If it Saves One Child

Derek Logue asks the question:

How much are we willing to sacrifice to "save one child?"

Let's ask Mary Duval and see what she has to say on the subject - of saving one child.

Whatever we do it could help our sons. And, you know, it's a huge fight, I mean - It's us against the people and the government and so we must start with education and hopefully educate America

In the end I'm sure Cathy and Lisa agree you know, as long as we save one child it does give me a little peace in my heart. My heart breaks every day but I know if I can save one child - a boy or girl - then you know, at least I've done something good for this country.

She wasn't talking about saving victims of sexual abuse though. And of course, on later shows she mocked the idea of "saving one child" - when referring to victims.

Still. Derek has a complaint about "saving one child". So does Walter Howard for that matter. Check this out. Interesting that Derek is still hanging on the coat tails of Tmax while knowing the man was a member of boylover.net Naturally, Derek Logue wouldn't believe (or wouldn't care) that someone like Walter Howard would go into chat rooms designated for minors. Even if he did believe it deep down in his heart of hearts they need every one they can get. If it saves one pervert that is.

A Major Distinction

Mary Duval believes no one should be on a public registry. (Except for people who criticize her views of course) She believes the "truly dangerous" offenders should never be released from prison. She says this even though she has listed a "fact" on one of her propaganda brochures that long prison sentences make the community less safe.

I'm not sure which she actually believes - if either - but I'm going to go with the assumption that what she really thinks is that "dangerous sex offenders" should be incarcerated and never released again to the public. This would fit with her statements such as"He should never get out of prison" or "He should just be shot".

So if that's true which sex offenders does she think poses a danger to the community? She defined it:

1. Repeat Sex Offenders
2. Those whose victims are strangers
3. Someone who uses violence

Mary Duval has further defined a repeat sex offender as someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. So according to her statements a man who is caught for the first time and who has multiple victims and was molesting children for years and years and years before being detected would be a first time offender and the "repeat offender" factor wouldn't apply to him and he would therefore not be dangerous.

If he groomed children over a long period of time, if he plied them with gifts and attention then maintained their compliance with the abuse through the use of psychological manipulation, that would also not be a dangerous person since he didn't use a gun or knife or fists to secure their cooperation. A man like that would not be considered dangerous according to Mary Duval.

If the person obtained his victims by dating or marrying a woman with children, or by playing ball with kids in the neighborhood, or volunteering as a Little League coach or being a Boy Scout leader, a Big Brother, a Church volunteer - or Church leader for that matter - that person wouldn't be a perpetrator against strangers and therefore would not be dangerous according to Mary Duval. Someone like Harold Spurling for example.

Mary Duval repeats that we need to start distinguishing between the "violent" and the "non-violent". What would she consider Harold Spurling? He didn't meet any of her criteria.

Harold Spurling who along with his partner molested a three month old baby and multiple children in their community. Some of their victims were abused for years. Harold Spurling who had the baby in his apartment that day because he had volunteered to babysit her. Harold Spurling who was known to play ball with the neighborhood kids. Harold Spurling who had one of the largest collections of child pornography in the history of Connecticut - much of it produced by himself. Harold Spurling who put my pedo-predator-detector into overdrive with his poem:

Little boy,
Pull me inside
The sweet dream that is you.
Let me hold you;
Let me breathe you in.
You justify my beating heart.
With you, the world and its endless troubles
Ceases to exist ...
Paradise doesn't hold a candle
To you.
Sweet expression of perfection;
Infantile bliss.
You run through my veins,
My lifeblood.

Harold Spurling does not fit Mary Duval's definition of "truly dangerous".

Harold Spurling was not a repeat offender as Mary Duval defines it. Harold Spurling did not use physical violence to rape children, he groomed them. Harold Spurling did not sexually assault strangers. And like most people who groom and molest children, one day he will get out of prison. I repeat: One day he will get out of prison. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to live across from that elementary school is protected. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to loiter around the playground is protected. Mary Duval wants to deny you the right to know that someone like Harold Spurling has moved into your neighborhood or invited you over for tea. What do you think about that?

On the flip-side of all this I wonder what Mary Duval thinks of Donna Kistler? As a Sosen activist Donna's primary argument was that most children are sexually abused by someone they know and .... it's always the parents fault. She says stranger crimes are rare. This was her basic argument for why the registry should be abolished. Take a look:

"The problem is, MOST child sex crimes or child abuse is caused by someone the child knows and trusts such as a family member. It is also mostly due to parental neglect. IF a child is NOT left alone or unattended, such as walking to and from school or the park then they could not and would not be abducted."

--Donna Kistler

We know that most young children do know their abuser in some way but I fail to see how that fits into Donna's philosophy. I found it quite interesting that while Donna was screaming "there's no stranger crimes" as her Pillar Number One she forgot about her own husband.

