Asturian-American Migration Forum

This website is very frightening...see if there are any sex offenders in your area...it might surprise you...

Barbara

http://mapsexoffenders.com/

Yes, yes, there are. That's true. They're everywhere.

Has that changed over time? I doubt it, although I'd love to see some data on that. One thing that has changed is that now the internet makes it easier to see what was earlier hushed up.

They're everywhere because they aren't all that different from us. Foley was normal enough to get elected by his state's voters. That's a huge vote of confidence. He's not a monster from outerspace. He's us.

But we'd like to see "them" as being extremely different from us. Scapegoating sexual offenders, for example, is an attempt to set them apart as being different from us. Obviously, they have made different choices, but it's a very fine line that divides us and them. That's why the news reports generally say that offenders family are surprised.

The wife of Charlie Roberts, the guy who killed the Amish school kids in PA, said, "The man who did this today is not the Charlie that I've been married to for almost 10 years". "My husband was loving, supportive and thoughtful." She didn't think of him as a monster. His family, friends, and co-workers seemed surprised by the horrible thing he did. He had no criminal record and no history of mental problems.

This malevolent potential resides in all of humankind. This same point could be easily made from a Christian theological perspective, too. Of course, it's not that everyone is going to commit these crimes; the better adapted are much less likely to snap.

Yes, it would be wonderful to stop child abuse, violence, etc. But how could we achieve that? Building a barricade to protect ourselves won't work. We'd just let the perpetrators in with us. And we can't legislate our way out of this problem. We -- humans all -- will still be here doing what we do when things go badly.

We humans seem to be pre-programmed to act in destructive ways when we slip outside the realm of health. So maybe one thing that could help would be to to reduce the overall level of anxiety in our communities. I'd like to see us do more to facilitate good health (mental and physical).


It's interesting that there are serious risks we're willing to take with our children, even when the odds are much worse: we let them drive a car, join the military, or work in farming and other dangerous industries. Any of these are much more likely to result in injury, but we don't fret as much about those risks as we do this about one of sexual predators. Why is that?

Is it just that we let go of some of our fear of the risks as the child gets older? Or are we selective about the risks we pay attention to?

When I woke up today, I was thinking about the question of statistics. "I thought, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe things are getting worse."

I've looked them up.

There are stats from 1960 to 2005, by state and for the entire US here:

The first set of data looks at the total rate for property crime, murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and vehicle theft.

The rate in 1960 was about 19 incidents per 1000 persons. By 1973 (a date I've chosen to be compatible with the next set of stats), it had risen to about 42 per 1000 (and this was not yet the high point). In 2005 the rate had dropped to 39 per 1000 persons.

There have also been changes in the reporting methods during this time span (1973-2005), so it's not clear how comparable they are.

It does look as though crime rates (or at least reporting of crimes) did rise quickly in the 1960s, but that the rates have fallen steadily since at least the 1990s.

The US Department of Justice posts statistics for crime here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

I've had to interpret the numbers from the DOJ's charts, so they're approximate. Although there could be political reasons to fudge the data, the decline spans several administrations.

For violent crimes, including rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide, the rate is down dramatically, from about 48 reported incidents per 1000 persons over 12 years of age in 1973 to about 21 per 1000 in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

When crime victims are categorized by age, the decline for younger people (those in their teens and twenties) was striking:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vage.htm

For property crimes, including burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft, the rates dropped from 520 reported incidents per 1000 households in 1973 to 160 per 1000 in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm
(This is different than the other data reported because it's reported by number of households, not by the number of individuals.)

I was surprised to see that the US crime levels are similar to those from other industrialized countries. This data was collected by face-to-face surveys, so it's probably fairly comparable.
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/ ... /i_VIC.HTM
I had assumed that it was more dangerous here than in other places. It appears that many of the developing countries had much higher rates.
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/ ... /D_vic.htm


One conclusion we could draw is that the incidence (or reporting?) of crime has risen markedly since boomers were children, so the world is a different place than it was then.

In a sense we got what we asked for: freedom. Maybe we're a little like the Spaniards who bitched about Franco when he was alive, but now long for the safe streets of the Franco era.

But over the past fifteen or so years, the rate of reported crime has reduced significantly.

The Fargo North Dakota Police Department's web page lists a number of surprising facts on sexual assault and child molestation. It's worth reading, but I'll list a couple of the summaries here. You can see more facts and all the details here:
link to source

Myth: "Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers.
Fact: Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim or the victim's family, regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult.

Myth: Most sex offenders reoffend.
Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Myth: Sexual offense rates are higher than ever and continue to climb.
Fact: Despite the increase in publicity about sexual crimes, the actual rate of reported sexual assault has decreased slightly in recent years.

Myth: Children who are sexually assaulted will sexually assault others when they grow up.
Fact: Most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children and most children who are sexually assaulted do not sexually assault others.

Myth: Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective.
Fact: Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

I want to thank Barbara in particular for pushing me to dig a little deeper into this theme, to look up some data and clarify my thinking.

It's a bit shocking to realize just how many assumptions I carry around in my head that don't fit reality. The odd thing is that these faulty notions rarely get questioned. Ignorance, it isn't always bliss!

Of course, it is hard to get good data on sex offenders, but one of the points you made strikes me as unproven at best.

Myth: Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective.
Fact: Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

Essentially there is no control group. The two goups that are compared, those who cooperate with the program and those who reject intervention, may well differ in other ways as well.

