R.I.P., Rev. C. David Hess (a.k.a., "The Parson")

I am saddened by the news that long-time reform activist, the Reverend David Hess of NY State, has passed away.

[Read one of Rev. Hess's final letters of advocacy at USA FAIR, written just days before his death]

I can't write a memorial as well for Rev. Hess as I did for Mary Duval; I only conversed with Rev. Hess a few times over the years. I met him on the old sexcriminals.com site way back in 2004 (ancient times as far as the sex offender reform movement is concerned) and later at SOHopeful, where he was always known as "The Parson." He is one of the few people I know who had been in this fight longer than me. He was far more level-headed than I (no surprise), and gave encouragement at many times to people. He was a pastor, first and foremost, after all. 

I remember, however, the help he gave me after my first taste of real activism, back in December 2006, during my battle with the city of Cincinnati over increasing residency restriction laws. He was one of the first to praise my efforts. Back then I did not have the knowledge and know-how to add videos to the internet (or an internet connection), so Rev. Hess uploaded the video for me. 

Rev. Hess was a quiet voice, but was among the many silent heroes in the battle against tough-on-crime legislation. We may not see everyone on the front lines of the cause, but that does not belittle the efforts of those like Rev. Hess, one of the early pioneers who helped mold and empower the reform movement in his own way. 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to Rev. Hess's sermon entitled "Lepers Among Us." He tells the story of a registrant who was turned away from a shelter because of his registry status during his sermon. 

Here is a brief bio of Hess from his Official Memorial page: 

David was born May 31, 1949 in Charleston, West Virginia. He was a graduate of Berea College and received a Master of Divinity and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. While in Seminary he pastored the Mt. Herman Baptist Church in Kutawa, Kentucky. Subsequently, he served the Glenwood Baptist Church in New Jersey, The First Baptist Church in Hamilton, NY and for 16 years the West Henrietta Baptist Church in New York, the longest pastorate in this nearly 200 year old congregation. Much loved and respected by his congregation and a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. He was active in the work of the American Baptist Churches of Rochester and Genesee Region and in many other local and statewide organizations. David served as the Chaplain of the West Henrietta Fire Department and the Henrietta Fire District. His love of music was widely recognized both within his congregation and also by his active role in the Eastman Rochester Chorus.

Home:Scottsville/West Henrietta, NY
Death Date:March 07, 2014
Birth Date:May 31, 1949
Age:64

Birthplace:Charleston, West Virginia

The BULLETIN from Rev. Hess's church, West Henrietta Baptist Church:

Our beloved Pastor David Hess succumbed to lung cancer on March 7th 2014 while a patient at the Wilmot Cancer Center of Strong Memorial Hospital.

David Hess has been the pastor of our church since April, 1998. He is a native West Virginian and  a graduate of Berea College. He has  received Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry degrees from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ("When," he says, "it was a good seminary.")

He has served pastorates in Hamilton, NY; Glenwood, NJ; Kuttawa, KY.; and Carrolton, KY. When in college he served as a student summer missionary to Trinidad.

Rev. Hess also ran a website called "SO Hopeful of NY." This was Rev. Hess's mission as founder of SOHopeful NY. Below was the mission statement from SOHopeful NY. Back during those early days of the moment, there were not very many organizations fighting against tough-on-crime legislation. Now, we have a number of organizations like SOSEN, RSOL, WAR, USA Fair, and my own website to help continue the fight that the good Reverend believed in:

Our positions:

1. We want effective laws that prevent sex crimes against children and others.

2. We recognize that effective laws are based on facts, not mythology and false assumptions. Most sex offender laws are enacted to prevent the victimization of children and adults by former offenders and strangers. Such crimes are much more likely to be committed by other individuals. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 93% of children who are victims of sexual abuse are victimized by family members or acquaintances. 95% of those arrested for sex crimes in New York State have not previously been convicted of a sex offense and thus  are not listed on any registry. Contrary to mythology, most sex offenders do not repeat their crimes. According to a study by NY State Division of Criminal Justice Services, just 8% of registered sex offenders in New York State are arrested for a new sex offense within 8 years of the date of their initial registration. The sex offender registry must not over promise. It is powerless to prevent the vast majority of sex crimes which are committed in New York State. It may even serve to cloak the true danger from the public. (More on sex offender recidivism in New York State).

3. We recommend that New York return to the earlier version of its law where only the most dangerous offenders were posted on the Internet registry, and that low risk, non-contact, non-violent, one time offenders be dropped from the registry after ten years.  Public sex offender registries are becoming so large that the public cannot identify those who truly present a continuing danger. Furthermore, we recommend that a path be opened up for those deemed "higher risk" offenders to earn their way off the registry. (New York State reports that 89% of even those "high risk" offenders  (Level 3) are not arrested for a new sex crime within 8 years of their date of first registration.

 4. We are against laws that increase the danger to the public. For example, it is well known in the field of corrections that recidivism is less likely when former offenders have stable employment, stable housing, and stable family and social support. Many sex offender laws actually increase the danger by making it more difficult for former offenders to find stable employment and housing. Many sex offender laws also have a significant negative impact on former offenders’ families, especially their children. It is a fact that many former offenders can become productive, law abiding, tax paying members of their communities. Specifically, we urge that public registries not include information about former offenders’ employers and that no residency laws be enacted for those no longer on probation or parole. (More on residency laws).

5. We support the recommendations on "Effective Sex Offender Management in New York State” found in the NY Senate Crime, Crime Victims, and Corrections Committee’s 2010 Annual Report.

6. In particular, we urge that New York State not implement the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). It is not the case that the federal government always knows better than the states. AWA is much more expensive and less effective than what New York presently has.  It is with good reason that only 4 states have implemented AWA to this point. Many states rightly object to the cost of AWA. For example, the Texas Legislative Budget Board, an independent review agency for the state's legislature, published its legislative biennium-based report. Its summary offers this fiscal impact information from Texas:

"Both state and federal laws play a role in establishing sex offender registration and notification requirements. In 2006, the federal government passed the Adam Walsh Act establishing comprehensive sex offender registration and notification requirements that may be costly for states to implement. Early estimates indicate it could cost Texas $14 million a year to comply with the Act. The penalty for non-compliance in fiscal year 2010 would have been $2.2 million."

