"Pedophile Clusters" are shelters for sex offender

[Brian]

I just want to take a sec. to clear something up that I think may be a bit bias. The term "pedophile" as a generic term for sex offender is not accurate. There are a whole lot of different sexual offenses that have nothing to do with pedophilia. That's not really why I am posting this I just think sex offenders usually get all thrown into one big pile and the offenses are sometimes like night and day. I mean a person who steals a candy bar and one who commits armed robbery are two different crimes entirely, differentiated by laws.

But anyway, has anyone seen this yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548481,00.html?test=latestnews

"What they discovered is a trend that has been raising concerns among cops, local officials and experts across the country who study efforts to rein in sex offenders."

"It is called clustering..........As states and municipalities have enacted laws that bar registered sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and other places where children congregate, they have been forced to settle down in more remote, often rural, areas where restrictions haven’t been imposed or there is enough space to avoid them."

"Experts call that a recipe for disaster that could create far more danger to the public and undo all the work that imposing restrictive living measures for offenders has tried to accomplish."

"There are 674,000 convicted sex offenders in the United States."

"The irony of the situation is that efforts to rid towns of sex offenders may actually be making the situation worse."

“Packing them away from cities means there are fewer treatment options, less oversight and less support,” “And stability is the most important element in keeping sex offenders from committing further crimes.”

Any thoughts? Come on, you know you do.

[one love]

I read the other day that a man urinated in public and was charged as a sex offender for now on.

hope he never goes to jail! His life is over for taking a leak.

[dolfan]

Brian, with this, I agree. Let me explain. It is not an easy matter.

First, as to the differentiation among sex offenses. You're 100% correct. The man who fondles a woman in a bar against her will is given the exact same treatment as the man who molests a child. At least in Alabama. The offenses are extremely different, the treatment of the offenders should be.

This is not to say, "go lightly on fondlers and deviants but lock away molesters who harm kids". No, but don't treat them the same. Our state legislature passed one of these residency restrictions that has created this clustering problem. The restrictions have grown over time, and continue to. In Alabama, a man who groped a woman in, say, Ohio, and pleaded guilty to it can not live within 2,000 feet of property where a school is located. That practically zones him out of every single municipality in the state with more than 500 people in it. So, you get rural clusters of perv colonies. Great. The exact environment where they can energize off one another's evil and predatory behavior, where they are least likely to be monitored and where they are least likely to be accountable to anyone else either in terms of counseling (as if that could help) or in terms of law enforcement. But, voters LOVE being tough on crime, and what criminal is easier to be tough on than a pedophile? Again, the average citizen voter does not see the forest for the trees on issues of crime and punishment.

Recidivism rates skyrocket in the states with the toughest residency laws for sex offenders. Put a guy who comes on too strongly to a woman in a bar in a colony of child molesters, and take away his hope, stigmatize him as a molester himself (since he's living among them and like them in terms of being isolated), and you're well on your way to creating more people who are likely to harm children ---- THE very thing the Alabama legislature said it was trying to prevent by passing the law in the first place.

I WANT pedophiles and people who sexually abuse children to register, and I want public notice of there whereabouts, and I want them a reasonable distance from schools and daycares and bus stops. But, reasonableness has been surpassed in Alabama, and we've got a situation here where these people are more dangerous because of the law designed to protect people.

Heck, here a molester can live closer to his victim (1,000 feet) than he can to perfect strangers (2,000 feet from a school). What sense does that make? And, get this ..... if the victim was an adult and not a child and the person has no indicators or history to suggest he'd ever harm a child, the offender can STILL live 1,001 feet from his victim but must live outside of 2,000 feet from a school --- in essence, banishment to a rural or non-incorporated area in the county. It is nuts.

I have a case pending right now in the local court that is set for hearing next week. My client has an out of state conviction on a charge of grabbing a woman in a sexual advance toward her after they had been drinking. He is from here originally. After his wife dumped him here and he lost his home, and he got depressed and suicidal and checked into the hospital for help, he was homeless and his parents paid for him to stay in a local motel for a few days. That "few days" was long enough under state law to "establish a residence". Guess what is supposedly within 2,000 feet ---- a school.

