we will remember

Are we Humans smart enough to save our children?

In Florida   Donald J. Smith is a prime example of how we need to change the laws in the US in every  State regarding sex offenders.

"The man charged in the killing of an 8-year-old  had just been released from jail May 31.
Police said they made contact Friday morning with Donald James Smith, 56, who is a registered sex offender, at the home on Segovia Avenue, where he is registered. It was a routine address verification, according to Detective Mike Williams.
Smith lived within walking distance from Dupont Middle School. Police said there was no restriction on him living that close to a school because he was a registered sexual offender, not sexual predator."

He took her on June 22, 2013,  Not even a month after being released for his prior crime against a child!

I fail to understand the 'difference' as he was using predator behavior and killed a little girl.

What is wrong with the State of Florida?  Why can't they get it right?

"Williams said Child's mother met Smith at a Dollar General on Edgewood Avenue West about 7 p.m. Friday. Two younger children, 4 and 5 years old, were also there and remain in the mother's custody.
Smith offered to buy food and clothes for child's family at the nearby Walmart, Williams said. The family was in the Walmart for a couple of hours, he said.
The mother agreed to let Cherish go with Smith to the McDonald's inside the Walmart. The two did not return and the mother called police. "

 I won't go into the blame game here but to highlight the fact that pedophiles prey on women who are desperate and or seem easy to manipulate.
This is why so many sex offenders and pedophiles get to molest more and more children and as we see kill them.. because there are too many unprepared parents having children.  We cannot do anything about this as they will procreate anyways.

We need to offer more help to young Mothers and those who do not have support systems in place so that their children will not have to pay the price for their unprepardness.

"Smith also served prison time for attempted kidnapping and lewd and lascivious assault on children. The first time he attempted to lure a 13-year-old girl into his van and chased her as she ran away. The second time involved Smith trying to lure two girls into his van with pornographic magazines, according to Times-Union archives".

How sad that he wasn't held accountable for life after committing the first crime!

 We need to change the laws!! We need to protect our children!!

Evil Acts of Disagreement

Kevin Meier says he is there to talk about the TRUTH not the MYTHS and he wants people to listen to "the experts". I don't think it particularly matters to Kevin what kind of expert the person is and whether or not they are speaking regarding their own area of expertise as long as they say what he likes....after all, an expert is an expert, eh?

But the problem goes much deeper than that. Kevin has made the accusation that people like us would refer to the California Sex Offender Management Board as "pedo enablers" because they are trying to "make sense of the laws". Here are two things Kevin has failed to consider. One: a person speaking about the issues is not representing the Board itself, they are speaking in an activist role and stating their own personal opinion and their words are not a reflection of the policies of the Board. Two: When a so-called expert agrees with ONE thing Mary Duval says that does not mean they agree with everything Mary Duval says and yet Mary Duval takes the agreement with the one thing she said to mean validation for ALL of her beliefs.

The California Sex Offender Management Board has made recommendations however. Most of which conflict directly with what Mary Duval is advocating. They in fact do recommend things such as GPS monitoring, use of polygraphs, residency restrictions for high risk offenders, child safety zones and civil commitment if only two professionals agree. They don't recommend abolishing the use of every single form of monitoring and restricting of sex offenders as Mary Duval does - the truth is that they don't recommend abolishing ANY of them. They recommend strengthening them and making them better.

The most important thing California can do to reduce sexual recidivism is to implement the full Containment Model, requiring communication between an approved treatment provider, a supervising parole or probation officer, and a polygraph examiner. This approach would be victim-centered, guided by policy that protects victims and prevents future victimization.

Regarding community notification the California Sex Offender Management Board says:

Alerting the community of the presence and the address of a sex offender acts as a containment tool of supervision. Effective containment strategies help to limit an offender’s contact with potential victims.

And:

Each registering agency should make compliance with the state’s registration laws a priority, regardless of budgetary concerns.

Mary Duval says that sex offender treatment helps over 95% of offenders who receive it. I wonder which expert she got that statistic from. Perhaps she would be so kind as to "educate our ignorance" and tell us where she learned this because I've not seen anything like that in any of the publications I read. But - the California Sex Offender Management Board did publish a nice summary of the different studies done on the effectiveness in reducing the rates of sex offender recidivism. Some of them showed a slight reduction, Karl Hanson's showed a 5% reduction, some showed no reduction at all - but the highest reduction that ANY of them showed was 40%. Which one of these should we believe, if any? Does the methodology and reliability of a study have any bearing or should that only relate to whether or not the researcher was an "expert"? The California Sex Offender Management Board said:

One of the few studies known for a superior experimental design was California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project. Final results of the relapse prevention program over an 8-year follow up period found no results for the treatment group in reduced recidivism rates.