 Ohio was the first state to implement AWA. In addition to the cost of implementing AWA, the state also had to wage a costly legal battle in defense of the law. The ultimate result was that the Ohio Supreme Court found Ohio’s law to be unconstitutional.  (Update: NY has notified the U.S. Justice Dept. that NY will not comply with the Adam Walsh Act).

Even in small scale operations, law enforcement loves to inflate numbers

I love how Law Enforcement loves to inflate numbers to make it sound like they are doing more than they are actually doing, or that they need to justify the vast waste of our resources on our Predator Panic obsession.

One of the newest prevailing myths is that the Super Bowl is now a yearly magnet for roughly 100,000 "sex traffickers," or what we used to like to refer to as "prostitution." You see, we no longer refer to prostitutes as prostitutes, but "sex trafficking victims." Now granted, a small number of Americans are forced into doing really bad things, like forced prostitution. Many more do so for reasons such as supporting a habit or because it is fast and easy money. That 100,000 number is ridiculous, by the way, since the biggest Super Bowl in history had about 105,000 or so official attendees. That would be about one prostitute for damn near every Super Bowl attendee. But I digress.

I wanted to point out a couple of glaring issues and nagging questions with this "news article" regarding "sex trafficking" arrests from this year's Super Bowl. Now, I must address a caveat. I have already stated that forced sexual slavery is a bad thing. I'm merely taking note of the over-inflated stats surrounding this newest myth.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/07/16-teens-rescued-from-sex-trafficking-in-super-bowl-sting/

16 Teens Rescued From Sex Trafficking in Super Bowl Sting
by Rachael Denhollander | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 2/7/14 11:34 AM

It’s the ugly side of the Super Bowl – the reality that America’s most popular sporting event is also likely America’s biggest day for sexual slavery. The day that sells the most tickets and the most coveted ad spaces is also the day that results in the most sales of little girls and women, at prices inflated to match the expense of the event. In a cruel outplay of the economic reality of “supply and demand,” it is not only local pimps who make a big profit – women and girls from all over the country are often brought in to the destination city to ensure that travelers for the big game have enough “side entertainment” available.

So now the "Super Bowl" is the "biggest day" for "sexual slavery." I find that hard to believe, given the headline stated a whopping 16 teens were "rescued." Compared to other large scale operations the police love to brag about, this seems like a relatively small number of fish for such a wide net.

As awareness of this evil phenomenon has grown, law enforcement officials and private organizations have been stepping up efforts to bring the activity to a halt, with Sunday’s event seeing perhaps the most intense and organized movement to date. In the six months leading up to the Super Bowl, the FBI partnered with both state and local law enforcement officials, more than 50 agencies in all, to create a coordinated effort not only in New Jersey, but throughout other states where pimps and their victims may be traveling from or through to supply the host city with enough “workers” to meet the demands of the big day.

Take note. OVER FIFTY law enforcement agencies took part in this massive operation in New Jersey, where this year's Super Bowl was played, as well as states other states where prostitutes and their handlers may be traveling from. Which states, I wonder? Note the six months of planning for this.

The operation included training hotel staff and other employees working in venues focused on hospitality or travel assistance to recognize warning signs of human trafficking and respond appropriately. The coordinated effort is the result of the FBI’s  “Innocence Lost” initiative, a program established in 2003 in conjunction with the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for the purpose of combating the trafficking and sale of minors.

I'd love to know what the NCMEC actually does besides make millions for John Walsh and Ernie Allen. I guess now is the time to PROVIDE THE LINK to the "Innocence Lost." So in 10 years, they are averaging about "270 rescues" annually. It is interesting these are very small numbers given the constant claims of "100,000 to 300,000 are children are sex slaves in the US." Also, how much does this operation cost taxpayers, given the number of agencies involved?

It is an effort that made a critical impact for dozens of women and children this weekend, as the FBI announced yesterday that it rescued more than 50 women forced into prostitution, as well as 16 minors being sold into sexual slavery. Six of the minors were recovered in New Jersey, while the others were recovered in surrounding states from pimps known to traffic victims across state lines, some of whom claimed to have traveled specifically to provide sexual services during Super Bowl events. In addition, 45 pimps were arrested in the coordinated operation.

This is where the story gets interesting. So actually, only six minors were actually recovered in NJ at this time? Also, were 50+ women actually "forced" into prostitution? Or were some smart enough to play along with that assumption? Of course, where are the other 99,934 sex trafficking victims being sold at the Super Bowl? Are they in hiding?

Of the children recovered, some were as young as 13, and none older than 17. Many were runaways who had been lured by pimps seeking desperate children, while some others were children who had been reported missing by their families, and still others were foreign nationals.

Interesting how the ages are mentioned here. "No one older than 17." That's because anyone ages 18+ aren't considered minors. Also, it is hard to justify using the word "many" when referring to 16 people.

But the biggest disconnect is found not on this article, but the "Innocence Lost project" page. Notice the look of the "child" in the graphic:

To me, the child in the graphic looks like a child, not a teenager. This graphic is a powerful propaganda tool. It implies a literal sale of children, not teenagers, some of whom apparently weren't forced into the sex trade. Even the writer of this article reluctantly mentions that some were teens "reported missing" or "foreign nationals." It is interesting because they are distinct categories from the category of those "lured by pimps." I guess it is easier to allow people to assume force when indeed some chose this profession. I'm not saying it is right for teens to chose the sex trade, I'm merely saying lets talk about the subject honestly, and cut out the propaganda.

It will be a long road for the women and children recovered, however. Brainwashing, brutal beatings, and threats of harm to family members are the normal living environment for victims of human trafficking, making it difficult to truly escape and heal. Many victims return to their captors out of fear or guilt, or as a result of Stockholm Syndrome.

Clemmie Greenlee, a victim of human trafficking who has dedicated her life to reaching other women in her situation, explains, “There’s no such thing as we want to go back to these guys, we do not feel that no one — not even the law — can protect us, and we do not want to die. … You can say you’re going to save us, you can say we don’t have to worry about the pimps no more. We already know what power they have shown us. So either you come back to them, or you find out two days later they either got your grandmother or they just broke your little baby’s arm.” In some ways, getting the women out is the easy part – helping them rebuild shattered lives is a much longer, much more difficult process.

