Re: Treatment Leads Molestors From Temptation

On Dec 1, 7:32 am, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, "tiny dancer" <tinydancer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a4174fd2-6b77-4624-b7c7-1c1fd1b0a092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Nov 28, 6:37 pm, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

For certain types of molesters treatment
lowers recidivism rates. That's a fact.

It may. It may. And it's not worth the risk. The cost is just
way too high.

You assume that all molesters have committed the most heinous types
of crimes. Typical of the hysteria around this subject. Some
child sex offenders committed crimes like exposing themselves,
inappropriate touching, showing the child pornography.

Now you are trying to double talk your way out of something here.
You know perfectly well these *treatments* aren't meant for somebody
who's *exposed themselves* to a child. The kind of *treatment* you
have been referring to is for serious sexual offenses against
children. We aren't talking the 'you show me your/I'll show you
mine.' Simple *touching*. We are talking about child rapists,
pedophiles, those who sodomize young children. Don't try to change
the subject of this discussion.

Actually, you're wrong. Not surprising, since you don't believe in
such treatment it is no surprise you don't know anything about them.

Google up treatment for non-violent sexual offenses. See how there
are studies about recidivism rates for non-violent sex offenders who
receive treatment, and those who don't.

Who am I kidding, I've posted links to such studies before: you never
read them. You've made up your mind. All else is sophistry.

Still crimes, still worth

putting them in lockup, but not the same risk letting them out as
someone who committed more serious sexual offenses.

So you think these sex offender treatment programs you are
purporting are for flashers??? If you think I buy that, you are
WRONG.

Whether you buy it or not, yes they do order flashers in to
treatment.

I may be mistaken, but I do not think that tiny is saying that treatment
programs are not for flashers -- I think she is expressing shock that you
expect programs that are used for flashers to work for the people who rape
children. Get it?

Non-contact sex offenders are ordered in to treatment, and
no doubt some seek treatment on their own.

But continue to bury your head in the sand.

Actually, that is what you are doing. Why haven't you responded to the very
real issue I have raised? I said that treatment fails -- that there is no
100% successful treatment for any addiction. Given that, do you think it is
safe to gamble that treatment MIGHT work, that a person who rapes children
MIGHT not re-offend, and let that person go free? I don't. Give the
offender treatment in prison, but make sure the offender STAYS in prison.


I did respond to it. I'll say the same thing again, since you
apparently missed that post:

You posit a false dilemma. You are pretending the choice is between
treatment or keeping them locked up. But it isn't. Few are sentenced
to life in prison. There is no realistic chance any time soon that
*every* person who molests *any* child will automatically get a life
no parole sentence on the first offense.

So these people will get out, with treatment or without. Your dilemma
is false.

So the choice is: get out with treatment, or get out without
treatment Treatment does make it less likely they will reoffend, and
treatment helps reveal which types of offenders are more likely to
reoffend and which are less likely . So you can better decide which
ones are worth keeping in civil commitment.

Being against treatment is the exact opposite of trying to protect
children to the best extent possible.

There, I've answered you TWICE. So don't yet again tell me I haven;t
answered your question. I have: it's a stupid question.

Pretend that there is no
way therapists can learn how to treat offenders,

They may learn how to, Bo. That doesn't mean that those offenders should
not be in prison.


Some offenders need to b e locked up for life. Some can be let out
after some years but need to be on lifetime probation. Others,
less.

and eventually
prevent crimes from occurring.

Bo -- they haven't even come close to figuring out how to do that with ANY
addiction or crime. Not even close. A cure may be discovered one day, but
in the meantime, dangerous criminals need to be kept in prison.

Nobody said there is a cure. There's no cure for HIV. I know a
couple of people who have lived with it for 20 years See how that
works?



You're the one who isn't willing to do
everything we can to protect the child victims:

That would be YOU, Bo. You are willing to let these fuckers out of prison!

When did I get to be in charge of all prisons? REALITY CHECK:
Society has decided to let these fuckers out of prison. It's going to
happen. REALITY. I have nothing to do with it.

Given that REALITY, do we give them treatment? Let me know when
you're ready to talk about the real world.

Because with treatment, a small percentage of them *might* not re-offend.

And now you twist the facts to fit your hyperbole. Really, it makes
it hard to have an intelligent discussion when you do that. If you
want to argue that *any* reoffending is terrible because of the toll
on the victims, I'll listen. If you're going to just make *** up
because it sounds good, well. you have company around here, but it
isn't actual debate.

Those odds are not good enough for me.


Not when you're making them up, chortle.

your answer is the
same old witch hunt that hasn't worked and never will.

What about the same old treatment that hasn't worked and never will?

What about categories of offenders where reoffending rates are reduced
from 40% to less than 10%? Oh, wait, that doesn't fit your little
rant. What about the reality that these offenders aren't going to get
locked up for life for getting drunk and fondling a 14 year old?

What about the Oakland cop who was caught with a 14 year old street
prostitute - you think he should be locked up for life? There's a
real life example. He lost his job, has to register as a sex
offender, but do you think he's still a danger to every child?
Reality check.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DE143AF930A25752...

Bo, NOTHING in that article showed that the experts are curing sex
offenders.


And I have never said sex offenders can be cured. But heck, why
respond to what I've actually said when you can get a good old
fashioned witch hunt going? Can't cure HIV either, might as well just
let all those infected folks die by your logic.

There are no guarantees in that article -- nothing. It just
talks about various fledgling studies. Come on.


Do you seriously think it's realistic that every person caught having
any sexual contact with anyone under the age of 16 will get a life
without parole sentence ? Do you think the only barrier to that
happening is me?!? What color is the sky on your planet, and have you
ever considered visiting us people here on Earth?


Bo Raxo



.