Sex Offenders Losing Their Religion?
Heard an interesting local reaction to the lawsuit filed in North Carolina which disallows those persons forced to register as sex offenders from attending church.
Or as Sara Totonchi, policy director for the Southern Center for Human Rights, calls such practice, "...criminalizing religion."
As the podcast plays, notice how the tune of the conservative radio commentator morphs under the education provided by the online guest.
Lots of work yet to do--especially as the "high recidivism rate" continues to be cited as the talking point of choice anytime education regarding the truth begins to fill the void, but the following commentary is light years from where the general public was on the issue just one year ago here in my neck of the Florida scrub.
Listen pre-guest here and on-air guest here.
Contact information for those wishing to provide the latest research to this chameleon of commentator can be found here.
Labels: talk radio
Explore Political Grind Network (a FeedBurner Network)
Links to this post:
Sex offenders are indeed allowed to go to church, just not ones that house day cares and teen programs. Of course the Christians don not believe physical church attendance is a pre-requisite for their religion at all so your entire story is based on purposely misrepresenting the facts. Shocking but sadly not a surprise at all.
Fear and loathing in the USA; Sex Offender laws, the toxic mix of hysteria, ignorance and Old Testament religious fundamentalism. This nation is quickly abandoning nobility and embracing retribution, exchanging freedom for a tenuous and false sense of security. All being lead blindly by politicians pandering to the hysterical and uninformed through the sensationalist media just to get elected? Intriguing, especially since Jesus said: “But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you.”
With regard too the Sexual Offender Registration laws, the public dissemination of public information in such a way as to guarantee public humiliation, loss of privacy, reckless endangerment and threat of harm (even extinction), risk and humiliation of innocent family members and fellow employees and destruction of innocent children’s lives, has been ruled permissible by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)… However, the raping of individuals rights to residency, protection from banishment, right to affordable housing, restrictions on gainful employment, restraints against freedom of movement and lawful assembly, destruction of ability to assimilate into society, restrictions from access to public services and facilities, and general banishment from society, even retroactively after conviction and/or after a person has served their sentence, has yet to be ruled on. Please ACLU and others, please give the SCOTUS the opportunity to unconstitutionally screw up that ruling too.
Well apparently, Rob, NC has done exactly what you infer can't happen.
"In December, North Carolina state legislators barred sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of any place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors."
If you have an alternate source for your commentary, then please post, but if not. then I likely know from what position you are coming from...
FYI--to piggyback on to your comment "...The Christians do (sic) not believe physical church attendance is a pre-requisite for their religion at all..", you are quite correct, the church is not the physical church but the persons who embody that building.
Segregating an offender from that fellowship would be the issue here.
VDog,
Your good words washed away the nonsense by someone who is a supposed expert on religion. A brief (extremely brief) view of RT's website tells the story of where that viewpoint is coming from.
My question. When did Christianity assume an intolerance viewpoint?
When did hate and intolerance become acceptable values within religion?
Brrr. Scary.
Sunny
Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps the more important question is when this great country chose to accept hate and intolerance. My study of history has shown that the founding fathers fled such hate and intolerance, which led to the Constitutional foundation of this great nation. I find it incredulous that the Supreme Court of the United States has chosen to abandon the importance of individual rights versus the rights of the masses. We are now witnessing the modern-day version of lynch mobs, sanctioned by the SCOTUS. Take my liberty and freedom away today and who will be there to defend you when they come for yours tomorrow. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither."
"...I find it incredulous that the Supreme Court of the United States has chosen to abandon the importance of individual rights versus the rights of the masses."
If the economy hasn't been effective enough, it's just one more way to eliminate the middle class from the equation....nothing like economic and legal disparity to further divide the country into haves and have-nots.
But even in the articles you link to they aren't banned from attending churches, just churches that have children or teen programs in them.
