But it's only funny in a "laugh-at-the-idiot" sort of way. She's really not funny at all. No. She's dangerous. It appears I'm going to have to "educate her ignorance". I simply must because there's just something about Mary that makes me want to vomit.
I'm not quite sure if it is just her victim bashing language, her pedo apologetics, her blame-gaming, her encouragement of pro-offending attitudes or merely her enabling behavior that always leaves me with the feeling that I found a cockroach in the bottom of my soup bowl...after I ate the whole thing.
But whatever the reason for the feeling of horror I have regarding her, I have no intention of being "more politer" as Mary has requested her opponents to be. I think she's an uneducated blithering idiot who displays unjustified arrogance and contempt for people who have been sexually victimized or who speak on their behalf.
We won't talk so much about her more obvious errors such as telling Kennedy and Suits that Megan's Law didn't prevent Jesse Timmendequas from killing Megan Kanka. We won't even talk about her belief that if they can get the registry ruled as punitive rather than regulatory on appeal that the "registry will fall" unaware apparently that the argument itself is in regards to ex post facto cases only.
No we won't talk about those because they're really only good for ridicule material, at least for now. Instead what we'll talk about is something else... something about Mary that perhaps no one knew before and that is this: Mary speaks the language of predators. They "educated her ignorance", taught her sounds-good catch-phrases and used her vulnerabilities against her.... Mainly her lack of education and purpose in life. They found a woman with bully-bitch tendencies and turned her into a bully-bitch for pedophiles and perverts. And while I believe Mary herself is hopeless in regards to actually learning anything if it conflicts with her agenda and what she wants to be true - people need to know the truth about her deceptions (even if unintentional or due to ignorance and manipulation) - deceptions which are dangerous to instill in the minds of other needy enablers and especially of an offender.
In part one we're going to talk about living arrangements for sex offenders - specifically Shared Living Arrangements (SLA). You see Mary believes that the study Colorado did on SLA equates to clustering. Now she is attempting to educate the public that clustering of sex offenders is a good thing not only for the offender but for the safety of the community..... and of course she knows this idea of hers is fact because she "educated her ignorance"
Clustering is an unintended consequence of strict residency restrictions but no one would agree that having certain areas inhabited by more than their fair share of criminals is "good". So what is the difference between random clustering and a Shared Living Arrangement?
"The general SLA philosophy is an extension of the Therapeutic Community treatment modality in which offenders’ living environments can be seen as an extension of both treatment and monitoring. Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behaviors, such as returning home late or having contact with children.From the Colorado study which the bug believes indicates sex offenders are better off clustered together
This type of accountability and support is different in an SLA than in other types of living arrangements in that the treatment provider makes holding each other accountable for their actions a requirement of living in the SLA. Typically, in other living arrangements, the probation officers or treatment providers do not have any jurisdiction over the other members of the household that the offender lives therefore there are no consequences if a roommate in a different type of living arrangement does not report a violation committed by the sex offender."
"Since convicted sex offenders in Colorado are managed with a combination of supervision, treatment and incarceration, does this population still pose an undue risk to the public? Studies show that persons who are convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior demonstrate a high likelihood of recidivism, thereby representing a risk to the public.Colorado studied Shared Living Arrangements and compared them to offenders who lived in other places. What they found was that high risk offenders living in SLA's had the lowest rates of recidivism and probation violations of any other group. Offenders living with their family had the highest rates. But how could that be? The Bug says "support" is the most important thing for an offender to have. The problem is of course that she doesn't understand the difference in good support and bad.
A meta-analysis of 61 research studies conducted by Hanson and Bussiere in 1998 indicated that sexual recidivism was 18.9% for rapists and 12.7% for child molesters over a four to five year period."
These findings suggest that although a high-risk sex offender may be living with a family member or friends, it does not necessarily mean that he or she is living in a supportive or healthy environment.
Recommendation: Efforts should be made to ensure that the sex offender’s support in the home is positive in order to aid in his or her treatment.
Preliminary research suggests that sex offenders with positive, informed support had significantly lower criminal and technical violations than sex offenders who had negative or no support (i.e., friends, family, or roommates who negatively influence the sex offender or refuse to cooperate with the containment team, etc.)Positive does not mean minimizing on behalf of, rationalizing on behalf of or denying on behalf of. To illustrate this point lets look at the criteria for Shared Living Arrangements.
Ideally, containment teams should require that offenders reside with individuals who provide positive, informed support.Someone who provides positive, informed support demonstrates:
- Accurate knowledge of the offender’s instant offense (crime of conviction), history of prior criminal convictions, sexual offense history, and sexual deviancy behaviors.
- Accurate knowledge of the offender’s historic methods of deception and manipulation, particularly as they apply to the informed supporter
- Accurate knowledge of rules and expectations
- Awareness of the offender’s potential victims.
- Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs.
- Familiarity with the offender’s schedule and whereabouts.
- The ability to enhance and encourage application of the offender’s treatment tools outside of the therapy setting.
- A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor.
- The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior.
- The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors
- Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team
A distinct feature of sexual offending behavior is based in maintaining secret lifestyles. For this population, SLAs provide an opportunity to deconstruct that secret lifestyle and hold themselves and others accountable.Does that sound anything like Mary's conclusion that sex offenders clustered together by circumstance recidivate less? Now if Mary Duval doesn't understand the very simple difference between clustering and Shared Living Arrangements how is she EVER going to "educate the ignorant sheeple" like us - who actually comprehend what we read?
UNLESS MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE EXISTS FOR EACH SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOUSEHOLD, A LIVING ARRANGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN SLA
That was a rhetorical question Mary.
- Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs.
- The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors
- Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team
- A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor
Does that sound like positive support? No, this a person that would set off red flags - a signal of danger for the offender at the very least. Is it any wonder, when you consider the people he had in his life "giving him support" that he wound up back in prison?
- The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior.
According to Mary victims can just seek help and then go on with their lives while the offender suffers forever. What do you think?