I know from experience and the body of case law on this that there's no way I'd win an argument that the law is unconstitutional because of banishment; most all courts across the nation and esp. in Alabama have rejected the notion that the residency restrictions banish people. If you can live in a treehouse on the back of a mountain away from everyone that's good enough for you constitutionally. That's a losing argument and I'm not tilting at that windmill. BUT, I have found what I believe to be another severe weakness in the statute and I submitted a second brief to the local court yesterday on the matter. We have a hearing on my motion next week. Essentially, it argues that the law requires pleading and proving that the defendant knew that his establishment of a residence was within the prohibited distance; up until now, the law has been applied so that the defendant only had to be shown to know he was staying at a location for 3 nights (and, unless you're unconscious, you know where you are and can count days on a calendar), and the location just so happened to be within the prohibited distance. The State has not been required to show that the defendant actually knew that he was less than 2,000 feet from a school. The statute in Alabama is worded in such a way that it ought to be applied to require the state to prove that the defendant actually knew he was less than 2,000 feet from a school. In my case in particular, that would be a tough row to hoe for the DA. I am hopeful that it will result in a dismissal because if the court grants the motion (and, I'm doubtful it will because of the political sensitivity of it) it will impact all other cases on this law in this county and beyond. If I can just get my guy out, I'm fine. He's been in jail for a year, not able to make bond and no one in his family able to do it, and the judge not reducing his bond to something he could make. Them's the breaks. Chances are he'd not have to do much more than a year anyway if found guilty. He's already lost in that sense, but at least he'd have a clean record as far as being a violator of the Alabama law on sex offender residency restrictions.

[Brian]

Brian, with this, I agree.

dolfan, I knew I would finally get something right!!!!!:P

[forestwalker]

I just want to take a sec. to clear something up that I think may be a bit bias. The term "pedophile" as a generic term for sex offender is not accurate. There are a whole lot of different sexual offenses that have nothing to do with pedophilia. That's not really why I am posting this I just think sex offenders usually get all thrown into one big pile and the offenses are sometimes like night and day.

Yep. Like Dolfan said, it's mindless fear and "tough on crime" political pandering that's driving it. If you've ever looked at one of the maps that shows where registered sex offenders live in your area they're both terrifying and useless. There are thousands of people listed in my county, for example, but at least 90% of them are labeled as "lude act with a minor". That label could mean anything from a man hauled into court for statutory rape by an under-age girlfriend's parents fifty years ago to someone just out of prison for running a child prostitution ring. Useless info to actually protect your kids.

Another example, the "pedophile" priest scandal in the RCC was not actually a pedophile problem. It was largely a homosexual problem. The vast, vast majority of those abused were teenage boys. There were very few pre-pubescent children and very few girls abused. Of course, the confusion there is somewhat different as the word "pedophile" is used incorrectly because the truth is so very non-PC rather than out of fear or political scare-mongering as in the larger context.

[oletimer]

forestwalker posted;

Another example, the "pedophile" priest scandal in the RCC was not actually a pedophile problem. It was largely a homosexual problem. The vast, vast majority of those abused were teenage boys. There were very few pre-pubescent children and very few girls abused. Of course, the confusion there is somewhat different as the word "pedophile" is used incorrectly because the truth is so very non-PC rather than out of fear or political scare-mongering as in the larger context.

Pedophilia; An abnormal sexual desire in an adult for children

You can be homosexual and not be a pedophilia, though I thing that they go hand and hand. The priest that abuses boys is both, no questions asked.

The problems that I have with much of this is that they don't want to acknowledge themsevles as being gay.

Another thing is that they get the fire being a "pedophilia" and a metal for being gay.

[Brian]

Another thing is that they get the fire being a "pedophilia" and a metal for being gay.

As bad as homosexuality is at least it's mostly between two consenting adults. Being a pedophile is an adult (in most mases) having sexual relations with children, typical under the age of 13. Of course there are many variants to this but I would say this is typically the case.

Two adults doing something sinful together is different/worse than an adult and a child who has been manipulated or brainwashed into doing something they wouldn't normally do, even worse if they were forced.

[forestwalker]

Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-puberty children, boys or girls. Most victims of RCC priests were teenage boys. There were very few young children and very few girls abused. Most (not all) of the priests were clearly acting on homosexual desires, not on pedophilic ones, despite how the scandal came to be labeled and discussed in the media. The RCC knows this from both data on the characteristics of the victims and from the testimony of the abusers (as a result of their investigations they now explicitly forbid--on paper at least--the ordination of priests who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies") but can't clarify the point in public because, in our political environment, it would just make things that much worse for them to openly acknowledge that it's a gay problem.

[dolfan]

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. There's no link between them in terms of a homosexual being more likely than a heterosexual to commit pedophilia.