Hate and intolerance? For sexual sadists, people who molest children and exploit teens? Really? It is the person in the original article, a man who both molested children and was pinched for attempting to rape someone, who is hateful no? Or do Liberals no longer believe rape is an acti of violence?
As a Black man the fact that you people think laws designed to keep people who rape children from lurking around children is the same as segregation or lynching offends me, but it doesn't shock me. These are people who decided to victimize others, and you're claiming that because they pick up a Bible we should simply trust they aren't rapist anymore.
But how many of you would allow a man who robbed banks to buy a gun after he converted to Christianity? How many of you would drive an alcoholic to a bar then give him your keys. All of you of course, because you simply don't believe that people must be responsible for the consequences f their actions.
If they don't want to be "persecuted" they'd stop raping people. If you really believed registries were bad you'd argue against them sans distorting the facts. No one is stopping them from going to church, they are stopping them from choosing churches with children and teen programs. So what? Cry me a river people like Derek logue, who to this day mocks the victim of his rape (Sunny should know, she's twitter friends with him) can't lurk around church playgrounds.
Will the torment never end? Next we'll want to make schools check teachers records. Then we'll wnat to stop adults from raping and sexually exploiting children all together.
Only White people could come up with such nonsense. And only White Liberals can actually go to the mat defending people who are planning on victimizing children even as we speak.
Rob,
Let me address your most recent comment directly. First, try to find me a church doesn't have Sunday school or children's classes. Second, virtually all Sunday school classes etc. are supervised by adults. It's up to these adults to mind the children. Trust me, any pedophile, who wants to get in contact with a child is going to do so weither they are banned from the services are not. It is better to bring them in and monitor them than to have them lurking in the shadows.
Next, how you brought race into the issue I will never know. But I can say this that the raping of individuals rights, after they have done their time is just as repulsive as segregation or lynching. One is not exclusive of the other but are in fact quite similar. Do I condone the actions of this man, of course not. But that does not mean that I must condone the irrational exuberance of the current sex offender laws in this country.
Please don’t join the ranks of the uninformed, hysterical, knee-jerk reactionaries. Dozens of studies, including the study by the US dept. of Justice, have proven the same thing; these laws do not work and do more harm than good. Instead of being lead by the nose by dishonest, lying, thieving, corrupt politicians seeking election and power, here are a few sites you can review to get the facts:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm
http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/california-sex-offense-recidivism-data/
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125194251857582015.html
Freeman, Naomi J. and Sadler, Jeffrey C. (2009). The Adam Walsh Act:
A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy?
Criminal Justice Policy Review, Online First. Sage (subscription required)
Publications, 10.1177/0887403409338565.
Excerpt:
“With the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), states are required to standardize their registration and community notification practices by categorizing sex offenders into three-tier levels in the interest of increasing public safety. No empirical research, however, has investigated whether implementation of the AWA is likely to increase public safety. Using a sample of registered sex offenders in New York State, the current study examined the effectiveness of the Adam Walsh-tier system to classify offenders by likelihood of recidivism. Results indicated that the AWA falls short of increasing public safety. In fact, registered sex offenders classified by AWA as Tier 1 (lowest risk) were rearrested for both nonsexual and sexual offenses more than sex offenders in Tier 2 (moderate risk) or Tier 3 (highest risk).”
Knowledge leads to rational thought and reasoning!
Finally, your closing racist comments are insulting. They prove once again that in general, the black man holds far more prejudiced in his heart than the average white man.This is not an issue of black-and-white, but an issue of right and wrong. Let's try to stay on subject next time.