But what about recidivism? It seems we always come back to this as those people intent on proving something which is not true stubbornly and stupidly hold on to a DOJ recidivism statistic which does not accurately reflect recidivism and they KNOW IT. Admitting the truth of the matter however would disturb their agenda. So, let's again go to "the experts" - you know, the ones Kevin says we should listen to and see what they have to say. The California Sex Offender Management Board spoke of a study by Meithei, Olson, and Mitchell (2006) that followed 38,000 released prisoners in 1994 and found that sex offenders recidivated with a new sex crime less than other criminals. In fact that study said that 56% of property offenders committed another property offense while only 26% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. The California Sex Offender Management Board says:

Nevertheless it remains true that sex crimes can have such a devastating impact on their victims that even “comparatively low” recidivism rates are still unacceptably high and efforts to reduce them even further are deserving of considerable investment of efforts, resources and funding.

What do you think about that? Do you think 26% recidivism with a new sex crime is a low number? Well, sure compared to thieves I suppose it is - lower, but does that make it low? Do you think that one in four sex offenders re-offending with a new sex crime is acceptable? Do you think that's a low number?

One of "the experts" that Kevin and Mary Duval were recently impressed by was Kate Thompson from John Hopkins, who went on a radio show and told a politician that he had misinterpreted Karl Hanson's recidivism study. In fact she said that Karl Hanson's study actually showed the rates were very low "especially for child molesters". Does that strike you as odd? Listen to Karl Hanson speaking on the subject:

"On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we’ve been able to follow them, which is about 20 years, the rates go up to somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of the total sample will eventually be caught for a new sex offense."

And take a look at his chart:



Does that look like reoffense rates for child molesters are "especially low"? Those with boy victims - 23% recidivism after only 5 years, and 35% after 15 years. And consider these are the KNOWN reoffenses. Does that look "especially low"? Why would a seemingly educated woman have made such a statement?

The California Sex Offender Management Board says:

WHAT IS THE “TRUE” RATE OF SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM?

Underreporting of sex offenses is another factor that influences the accuracy and reliability of recidivism rates of sex offenses. Theoretically speaking, the true rate of recidivism may have been and will always be unknown since a significant number of sex crimes are never reported by victims or are undetected by the criminal justice system. The recidivism rate is normally only estimated from officially recorded crime statistics. Therefore, all recidivism rates, including those for sex offenders will be underestimated for one reason or another.

ATSA - (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers) says:

Because not all sex offenses are reported, it is difficult to accurately measure the true rate of repeat offenses. However, based on convictions for sex offenses, Hanson (2006) estimated the following rates of recidivism:

Regarding recidivism in California, the Board says:

• There is no good source of statewide data tracking rates of reports, arrests, charges, prosecutions, outcomes and dispositions related to sex offenses. It is, therefore, nearly impossible to ask and answer such questions as whether increased sanctions in California decrease offending, decrease reporting, decrease satisfactory plea bargains or have other unintended consequence.
  


• No information is available at this time regarding sexual recidivism for sex offenders on probation in California.

So then how do you explain Mary's reliance on a "report out of California" that shows a low 3% number? They've said clearly they have trouble tracking, and no data at all regarding offenders on probation. Well, perhaps this is the answer:

It has come to the attention of CASOMB that there has been some controversy about the dissemination, use and possible misuse of some draft papers about recidivism which had been distributed and discussed at Board meetings and which had been posted on the CASOMB website for a time. This statement is an attempt to clarify the matter and preclude any misuse of these two papers.

CASOMB wishes to state clearly that the papers in question have never been officially approved, sanctioned or published as finished statements by the Board. In fact, precisely because they are regarded by the Board as being misleading and easily subject to misinterpretation, they should not be seen as anything but provisional drafts reflecting the Board’s work process – a process which is not now and which may never be completed - due largely to the elusiveness of the data which would allow the Board to produce a complete and acceptable statement.