The awful thing about pedophilia, the morally repulsive thing about it, is the exploitation of innocence. Culturally, sexual activity with children has seen many variations of "acceptable age" of activity over time. Ancient Greece, for example, commonly saw what we might now call pedophilia (pederasty --- involving adolescent boys and grown men --- is generally illegal depending on what state you're in and the precise ages involved, and may not be considered "pedophilia" in the strictest linguistic sense).
But, stepping away from the arguments on boundaries, pedophilia is its own brand of evil.

Pope John Paul II said of the pedophile priests, "As priests, we are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination in succumbing even to the most grievous forms of the mystery of evil at work in the world." Certainly, some of the priest abuse was "pederasty"; many accounts abound as to actual pedophilia, too.

What is this "most grievous form" of evil? Why is it that evil? Well, exploitation is one part, another is selfishness, another is the sheer destruction of the innocent child. I think the latter is the most significant, in terms of grievousness. Substantial resources are devoted now to ferreting out pedophiles, punishing them, and countless more are devoted to dealing with the fallout. That's such a nice, neat word --- fallout. Truth is, the indescribable, tragic wreck of the soul that it wreaks on children is the "fallout". There's no volume of dictionaries or clinical journals with enough long words to convey the actual lifelong harm done to children who are victims of other people's perverse desires. Many children, more than you can count, would be what most folks would call "better off dead"; I mean that in the way the phrase gets used to describe the average person's reaction at hearing about unspeakable, inexplicable suffering. Most people would recoil to the point of preferring that someone be dead than to suffer horribly, inescapably, and for a long time. But, most people don't really, truly know the sufferings of these children in the present and for life. Even with what I've seen and do know about, not having been a victim of it, I can't say I really "know" either.

Examples probably are the best way to convey the horror of it. Out of respect for the board, though, I won't venture down that road. Suffice it to say, though, that the behavior by perpetrators is purely selfish, oftentimes growing from having been abused (that's an ugly truth about pedophilia). That selfishness is manifest in the secrecy in which they conduct themselves, the threats and manipulations the abusers employ to trap their prey and torture them for self-protection. It is also evident in the way they often react after being discovered. I know of one local man several years ago who, upon having been found out and then confronted by local investigators, did the one just thing I think he could've done, and that was to commit suicide. He didn't last 3 days after his game was outed. And, fittingly, it was a bizarre method he chose to do it and one that caused his demise to be slow and painful --- something he probably did not intend. Denial, obfuscation, accusations and excuses that know no end or boundary often follow. The very shamefulness of the allegation of being a pedophile is known all too well by many of them, and they often appear the most appalled at the accusations against them.

Then, there is another variety of pedophile: the one who really doesn't even go to the trouble of regretting it. This is the one who stands in court in a near catatonic state and rotely states his realization of his problem and his plans to rehabilitate. There's not a bullet in existence that is fast enough to bring that person to justice. They say "it is not my fault" or "this is something I've wrestled with all of my life." They typically blame the victim or someone else, and/or they simply say 'I was born like this'. Neither is acceptable, and neither is recoverable, IMO.

They are all reprobates.

This is nothing like homosexuality. Pedophilia does not cause homosexuality. Pedophilia is not caused by homosexuality. A person who rapes a woman, who commits adult sodomy, or who likes kinky things .... none of these is contributing factor to pedophilia. It is a pure form of evil.

[Brian]

Neither is acceptable, and neither is recoverable, IMO.

They are all reprobates.

dolfan, I don't disagree that pedophilia is pure evil but to say it is un-recoverable is to imply that it is impossible for that individual to be saved and that the blood of Jesus is stopped in it's tracts when it encounters a pedophile. I can't believe that. I believe that ALL sin is able to be washed clean and that I may share an eternity side by side with many a pedophile.
And I would rejoice all the more because of it! The "such as were some of you" who were once covered in sin and shame and are now washed clean by the blood of Christ covers all sexual sins, pedophiles as well. IMHO

God bless

[dolfan]

Once you murder someone, you're always a murderer. You can't become a 'former murderer'. You can become a forgiven murderer. You can become a Christian who is forgiven for murder. But, you murdered, and it can't be undone, the person can't be brought back from the dead, you can't put them back as they were before you did what you did. Same thing with pedophiles. So, in terms of "can they be saved?" Well, yes. With God, nothing is impossible. Are they? I'm sure there have been a few. I'm not going to let the exception create the rule, though. And, as a rule, they're not going to do anything but prey until stopped, and stopped means behind bars or dead.

