Thursday, November 17, 2011

The alleged victim of the Sandusky/ Penn State case shows us the fallacy of the public registry

The question of the public registry has always been its perceived effectiveness. After all, around 95% of sex crime arrests are of people who are not on the public registry, added to the fact that few registered citizens re-offend, not to mention that many on the registry are on there for such dangerous behavior as teens having consensual relations with other teens or sexting, or maybe even some of these silly cases, that one might question what good the public registry is in the first place.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the public registry has come from the current Penn State alleged sexual abuse case (I say alleged because until a court has rendered a decision, those involved are innocent until proven guilty, despite what the media thinks). Below is a section from a current CNN article on the Sandusky case (scroll down about halfway to find it):

The mother of one of Sandusky's alleged victims -- identified as Victim 1 in the indictment -- told CNN on Wednesday that her son watched the NBC interview and cried. "I said, 'Well, why did you cry?' And he said, 'Because I'm afraid that he might go free,' " said the woman, whose face and voice were altered to protect her -- and by extension her son's -- identity.

She said she first got clues that something was wrong when her son's behavior changed. "He went from like being a perfect 1,2,3 magic child to being ornery and being arrogant and mean," she said. But when her son asked her to lie to Sandusky when he called the house, she became suspicious.

"Then, out of the blue, one day he was sitting at the computer and wanted to look up 'sex weirdos.' He asked me 'What's the website you get on to look them up?' And I told him it was Megan's Law. And he said, 'Well, how do I type it in?' So, I gave him the web address and he typed it into the computer and I said, 'Who are you looking for?' and he said 'Jerry.' "I kinda froze. I was like, wow. 'What are you looking him up for?' And he was like, 'Oh, I don't know. I just want to see if he's on there.' I said, 'Well, why would he be on there? Do you have something you want to tell me?' and he was like, 'No.'Asked what was going on with Sandusky, the boy answered, "Sometimes he just acts weird. So I just wanted to see if he was on there, that's all.'"

The mother said that, a few days afterward, she learned that Sandusky had been taking her son out of school without her permission, so she called school officials and asked them to talk to her son "and just ask him how he feels." Soon after, the principal called her back in tears and invited the boy's mother to meet with her and the school guidance counselor, the mother said. "They told me that my son had said some things about that there was a problem with Jerry," she said. "He just said that he thought he needed to tell somebody or it would get worse." The mother said that, at that point, she asked the school officials to call the police. "They said I needed to think about the ramifications of what would happen if I did that," she said.

No surprise, Sandusky was not on the Megan's fLaw website. The list does not work that way.

The Stop It Now website has a good commentary on this case and the importance of NOT relying on a list of "sex weirdos:"

We need to open our eyes to the reality of who sexually abuses children.  Research shows that adults know that children are most likely to be abused by someone they know and often love and admire.  We also know that most child sexual abuse is never reported to authorities.  So, just because someone seems really nice, has a good job, and is not on a sex offender registryi doesn’t mean they are safe with your children.  What really matters is how they behave around children. 

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Note to detractors: Learn to read

It never ceases to amaze me how many people in America lack basic reading comprehension. I'm not surprised how many people give themselves away by the things they say online.

In case my many followers are wondering what I'm talking about, I'm referring to a recent comment I never bothered to publish due to the implicit death threat it contained. Turns out it was from No Peace For Predators, a violent vigilante group based in Orange Park, FL. I discussed this group and their leader David Rowe at length on my vigilante watch blog. As with most of the other vigilantes I have written about over the years at AZUnites, those who peruse such violent groups tend to be devoid of rational thought and spend most of their days discussing ways to harass former offenders, or worse. It is easy to spot the hypocrisy. It is also amazing how blatant they can be about harassing others.

David Rowe (Center) of No Peace For Predators claims to be a Christian,
but his words and actions say otherwise. 
It would really help society if people like members of No Peace for Predators would go back to school and take some remedial reading comprehension skills. I remember back in grade school in reading class we read paragraphs and stories and answered questions on what I read. Should I make a Q&A session after every article? Maybe it will help lower level readers grasp simple concepts.

They criticized my recent article in their ignorance, but anyone with half a brain would understand the gist of my editorial. no one is comparing sex offenses to the common cold; the article was a warning against using simple minds and thoughts (like those common in members of NPFP) to try to solve complex problem. It was a warning against simple and unreasonable terms like "cure," when the REAL experts all agree that management, treatment and accountability are terms that should be used instead. Maybe that is the REAL reason why a rabid and blind group like No PPFP can never understand how to prevent sexual abuse in the first place.

The word "tough" is not the same as the word "smart." Oxen are strong but dumb, hence the derogatory expression "strong as an ox and half as smart." Tough on crime isn't the same as smart on crime. Allowing thugs like David Rowe harass individuals, even anonymously on Google Blogspot, is not smart. To be honest, cowardly comments written anonymously is not smart either.

Thankfully, legislators and courts are beginning to listen to reason. The entire approach to preventing sexual abuse must be completely re-evaluated and overhauled. It does not take a brain to "solve problems" with your fists, but true problem solving comes from the mind, NOT the body.