Of course none of this explains why Sosen - attempting to back up their claim - would quote Anderson Cooper saying sex offenders had lower rates of recidivism than other criminals - as though that had any bearing on how many sex offenders DO reoffend. But seriously... Anderson Cooper? I didn't realize he was a recidivism expert. They sure got one on me there! Blind-sided me! On the other hand, anyone can clearly see that I must be one of those "uneducated ignorant sheeple" turned rogue vigilante out here flapping my lips trying to educate people about the misinformation Mary Duval is trying to educate them with. For God's sake, beware.

Mary Duval refers to us as "Vigilantes" who will "bring the registry down" so I strongly suggest she continues reporting these evil acts of disagreement. I implore Mary Duval to print this one out too and mark it VIGILANTE and send it on in with everything else she printed....and I do mean EVERYthing. May I suggest using bright red ink for that extra little attention-grabbing Zing! Perhaps Zman will lend his yellow highlighter. Have no worries, I'll have more to print shortly. Perhaps we can "educate your ignorance" after all.

Just Another Foot Stomping Blame Gamer

Sex offender activists have their own way of manipulating statistics. They do not care that it's true or not. We've been through this many times and I honestly don't know why the brilliant minds among them haven't yet figured it out. Perhaps they're too busy calling us "ignorant" and blaming others for their own bad behavior. Blame Gaming.

This is the fact plain and simple. A DOJ recidivism report done over a period of 3 years is not an accurate reflection of true recidivism. Nor does the DOJ recidivism report address the percentage of new sex crimes committed by either an RSO or a non-RSO.

But the new Washington study does. Yes, not including sex offenses that only result in probation or other penalty, ONLY counting those that result in prison 19% of all NEW sex crimes are committed in Washington state by someone who is ALREADY on the registry.

Now let's listen to Karl Hanson himself explain about recidivism:



Let's let Tom explain how it really works shall we? And how to get people to care and be understanding and sympathetic and empathetic, considering how ignorant we all are I have a feeling it won't go over very well. But that's me.




Dr Gene Abel concluded from a study of over 16,000 men, that 95% of all child molestations are committed by pedophiles.

Gene G. Abel, M.D. is a full professor of Psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools, including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Abel is currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine.

Dr. Abel, who has been a research scientist in the field of sexual violence for more than 30 years, is at the top of his field, both nationally and internationally.

Ken Lanning said:

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts.

Gene Abel said:

Pedophilia is the most significant cause of child molestation.

Let's Make This Clear (Smiles Maniacally)

That's just one of the many harassing emails I've received. Attached to it were several posters this person had made accusing others of being a child molester, a child pornographer etc. We discussed all that HERE

So I do find it interesting that some people don't know when to stop. But then we already knew how they were didn't we? This one I received this morning though is quite helpful because it gives me a chance to clarify a bit more Jacey's post from yesterday


These are the facts. Lindsay Ashford supported that statistic. He linked to eadvocate for support. I won't link to a site that has such convoluted, twisted and concocted propaganda. But, since Nightmare here was so ahem helpful to post the entire entry into the email and inform me that I needed a statistics book for Dummies, I'm going to break it down even further.

Number one rule of thumb. You cannot take a statistic that measures one thing and apply it to something that it doesn't measure.

In 1994 victims reported 432,750 incidents.

This tells us nothing regarding the recidivism study. What it does tell us is that in 1994 victims reported 432,750 incidents. We don't know how many of those actually occurred. We don't know how many resulted in an arrest and we don't know how many resulted in a conviction. All we know from that is 432,750 incidents of victimization were reported in 1994.

The DoJ reported 3.5% of those sex offenders released were RECONVICTED for another sex crime, within 3 years, following their release. (DoJ Pg-24) see note below.

Accordingly, in 1994 victims reported 432,750 incidents. In 1994 3.5% of sex offenders released from prison (those who had previously committed one or more sex offenses) committed another sex offense (recidivated within 3-years of release).

This is two different reports measuring two different things. Again, you cannot take one measurement and just pick something else to apply it to, that it did not measure. This is spin. This is what pro child sexual abuse people do. This is what Lindsay Ashford did. This is what Jan Kruska did. This is what Tom Madison did and all the rest of the blame gamers who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

What the DOJ study said is:

Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period.