Not all prostitutes have "pimps." Some are really bad people. However, this part of the article is a classical appeal to emotion. The implication is that ALL sex trade workers are this way. It may be more common in "street level" prostitution, but not so much with the "escort" level. Many women work independently, or their lovers act as protectors. Granted, drug abuse tends to be a primary motivator for prostitution for many people, and drugs make people do crazy things. It can also be like what is described here, but it isn't universal.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

Yet every effort must begin somewhere.  Perhaps this weekend, for nearly 70 women and children, the first steps to healing and freedom have begun.

I'm not sure what the pro-life argument has to do with the article.

For those who suspect trafficking, contact your local police or the Department of Homeland Security at 1.866.347.2423. The National Human Trafficking Resource Center also staffs a toll-free 24-hour hotline at 888-373-7888.

I guess Homeland Security needs a job since they don't do anything else but sit around and look menacing.

It is interesting to note the semantics employed in this newest awareness campaign, with a very sexist connotation. Prostitutes are almost universally portrayed as "victims" of the sex trade, while "pimps" and, almost as frequently, "Johns" are almost universally portrayed as abusive men who are forcing women into sex. Some do, yes. But not all women are victims. Many choose the profession willingly. Not all men are abusive.

It is common to feel the need to portray the worst case scenarios to raise awareness of a serious but very rare issue. Unfortunately the rhetoric clouds truth and rational approaches to the issue at hand. Sex trafficking is the next great Predator Panic, and it can have a negative influence over already bad sex offender laws.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Voting for the 2013 Shiitake Awards Has Begun!

The finalists have been announced and it is time to start voting for the 2013 Shiitake Awards.

For those unfamiliar with the Shiitake Awards, this is a Once Fallen project that spotlights the dumbest and worst sex offender-related stories of the year, and each year I host an awards show in the spirit of the "Razzies" to showcase the worst news story, journalist, politician, law, and state of the year. It is a fun project, voting only takes a minute, and it showcases the worst 2013 had to offer.

To cast your vote for the 2013 Shiitake Awards, go here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/R3K98V5

If you want to see the list of candidates for the 2013 Shiitake Awards before you vote, go here: http://shiitakeawards.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-2013-shiitake-awards-has-arrived.html

To listen to or download the podcast of the Selection Show from ReFORM-Radio, go here:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29032&cmd=tc

Voting ends January 31, 2014.

An update on the “Beyond the Label” documentary and A Call to Action

In June 2012, two Registered Citizens were gunned down by a lifelong career criminal named Patrick Drum in Port Angeles, WA. Later that year, I decided to attempt to make this case into a documentary about vigilante violence.

In light of the article, “The Vigilante of Clallam County,” printed in The Atlantic, written by Lexi Pandell, I figured it was time I gave an update on the film.

For the past few months, I have devoted time trying to gather as much information on this case as possible. After fundraising for the money to travel to Port Angeles to collect more interviews and case info, I still lacked some information. I contacted Patrick Drum and even tried scheduling an interview. Unfortunately, the Washington DOC will not all me to film Drum, so I ran out of options. Drum saw my appearance on HLN and the cat was out of the bag, so to speak. I have reached a dead end with extracting information from Patrick Drum.

This year, Lexi Pandell’s article and the LMN show “I Killed my BFF” have each provided an interpretation of the events surrounding the murders of Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray. For the past year, I have also devoted time and research into the case. While the other articles give a pretty good story, it is still a biased and incomplete story. Both stories paint Drum as an “antihero,” a rough character you can still sympathize with because, well, he killed two Registered Citizens.

While I can help fill in the missing puzzle pieces, I cannot offer a complete documentary with the footage I have at the moment. So what I am looking to do is expand the film into a treatise on vigilantism against Registered Persons. That means more work, more interviews…and unfortunately, more money. I was in the process of making a video ad before this story broke, in fact, because being an ACTIVE activist costs money. Traveling, phone calls and stamps, equipment, and projects like this documentary all take resources, and as I previously stated, it is hard to get all I need on my meager income.

In the coming months, I will have to travel to Montgomery, AL to stop an anti-clustering law, as well as a possible trip to Coalinga, CA to join a planned protest. I need lighting for films, and most of all, the funds to keep my website up. This documentary is still needed, but I need more than the footage I have to give a quality product.

There is no better time for me to ask the people for their generous support of my organization than right now, during the Holiday Season. The Holiday Season is always followed up by the Legislative Season, so now is the time to offer your support before you overspend on the holidays.

Donations can be mailed to: Derek Logue, 2559 Eden Ave. #14, Cincinnati, OH 45219

By Paypal: iamthefallen1@yahoo.com

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people: The Hitler quote controversy and its influence

Years ago (2006 to be exact), I wrote an article that was so controversial many on the sex offender reform movement shunned me. After all these years, the debate still rages over whether it is appropriate to compare sex offender laws to events and Nazi Germany. I still say yes.

What inspired me to write that particular article  in 2006 was the often used and debated passage attributed to Adolf Hitler. The quote reads as follows:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

As it turns out, Adolf Hitler did not attend this entire quote (the first sentence is a direct quote from Mein Kampf, I might add, but not the second sentence), although a fictional version of Hitler did pen the full quote. In 1999, a rabbi named Daniel Lapin wrote an essay in the style of CS Lewis's famous book "The Screwtape Letters" (a fictional series of letters between Satan and one of his minions named Screwtape).  Lapin's essay is a fictional letter between Adolf Hitler and Julius Streicher.

[You can find a copy of the original article HERE]

The full passage in which this quote is contained is actually far more compelling than the shortened version of the quote that is so famously used. Below is the full passage:

Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?

It is no secret that the American people have allow their personal freedoms to be curtailed for the sake of public safety. Victim industry advocates have used the mantra for many years, "If it saves just one child, then these laws are worth it."  Of course, there is the matter of whose child we are "saving." Certainly not the ten-year-old boy we have placed on the registry, prosecuted by the federal government.

But even the Nazis needed the public to assist in the apprehension of undesirables. Hitler and his Gestapo would have "gazed at with open-minded admiration" at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's new "Operation Predator" app. For the small price of hooking your smart phone up to the federal government (for wiretapping purposes of course), you can rat out your neighbors, anonymously accusing them of horrific crimes, and soon Amerika's militarized police forces will be breaking down doors, shooting first and asking questions later. Hitler would have marveled at our public registry system, our residency laws, and our GPS monitoring systems. While the Nazis were innovators of surveillance, they would have envied the American surveillance network, with our giant supercomputers documenting phone calls, emails, and browser clicks.

