Thanks Jillium

Sunday, August 20, 2006

You always have such a way of making my work easier. Those are some awesome studies you referred to in your condemnation of Gene Abel. I can't quite figure out why you gave them to us like that though. It's obvious from your wording that you copied and pasted from the abstract. I suppose you must have been using Google Scholar maybe? But, that's neither here nor there. Accept it as a future warning, or not. Naturally the choice is yours. But, Jillium, you can't read the abstract and then try to fake everyone off that you read it. Just doesn't work like that.

Let's start here... Lowenstein 2006 Aspects of Young Sex Abusers—A Review of the Literature Concerning Young Sex Abusers What was this paper actually about?
Lowenstein: It is becoming increasingly important to identify adolescents who may sexually abuse children. The purpose of identifying potential and real sex abusers is in order to protect potential victims and to improve the ongoing life chances of alleged perpetrators.

Frankly there's so much stuff in Lowenstein that I can use against the pedophile 'cause' that I could go on for days, so I'll try to sum it up like this
Concerning the Abel Assessment for Interest in Paraphilias (AAIP), the results indicated the need for further refinement of this tool according to Smith and Fischer 1999. This was confirmed by Bonner et al 1998, who considered it imperative that further tests were developed that were more accurate in the assessment of adolescent sexual offenders to indicate risk of re-offending.
Lowenstein also noted the works of Hunter and Lexier 1998, who noted that the evaluation and treatment of juvenile sex offenders represented an area of practice fraught with clinical, ethical and legal complexity. Every study that Lowenstein considered said basically the same thing.........
No one single test is infallible and must be used in conjunction with other assessment tools. The same thing that Abel himself said.
Lowenstein sums up with this:
Treatment, particularly of juveniles, as opposed to incarceration, should be considered paramount. Prevention from an early stage being the goal in order to best protect the general public.

OH MY, but the pedophiles don't want incarceration!! And the pedophiles don't want assessment, or treatment or anything except our children.

And let's not forget Fischer and Smith (1999)who wrote:
The AAIP is a promising instrument based on a sound idea. The theory behind it is reasonable, the technology available, and the structure for further research in place. Further refinement is necessary so that its use may become a reliable and valid means to promote appropriate treatment of sexual offenders and a means to protect potential victims.

Now obviously Jillium thinks these scientists have dismissed Abel's assessment tool, but that's simply because he didn't read it or didn't understand it. They not only praised it but offered suggestions for how to improve on it. The premise of the AAIP was not that it was inaccurate etc but there were a few very specific things they thought should be changed to make it more reliable across the board. i.e. 42 images rather than 22. Images of nude children rather than clothed. More baseline data and a better way to record viewing times. ETC

blog comments powered by Disqus