Re: Treatment Leads Molestors From Temptation

Bo Raxo wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:18 am, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:d4ae26aa-9a75-492b-8349-363f78e70730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 .

Joseph Duncan
Alfonso Rodriguez Jr,
Alegandro Avila.
John Couey
Joseph Smith
Richard Allan Davis
Lamont Hunter
Jeffrey Voss
Jose Medellin
Chester Stiles
Marc Dutroux
Edward Lewis Lagrone
Roy William Whiting

Thank you, tiny.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For what?!? A list of heinous molesters? And what the *** does
that prove? Does she cite a SINGLE expert that contradicts what
Lanning and Berlin say?

No.

I did.

Does a list of example of predatory offenders prove opportunistic ones
don't exist?

No.

It shows that some people need to be locked up for the rest of their lives
since there is no guarantee they won't re-offend.

Does her list tell us ANYTHING about typology?

So?

No.

Does a list of anecdotes prove all of the perps conform to that type?

No.

So?

Complete bull***.

No. She is making the point that certain sex offenders need to be locked up
for the rest of their lives, but the system keeps letting them go free.

Again. Come back when you have a substantive
argument, instead of whining and anecdotes.

Actual evidence would look something like:

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/inthenews/archive/2006_10_04.html
He said his mentor in the field is retired veteran FBI agent Ken
Lanning, whose 160-page Child Molestation: A Behavioral Analysis
remains the key modern tool for police officers. And Mr. Lanning makes
it clear that not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all
pedophiles are child molesters. A pedophile, he writes, might have a
sexual preference for children or fantasize about them, but "if he
does not act on that preference or those fantasies, he is not a child
molester....
It is almost impossible to estimate how many pedophiles exist who have
never molested."

Basically, Mr. Lanning's new "typology" holds that all sex offenders
fall somewhere along a motivational spectrum, from what are called
"situational" offenders (these are opportunistic, tend to be less
intelligent, are more likely to
have a purely criminal history and, most important, don't have a true
sexual preference for children) to "preferential" ones (genuine
pedophiles, who prefer sex with youngsters; these fellows are
primarily fantasydriven).

Or it would look something like:

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
by a former supervisory special agent FBI, for use by law enforcement
Kenneth Lanning, more than 20 publications
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

See, that's evidence, by an expert, from a respected source. Not a
list of perps that proves - NOTHING.

Really, you're both being complete fuckwits. If you claim not all
experts agree, then show me one of Lanning's stature who disputes his
typology. Or admit that your prejudices just won't let you accept the
view held by the experts.

Could it look like this, Bo?
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/society03/7.shtml

<<McHugh's subordinate, Johns Hopkins clinic head Fred Berlin, according to
the report, "admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering
legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were
not surprising, because 'at least eight men have been convicted of sexually
abusing Maryland children while under [Berlin's] treatment there.'>>

<<McHugh's subordinate, Johns Hopkins clinic head Fred Berlin, according to
the report, "admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering
legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were
not surprising, because 'at least eight men have been convicted of sexually
abusing Maryland children while under [Berlin's] treatment there.' ">>


Bo Raxo


.