The Ministry of propaganda would indeed have been in awe of our modern media-- our 24/7 news propaganda, our Internet propaganda, our print media propaganda, and the willingness of the gullible masses to soak up the propaganda like a sponge. "If only we had this in our day," Hitler would exclaim. Hitler would shake hands with victim industry advocates like John Walsh and lobby for guest appearances on Nancy Grace. They would be the face of a new ministry of propaganda.

Indeed, we have learned a lot from the Nazi social experiment. The Nazis were true innovators in many ways. Studying the influences the Nazis held over their constituents gives us insights into the ease by which a group can be demonized and eliminated from society. It is so effective even the thought of a ten year old child on the registry is supported by the masses.

Watching Erin Brockovich defend the practice of putting a ten-year-old child on a sex offender registry on "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" was appalling enough, but hearing the audience hoot, clap, and cheer in approval is even more disturbing.

It is chilling to hear the words of Prosecutor Bruce Ferg when he states that the prosecution and conviction of a ten year old child "is the best thing that could've happened to the kid."

Lupin's fictional Hitler then states:

We can be confident America will preserve and develop our Nazi ideas of scientific human perfectibility because of one stroke of genius even Reich minister of propaganda, Goebbels, has to admire: Those who are advocating socialism in America, whether deliberately or inadvertently, have succeeded in turning the term "Nazi" into a slur that may only be used against those on the right, such as Christian conservatives. Never is it used against those on the left who are precisely the Americans doing most to advance our agenda.

However, people are loathe in this country to hear such a comparison. "How can you compare sex offenders to the innocent Jews? The Jews did nothing wrong, but sex offenders harmed a child." I'm not comparing Jews to Sex Offenders(though the Nazis believed the Jews were a blight on society and the cause of many of society's ills, and thus did something wrong), but I am making comments on the similarities between the practices instituted by the Nazis and the propaganda used in America to dehumanize an unpopular group of people. No sacrifice is too great even if it means sacrificing a ten year old boy, right? Remember, Hitler did not jump straight into the Final Solution, but eased into the policy after years of increasingly restrictive laws-- registration laws, signs in the front lawns, residency restriction laws, monitoring programs, and laws preventing undesirables (not just Jews, but homosexuals, the Roma, the disabled, sex offenders, Socialists, trade unionists, and the "work shy" as well) from certain jobs and social activities. We fear making such a comparison, and people shun making a rational comparison, and in doing so, we fail to acknowledge the historical elephant in the room. Those who refuse to learn from history tend to repeat history.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.

Hitler understood the power of propaganda quite well. After all the Nazis had the best psychologists in the world dedicated to its use. And we have gleaned the results. Laws like Megan's Law or the PATRIOT Act were based on the most basic of human emotions. Even the mentally handicapped understand fear because it is an instinctual and biological response. These laws were created by these emotions. Propaganda further clouded the issue by creating a monstrous image of a dirty old man in a wrinkly trench coat, luring children into rusty vans with promises of candy and puppies. The 1930s German film "M" uses that image, as well as the illustration of the left, which depicts a Jew as a stereotypical child molester. Is it any wonder that generations later, we are using that same simplistic, monstrous image to discuss the heterogeneous discussion of sex offender laws and sexual abuse in America?

Raw emotion takes precedent over reason. After all, we fear something that happens about as often as someone choking to death on a hot dog. "Don't confuse us we facts, I've made up my mind," the people say. To deflect a rational discourse on the complex issue of sex offender laws or sexual abuse in America is denying the chance at a solution that values human life as a whole and seeks a true solution rather than an eliminationist "Final Solution."

It is too bad emotion blinds reason at this point in time. To quote Lapin's fictional Hitler, "We are winning Julius, we are winning. Heil Hitler."

Mythbusting in action

Over the past few months, I have been focusing primarily on a number of sex offender myths typically propagated by the media. For those who were unable to attend the 2013 RSOL Conference, I have made my presentation at the conference available both on YouTube and on my website.

I have given a number of tips on how to become a myth buster at the end of my presentation; the most important tips I gave was to consider your source and read the original source material. I have discovered that often times, media reports tend to get things wrong. There are a number of reasons why the media would get a written report wrong. Those in the media are tasks with giving a very brief article on a lengthy research report. Reporters often have short deadlines, so they do not have the time to read a 30 to 100 page report, so chances are they rarely read beyond the summary pages. Spellcheckers may catch grammatical errors, but they do not always catch information that is inaccurate, so at times, glaring errors are sometimes overlooked.

I wish to take a moment to walk you through the process of myth busting by looking at an article forwarded to me this afternoon.

The article I am dissecting today was published by the website Breitbart.com; it is a prime example of shoddy reporting. Earlier, I mentioned “consider the source.” What is Breitbart? Breitbart.com is a conservative news and opinion website founded by Andrew Breitbart, former journalist for the Washington Times. It is, in essence, an independent Internet news site. Thus, the standards of journalism found at this site are likely of lower standards than those of the mass media. Brietbart.com was also been embroiled in controversy over the years, including a number of hoaxes and a doctored video that caused problems for the group ACORN.

Yesterday, Breitbart.com published an article entitled “FEDS RELEASE THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE SEX OFFENDERS” by Tony Lee [Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Feds-Release-Thousands-of-Immigrants-Who-Are-Sex-Offenders]. Lee had also published three other articles that day. The article begins with an ominous statement highlighted by its larger size and use of bold script:

“The United States government has released nearly 3,000 immigrant sex offenders, some of whom were illegal immigrants, since September 2012. Of those, nearly 3,000, or about 5%, were not even properly registered with local authorities as sex offenders.”