The 3.5% figure was only a measure of those 9,691 people. It was not a measurement of the total number of convictions for 1994. It doesn't matter how many convictions there were that year, 5000 or ten million. The 3.5% only tells us that 3.5% of 9,691 were reconvicted. You cannot apply one result to another question. This is so very basic that we can only conclude that these people have twisted the statistics with malicious intent to deceive. There is no other plausible explanation.

"The math: (100% - 3.5% = 96.5%) 96.5% of 432,750 = 417,603 committed by someone other than a former sex offender released from prison.

What more needs to be said?"

Out of 9,691 sex offenders released in 1994, 3.5% of them were reconvicted for a sex crime within a 3 year period. This did not measure the percentage of total convictions for 1994, and it tells us nothing about anyone else convicted that year except that they weren't released the same year as these men. In 1994 there could have been men REconvicted of a sex crime who had been released in 1993, in '92, in '88 or '75 or '67.

You cannot say that 3.5% of sex offenders released in '94 recidivated within 3 years therefore everyone else convicted that year was not already a sex offender. That is WA LA Pedo Logic

Stop Lying!

We have a ZERO Recidivism Rate!

Andrew Spedden, Lancaster, PA
April 21, 2007

Arrested in 2003 and convicted in 2005 of "having one of the largest child pornography collections in county history will remain in prison for at least another three months"

Having served only 5 months of his sentence before being released on parole Andy had to attend sex offender counseling. And yet a little over a year later he's back before the court. The judge told him "You represent a very high risk of re-offending"

While in therapy Andy admitted having sex with at least 10 children between the ages of 2 and 15 while on parole, although the crimes went unreported to police. He also told a counselor that he approached children for sex at Lancaster Counter Library and that he viewed pornography on library computers. His therapist also learned that Andy used a computer at the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster to view pornography and solicit sex using Internet chat rooms. I wonder if he told them he was a member of SOSEN?

Andy said:

Shirley, Thank you for your sharp-edged words; they need to be heard!

I'd like to clarify "paedophilia."

There were a few people who thought it best to designate me as a paedophile and/or a hebophile. However, from a licensed psychologist, who performed an independent psychological evaluation of me, and from the first RSO therapist I worked with, the diagnosis was neither paedophilia nor hebophilia. Given the fact that I was going to adult-stores and using adult-pornography as much as I was using underage-pornography, my problem was sex/love addiction, which is what I'm recovering from.

Shirley Lowery says

"Child porn is a puzzler, Sending people to prison for something they see in their own home seems un-American"

"I don't have a huge issue with child porn unless it is linked to another crime. Most of that stuff is 30 years old or older and kids who were victimized are no longer kids"

"Pedophiles love children and enjoy being around them. The majority of pedophiles never act on their fantasies so they are never exposed"

"We must watch over our children and teach them that a penis is a part of a man s anatomy and the sight of one is not an earth-shattering event"

"Kids do not always tell the truth. They are not the rulers of our nation. Adults must live in this world too. It is time that our kids are taught to co-exist with adults although many find the idea sickening"

"Can I say that I am owner and chairman of SOSEN, a support group that deals with former members all across the US and that new legislation has been introduced which interfers with our program where we have a zero recidivism rate?"

What can you possibly say to this? The woman is clearly deranged, but are all her friends and family also? Why do they not insist she gets the help she so desperately needs? I think that's a question that needs answering. When Shirley Lowery takes up the cause of one of the worst pedophile activists on the internet today why are they following her instructions and posting Dylan's No More Victims Act 2007 all over the place? Are they that distorted?

Personally I'm sick to death of reading this bitch. My jaw has dropped so many times it's now sitting on the floor and I'm in fear of a permanent disconnection from my face. If I ran across too many people like her I believe I'd start advocating for a return to lobotomies and massive shock therapy. Although in this case I doubt it could help her.

I'm going to leave you with some Shirleyisms. Have a barf bag ready.....or a straight jacket on standby just in case you run across her. I'm sure there's probably a reward for this animal somewhere.

You are the only attorney I have. I hope you will teach us how to put this nation in a choke hold.

I don't care how many of these things we must file across the nation of we can afford to do it. We can't afford to fight them but we could cause so much disruption and delay and maybe these issues would get tabled for now. How do we tie up the whole ball of wax?