Insane registry laws and restrictions did not prevent the perverts, Philip Garrido AND HIS WIFE from doing what they did! The registry laws, and especially the residency / work place restrictions, have done far more harm than good. Forget about all the cases of vigilantism and suicide; forget about the fact that while these laws are proposed to protect the children, they include children, while a huge percentage of those on the list committed crimes that had nothing to do with children; forget about the fact that study after study has proven these laws not only are ineffective, but have actually made matters worse. Forget about the fact that upon release from custody, sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates, not the highest. In fact those who receive counseling and treatment have outstanding records versus those convicted of other violent crimes! The fact is the registry and any restrictions should be limited to those who are proven child molesters and pedophiles; that Law Enforcement could handle and monitor effectively. Do you seriously believe a committed pedophile cannot walk or drive 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 feet or more? Jaycee Lee Dugard was abducted miles from where Philip Garrido lived!
I am sure we will see comments from hysterical, uninformed individual(s) who will suggest that all those on the registry should be locked up for life or worse and say there is no rehabilitation for these people. And for a few they are right, we need to focus on those! Once a person has done their time that should be it. That is the foundation of this great country and its legal system. Don’t like it, move to China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or wherever individual rights are ignored. If a person is a pedophile, lock them up for a long time and provide treatment. Treatment not working, keep them locked up. Many families are being destroyed for political expediency; children of those on the registry are being abused and ostracized at school. Whole families are forced into isolation and restricted from the work place. If the registry is to truly protect the children, then let’s focus on the pedophiles and child molesters’. Get rid of the residency/work place restrictions, focus on the loitering laws. Let the rest on the registry re-assimilate into society after they have done their time, become solid, productive citizens; part of the solution not the problem. The facts, (and the Garrido case) as well as virtually all of the research, and study after study have proven what we are doing now, mostly for political expediency and to appease hysterical uninformed parents is not working and is in fact making matters worse!
One more thing. What about an offender who’s conviction had nothing to do with children or pedophilia? What about the offender’s children, does this law force their children to go to the park or church or thru the neighborhood unattended, even if the parent was not convicted of a crime involving children? Why does every law involving sex offenders assume the person is a pedophile? Doesn't this just add to the hysteria? Isn't this just one more case of politicians pandering to the hysterical and uninformed as well as the media just to get elected and gain power? Is this not like assuming all Black men are criminals simply because black on black crime is far more prevalent than white on white crime?
Vdog you can't read can you. The Justice department piece you link to says that within three years 5% of offenders commit another sex crime after being released, and if all crimes were included 43% of offenders. It goes on to show that offenders with histories of sex crimes (like the charming fellow you're all crying for) are much more likely to re-offend.
The study followed less than 10,000 inmates so frankly this is hardly scientific fact, but it's conclusions are that the older a person the less likely it is for him to re-offend after prison, with people nearing their 50s having the lowest recidivism rate. This only proves that as it becomes less likely for people to have access to victims and they become less physically able to offend their criminality decreases.
In other words it proves nothing, especially about the healthy young sex offender who is suing. Your other links are to Op-Ed pieces. I've read Op-eds that say we should have been a Monarchy. An Op-ed isn't proof of anything.
Segregation and lynching are issues of race. You and your child rapist loving supporters made the argument that the scum above, a child rapists who was also caught attempting to rape someone, was equivalent to Black people because both are "oppressed" but his oppression comes from within. He is being "oppressed" by his criminality which provokes society into reacting. Blacks who suffered through segregation or who were lynched were not criminals. To make the connection is de facto racism.
Garrido and his wife COULD have been stopped by parole officers checking in on them properly. The system failed in that respect, but their victim was rescued when a quick thinking officer noticed the man was acting oddly and CHECKED THE REGISTRY. Let's not rewrite history here, the failings here were of people, not the law.
But even if the registry failed in one case so what? Engines fail to turn over all the time, does that mean internal combustion doesn't work?
There is no cure for sexual sadism which is in reality what most sex offenders suffer. It isn't hysterical to want people who rape women, molest children or masturbate in public to be known by the communities they live in, just as it's not hysterical to want t read the crime blotter where the names and addresses of wife beaters, thieves and murderers are published every day.
