Dear Jillium

Monday, July 17, 2006

Well, well, well. Isn’t this convenient? The paedophiles are now claiming that the 90% non-paedophile child molester statistic didn’t come from the Lanning report at all. Rather, Jillium says:

The source for the 90% figure is 'Profile of a Pedophile,' (and Correctional Services of Canada + Australian Northern Territory Government and Police) not 'Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis.' Lanning's equivocal & inspecific language in the latter doesn't check.

Here’s my question. Are you making this statement out of ignorance because you haven’t even read the documents or are you, like the rest of your ‘community’, deliberately deceiving people? Let’s just have a look at these sources, shall we?

Go here to see the truth regarding the so-called ‘source’ Profile of a Pedophile.

Now we have the Northern Territory report. Ashford references it this way in Wikipedia. Joint submission from the Northern Territory Government and Police, 9 March 1995, page 4. Cited in "Organised Criminal Paedophile Activity." 14.8% of the sample were assessed to be pedophiles.

And you said Finally, according to the Australian Northern Territory Government and Police, only 14% of extrafamilial offenders are paedosexuals. Lanning's unequivocal "especially," without citation, isn't worth shit.

What did the actual report say? At note 66:

It’s statistics since mid-1990 had shown 304 persons involved in known or suspected child sex offences. Of these 124 were related to the child. Of the remaining 180, only 45 (ie. 14.8% of the total) had “been identified as paedophiles or suspected paedophiles, with all the classic indicators.”

You paedophiles are attempting to give the appearance that 304 offenders were clinically assessed and that only 14.8% were paedophiles. This is not the case. No one was assessed! This is the number of child molesters that officers were able to identify immediately upon investigation as having the ‘classic indicators’.

There was no sample. There was no assessment.

The committee is extremely clear that all figures are estimates that cannot be substantiated. See for instance at 2.13

For example, a preferential molester detected sexually molesting a child may claim to be a situational child molester to avoid further investigation of his or her activities or to avoid admitting his or her true preference. If detected offending in an intra-family situation, other, possibly long-continuing, sexual offences against children outside the family may go undetected if it is accepted too readily that the offender is a situational molester.

Or at 2.15

A further problem is the location of willing research subjects, given the illegal nature of much paedophile activity.

And at 2.20-2.22 the Committee explains that a major problem in gathering statistical data is under-reporting and the fact that it is impossible to determine the number of unreported offences every year. At 2.22 the Committee gives the following reasons why this occurs:
-May be ‘street kids’ who submit to abuse in exchange for food and shelter.
-Distrust of police
-Some children may not view themselves as victims

And finally

Paedophiles are said to be adept at persuading or pressuring children into not complaining.

Or you may find 2.27 interesting:

The statistics do not attempt to address the question of what proportion of the cases of child sexual abuse were committed by paedophiles or what proportion involved any organized paedophile activity. Often this information would not be known at the time the report was first made, and may not be known even following the degree of inquiry necessary to determine if the report is substantiated.

The committee also emphasizes the incomplete nature of reported information at 2.32

In putting these State and Territory figures together, allowance has to be made for the fact that they are merely estimates, very tentative ones in some cases, and that the methodology and definitions underlying them are not identical.

The Canadian report that has been cited can be found
here. This document is entitled Research on Sex Offenders and reports on recidivism rates of all sex offenders.
-The section on child molesters is relatively small when taken in context of the entire document.
-Reports on all types of sex offenders.
-Reports on alternative treatments for sex offenders NOT on different types of sex offenders.
-The figure 90% does not appear anywhere in this document.
-The figure 10% appears in the following contexts:
One recent study found that only 10% of rapists preferred violent sex
over mutually consenting relations.

Based on the most recent Canadian studies, estimated recidivism rates
for treated sex offenders fall in the vicinity of about 10%.

More importantly, their rate of recidivism was less than 10%.

So Lanning’s study was quoted like the Bible, now I’m being told his word ‘isn’t worth shit.’ We have now exposed the truth about these three references. Are you now going go find me three new ones? Tip: You can’t find something that doesn’t exist!

Anyone wondering why these paedophiles are so insistent on gathering, misquoting and lying about these studies and reports? For that, we’ll return to Lanning (2001) p. 59:
Collecting may also fulfill needs for validation. Many preferential sex offenders collect academic and scientific books and articles on the nature of their paraphilic preferences in an effort to understand and justify their own behavior. For the same reason pedophiles often collect and distribute articles and manuals written by pedophiles in which they attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior.

and in Lanning (1992) p.88:
Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts. They try to convince themselves that they love and nurture children.
blog comments powered by Disqus