters (and I mean actual pedophiles, the ones who targetted children under 12, not the "had consensual sex with a 16-yr-old") have the highest recidivism rate of any group of convicted criminal, at >50%.
Yes, the "untreatability" of pedophiles is stereotype, now. The high recidivism rate is a reality, unfortunately, for which there is objective evidence.
Having said that, this witch hunt for sex offenders which makes no distinction between true predators with victims and consensual raging hormones, can only be a bad thing, and the injustices perpetuated are profoundly disturbing. But how do you get reason and moderation, especially on an issue like this?
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | November 25, 2008 7:16 AM
It's the modern-day equivalent of the Scarlet Letter. We have not progressed very far from the 17th century, to be sure.
The Georgia woman is yet another victim of poorly written, politically inspired legislation. I would hope that the authors of that particular bill never intended to make sex between fellow students a felony.
Or then again, maybe they did.
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 25, 2008 7:22 AM
kshep, I can't really agree. That a person cannot help who they're sexually attracted to does not mean they're powerless to resist raping the objects of their affection. We don't convict people of being pedophiles (I hope!), we convict them of abusing children.
You might argue whether it's just to have some criminals on a public record with all sorts of restrictions placed around them, after their time is served, on the grounds that they're likely to reoffend. You can't really argue that child abusers are rendered incapable of recognizing that their actions are criminal and wrong because of their involuntary orientations, and should therefore not be punished for their actions.
Posted by: Morgan | November 25, 2008 9:53 AM
kshep -
Chemical castration is not effective in eliminating the sex drive. All that it does is make it impossible for the one so castrated to actually get release. It's been year since I read about it, so I can't find a cite for it any easier than you, but it has been found that chemical castration can and often does, cause an escalation in the criminal tendencies. It causes more frustration, frustration that the perpetrator is likely to take out on their victims.
I am not entirely in disagreement with you on the rest though. Personally, I would like to see pedophiles incarcerated in mental institutions. I am not however, averse to the notion that they be locked up for life. If they are to be released, it should be after a doctor has found them fit to return to society, they have gone back into court before a judge and been evaluated by a couple of other doctors, who agree that the perpetrator should be released.
I would also like to note that not all pedophiles actually act on their impulses. And at least some who do, wouldn't if they had gotten help. Unfortunately, it is exceptionally difficult for them to get help, because of the (very legitimate) stigmas attached to pedophilia. I am not sure what the answer to that problem is, but I think it would definitely be of value to our society to come up with one.
Gingerbaker -
I would argue that recidivism rates are partially due to the fact that as a subgroup of social outcasts, pedophiles are the most isolated and disparaged. It is made clear to them that they are the lowest of the low. They are also inundated with the notion that they will try to commit the crime again. They are pretty much assumed guilty for the rest of their lives. When faced with that assumption, there is little incentive to not rape children again. After all, they're already considered guilty, why not at least fulfill their sexual desires? In effect, why not actually commit the crime everyone assumes they are always going to be guilty of?
This is not to say that I don't think a legitimate sex offender registry is necessarily a bad thing, but the law certainly should be far more reasonable. Rather than making the data-base open to the public, it should be restricted to employment background checks that are specific to jobs relating to children and to rentals/home buying, within a certain radius of schools and other places where children are prevalent.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 25, 2008 10:41 AM
I remembered high recid rates for true predatory pedophiles. Thanks for the evidence. My point is--with all--not that there aren't dangerous people out there, but that it's the society's job, with the help of scientists and people who study the actual behaviors, to differentiate between various types of bad actors and punish them accordingly. There is a longstanding triple problem in our corrections philosophy: some say prison is to punish; some say prison is to isolate; some say prison is to rehabilitate. And we can't decide which it is, when it is, and whether one or the other works best.
But the fourth angle is to manipulate crime into a useful political tool. That requires simple messages, and "sex is icky" is the simplest and most useful one.
Rape may comprise sex, and may not be, say, attempted murder; but many assault victims are more badly injured than many rape victims. It's the theoretical sexual nature of rape (and the fact that the victims are women and the perpetrators men) that leads to traditional rape sentences, usually greater than assault, and often including death. That rape arises from some psychosexual or misogynistic short-circuit isn't relevant; it's the nature of the crime and the improvement of society in reaction to the crime that I'm concerned with. Nobody who is the victim of any sort of violent crime is comfortable or happy with it. Victims rarely get anything half resembling comeuppance or closure or whatever soft-headed pap we want to give them; their feelings are important and valuable but generally aren't critical to the societal function of prosecuting and punishing crime (sentencing hearings included). The simple legal fact is that a sentence is a sentence, parole is parole; after those legalities, piling on certain crimes is immoral, perhaps as immoral as committing the crime in the first place, since it's premeditated manipulation and exploitation of both criminal and victim. And encouraging and supporting the continued abuse of some criminals and not others once they are out in society is equally immoral, and ugly.