You notice something off about this statement? Look at the numbers. How much is 5% of 3000? I am pretty sure the answer is not 3000. Judging by the following comment, this simple gaffe has the potential to amplify the panic effect this article is trying to achieve:

TennesseeRedDog  mush57 • 7 hours ago −

5% of the 60,000 total is = ~3,000 sex offenders who were not registered at all. That is the only way the math works. But that is not the way it was written. "... of those" should refer to the total of 60,000 who were released. [Comment Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Feds-Release-Thousands-of-Immigrants-Who-Are-Sex-Offenders#comment-1048243101]

TennesseeRedDog’s problem is not his math or his grammar. The problem lies in his reading comprehension skills. The next statement in the article states the following:

“According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last week, "nearly 3,000 sex offenders are part of the 59,347 immigrants who the courts have ruled cannot be held" as of September 2012 because they were unable to be sent home. These immigrants were released "under some sort of supervision." As Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times noted, though, the GAO concluded that ‘about 5 percent of the time U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t ensure that the immigrants released were properly registered with local authorities as sex offenders’.”

The article states that “nearly 3,000 sex offenders” are “part of the 59,347 immigrants” released by the

government. Only about 3,000 of nearly 60,000 immigrants temporarily detained by the government were “sex offenders.” The 3000 number is a rounded total of registrants, not a subgroup of a larger number of registrants. The fact that 3,000 is 5% of 60,000 is a mere coincidence. Five percent of 3,000 is 150.

At this point, I'd like to point out the Breitbart.com article is a rewrite of a Washington Times article; the Times article does not round up the numbers. The Times article sets the actual number of registrants as 2,837, so 5% of that number is 142. The Times article does not include the gaffe in the Breitbart.com article. It is interesting that the only changes made by the Breitbart.com reporter made the myth worse.

So where did this “5% of the time immigrant registrants are not registering” claim originate? The article claims the source was from a recently released study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Indeed, the GAO just released an article entitled “SEX OFFENDERS: ICE Could Better Inform Offenders It Supervises of Registration Responsibilities and Notify Jurisdictions when Offenders Are Removed.” This is where reading the source material now becomes important:

[http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657831.pdf]

What GAO Found

On the basis of GAO’s analysis of a representative sample of 131 alien sex offenders under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supervision, GAO estimates that as of September 2012, 72 percent of alien sex offenders were registered, 22 percent were not required to register, and 5 percent did not register but should have. According to officials, offenders were not required to register for various reasons, such as the offense not requiring registration in some states. Of the 6 offenders in GAO’s sample that should have registered, officials from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE-ERO) field offices informed 4 of their registration requirements. However, officials at some of these field offices identified several reasons why they did not ensure that these offenders actually registered. For example, the offender may have moved and no longer resided in the area of responsibility for that particular field office. ICE had not informed the remaining 2 offenders of their registration requirements.

In any study, sample size is important. The larger the sample size, the less likely a solitary case will greatly influence the numbers. The sample size of the GAO study is 131. Therefore, adding one registrant to the number of those who “should have registered but didn't” greatly increases the overall number. Six of the 131 registrants “should have registered but didn't,” or 4.6%. Percentage points are a bigger deal when we're discussing larger numbers. Remember when I divided 3000 by 5% earlier? The more accurate formula is now 2,837 divided by 4.5%; now the magic number is 128 (22 less than our first estimate). These are indeed very small numbers.

Of course, the real issue is the Breitbart.com article scares us with “thousands of immigrant sex offenders (scary), SOME OF THEM ILLEGAL (even scarier), are released by the feds (OM-f’ing-G!).” The study is not clear how many of them are here “illegally.” The GAO report does discuss the process by which immigrants are eligible for deportation and the limitations on that ability below:

The Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE-ERO) is responsible for the identification, apprehension, detention, and removal of removable aliens. ICE-ERO prioritizes the removal of convicted criminals, among other groups. However, there are circumstances in which criminal aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States—including those convicted of a sex offense—cannot be removed. For example, a criminal alien may not be removed because the designated country will not accept the alien’s return. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis imposes strict limits on ICE’s ability to detain aliens beyond 6 months after the issuance of a final order of removal if removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In these instances, ICE-ERO may release the alien into the community under an order of supervision. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), of the 59,347 aliens under an order of supervision as of September 2012, 2,837 (5 percent) of them had been convicted of a sex offense.

The bottom line is the Breitbart.com article cannot accurately portray the source material, since the author did not even read the source material. It is the online equivalent of the “telephone game.” Remember my myth busting tips—consider your sources and read the source material. The article caters to the conservative (assumed anti-immigration) crowd. The article expects the reader to fill in the blanks and, judging by many of the posts in the comments section, most have bought the hype.

Myth busting isn’t easy but it can be learned. It takes critical thinking, reading comprehension, dusting off your math skills, and taking the time to follow the information back to its source. If you want to learn more, be sure to visit my Sex Offender Myth Busterspage on Once Fallen and/or watch my presentation from the RSOL Conference, also available online. 

Opposing the Fraternal Order of Police

I have been an "activist" for years, but for the most part, I have been of a someone different stock than those we think of when we hear that term. I am a narrow activist working pretty much exclusively with people labeled "registered sex offenders." I rarely use that term these days-- I will say former offender, registered citizen, or even registrant. I have not been the "sign waving type," though I have joined a protest or two. I am an activists on many different levels. 

Today, I took on a very powerful organization, single-handedly addressing them in the most basic manner possible-- I took on the Fraternal Order of Police just be holding a sign.

I did not know that the FOP was holding a big conference in my city of residence (Cincinnati) until Saturday evening as I was watching the news. I had little time to prepare for this. I do concern myself with issues like police misconduct, felony disenfranchisement laws, and other legislation that affects individual who have served time. Apparently the FOP is very busy in the political realm as of late. Below are some things the FOP has listed on the NATIONAL SITE, that they oppose or support. I took out the ones I have no problem with (related to health care and the like):

OPPOSE (I'd like to note when I compiled the list, I collected info from the past few sessions, not just the current session. You can see the different lists HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE)