Just for an example let's look at residency restrictions. Many of the area that have passed them only because nobody has challenged them. Many of these small towns don't have the money to fight to keep them. We don't have $ either but I do beleive that we could file pro se and pay only filing fees that that would cause a panic in poorer areas.

I don't know if 10 people could file 1 small claims suite with each of those individuals asking for the max allowed in that particular court or if everyone would
have to spend the $50 to ask for the maximum of $5000.

During the 60 days or so, between the time it is filed and the time of the hearing,some really creative thinking may be taking place. A loss for you means $50. A loss for them could cost $5000 for each person filing. In either case you have cost them time, money and worry

ask that it be turned into a class action and delay the hell out of it for a very long time? We can't afford to fight court battles but maybe we can afford to get states tied up in legal red tape

So many teen disappearances are internet related and the responsibility lies with parents

The way to get pedophiles out of chatrooms is to remove teens who are searching the net for sex

We have underage kids surfing the net for sex. Why aren't we seeing how many of them we can catch and jerk out of these chat rooms? Picking up some trash along the highway might teach them something about personal responsibility

The problem starts with whom we label as a sex offender. A single, non-violent incident can be a mistake, a misjudgment or a set of circumstances. There is no pattern of behavior and no life is forever altered. It would be wise to save that label for a second offense

If the public wants solutions the very best tool available is the sex offender. Who can better provide answers? It takes very little time to determine that a sex offense is a symptom and it is the symptom that gets punished.

A fifty-cent plastic whistle around a kid's neck would work wonders. Teaching them that 3 short blasts is a distress call could save lives. Getting kids off the Internet and providing all kids with a whistle are simple things that any parent can do. I guarantee that it would do far more toward prevention than anything that the government has provided us with. There are many commonsense solutions. Getting society to listen is a whole different story

Jessica (Lunsford) was not tortured and her death comes across more as an assisted suicide than a murder. It looks as if she stepped into the bags of her own accord, squatted down and waited for death.

That's Perspective

According to Nihil_aeturnius the pedophile, one way of committing informational terrorism is to saturate the internet specifically message boards, forums and blogs

There are many methods that informational terrorism may be achieved. I'm sure that the various posters who also post on Blogger, Livejournal, etc, have dealt with the phenonemon of trolling. This practice can be put to our services, in the form of the placing of our arguments and ideas on as many internet outlets as possible. Even if they are deleted, the act of them being seen is beneficial. Repeated viewing of information eventually becomes effective.

One person who did this often was Lepidopterist/WinstonSmith101/Nymph-Fanatic, who often went on debate boards and argued whenever there was a topic on pedophilia

Always make it seem that you know something they don't.

And yet, it just doesn't work. Obviously we know things they don't. We've already witnessed the Evolution of a Factoid. We know how all pedophiles misquote Kenneth Lanning as saying 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles. That one began when an unethical journalist was discovered by a manipulative pedovore (most likely Lindsay Ashford), the quote spread like wildfire through the pedophile community. They quote it here, there and everywhere while knowing it is erroneous information. We've also witnessed their asinine obsession with Hall, and their assertion that his study shows that 1/3 of men are sexually attracted to children. They accept this as FACT, completely disregarding all the true facts of the study and the authors OWN interpretation of it. They are maliciously deceptive. Why? Because it's their only option. They can only twist and distort information because without that they have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now today we're going to talk about their firm insistence that child molesters have the lowest recidivism rate of any convicted criminals. First, I will refer you HERE. From this post we can conclude that while the DOJ report of 1994 showed a 5.3% recidivism rate for child sex offenders, a meta-analysis done over a 30 year period showed that the longer the offender is out of prison the higher the recidivism rate goes up.

And these guys still go on and on. They keep pointing out this DOJ report as if it's something new. And of course, they don't tell you the whole story. But I will.
Before I do, however, I'm going to give you a statistic and put it in perspective. And, since pedophiles are well known for their pedo-calculations...you know--pulling statistics from 5 different sources and trying to combine them. Sort of like, oh maybe, mixing apples and oranges and subtracting coffee or some such. I won't do that. I'm just going to talk about this. For now.

Why just today Santi said:

Five fucking point three percent ?!?!?!?! '5.3' is to 'high rate' what 'the USA'
is to 'human rights'.

And Aztram said:

5.3% is considered high recidivism? "Is this through the looking glass, Alice?"