ADDENDUM: If people don't want their personal communications published, then they need to keep their comments to themselves. Below is a laughable email from one of NPFP's retarded followers:

From Colleen Perry (
I am requesting you remove my sons photograph and my name (coleen perry) from your blog/website or wherever else you may have posted the screenshot (the most recent photo on your blog from facebook) containing my sons photo. I request you at least blur the image. I do believe i retain all ownership and rights over my sons photo and I do not release it for personal or otherwise use to anyone. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

All I can say is if you don't like your communications public, DO NOT make public comments where people can read them. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people who support thugs like NPFP can be. On a related topic, maybe Colleen, like other FB users, should not post pics of their ugly kids online in the first place. I didn't even notice the pic until now but I don't plan on changing it since she made public comments accessible online. I protect my privacy, they should learn to do the same. 

PS: Crying to Mothers Against Pedophiless didn't help, huh? It is still here, deal with it.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Editorial- Can sex offenders be cured?

In my latest editorial, I explain the complexities of treatment and why we should change our way of thinking from "cure" to "control/manage." We are in serious need of an honest approach to treatment and rehabilitation based on facts not fears.

Can sex offenders be cured? Counterpoint 11/6/2011
By Derek W. Logue

Have you ever heard the expression “you can’t cure the common cold”? Back in the 1980s, scientists studying the “rhinovirus” (a.k.a. the common cold) published the first detailed analysis of how the virus operates within the human body. Spirits were high within the medical field that armed with this knowledge, the cure for the common cold was as simple as creating a drug that blocks the materials the virus uses to latch onto and infect human cells. 
A full generation after this initial discovery this “cure” for the common cold remains elusive. It turns out the mechanics of how viruses work was far more complex than the researchers realized. There cannot be a single vaccine for the common cold because there is more than one type of rhinovirus. Many of the “symptoms” we have come to associate with the common cold are actually not the result of the cold itself but our body’s “inflammatory response” to the virus. Our over-the-counter medicines we take thus do not cure the common cold, but treat and control those bodily responses to the rhinovirus, which is likely not even in your body by the time you notice the symptoms.
The business of creating potential cures for the common cold has many setbacks and difficulties of its own. Since the virus is usually well under control by our immune systems by the time we even notice symptoms, any potential cures must catch the virus within the first day or two of infection. Thus, without symptoms it is hard to determine sickness in the first place. The latest drugs were costly and offering only modest results with some unintended side effects. In the end, the old tried and true methods of controlling the symptoms of the common cold—hand washing, rest, chicken soup, and symptom control through simple over-the-counter methods that have been around for generations have proven to be the most effective [i]
In short, the best way to deal with the common cold has been time tested and proven effective methods of managing the effects of the virus.
When talking about sex offender management, we use the same lingo. Our society has relied upon a simplistic approach to sexual offending. Despite having the most limited knowledge of the root causes behind sexual abuse, we both give simplistic causes, we look for simplistic solutions. We have also discovered the hard way sexual offending is more complex and heterogeneous than we realized. The business of “cure” has become one of cost-benefits rather than effectiveness. We have determined the “simple” solutions had complex side-effects. 
We have placed an unreasonable expectation in managing sexual deviance. We have utilized an Eliminationist philosophy. We are looking for quick fixes to “cure” a complex problem. We have expected eradication of sexual deviance much like vaccines have wiped out many diseases in the 20th century.
Back in the medical field, there is a resurgence of one previously “eradicated” disease: whooping cough. The disease has adapted somewhat and patterns have changed, putting some people at risk of contracting the disease even after vaccination [ii]. We have also discovered that over-medicating led to antibiotic resistance [iii], which led to policy reforms of antibiotic usage.
To use simplistic terms like “cure” and to generalize all treatment and management concepts into a one-size-fits-all quick-fix solution undermines the true goals of sex offender treatment and management. Solutions are multifaceted and require a focus on both prevention of new offenses and management of deviant behaviors among those who have offended in the past. Like researchers in other fields, we are looking for what is effective rather than what is popular. The current research is almost unanimous in admitting current tough-on-crime legislation has no impact on recidivism. However, there are encouraging advances in treatment, such as Restorative Justice and the Circles of Support and Accountability. We are better at recognizing warning signs of potential sexual abuse. However, there is still potential for greater improvement.
Advances in treatment can only be accomplished with an honest approach to addressing sexual deviance in society. This means leaving politics, media influence, stereotypes, and personal opinions out of research results. An honest approach that addresses the therapy needs of both victim and offender rather than the simple desire for retribution and a burgeoning sex offender industry is the only we will ever make true advances in managing and containing sexual offending in our society.

[i] Christine Gorman, “How Come We Can't Cure The Cold?”  Time Magazine, Mar. 10, 2003.,9171,1004367,00.html, Retrieved Nov. 6, 2011.
[ii] John Timmer, “Vaccine's success spurs whooping cough comeback.” Ars Technica, March 2011., Retrieved Nov. 6, 2011.

Thursday, November 3, 2011