1. H.R. 2711 (Jenkins, R-KS), the "Citizen Empowerment Act," would establish procedures allowing individuals to record any in-person or telephonic interactions with any employee of an executive agency;
2. S. 1038 (Cardin, D-MD), the "End Racial Profiling Act," which would define "racial profiling" as any consideration of race, national origin or ethnic origin to initiate a traffic stop or vehicle search absent an eyewitness description and requires the collection of race and other data by State and local law enforcement during routine investigatory activities;
3. Legislation or amendments that would have the effect of weakening P.L. 106-185, the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000";
4. Legislation which would create or fund "civilian review boards" of law enforcement at any level of government;
5. H.R. 59 (Jackson-Lee, D-TX), the "Ex-Offender Voting Rights Act," would allow convicted felons to vote in Federal elections if these felons are denied the ability to vote by the State in which they reside;
6. S. 650 (Feingold, D-WI), the "Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act," would abolish the death penalty option for all Federal crimes which currently carry that penalty;
7. H.R. 2168 (Chaffetz, R-UT), the "Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act," which would significantly increase the requirements that must be met by law enforcement before they could request geolocation information on potential victims or suspects;
8. H.R. 3618 (Conyers, D-MI), the "End Racial Profiling Act," which would define "racial profiling" as any consideration of race, national origin or ethnic origin to initiate a traffic stop or vehicle search absent an eyewitness description and requires the collection of race and other data by State and local law enforcement during routine investigatory activities;
9. H.R. 1628 (Nunes, R-CA), the "Public Employee Pension Transparency Act," which would undermine public employee pension systems by requiring them to disclose incomplete data on their assets and liabilities; 

SUPPORT (see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE)

1. H.J.Res. 8 (Emerson, R-MO), would amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States;
2. S.J.Res. 2 (Vitter, R-LA), would amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States;
3. Legislation which would protect the personal information of law enforcement officers and their families from public access; 
4. H.R. 4466 (Latta, R-OH), legislation amending the Hatch Act to allow local and State law enforcement officers to be candidates for the office of Sheriff and permit Sheriffs to engage in political activity; 
5. H.R. 2711 (Jenkins, R-KS), the "Citizen Empowerment Act," would establish procedures allowing individuals to record any in-person or telephonic interactions with any employee of an executive agency; 
6. H.R. 1800 (Sensenbrenner, R-WI), the "FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act," which would reauthorize two expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and make a third one permanent;
7. H.R. 6063 (Smith, R-TX), the "Child Protection Act," enhances the ability of law enforcement to combat child pornography by increasing the penalties of possessing child pornography and reauthorizing the Internet Crimes Against Children task forces;

Now don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily hate all cops. There are Mutts and Jeffs in every group out there. However, the FOP lobbies for laws that disenfranchise felons who have completed their sentences or other laws to increase surveillance of citizens while shielding themselves from citizen accountability. That is the part of the FOP that angers me. 

Because few question the FOP, many were shocked to see me standing outside holding a sign opposing them. Long story short, most responses could be lumped into a few categories:

1. The Insults: Many responses were as follows-- Fuck you, go to hell, you're a pedophile (by one cop)/ kook (by someone who worked for the convention center)/ idiot, get a job you smelly hippie, your sign sucks, etc. Many of these were given in the form of drive-by comments--those who made the insults did so with their backs turned to me as they were walking away. Your tax dollars at work.
2. The Condensation: I can't tell you how many times today I heard variations of "I will still protect you if someone attacks you while you are out here," or "America: Love it or leave it" or about how I am a "coward" because I don't blindly support our pigs. 
3. The Show: I have had my pictures taken with so many cops today while holding my sign, I could almost be an honorary member of the FOP. But I'd rather not-- the smell of bacon may not wash off anytime soon.
4. The listeners: I have to admit, a decent number of FOP members were cordial, even human. Some looked at my signs with honest curiosity and, despite disagreeing, were people I could have a decent conversation with. 
5. The apologists: Those who wanted nothing more than to "prove me wrong" or "trip me up." I haven't received this many loaded questions, "what ifs," appeals to emotions, "do you have kids?" and "walk in my shoes" arguments, not to mention those who never give time to answer a question before proclaiming I am wrong and walk off like they won the Super Bowl. 

There were a few interesting interactions, but the ones that made the largest negative impressions were those who were telling me they support stuff like the death penalty with a gleam in their eyes, especially when discussing sex offenders. I wonder if the statements would have changed if they knew their words were directed at me. It was not any less disturbing to hear that many actually believe having a ten year old kid on the sex offender registry is just fine. Or my favorite, the schmuck who told me "the rights of the popular will always trump the rights of the few." Of course, we have a Constitution that says otherwise.

It is amazing how many people can't separate individual issues from the group as a whole. By addressing the problems within the group, the group ameliorates. But it is hard to hear opposition. To be honest, I hate being criticized by anyone. However, while I am angered at first, I do take the time, after cooling off, to look at the criticism. Sometimes, I do adjust accordingly, sometimes I simply take things under advisement. I hope a few do the same. 

I would not say I had a positive experience overall. To be fair, however, there were many who were decent to me-- a couple even brought me a bottled water, which was a nice gesture. Still, I was Daniel in the lion's den. With some, I wish God had shut their mouths like he did for Daniel.

Sometimes we have to take a stand, even if we are all alone. 

How the murder of Adam Walsh changed parenting... for the worse

This morning I read an article on The Examiner (gag) entitled, "How the murder of Adam Walsh changed parenting." I guess we need to be reminded every year around this time that John Walsh still needs our money. 

The article is a laundry list of the many things the Adam Walsh murder has caused. The most notable effect is the paranoid over "predators." I usually make a short response to articles I read, but today I felt the need to write a longer diatribe. 

Below is my response:

I have to dispel a few myths here. The Etan Patz case preceded Walsh (although Walsh was more successful at making a career of it) but there was already a paradigm shift occurring at this time.

1. The "war on crime" was shifting the correctional system philosophy from rehabilitation to the incapacitation/ containment model. As such, the belief was criminals were "monsters" and can't be cured. This belief obviously extended to "sex offenders." 

2. The feminist movement, in a strange marriage with Evangelical Christians, formed a sexual counterrevolution, and the focus on "child abuse" (at the time both physical and sexual) as a natural extension of rape awareness served a common goal for both groups. 

3. After the groundbreaking (and later proven fraudulent) book "Michelle Remembers" was published, there was a belief in Satanic Ritual Abuse and "repressed memory syndrome." Couple it with the belief of vast underground "pedophile" networks that were reinforced with the FBI raids on "NAMBLA," people were already beginning to fear invisible sexual abusers by 1981. In fact, in John Walsh's own book "Tears of Rage," the police he was working with were discussing alleged "pedophile networks" with him (which was irrelevant, and the NAMBLA searches of the time were fruitless, and one member was falsely accused of being responsible for the Etan Patz disappearance). Walsh became so paranoid that he believed every death threat ever made against him was attributed to "pedophiles." In addition, the mantra at the time was "believe the children at any cost," even when the cost included coercive interrogation tactics by overzealous social workers and law enforcement agencies, or stories about abuse include rocketships, underground catacombs, and Chuck Norris. 