But let us for a moment consider two things:

#1 -- Approximately 10% of child sex abuse is reported. This leaves 90% undetected and uncounted in statistics.

#2 -- One-Third of convicted child molesters admit to having multiple victims (per the DOJ)

4,295 child molesters - in this study - recidivated at a 5.3% rate. If each offender who repeated his crime only had ONE victim....that's a total of 228 children. Two hundred twenty eight children.

Is 228 children insignificant to you?

If you answer yes, then what would be significant? 500? 1000? 5000? How about 1. How about one child being significant? What if the one child were yours? Personally I say "One child is too many!" But that's me.

Let's look at it again. 5.3% = 228 children. And that's assuming each offender only had one victim. What say you Santi? Looks a bit different now doesn't it?

Why don't we try some number crunching pedo-style. Gene Abel says of his study of 16,109 admitted child molesters

"The number of child victims and acts per molester depended on whether the molester targeted girls, boys or both. Those molesting only girls averaged 5.2 victims and 34.2 acts. Those molesting only boys averaged 10.7 victims and 52 acts. Those molesting both averaged 27.3 victims and 120.9 acts."

What happens if we take our lowest possible number of repeating pedos and multiply it by the lowest average number of victims (girls) @ 5.2 we have 1185 victims from the initial 5.3%. The numbers are staggering. I can hear the pedo heads now... You can't do that!! Combine stats! Mix & Match!"

Well, why not? You do it all the time! All sarcasm aside however, I wouldn't presume to combine stats taken in different ways from different times and different places and arbitrarily put them together. I'm merely pointing out that the 5.3% number does not tell the full story. But it makes pedofreaks feel good to say it. And they hang onto it desperately.

So....the pedophiles, who twist and distort to fit their purpose, will of course continue to believe what they want to believe. Unfortunately they spread the deceptions around. Every corner you turn there's a little pedo head repeating lies to unsuspecting people along with impressionable young pedos. They could use their position in the pedo community to steer that young confused man to help instead they help him through his shock and dismay, his disgust and horror at discovering this thing about himself. They tell him how perfectly natural it is, how evil society is to try and protect children. But do they ever wonder what happens to him? Or to the kids he comes in contact with? Probably not. But I do. I wonder a lot.

What about the prevalence of mental illness in their community? Do they encourage kids like Alive who's become a lush, knowing he's mixing his alcohol with anti-psychotic drugs, or Enigma who won't even take a bath he's so wacked out in obsessive thoughts about little girls, ni-gelo who's gone round the pedo bend, or Nihil with his violence barely contained? Do they encourage those guys to seek help? OH NO! They try to scare them away from evil help. then they give them strokes for their perversions! They reinforce their mutual delusions that mental health care is evil and sex offender therapy will only hurt them. Why do they do this? Who knows. I think some of them actually believe it. Others are deceptive....maliciously. But one thing that's for certain. They all suffer from mental illness.

Let's review with some quick stats from the DOJ. To all you nodding pedo heads, no dissing of the DOJ, you like them remember?

• More than half the violent crimes committed against children involved victims age 12 or younger.
• About 14% of child victimizers carried a weapon during the violent crime, compared to nearly half of those who victimized adults.
• About half had a relationship with the victim as a friend, acquaintance, or relative other than offspring.
• An estimated 22% of child victimizers reported having been sexually abused, less than 6% of adult victimizers reported such background.
• 4 in 10 child victims suffered either a forcible rape or another injury

Now that's perspective.

Facts According to Jay Part 4

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #4

The "pedophile" is unable to control himself and will always "re-offend".

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

One of the most extensive studies on this issue is called "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" It is available from the US Department of Justice. (Lanagan, P, Schmitt, E. and Durose, M., 2003) According to this study,, "Within the first three years following release from prison, 3.3% (141 of 4,296) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.

Well now, before we get to the truly most extensive studies (since pedovores like to use terms like that, as though it adds an air of eminence) let's look at this DOJ report. Number one please keep in mind that this only covered these specific criminals over a 3 year period post release from prison. When you see the figure 3.3% recidivism for child molesters and don't actually read the report, it doesn't sound too bad does it? Well you should read the report. What you don't see (for one thing) in that 3.3% figure is all the prior convictions before THIS ONE.

