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.
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:
Repeat Sex Offenders
Those whose victims are strangers
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.
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.
"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.
All defendants convicted of sexually abusing a child must be remanded to prison for life.
All registries should be abolished IMMEDIATELY and the funds allocated to said registries should be redirected to state prisons.
Any convicted sex offender in prison who is released before his 90th birthday should be held in a civil commitment center.
Remember Remsen Benedict? He was sentenced yesterday to six and a half years for possession of child pornography.
Just like Robert Hochulski's family, Remsen's wrote letters bragging on his community service, his dedication to the Boy Scouts and Big Brother as though that should somehow absolve him and earn him a lighter sentence. I find it fascinating actually and shows the families are still in denial.
The fact that Remsen was a Scout leader and drove a school bus has to do with the fact that he's a pedophile who sought ways to be around little boys. It's even more reason to make sure he's never around little children again.
And he won't be. Legally anyway.
After Wikisposure notified the school district and Boy Scouts of America regarding Remsen's internet pedophile activity, such as membership at sites like Boylandonline, Bliss, BoysMagicWorld, Boys Scout Camp, Boylover.net and BoyMoment - his computer was seized and forensic analysis revealed
hundreds of videos and thousands of child abuse images - the equivalent of 22,275 images under the sentencing guidelines. The images and videos showed prepubescent and pubescent children being sexually assaulted and molested by adults, as well as children engaging in sexual acts with other children under the direction of adults.
When Remsen is released he'll have to register as a sex offender. His internet activity will be restricted and he'll be required to stay away from anyone under the age of 18. It is a part of his sentence and is absolutely imperative so that no parent who is aware of just exactly what Remsen is will ever trust their child around him.
Another thing I found especially interesting regarding the case of Remsen Benedict is how much something Mary Duval has talked about reminded me of him.
You see, Mary has a friend who won't allow her daughter to ride the Church bus unless there is someone else on the bus. Mary claimed her friend was hysterical and had "a hate-on for men"
Mary claimed the bus driver was a fine upstanding member of the community, an elderly gentleman without a criminal record, a father, a grandfather and that her friend was hysterical. Mary repeated this story at least 4 times that I know of. Lenore Skenazy agreed with Mary.
But ya know? I didn't think it was hysterical at all. No, I thought about Remsen. He was a "fine upstanding member of the community" as well. He had no criminal record. He was a father, a grandfather - he drove a school bus.
I wondered what Mary might know about the church bus driver that other people don't? Since she's so sure of how safe he is that she mocks her "friend" to multiple guests on her show she must have some sort of inside and all-knowing information regarding him.
But there's one guest Mary had that she didn't tell the story to and that's Margie Slagle. You see Margie as an attorney works tirelessly to get sex offenders off the registry and other sex offender related activity. Margie is on their "side". But Margie said
Now I know that 93% of all sex offenses occur because we as parents have trusted the offender with our child so I'm far more worried about who I trust my children with than I'm worried about a list.
When my son took guitar lessons at first I'd just drop him off because I thought, well this is a nice guy he gives guitar lessons at church it must be safe and then I realized what the heck are you doing take a book and sit for half an hour you moron. Why would you trust a stranger with your child?
So I have become smarter as a parent and that's the only way to prevent sex offenses against your children is to just be aware of who you trust your children with. I don't want my kids riding home alone in a car with one of their coaches, are you kidding me? You don't set them up that way.
But the registry doesn't do that for you as a parent that's the problem. Parents are not educated enough to protect their kids and if they're relying on a registry they're leaving their kids vulnerable.