4. Awareness campaigns were already creating a new breed of activist-- the "victims' rights advocate." There were plenty of victim groups in existence, pushing for legislation changes and raising awareness. Walsh was taught how to be a victim advocate by others, but Walsh learned how to make a career of it. 

John Walsh wasn't the originator of Predator Panic, but he was still very influential in feeding us lies. He lied before Congress claiming 50,000 "mutilated, decapitated, raped, and strangled" children were dying every year. He got very, very rich propagating panic to our society. Lets not forget that Walsh had pushed to name Toole the killer for years, despite no evidence of involvement other than Toole's recanted statements (it does not make Toole any less of a bad man, since he made the claims to troll Walsh).  

Ironically, the NCMEC teaches AGAINST the "stranger danger" myth. They are aware that most sexual abuse takes place in the home, with someone the victim knows, and most of them aren't on some list. And despite Walsh's claims before Congress, studies found that only 115 out of 71+million kids experience a "stereotypical kidnapping,' the type you see on the nightly news.

Lets be honest. The only thing Walsh ever accomplished is getting rich at the expense of other people. We are a more fearful society as the result of his lies. Paranoid people keep their kids inside (despite our streets being relatively safe, at least more so than the 1970s and 1980s), where they sit in front of TVs watching ads, eating fatty/ sugary foods, and watching more fearmongering propaganda. 

The Adam Walsh Act has led to placing over 730,000 people on the sex offender registries, some as young as age 10. We are ruining the lives of thousands of our young people in Adam's name. Today we have more fear from being labeled a sexual predator than encountering one. 

(I would like to point out the alleged popularity of the registry is a myth. Less than a fourth of the population ever look at the registry, and of those, most do so out of curiosity rather than fear. Many who utilize the registry are members of online vigilante groups.)

Has Adam Walsh changed parenting? Yes-- It changed parenting for the worse.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Ask the media

This weekend, yet another high-profile trial ended, and there are a lot of angry people. People are protesting, a few attacks have occurred, and the fear of full scale riots are gripping the nation. Of course, this is not the only high-profile case in recent memory. Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, and OJ Simpson  have all invoked public outrage and divided a nation, sometimes over race, sometimes for other reasons like celebrity or class status. Soon, the hoopla over the George Zimmerman trial will be replaced with the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged Boston Bomber.

We all believed these cases should end in guilty verdicts, but each of these people were found "Not Guilty" by our justice system. How did come to be so sure of a person's guilt even before the trial begins? One word -- MEDIA.

It is no secret the media is very influential. Even the politicians get most of their information from the media. The media is a business, and the business is selling advertising. Controversy sells. Sex offenders, serial murders, terrorist attacks, random acts of crime are the bread and butter of the "serious news" industry. Crime stories play a central role in both local and national media. Anyone who reads or watches the news knows that. 

The media is protected by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As with any Constitutional right, there are some limits to the right, and the media can be regulated to a point. In fact, in 1949, the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine, which required the media to present both sides in controversial issues (though they weren't forced to give equal time to both sides). Unfortunately, that rule was repealed in 1987. The media is no longer obligated to tell the other side of the story, so they often refuse to tell that opposing viewpoint. 

The media isn't very regulated, nor has the media faced many instances of regulation. As far back as the 1700s, the newspapers were exploited by those who owned the printing presses. Ben Franklin wrote under pen names "Silence Dogood" and "busybody" to influence people. It is subject to bias and personal whims. The media is not objective, yet we rely on a biased media for giving information. 

To illustrate the impact of the media, think about a great tragedy that was in the news a little over a decade ago -- the school shooting at Columbine in Colorado. What do you remember? You remember those two bullied teens who created their little group called the 'Trench Coat Mafia," and shot up a school in retaliation for their ill-treatment. Don't forget that they targeted minorities and other groups, and most of all, a girl named Cassie Bernall was asked if she believed in God, she replied 'Yes," and was killed for it (there was even a song by Flyleaf about that event). We believe that much about Columbine.

There is just one little problem-- most of this story was bullshit. The two Columbine killers were actually popular kids, were never a part of the school's "Trench Coat Mafia" goup, or wore Gothic Clothes. The shooting was the result of a botched school bombing-- after they failed to successfully set off a bomb, they just decided to shoot as many people as possible, and the killing was indiscriminate. Cassie Bernall was indeed shot and killed, but it was Valeen Schnurr who was posed the question of her faith after she was shot, and she survived the shooting.

This does not make the Columbine school shooting any less tragic, but it separates myth from reality, and fact from fiction. Some of the myths were comforting (after all, a movement was started based on Cassie's "martyrdom") but desires do not turn untruths into truths. In order to understand a tragedy, we have to see the events as it truly unfolded.

Critical thinking and skepticism does not come easily in a society filled with simple anthems and symbols. It is easy to latch onto the symbolism of "Skittles and a Hoodie" or a "Rachel's Prayer" or "Two I-Beams shaped like a cross" because they become symbols of comfort and of innocence. It is a world of black-and-white where the person we call the victims are wholly innocent and the perpetrators are all guilty as sin. Symbols are powerful things, but sometimes we focus too much on the symbol rather than the message.

In our 24/7 news era, there is no shortage of people willing to talk (and talk and talk and talk...). After a while, there needs to be something new to discuss. In the case of breaking news, there is competition to be the first to bring up something new. The news is more than willing to put something fresh and new, or "get the exclusive." Too often, it comes at a huge price. The old adage "the best impression is the first impression" never rings truer than in the court of public opinion.

This brings this commentary full circle to my original premise-- the first impression may be the lasting impression but it may not be the right impression. The media flooded the airwaves with a preliminary view of events and that story sticks into people's minds. That initial report is repeated. By the time contradictions are presented, those initial reports have been etched into memory. Once that story is etched into a person's mind, it is hard to convince that person to see things differently. 

The Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." 

There is nothing in the 6th Amendment about the right to be tried in the court of public opinion (or "trial by media"). In theory, the US Justice system selects a jury of "peers," or at least a jury of people least favorable to media hype. In today's culture of 24/7 braking news, that is a very tall order. The only way to be completely ignorant of an event these days is to be free of the internet, the TV, avert your eyes in the checkout lanes (because of gossip rags), and avoid gossipy friends. 