That high school students scrump like minks is a red herring in the debate.
I've read studies of certain classes of sociopathic child molesters which suggest that they are, as a group, the most likely to constitute a continuing threat regardless of how long they serve. Sentence them accordingly, or commit them; I don't care, just don't make them into a feel-good pinata once they're released, on the simple grounds that you can. Don't exploit them (as the news did Mr. Kawamoto) just because the average viewer is aroused by the idea of some short-eyes getting bullied by his neighborhood.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 25, 2008 11:49 AM
DuWayne, your statements about the ineffectiveness of castration are counter to what I've read, though it's been a couple years since I looked into it as well. My understanding is that a reduction of testosterone, either through castration or suppressive pharmaceuticals, has been at least moderately effective, particularly in extreme cases. Though as I think about it those cases were voluntary. I wonder if forced castration would be less effective and the source of our differing recollections.
As to your point about their low social status as a contributing factor to recidivism rates, you're dead on. The most effective therapies have included empathy training and socialization training. Building healthy, normal relationships is a significant factor in successful therapy. Feelings of, or a desire for, isolation is often a warning sign of impending relapse. Ostracizing pedophiles is about the worst thing we can do to them in terms of preventing future abuses. But convincing a community to forgive someone whose abused children... well lets just say I'm not holding my breath.
One thing to keep in mind, most (~80%) of pedophiles were themselves victims of sexual abuse as children. This is particularly true when the abuse was their first sexual experience. Most people are introduced to sex through stories or pictures, something external. But in the case of these abused children they themselves are the objects of their first sexual experience. They become fixated on their image of themselves in that encounter.
That is not to say that they are somehow absolved of responsibility for their actions. But understanding the forces that helped make them may help people to see that these are not some alien monsters devoid of humanity, but people, like you and me, just wounded and in need healing.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2008 12:40 PM
Abby -
I wish I could find the article, unfortunately, I can't even remember what journal it was in - it was several years ago. They cited a couple of studies and peer reviewed papers on the topic and concluded that it wasn't effective. The problem being that while it reduces the actual sexual abilities, it does nothing to deal with the mental health aspect of the problem, which is largely what sexual predation and pedophilia is all about.
OTOH, if we are talking about someone who has voluntarily opted for chemical castration, we are talking about someone who has already made serious strides in dealing with and understanding their mental illness. In effect, this is a person who has accepted and admitted absolutely, that they are basically incapable of "normal" or non-predatory sexual relationships.
This is a significant difference and an important one. As one who has been to jail on more than one occasion, I can attest that mere incarceration effectively makes one feel pretty much powerless. It is extremely frustrating and for many reinforces what is often a nearly pathological feeling of isolation - a disconnect from the rest of society. This is something that the sexual predator (whether they have acted on the impulse or not) already feels as a baseline.
In one where the castration is voluntary, it can actually have the effect of making them feel like they can end their isolation and become apart of something they never felt possible before. But when it's forced, it just makes the alienation that much worse. This person already felt pretty much powerless, especially if they actually were a victim of sexual predation as a child. They felt powerless against their urges. They felt powerless against their alienation. They felt powerless against their capture and incarceration. The only time they don't feel powerless, is when they are assaulting someone they perceive as weaker than themselves.
This is where the notion of rape as power play, versus rape as sexual device becomes less than germane. What many people fail to recognize is that it is usually both (though it can be either alone). The thing is, that even without the overt sexual drive and functionality, the underlying need is still there. But when that need is not able to be completely fulfilled, it is often going to have the effect of enraging the perpetrator. In spite of having a conscious understanding of why that fulfillment is not able to happen, they will usually blame the victim of their violence and punish them for it.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Sodomy? Fellatio? She sounds awesome!
Posted by: Matthew | November 26, 2008 12:45 PM
On a more serious note, I take it there is no legal difference between someone who has sexual tastes that extend to girls or boys who are just a little too young, compared to someone who is sexually attracted to children?
I just mean that from a biological perspective humans are 'ready' for sex from pretty much their first periods or ejaculations, so it is just us as a society that imposes some sort of taboo on sex at that age.