It's funny that you make the argument that other sex offenders are being lumped in with pedophiles as if their all so different. As if rapists, flashers and peeping toms are so much better than pedophiles. The actions of these people should be equally vile to all decent people. And again you claim that judging people who have COMMITTED A CRIME by the crime the commit is the same as judging a Black ;person. Is this not racism? Is drawing an eqivelence between law abiding Black people and sex offenders not offensive?
I have often said that Liberals laid down with racists and perverts and no I have fodder for yet one more essay about the childish moral relativism of the left. Rapists, pedophiles and public masturbaters are being oppressed, yet none of you cry for the victims. I have seen no comments on how horrible it is for children in society who are being preyed upon, no outrage at women being raped.
And Sunny, I am an "expert" on religion, Comparative Religion actually. I have a degree in it and a Masters. But I'm not a Christian, so if you think I should be throwing out that forgiveness like them you'll be disappointed. Christian weakness is what you and Vdog and the other degenerates prey upon.
Your remarks make me think that either you or someone you care about was victimized. If that is true, I certainly understand your anger.
But my family has been victimized as well. If you've followed my blog, my family member caught up in these laws never laid a hand on anyone. The state laws are written in such a way that a judge's ruling was overruled by a probation officer. As a result, over the last several years, everything in life precious has been lost...except for the few people who everyday face being ostracized for standing up and refusing to abandon their loved one.
Many, many families in this country are caught up in this nightmare for similar situations, for crime created by lawmakers and in many cases, by law enforcement.
As far as recidivism, if you want research...here you go. I would specifically suggest Jill Levenson's work.
As far as the injection of race into this discussion, I'm not certain what to say except I haven't walked in your shoes and you certainly haven't walked in mine. With your obvious intellect, my hopes are that to truly protect children, you will open your mind to the most current research and together, we can work to take the politics out of child protection laws.
sunny, rob taylor is batting for the team. The OTHER team.
As I'm sure you know.
Yep. And he threw out the first pitch.
Sunny-
I'm sorry you've never met a person with morals before. Most people I know happen to be repulsed by sexual exploitation, some were victims some were not. It is not a function of being abused it is a function of having a sense of right and wrong.
"But my family has been victimized as well..."
No actually I don't follow your blog though I've come across it before. I am working on a piece about Derek Louge and saw that you had just blogged about a story I had and was curious.
But you seem to suggest that a person who commits a crime where he didn't physically touch anyone is a victim. By that logic peeping toms and flashers are innocent victims.People who masturbate to child porn, which is the physical evidence of children being abused, are innocent. This is nonsense.
"The state laws are written in such a way that a judge's ruling was overruled by a probation officer. As a result, over the last several years, everything in life precious has been lost..."
Uh, no. What you're describing is boilerplate POing. Your loved one was on parole or probation, he knew what he was and wasn't supposed to be doing to stay out of the joint and got caught out there. The only tragedy here is caused by his or her own actions.
If this person who you claim is a victim thought everything in his life, including his relationship with you, was so precious he'd have kept his nose clean.
"Many, many families in this country are caught up in this nightmare for similar situations, for crime created by lawmakers and in many cases, by law enforcement."
Name three. What we're talking about in the North Carolina case is a man who was caught trying to rape someone when he'd already raped others. Are rape laws unfair? Or are you really saying that it's unfair for people who have a history of sexually abusive criminality to be barred from situations were it would place more potential victims at risk.
"As far as recidivism..."
The Center of Sex Offender Mgt, from which many of the reports your "team" (more on that later) uses are ultimately issued has openly stated, and I quote: "Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police. They may fear that reporting will lead to the following:
* further victimization by the offender;
* other forms of retribution by the offender or by the offender's friends or family;
* arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender who may be a family member or friend and on whom the victim or others may depend;
* others finding out about the sexual assault (including friends, family members, media, and the public);
* not being believed; and
* being traumatized by the criminal justice system response.