Furthermore

Within 6 months following their release, 1.4% of the 9,691 men were rearrested for a new sex crime. Within 1 year the cumulative total grew to 2.1% rearrested. By the end of the 3-year followup period, altogether 5.3% had been rearrested for another sex crime.

Which brings me to my next point: Karl Hanson who has authored several major studies on recidivism (1995, 1998, 2002) has some startling information. In his 1995 A Comparison of Child Molesters and Nonsexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-Term Recidivism Hanson writes:

Overall, 83.2% of the nonsexual criminals and 61.8% of the child molesters were reconvicted during the 15 to 30 year follow-up period of this study. The two groups tended to be reconvicted for distinct types of offenses. Almost all the sexual offense recidivism was in the child molester group (35% vs. 1.5% in the nonsexual criminal group) In general, prior offenses of a specific type predicted future offenses of the same type.

Hanson believes that

Child molesters may have different motivations to offend than do other criminals. He also says that in general, the rate of sexual offense recidivism among sexual offenders also tends to be low, about 10%-20% over 4 years, though it gradually increases with longer follow-up periods.

So this study, which included subjects released from prison beginning in 1958 were followed for no less than 15 years, and in some cases up to 30 years.

Further, Hanson found that substantial differences were found between the child molesters and non-sexual criminals included in this study. The child molesters were responsible for almost all (97%) of the sexual offense recidivism, whereas the nonsexual criminals were responsible for almost all (96%) of the nonsexual violent recidivism.

When the specific factors that predicted each type of recidivism were considered, there was a tendency for previous offenses of a given type to predict future offenses of the same type. The present study strongly suggests that child molesters are a distinct type of offender.

In his 1998 Meta-Analysis which provided recidivism information on 28,972 sex offenders followed over a period of 4-5 years, Hanson states that sexual offenders' motivation to change may also be related to recidivism. Those offenders who accept responsibility, express remorse, and comply with treatment should be at lower risk than those who deny any problems and actively resist change. The results of his 2002 study concerned the issue of recidivism as it related to age and followed 4,673 sexual offenders over a period of 30 years. His results were

"Although the observed sexual recidivism rates are only 10% to 15% after 5 years, the rates continue to increase gradually with extended follow-up periods." And asks the question "Do sexual offenders remain at risk throughout their lives, or is there some age limit after which their risks for recidivism is substantially reduced?"

This is the conclusion....

Recidivism risk of rapists steadily declines with age. In contrast the extrafamilial child molesters showed little reduction in recidivism risk until after the age of 50. The recidivism rate of intrafamilial child molesters were the lowest of all sex offender categories except in the 18-24 age group.

"The extent to which the recidivism rates of child molesters decreases with age is unknown. Given that most antisocial behavior declines with age, it is likely that the sexual recidivism rates of child molesters would similarly decline. A strong or exclusive sexual interest in children could contribute to a sustained level of risk until late adulthood."

Child molesters who only target intrafamilial victims (incest offenders) have consistently lower recidivism risk than do any other sexual offenders.

The sexual recidivism rate for the total sample was 17.5%. In the total sample the recidivism rate delined steadily with age. All the groups recidivated at different rates with incest offender recidivating less often (8.4%) than rapists (17.1%) and extrafamilial child molesters (19.5%)

Now for a couple of quick facts..........none of the incest offenders released after age 60 recidivated. The oldest recidivist (non incest sex offender) in the sample was released at age 72 and was reconvicted for a sexual offense the following year. (I guess some folks never learn)

As with other criminal behavior, the rate of sexual offending decreased with age. The rate of decline was rather gradual, however, and there were significant differences between types of sexual offenders.

Extrafamilial child molesters showed little decline in their recidivism risk until after the age of 50

Among the various factors linked to sexual offending, the three broad factors most relevant to this study are deviant sexual interests, opportunity, and low self-control. Deviant sexual interests are more common among extrafamilial child molesters than among incest offenders.

Dr. Jim Hopper believes that official government statistics are only "the tip of the iceberg." Concerning Child Sexual Abuse, he says Most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of government authorities. This is particularly true for neglected and sexually abused children, who may have no physical signs of harm. In the case of sexual abuse, secrecy and intense feelings of shame may prevent children, and adults aware of the abuse, from seeking help.

So how are we to know what to believe? Question, question, question everything! Don't take my word for it and surely not the pedovores. Remember the wise ol' saying....If it walks like a duck............