A Major Distinction

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

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.
blog comments powered by Disqus