These factors are compounded by the shame and guilt experienced by sexual assault victims, and, for many, a desire to put a tragic experience behind them. Incest victims who have experienced criminal justice involvement are particularly reluctant to report new incest crimes because of the disruption caused to their family. This complex of reasons makes it unlikely that reporting figures will change dramatically in the near future and bring recidivism rates closer to actual reoffense rates."
So throwing around these studies that really only make the point that muggers mug more people in their criminal career than molesters and rapists are able to victimize is ultimately silly. Criminality is criminality and society’s sympathy should go to the victims.
"As far as the injection of race into this discussion, I'm not certain what to say except I haven't walked in your shoes and you certainly haven't walked in mine. With your obvious intellect, my hopes are that to truly protect children, you will open your mind to the most current research and together, we can work to take the politics out of child protection laws."
Again you're re-writing history. One of your readers likened the treatment of rapists, child molesters and other sex offenders to the treatment of Black people. This is offensive. Black people aren't deviants; we aren't Black on account of criminal actions we decided to take. Sex offenders are a group of mostly White men (when you include pedophilia) who DECIDED to break the law. They are not being lynched; lynchings were aimed at innocent victims. They are not being segregated anymore than felons who aren't allowed to buy firearms are being segregated.
"No actually I don't follow your blog..."
But based on knowing nothing about what SF is about, you've chosen to make several assumptions, which are soundly incorrect. But concentrating on what we do agree on....true protection of children...
You are correct about the fear of victims to report. The registries and the broad net of the offender laws along with the collateral consequences have only serve to drive such reporting further underground.
Rigid thinkers can thank themselves for that.
The Jaycee Dugard case will prove an enlightening case as it unfolds as far as to why every legal stronghold in place failed her.
When you get five minutes to open your mind, check out the research I suggested. Any opinion can only be better served by an informed balance.
The world, it's not so black and white...no pun intended.
These comments sicken me.
In the summer of 1965, I was molested by a black man. I was 12 years old. He molested an entire group of us little white girls who had been assured by our school teachers that our parents were "ignorant" and "Prejudiced".
This was the summer before Oklahoma schools were to be integrated.
I remember my father leaving the house, pocketing his hunting pistol, to find the man 'allowed' to swim at our previously segregated swimming pool, who took the opportunity to molest little girls.
The owner of the swimming facility was running for congress that year, and the molester was the son of an Ethiopian diploma there to oversee the integration of Oklahoma schools.
My father was informed nothing could be done about the molesting - the molester had 'diplomatic immunity' and could molest as many little girls as he chose.
The experience left me with a strong revulsion and distrust for black men.
As a young adult, I was told in no uncertain terms I was no victim - I was RACIST. That I had no right to blame all black men for the wrong doings of that one, lone, single solitary black man.
So I got over it.
I'm grateful for the intolerance. It freed me from a life of self pity and self victimization.
Years later, my son was falsely accused by a young cousin who accused in exchange for attending a party when she was grounded.
Our church pastor flew 1,201 miles to testify on my son's behalf. Over 30 church members wrote letters in his support.
To be accused is to be guilty. "just us' has replaced justice.
My son was barred from attending that church because they 'aided in his denial'.
But he still knows the truth, and the light, and the way.
That can never be taken from him.
Thank you for sharing your story, Okiekid.
You have been heard.
Our best thoughts to you and your family.
Additionally, no greater truth exists than to those who live that truth....
A judge has ruled that a North Carolina law limiting sex offenders' ability to worship is unconstitutional.
Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour (bah-'DOO-er) ruled Thursday that two parts of the law aimed at protecting children from child molesters are too vague and broad.
The judge also finds the statutes infringe on the constitutionally protected right to worship.
The decision comes after authorities arrested registered sex offender James Nichols in March for attending a Baptist church outside of Raleigh because the church provided child care.
The statute says offenders must stay 300 feet away from any area intended for the use, care of supervision of minors and any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled events.
12/17/09
The Miami Herald
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1387830.html