I wonder if Mary called Margie hysterical? I wonder if Mary asked Margie what she thought about Lenore Skenazy letting her 9 year old child ride the subway alone in New York City? I wonder if she asked Margie if she thought it was appropriate for convicted sex offenders to mock parents for protecting their children then blaming them if they don't protect them enough? I wonder what a discussion like that would look like. I wonder if it's possible for Mary to take a stand and stick with it and stop changing her story depending upon the guest? So far all we've seen is flip-flopping. Time will tell. The fact is however, that if you support UNDER protecting children you cannot be taken seriously as someone whose goal is to "educate and prevent" sexual abuse. And you certainly can't be taken seriously when one day you say children shouldn't walk home from school and the next day you mock parents who won't let their child walk home from school. You can't have it both ways. Even blame-gaming has it's limits.
"True victims" of sex abuse... look like, act like, think of, dream of...?
Should I cut myself, freak out, get on drugs, learn to shut up, drown my sorrows with alcohol? Or go on youtube and cry?
The therapy that I received taught me that I had a voice and to use it. I am not ashamed of doing so. Possibly... if "miss Mary" had proper therapy she wouldn't be advocating for registry reform and hanging out with pedophiles and sex offenders.
Sex offenders deserve to have their pictures all over the internet and in magazines. People have the right to know their crimes because they are dangerous and cannot be cured. Sex offenders damage their victims for life and should be held accountable for life.
We first talked about "Hutch" Robert Hochulski here. Now his defense attorney is trying to claim that one reason he should be given a lighter sentence is because he has support from his wife. My goodness I thought, I wonder if he knows what sort of "support" she offers?
Support like coming here to AZU and denying his crimes while calling us every name in the book for harming an "innocent man's reputation" perhaps?
Well of course we weren't trying to "harm an innocent man" and of course he wasn't innocent. He was sentenced yesterday to almost 6 years. He had over 2000 images on his computer but confessed to less than 600 of them. And of course the images included prepubescent children and sadistic acts. That's a "childlover" for you.
But what I found especially interesting was Bob's letter to the judge. Not only was Bob a moderator on a pedophile board, not only did he continue to log into his account AFTER his arrest but he put himself in a position to - as he called it - "mentor" boys for years. That's what filthy pedophiles do. Now he wants to use the fact that he did "good works for boys"? And HEY! not only Bob, but all his family and friends used the same reasons to the court. "Bob is a GOOD man" and "Bob has done so much work for children" and "I was shocked when I heard and I know that he's sorry and would never do it again"
Funny, that's what Joseph Duncan's friends said about him as well.
Duncan wrote:
Someone told me yesterday that I was different than most other sex offenders because I was only 16 when I committed my crime and have never committed any other sex crimes since (or before).
Of course we know NOW that he HAD already committed other sex crimes. Hindsight is funny that way isn't it?
Robert Hochulski wrote:
My family and my work with youth are two of the most important aspects of my life. Unfortunately, my decisions which have led me to the current situation have effectively taken away my ability to work with and mentor to youth. For this and the pain and suffering I have inflicted upon my family I am truly sorry. However, as I progressed in my counseling, I have come to realize that there was a third party that was involved with my bad decisions. They are children who were coerced and forced into a life of abuse and exploitation. These children must be rescued and provided all necessary help in recovering from their situation. I also believe that the parties responsible for this exploitation must be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes.
I understand that I must suffer the consequences for my actions and decisions. However, I have begun to turn my life back to the path of living within the laws of man and God. I ask that you see who I am beyond the filter of my crime and see me for the person I am.
I see Bob for exactly what he is. A pedophile who drooled over sexually abused children, invaded their privacy and re-victimized them. (there were three victim impact statements made in this case). Child pornography is not a victimless crime. Men like Bob look at it for a reason. - that reason is not because they're bored and have nothing better to do than twiddle their thumbs. No, Bob searched for it with search terms that included things like "boys in loinclothes" and "boylove". He did this from multiple computers and from multiple places - including from his job at the after school program he ran. NOW Bob says he's sorry, not for the children he harmed but for his family. Funny how they always find God when they want to be saved from prison. But if we've learned anything from all the pedophiles who love to blabber off their mouths it is this: pedophiles cannot and will not change. Bob will spend his 5 years and 8 months in prison and return to the loving enabling arms of his wife. When he does: he'll still be a pedophile. Mark your calenders, I have a feeling we'll be seeing Bob again one day.