I am not disagreeing with that, but there is nothing unnatural about wanting to screw someone who is fourteen, it's just that we have collectively decided that it can be emotionally harmful and open to abuse and hence made it illegal, I assume.
This seems to be a fundamentally different urge than wanting to have sex with a person who is not in any way a sexual being yet, as opposed to merely an immature one.
And this seems also to be entirely separate from the rape urge, which is linked to power, aggression, and all the rest of it.
I am attracted to lots of women I am not allowed to have sex with - married women, young women, lesbians, women who for some crazy reason don't want to have sex with me, and this doesn't lead to any rape instinct developing. Does the atttraction to small children go hand in hand with the instinct to rape? Why is it so different to other people who want to have sex with people with whom they cannot?
I am not sure I really want the answers to any of these, and I know I am sort of repeating points made earlier, but it seems that the ick factor surrounding this issue has resulted in a lot of questions not really being asked. Although maybe they have been asked, and I am just pig-ignorant, which is a distinct possibility.
Posted by: Matthew | November 26, 2008 12:57 PM
To me pig-ignorance implies an unwillingness to even acknowledge you may not know something. This sounds more like garden-variety ignorance to me. Luckily that can be easily remedied. Your questions have been asked and we do have some answers.
As we're talking about thought processes, absolute answers are few and far between. But some tendencies have emerged. One of the more common tendencies is for pedophiles to project onto their victims. They do not see the child as they are. They see the child as sexually aware, wanting/needing them, and sometimes as intentionally trying to seduce them. They don't see it as rape. In fact it's not uncommon for them to see themselves as the victims and the children as the ones with the power.
This is part of why empathy training has shown to be somewhat effective in treatment. It helps them to see the child for who and what they really are and therefore the harm they are causing. Most pedophiles don't want to hurt children. They just do. A feeling of protectiveness toward the object of their desire is another common trait. So helping them understand the harm they do can be an effective deterrent.
States vary. But my understanding is that's more or less accurate.
Yes and no. The brain is part of biology. So if they are not psychologically ready then they are not biologically ready, even if they are physically able. But I see your point.
Psycologicly speaking pedophilia is a preference for prepubescent or early pubescent children. (Actually attraction to early pubescent children is called hebephilia. But they can be grouped together for the purposes of this discussion.) It is defined as a pathological disorder in the DSM. Preference for children in mid to late adolescence, called ephebophilia, is not usually considered pathological except in some specific circumstances. In a nutshell, it's normal unless it's coupled with obsession and/or compulsion.
Note that ephebophilia is a preference for adolescents. Simply being attracted to some adolescents, in addition to other types of people, is so common it doesn't even have it's own name. It's just plain normal.
It's also normal for adolescent minors to be sexually aware and starting to explore their sexuality. The taboo against adult/late adolescent sex is largely based on power, rather than psychosis. While the adolescent may have the biological and psychological maturity to be sexually active, they generally lack the experience necessary to make good decisions. In other words they're easy to deceive, manipulate and take advantage of, hence the need to protect them and the associated taboo.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 26, 2008 5:35 PM
What I don't understand - and actually, a lot about this topic I don't - is why pedophiles are attracted to children. If a homosexual preference is related to (not necessarily caused by) some sort of androgen mechanism/genetic specification, then it makes sense to be attracted to same-sex partners (and possibly there's other as-yet-unkown beneficial reasons for gayness, i.e., social unity or something like that, which promotes a more stable environment??? Sorry, talkin outta m'ass here!).
But children? Leave out for a second that it's generally almost always emotionally harmful for adults to be sexual with children (Richard Dawkins nonwithstanding) and answer me what particular biological function there would be in having a mating preference for members of your species who cannot mate. Homosexuality is different because adults can technically mate. Prepubescent humans cannot. So what would the "point" be of being attracted to them?
It may be because my BA's in psych and I've always been fascinated with forensic psychology and so I tend - perhaps wrongly - to pathologize everything, but I'm seeing pedophilia not as "orientation" cf. kshep, but as a disorder - independent of its effect on the recepient of the pedophile's actions.