[forestwalker]

Tim,

Brian's initial post sought to point out that the term pedophile is inappropriately used as a synonym for sex offender, that it has a more specific meaning and its common usage confuses various issues. The RCC "pedophile" priest scandal is an example of such bad usage. You say as much, noting that there were two classes of outrage, pedophilia and pederasty (and the data show that the vast, vast majority were the latter--The John Jay study out of CUNY on the question is the primary non-RCC source), but then summarize by referring to them collectively as pedophile priests. And confuse the issue further by then saying there's no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. True enough. There is correlation, however, between homosexuality and pederasty, so back to Brian's complaint.

These priests' actions were the most vile kind of evil, no doubt. They were an abuse of innocence, of pastoral authority, of communal trust, and of vows before God and the evil will echo through generations of lives. But referring to all the various sins collectively as pedophilia is not only inaccurate, it also makes rooting out the evil and protecting people going forward more difficult by masking the (various) spiritual/psychological disorders that bore these sins as fruit.

[oletimer]

Dolfan wrote

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. There's no link between them in terms of a homosexual being more likely than a heterosexual to commit pedophilia.

It is a pure form of evil.

homosexuality adj. of or character-lized by sexual desire for those of the same sex a oneself ----[i]n. a homosexual individual

When a male factor has sex with another male factor regarless of the age difference, then that individual is a homosexual (gay). If the partner hasbeen forced, then that person has been raped. That does not make the forced person anything other then a VICTIM.

It is a pure form of evil

That to say the least.

Your post is basely good, other then the fact homosexual seem to do the most of the pedophilia crime and sin.

If it is a male facter and female victim then they ca be said to be sin sick evil, but doesn't come under the description of a homosexual.

Either would wantna (sp) make a father find a high limb and use a short rope. If the governing bodies would that then I guarantee it would cut down on the crime rate , but lets getum saved first. I know!

[paul]

Oldtimer said:

When a male factor has sex with another male factor regarless of the age difference, then that individual is a homosexual (gay). If the partner hasbeen forced, then that person has been raped. That does not make the forced person anything other then a VICTIM.

Let me ask a few question.

Is homosexual a noun or a verb ?
Is it a person or is it an act?

If someone is forces to perform a homosexual act over a period of time, as is the case in some of the priest/boys example is the child a homosexual ?

If we know that God does not allow us to be born a homosexual, how can we say he is a homosexual?

Would it not be more apprtoiate to say that they are engaged in homosexual activity, that activity is contrary to the scripture and constitutes sin.

And as Paul said, you were once inclined but now are free.

[oletimer]

paul wrote: I can see clearly now!

Oldtimer said:

Quote:
When a male factor has sex with another male factor regarless of the age difference, then that individual is a homosexual (gay). If the partner hasbeen forced, then that person has been raped. That does not make the forced person anything other then a VICTIM.

Let me ask a few question.

Is homosexual a noun or a verb ?

Is it a person or is it an act?

If someone is forces to perform a homosexual act over a period of time, as is the case in some of the priest/boys example is the child a homosexual ?

If we know that God does not allow us to be born a homosexual, how can we say he is a homosexual?

Would it not be more apprtoiate to say that they are engaged in homosexual activity, that activity is contrary to the scripture and constitutes sin.

And as Paul said, you were once inclined but now are free.

Is homosexual a noun or a verb ?

The "person" would by difinition be a noun.
The "act" would have to be a verb.
The "what kind" I believe would be a adjective

The difinition in my post was taken out of the New World Dictionary (Second College Edition)

If someone is forces to perform a homosexual act over a period of time, as is the case in some of the priest/boys example is the child a homosexual ?

Even if it is for one time the ONE FORCING IS A HOMOSEXUAL (NOUN). The one being force is a victim, not a homosexual. Now if the victim desires and is a willing participant, then it would appear that they would be to. You might say that getting ran over by a truck doesn't make you a truck driver, but if you get behind the wheel, then that a different story.

If we know that God does not allow us to be born a homosexual, how can we say he is a homosexual?

It is our deeds that makes us what we are. If a murder will all ways be a murder even though he/she may get saved, then homo is a homo all ways even thought they might get saved. If saved then they (I guess) would be ex-homos.

Now I wrote:

If the partner has been forced, then that person has been raped. That does not make the forced person anything other then a VICTIM.

Paul I really don't know what your point is with your post, but hope this helps.

Jesus's blood is the only thing that can cleans their life up and no word can make them less then what they are. They are not because we say they are, but because of their own deeds and evil minds wither with consensual agreement two adults or wither they are forcing somebody else. In that case then the victim, I say again IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL.

By the Law of God we are to pray fo these indivivual even though we don't have to like their ways.