You see Peter broke into a woman's home in the middle of the night and raped her in her bed. She was a stranger. On two other occasions he broke into the homes of other women and attempted to rape them. They were strangers as well. Peter went to prison for 15 years, but like all violent rapists he got out one day.

Less than one year after his release he was caught trying to lure a 9 year old child into his car outside an elementary school. She was also a stranger.

So what do we have? Peter Kistler, a repeat sex offender, a violent sex offender and someone who had at least four stranger victims that we're aware of. What do you believe Mary Duval thinks of Peter Kistler? I wonder if Mary Duval would tell Donna that she believes Peter is dangerous and should never get out of prison.

A politician once said:

We're after violent sex offenders who rape, commit sexual battery, murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping with a sexual motivation and prey on our children. Those are the kind of offenders we're after.

Ken Lanning replied:

What we have to understand is that the major distinction between the sexual victimization of adults and the sexual victimization of children is one simple word: consent.

With adults in order for it to be a sex crime you have to have lack of consent and violence. You can have sexual criminals, sexual assault of children, without there being any violence.

And because an offender happens to groom and manipulate and seduce a child who cooperates in their victimization, those individuals, in my opinion, can be very dangerous. They are the most persistent and prolific of all known child molesters.

And to simply exclude individuals who happen to groom and seduce adolescent children doesn't make any sense to me.

Whose Line is it Anyway?

This weeks whose line is...

In my opinion, it would be a public necessity to put in jail everyone who publicly misquotes sex offender recidivism statistics for the purpose of sensationalism or inciting the public in order to get votes.

Who said this?

At Your Expense

Kelly Piercy writes:

"The dynamic has changed and we must change with it. We must now shift to a model that shows how the registry harms the society, not the registered, if we are to bring people to our perspective."

Kelly is always trying to give sexual criminal defenders tips and techniques for deception. "use this argument" or "use that argument" he'll say. It never gets them very far of course because Kelly Piercy is a convicted sexual criminal himself - and it appears to me he's still thinking like one. How could he possibly know or understand what will resonate with people?

I don't know about you, but the "cost factor" of the registry doesn't faze me. You can't put a price on the well-being of children. Tell people they'll have a fee added to their income tax every year to cover the cost of the registry and they'll say "Sure, how much?", as they pull out their checkbooks. Once again Kelly Piercy is giving people faulty information. Telling people the registry is too expensive just won't help him especially when the person saying it distributed child pornography on his own website and has a nasty little habit of saying things like:

"Do not show how it hurts a person on the registry who is not a risk, show how it raped and murdered Chelsea King."

What is the personal code of ethics for a man such as Kelly Piercy - or does he even have one? Kelly Piercy blamed the rape of 13 year old Samantha Geimer on her mother. He blamed the death of Adam Walsh on his mother. Now he blames sex offender laws for the death of Chelsea King. As I've said before, even blame-gaming has limits which should not be crossed. Perhaps someone needs to educate his ignorance, as Mary Duval always says.

In addition to his continued thinking errors I am reminded of other conduct of his. Once while working with Walter Howard they were trying to figure out ways to lure people into helping them pay for their propaganda dissemination. They wanted to convince people who had OTHER concerns like education reform, Veteran's issues, healthcare - to join their fight - without telling them that the primary ultimate goal was to abolish sex offender laws. Walter determined the cost would be $60,000 just to get started printing their brochures. But Kelly Piercy says he's already started printing his.

Listen:

"At the VA's expensive of course, they're paying for all my materials"

And yet now while teaching sexual criminal defenders how to frame an argument - he wants them to use the "it's too expensive" complaint?

It sounds to me like Kelly Piercy is a thief. He didn't commit armed robbery against the American People by pointing a gun at their heads and saying "give me your printing materials or I'll shoot". No, he took advantage of the situation with premeditation and total disregard for "rightness" or "wrongness" and apparently believed he could just slide under the radar and go undetected. That's how the criminally minded operate.

Would you trust that man around your children? Would you trust him in your home? I wonder what he might steal next, a child's innocence? A credit card? Perhaps something inexpensive but sentimental? It does not matter. THINGS are not there for the taking to people who have no right to them. Images of adults abusing little children is one of those things. American tax dollars is another.

But let us not forget that Kelly Piercy has his own proposal for increasing public safety. He wants sex offenders removed from the registry and their information expunged from the system. He wants judges to order them to treatment without incarceration. He does not want anyone to know that someone has raped a woman, or molested children, or ran websites distributing child pornography for that matter.

I have a better plan, I'd like to amend Mr. Piercy's proposal to affect a positive change and reduce recidivism.

1. All defendants convicted of sexually abusing a child must be remanded to prison for life.


2. All registries should be abolished IMMEDIATELY and the funds allocated to said registries should be redirected to state prisons.


3. Any convicted sex offender in prison who is released before his 90th birthday should be held in a civil commitment center.