"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

You have probably seen this line of thought to justify residency restrictions and other segregation-style laws over the years. The implication of my title suggests that all sex offenders have an illness that is beyond their ability to control. It is an extension of the old "sex offenders cannot be cured" mantra.

This statement is based on a few assumptions. The primary assumption is all people on the list are "uncontrollable pedophiles." There is a clinical definition of pedophilia, which includes a long-term period of sexual attraction to prepubescent girls (usually under age 12). The popular usage is an improper usage, much like when we used to say, "that's bad" when we mean something was good. (I already discussed why there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile.")

There is a difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. A pedophile can have inclinations but never act on them. By contrast, a sex offender is anyone convicted of any sex crime. While we immediately think "child molester" or "rapist," this category runs the gamut of activity to include even non-sex offenses or offenses marginally sexual at best. We have included teens on the list as young as 10 years old.

Between actual sex offenders, there is a difference between "situational/ regressed" offenders and "fixated/ preferential" offenders. The vast majority of sex offenders are the former type. Situational offenders are less likely to reoffend, not attracted to children, and more likely to respond to treatment. As you can expect, Preferential offenders are more likely to offend, are attracted to children, and are more likely to reoffend.

There is also sexual addiction. You can be a sex addict without being a sex offender or  pedophile. You can be a sex offender without being a sex addict.

The bottom line is the legal term "sex offender" is broad and the term is not mutually exclusive with other terms such as "pedophile" or "sex addict." Committing a solitary sex crime does not necessarily make someone a pedophile or sex addict. That makes comparing a registered citizen to an "alcoholic" comparing apples and oranges.

Alcoholism is a very narrow definition-- addiction to alcoholic beverages. Alcoholism is a persistent condition. You can't be considered an alcoholic by getting drunk one time. However, you can be labeled a sex offender by a one-time event. Sex offender is a legal term, sex addiction and alcoholism are clinical terms. Sex Offenders are a heterogeneous group. Alcoholics are a homogeneous group. Comparing sex offenders to alcoholics is comparing apples and oranges. Sex offenses are not dictated by geography but by relationships. It is indeed a semantic argument, but an important one.

Sex offender laws dictating where a registrant can live, work, or play (and even where to go for counseling) is the result of our faulty assumption that all sex offenders are both "sex addicts" and "pedophiles." While a small number of sex offenders are fixated pedophiles (Montana claims 4% of the prison sex offender population are pedophiles), most on the list are not attracted to children or even addicted to sex.

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

It is a rather irrational argument when you think about it. Studies have failed to provide links between geography and sexual offending. Even the comparison to AA at a bar is silly. In an urban area, there are plenty of bars, pony kegs, and beer joints, beer ads are on TV, and grocery stores sell it (unless you are in a "dry" county). So, does AA ever move its services to locations far from civilization? No!

This argument fails miserably because it is based on false assumptions and generalizations. It is time to put this tired argument to rest.

Sandusky's Guilty. Now what?

The Jerry Sandusky guilty verdict undoubtedly surprised no one, except maybe for the news breaking so late in the evening. This time is a good time to point out a few things about this entire debacle. .Now that Sandusky is convicted on 45 counts of sexual abuse, you must take a hard look at this man in relation to Megan's Flaw.

Megan's Law and subsequent laws, like the Adam Walsh Act and Jessica's Law, were birthed in high-profile cases. When we think of the registry, we think of people like Sandusky. However, if you look on the Megan's Law list, you would not find Jerry Sandusky's face. I discussed this detail in a previous blog post.No registry, no residency restriction, no GPS monitoring, no signs in the lawn, and no scarlet letter law could have prevented this man from committing sex crimes, because he is among the about 95% of sex crime cases that are committed by those with no prior record.


The second point. We think everyone on the registry is a Jerry Sandusky type offender, they all got a slap on the wrist, and so on. Well, people like Jerry Sandusky will never see the light of day. Then there are those who are out and on the list. All 750,000 of them will pay for what Sandusky did somehow. Some new law, some more tightening of the screws, and more vigilante violence.

Across the country, in Washington state, two people were being put to rest as a criminal with a history of drugs and assault shot and killed two people on the list and planned to kill a third. Both were free, they served their time and had been out for years without incident. One of the men was a 28 year old man who, at age 17, had a consensual relationship with another teen who was deaf. The parents did not approve and the boy was charged with the ominous sounding "first-degree rape." Since then, he got married and had two kids. These two children will grow up with out their father, and the person who murdered their father is declared a hero by society with Jerry Sandusky on their minds.

Patrick Drum did not kill two "Jerry Sanduskys." Nor did Sandusky's victims ever find him on the list.

The registry protects no one.

For another take on this, read Shana Rowan's blog:

http://www.iloveasexoffender.blogspot.com/2012/06/jerry-sandusky-never-was-never-will-be.html

Another take on this, from Shaun Webb:

http://amotionforinnocence.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/i-believe-sandusky-did-it-but/

Stop the Semantics: There is NO SUCH THING as a "convicted pedophile"

Hey Media hounds, 

It is time to set the record straight. There is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile." It is inaccurate. it is just plain wrong. 

While some of you may think, "what semantic nonsense," the use of this term is derogatory and is on par with the "N" word. Allow me to clear the air.

First off, the term "pedophile" is a psychology term with distinct criteria.Below is the DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of pedophilia:

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement)  

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). 

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. 

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. 

In order to be a "convicted pedophile," simply having a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia would be outlawed. That simply is not the case. Granted, anyone who admits they are sexually attracted to children would likely be harassed by LE and neighbors and subject to scrutiny, but simply having a pedophilia diagnosis would not be enough to arrest someone. Thus, you cannot be arrested simply for being diagnosed with pedophilia.

There is a difference between a sex offender and a pedophile. You can be one without being the other, even if someone has been convicted for a sex crime involving a minor. Very few Registrants are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia. There is a difference between a situational offender and a fixated offender; a situational offender does not have a sexual attraction to children but committed a sex crime involving a minor due to other influences such as a messy divorce or depression; fixated offenders are those far more likely to have clinical sexual deviancy. There are those with a diagnosis of pedophilia who have never committed a sex crime (that means pedophiles are capable of controlling their urges). 

Stop assuming every registrant is a pedophile and misusing the term. You have done enough damage by misusing and abusing this term. Enough with the assumptions, the generalizations, and the downright lies. Quit trying to make progressively scary terms-- Pervert, Pedophiles, Predators, SVP, etc. 

How about a little truth in addressing this issue? Fanning the flames of blind hate and stupidity has not helped matters. But then again, the media is all about milking tragedy. 

Sincerely, 

Derek 

PS: I stand by my words, and certain braid-dead vigilantes need a crash course in reading comprehension. The "common use" of the word does not make it proper use of the word. The "N word" I mentioned is a "common usage" word but I doubt anyone but racists would think the N word is proper or ethical. Most will agree using it to refer to a group of people is unethical and just plain wrong.