By the time a case goes to trial, the court of public opinion has reached its verdict-- GUILTY! So the people watch and wait. But then something happens. The defense presents contractions to the myth. The killer's glove didn't fit. Casey's mom dismantles the myth of the Chloroform Google search. Rachel Jeantel takes the stand and the star witness for the prosecution becomes the star witness for the defense. There was a gap between the man and the myth. In court, this gap is called "reasonable doubt."

In a court of law, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. When a myth in our minds, given to us by the media, is dispelled in court, and for a moment we feel we have been lied to, that is reasonable doubt. We were so sure it happened "this way," but we were proven wrong. Is there even a small chance that perhaps this person may not be guilty? That is reasonable doubt. That is not the same as "innocence." 

The court of public opinion has no standards. In the court of public opinion, the first evidence is the best evidence. That explains the discrepancy between public perception and jury decisions in many high profile cases. if people are mad at the court's decision, it is mainly because they already made up their minds and hate being told they were wrong. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind."

English jurist William Blackstone said in 1765, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Today, we feel differently, thanks in large part of the media. Until 2008 we had "Court TV" (now TruTV), media talking heads like Nancy (dis)Grace and Dr. Drew run back-to-back to rehash the same news bite, and justice-based TV dramas like Law and Order SVU that further skew our perception of "the system" (we even call the influence of these shows on perceptions of the system the "CSI Effect"). Few, if anyone, is innocent, on those shows. Even the portrayals of the defendants has changed-- a couple of decades ago, we had shows like Matlock and Perry Mason, where defendants were almost always innocent by a witty defense attorney/ investigator. The shows reflect the public attitude, which in turn reflects the media.

This is a long rant, but I have a point to all this. There are a few things that the media COULD do to end bias. I know they won't and this is a pipe dream, but if they could, the world would be a better place and the system of justice would be restored to its role as solemn seeker of justice:

1. I think media coverage of criminal trials in America should follow the guidelines set by our friends across the pond. In the United Kingdom, strict contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested. These rules are designed so that a defendant receives a fair trial in front of a jury that has not been tainted by prior media coverage. Our US Constitution was written in a way to favor the defense for a reason-- to ensure we did not lock up an innocent man, even at the risk of letting a guilty man go free.

2. The media should also bring back the Fairness Doctrine as a rule. One-sided debates, celebrities and washed-up reality stars asked to elaborate on subjects in a "Politically Incorrect" show format does not count. I'd like to see more real, civil debates between experts, not between screeching harpies and dirt truck drivers or hotel managers-turned-celebrity activists with no credentials. 

3. We must revive the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Far too often, a person's life is ruined simply because that person is accused of a crime. That person becomes a target because some people equate accusations with guilt We cheer, for example, if a man kills another man and claims he did so because the other man "molested his daughter." Do we know that for sure? There was never a trial, just an execution. It gives the green light for others to do the same. 

The media wields great power, and with that great power comes great responsibility in wielding that power. It is past time for the media to be held responsible for this power. 

Guest Post: Jeanne Sager Tells Moms to “Just Kidnap” Their Children to Save Them from Sex Offenders

This is a guest article written in response to a CafeMom article written by Jeanne Sager. For the backstory behind the article, CLICK HERE. A court has awarded custody of a six year old girl to a registered man, who may have been falsely convicted. Sager suggests the mother kidnaps the child. It is a hot topic at both Bakersfield Now and Cafe Mom.

Jeanne Sager Tells Moms to “Just Kidnap” Their Children to Save Them from Sex Offenders
By Wendy Testaberger

Jeanne Sager, blogger at “"The Stir," doesn’t seem to realize that her recommendation would, in many states, result in the mother committing the “mercy” abduction to register as a sex offender if found guilty.

Jeanne Sager

Like many websites whose content is mainly composed of private bloggers, it appears that The Stir (an offshoot of Café Mom) has little to no standards when it comes to picking those who will represent them. Obviously, you don’t have to know the first thing about a subject in order to write about it. Apparently, it’s also okay to encourage people to commit felonies as well. You know, in the best interest of children and all.

A quick review of online comments in reaction to this story – on Ms. Sager’s blog and more reliable news outlets (I use that term lightly) – highlight one of if not the most pervasive problems plaguing the prevention of sexual abuse. The public, particularly women, seem unable to read a five-paragraph story in its entirety, at least not before forming a staunch emotional opinion, which renders the whole picture moot anyway.

In their quest to “protect the children,” they are fully willing to support a woman who has been accused of forcing her young daughter to fabricate a molestation claim against her own father – and not just by the jilted husband. The “sex offender” father-in-question was convicted during a flurry of false child sex abuse allegations in Kern County, and plead guilty to one of twelve counts of “lewd and lavicious behavior with a child” in exchange for dropping the other eleven. One commenter on bakersfieldnow.com happily chortles that she was successful in preventing a sex offender from moving into their neighborhood (so much for the other neighborhood’s children!) and another claims the judge is “pro-pedophilia.”

It’s people like Ms. Sager who have the power to influence a major demographic on an immeasurably important issue. Sadly, she failed. “Convicted pedophile?” No such thing. Claiming the registry was created to protect children from “creeps?” Not so much. And again, the sweet irony of the entire thing is that if Ms. Sager were convicted of kidnapping her child, she’d be right up there on that list with all the “creeps” to whom she would just as soon deny any sort of parental rights. What was that about when the shoe’s on the other foot? (Oh, and just one more thing – Ms. Sager’s most recent blog post, prior to this one, was a giddy announcement that a new season of Teen Mom is starting. What exactly does she think happens to all those Teen Dads – you know, the ones whose girlfriends don’t star in reality TV shows glamourizing what the registry refers to as “sexual assault on a minor?”)

I suppose I should not be surprised by the assertion that sex offenders are bad – regardless of guilt or innocence or type or severity of crime – but kidnapping and child abduction is not. After all, this type of sentiment is regularly echoed in every day online commenting whenever the subject is sex offenders. Murder, torture, rape, and genital mutilation are fine and dandy as long as the victim is on the registry.

Do people fail to see that this makes them murderers, torturers, rapists and molesters too – and that in their quest to protect children, they are teaching them that those things are okay?