Bob, That's not "my point." I got that list from the Fargo P.D. Did you go to their page? My message above only listed the simple summary. That's got too little detail to argue over.

I'll add the the fuller explanation here. But this, too, is essentially a summary. There's clearly too little detail in this description for us to rationally evaluate the several studies mentioned.

Myth: Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective.
Fact: Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

The majority of sex offender treatment programs in the United States and Canada now use a combination of cognitive-behavioral treatment and relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse). Offense specific treatment modalities generally involve group and/or individual therapy focused on victimization awareness and empathy training, cognitive restructuring, learning about the sexual abuse cycle, relapse prevention planning, anger management and assertiveness training, social and interpersonal skills development, and changing deviant sexual arousal patterns.

Different types of offenders typically respond to different treatment methods with varying rates of success. Treatment effectiveness is often related to multiple factors, including:

--the type of sexual offender (e.g., incest offender or rapist)
--the treatment model being used (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, psycho-educational, psycho-dynamic, or pharmacological);
--the treatment modalities being used; and
--related interventions involved in probation and parole community supervision.

Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berlin &, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect-an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998).

As you can see, the detailed version isn't saying sexual offenders can all be "cured". But it does suggest that some can be helped. I'd think that the chemical castration, by itself, might be pretty effective. That option may be part of why some resist treatment.

I was born, and raised in Spelter. The biggest threat to us was smoking. If I had to pick a time to be born, then or now, it would be then. Yes, it's a much different world we live in today. The children are the losers and that's a shame.

Although I don't wish to be seen as argumentative, and I have not had an opportunity to look at the original research report, my experience indicates that many (I won't argue all) studies aimed at behavior modification lack a good control. Your post said that

The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect-an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995

Only one such study in all these years? There is no indication of what kind of control was in place. If all sex offenders were randomly divided into those who were to get treatment and those who were not to get it, and sample size and other such factors were appropriate, I might place more faith in the research. What may not have been ruled out is that those who "successfully" (i.e., complied with the research protocol) did "improve" while, while those who dropped out of the study were ignored, and (perhaps) that the "control" was those who were in the nontreatment group. If so, the research simply doesn't make sense.

There is also, of course, the possibility for self selection in those who showed "success." What I mean is that if only those who successfully completed treatmnent are compared to the untreated group, the results are deeply flawed because those who have not successfully completed treatment are ignored.

I don't assert this as truth, but merely as a set of questions that need to be answered before the Fargo police or any other group can legitimately accept the outcome of research on treatment of sexual predators. Clearly, the burden of proof is on the researchers. Whatever the results, I would want a good statistician to look at it before I accept it as true.

All the stats in the world aren't going to comfort this little girl. This happened in a very quiet community on Long Island. One child grabbed is too many. Where are our children safe...can someone please tell me that? They can't ride a bike in their neighborhood, they have to be afraid in school where some derranged person can come in with a gun and shoot, in Church where we have had pediphile priests,, they have to be careful on the internet, parents have to be afraid to let them go to the local mall with friends...What can they do?

What will they do when they catch this fiend...slap his wrists and tell him not to do it again...or will they give this little girl justice and give him a long prison term? He not only grabbed this little girl, but he tramatized her. Now the family are thinking of moving from their home...

WHAT A SAD COMMENTARY...



GIRL'S KIDNAPPING HELL ON LONG IS.
By ANGELINA CAPPIELLO and SELIM ALGAR

October 7, 2006 -- The father of a 10-year-old Long Island girl who was abducted and bound by a stranger said his family's peace of mind has been shattered by the horrible incident - and he may have to move to a new neighborhood.

"She's scared to death," he said of his daughter, who was eventually released by her abductor unharmed.

The girl, who is not being identified for her safety, was riding her bicycle to a friend's home along Atlantic Place in quiet Hauppauge on Thursday at 4:10 p.m. when she neared a parked car with a man standing beside it.

Police said the man began to walk toward the blond, blue-eyed sixth-grader and that she attempted to pedal away from his quickening pursuit.

But cops said the man, described as white and in his 30s, snatched the girl off her bike and placed her in the back seat of his yellow Dodge Charger Daytona as she tried to wriggle free.

Police said he then placed duct tape over her mouth and eyes and bound her hands with fur-lined handcuffs in the car's rear seat before returning to the driver's seat and pulling away. After driving less than a half mile, the man removed the constraints and let the girl exit the car.

She headed to the home of a neighbor, who called her parents and then police. Other than a cut on her lip sustained during her struggle with the man, the girl was unharmed.

Her distraught father, 43, said the man threatened to harm his daughter if she told authorities of her abduction.

"She's afraid he's going to come after her," he said. "He told her, 'Don't look at me, and don't tell anybody or I'll come and get you.' "

The father, a home-improvement worker, said his family is so troubled by the kidnapping that he is considering moving to another town.

"It won't be the same here for her," he said. "It's a shame a kid can't ride a bike anymore."

The father added that his daughter actively resisted her abduction, even ripping off the duct tape that covered her mouth and begging the assailant to free her as he drove.

With the aid of helicopters and K-9 units, Suffolk County police combed the neighborhood last night as stunned neighbors gathered outside their homes to discuss the abduction.

Cops described the kidnapper yesterday as a white male with short, brown hair and a thin build wearing a black T-shirt and tan shorts. They said his Charger Daytona had tinted windows and black graphics on its sides.

Police ask anyone with information to call Crime Stoppers at (800) 220-TIPS or Fourth Squad detectives at (631) 854-8452.

angelina.cappiello
nypost.com