Empathy training for psycopathic pedophiles is ineffective. But the proportion of true psychopaths (NOT people dx with APD, it's not exactly the same) within the pop of pedophiles is yet unknown. If our system would focus on these types of predators, much could be done to understand and eradicate this problem - and to leave innocent people alone.
re: Chemical castration/hormone therapy: according to some pedophiles who take it, it calms them down and quiets the OCD-like thoughts about sex with children, effects that go away once they stop the therapy or if they're switched to a placebo. I'm reeeaal skittish about forced hormonal therapy, tho. I rather like the approach of making it voluntary so that it seems more like treatment vs. punishment (perhaps making it more palatable for the offender). Also I'm way against surgical sterilization, for historical reasons just for starters.
Recidivism is linked to deviant sexual thoughts and general antisocial behavior, 2 predictors of future violence. Would like to point out that recidivism = a measure only of those who are caught... and sex crimes are known to be under-reported due to stigma sadly still associated with being a victim.
[will give citations for my assertions if needed]
Posted by: marnk | November 26, 2008 8:46 PM
marnk, I'm curious as to the basis for this statement. I understand that not all child molesters are pedophiles (psychopaths). What works for some may not work for others. But what I've read has indicated empathy training is an important component of therapy for all stripes. A couple examples would be:
Empathy, social skills, and other relevant cognitive processes in rapists and child molesters. Aggression and Violent Behavior, Geer et al., 1999.
Or this summary article from Mayo Clinic Proceedings last year.
Can you point me in another direction?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 26, 2008 9:49 PM
Thought of this while driving and just had to come back here:
"I thought the sex offender registry was supposed to help protect my children from predators, but if it's just a big list of women who give head, I'm going to start using it as a dating service."
Hmm. Needs a little work yet.
Posted by: rob | November 26, 2008 10:21 PM
Abby Normal:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you = Thanksgiving (yum!) + getting really involved in researching this topic (fascinating!).
The original basis for my statement was from:
Ogloff, J. (2006) "Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder conundrum." Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry.
The article references Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a standard tool for measuring psychopathy:
Neither of the papers you referenced addressed psychopathic pedophiles, to whom I was referring, so maybe our definitions are not aligned: like you said, not all child molesters are pedophiles but also, not all pedophiles are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a discrete condition from pedophilia, and one in which a lack of empathy is almost definitional. People with pedophilia don't necessarily lack empathy and from what I've read - partly through the links you've provided and articles from their references list (thanks!) - empathy training may be effective. And I'd be especially interested in the application of empathy therapy with adolescent psychopaths, since the brain is more plastic then and conceivebly, it could be structurally changed more easily than in adults (who still retain some brain plasticity, but not as much).
To say empathy treatment is ineffective is an extrapolation from Ogloff's comment and other variables: I was probably taking too much liberty with the idea that since psychopaths have biological deficits in empathy (limbic system, frontal/temporal lobe, executive dysfunction etc), therefore empathy training would not work. Empathy is not just a cognitive idea, it is also a brain state and if your brain is not wired to process it, learning interpersonal skills wouldn't change that. And in general I guess my belief - and of course I'm only assuming, based on my limited layperson's knowledge - is that psychopaths are more resistant to treatment because of enduring personality characteristics: that features like glibness, deception, and manipulativeness interfere with traditional psychotherapy, including empathy training.
Some of the other articles I read after your post:
Posted by: marnk | November 28, 2008 10:11 AM
Thank you marnk. It seems so obvious in hindsight, I feel a bit silly for not having seen it before. In my time I've dealt with a number of disturbed individuals. But true psychopaths are rather outside my sphere of experience. Fascinating stuff and a lot to go through.
I wonder what percent of the child predators are psychopathic. You mentioned it was unknown in your first post. But it feels like we're talking about a relatively small subset. Did you happen to come across anything on that in you more recent reading?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 29, 2008 10:15 PM
Hey There Bloggers lol I'm bored as shhhhhizat and I figured I would give you all some first hand feelings on this issue at hand. I am a Sex Offender convicted of statutory rape i.e. Consensual Sex with a minor I was 17 when I committed my first offense which was auto burglary and 18 whenever I caught the STAT charge well I went to court and I was sentenced to more time for my first offense of auto burlary than I was for my second offense of STAT RAPE I was senteced to 5 years to serve 3 for the offese I committed when i was under 18 which should have been handled as a juvy matter and 2 years for having sex....2 years around murderers and people that killed thier own mothers for having sex with a girl that was 52 days from the age of consent now tell me who has it bad I have to register for life it's extremly hard to find a job that will look past that title + I have to be extremly careful of the women I date because all it would take is one woman saying I slapped her across the face with it and I'll be a Lifer Thanks for letting me share
Doing LifeDuring Life in MS
Posted by: Jonathan | December 17, 2008 4:53 AM