Jarred Harrell was arrested today for the murder of Somer Thompson.....among other things.
You may recall little Somer was abducted while walking home from school with friends last October. Somer was 7 years old. Her body was found in a landfill a few days later.
On a related note, I argued with Cheryl Griffiths on a news article about it when Cheryl started attacking Somer's mother for appearing on TV to talk about the case. Cheryl - with her typical venomous hatred for victims of sex crimes said it was "over" and Somer was dead and her mother was just trying to get attention and exploit her own dead child. And I wonder, why would Cheryl care if Somer's mother wanted to keep attention on the case.... the perpetrator had not even been caught. Why?
Jarred Harrell was also arrested for possession of child pornography. If he had not been charged with Somer's murder these self-absorbed apologists for baby-rapers would be saying "It was ONLY pictures, it's not like he abducted and killed a child".
We must remember that almost all child molesters are also found to be in possession of child pornography. And in a recent study 85% of those convicted for possession of child pornography also had committed hands-on offenses against children that had gone undetected.
Jerome Miller of Reform Sex Offender Laws Campaign RSOL claims those offenders in that study only said they molested children because they would get special privileges. Interesting that he knows so much about what ALL the men in that study did or didn't do. So I ask you....would you confess to being a filthy child molester if you really weren't? Child molesters are the bottom of the barrel, a scourge, a blight - the most sickening the thing a person can be and something nobody would want to be identified as.
In this particular study 26% of the offenders were known to have molested children at the time of their conviction but during the study they revealed that 85% of them had. Most of them with multiple victims. In fact, as a group they had 75 child victims amongst them - known at the time of their original sentencing for possession of child pornography. After their confessions that number jumped to 1,777. This study was conducted on 155 men by the way. And yet those people who are interested in removing all penalties for possession of child pornography dismiss this study and instead promote the recent one that came out of Switzerland. You know..... the one who used a BoyChat member as his resource for information?
Is Jarred Harrell unusual in some way? Yes, in that he actually killed his victim. No, in that he didn't JUST get caught with child pornography - he progressed before being captured. People who look at images of children being sexually assaulted are not "the real victims of society" the way the Nambla people at RSOL would have you believe. They are people with a sexual interest in children and as Mary Duval always says "That should be a red flag"
Even though the chances of a child being abducted by a stranger are less than the same child being struck by lightening, or bitten by a shark, children today are preoccupied with that fear. Fear is the beginning of isolation, confusion and hate. All governments know that the biggest threat to their power over the people is unity amongst the people. Governments throughout history have sought ways to disrupt that unity. Our government is the master of this technique. It is routine and even expected for our children to turn in their parents if they even suspect they are not conforming. Our children are taught in schools, "Do not talk to strangers, they are dangerous and want to hurt you." "If any adult makes you feel uncomfortable, run away and report them immediately." "The police are your friends."
What a great way to keep our children from learning new things and thinking for themselves. The last thing the government wants you to do is think, the first is to feel...Fear!
Who made this comment?
UPDATE: The answer to this Whose Line is it Anyway is
Joseph Duncan: child abductor, child rapist, child murderer, repeat sex offender, sexual psychopath and one of the original sex offender activists.
Mary Duval - "The Bug" once said that she "educated her ignorance" and we could have almost felt sorry for her if we hadn't been laughing so hard.
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.
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."
From the Colorado study which the bug believes indicates sex offenders are better off clustered together
"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.
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."
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.
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.
UNLESS MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE EXISTS FOR EACH SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOUSEHOLD, A LIVING ARRANGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN SLA
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?
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
Let's look closer at those requirements. Mary gave us a perfect example of this when her friend Ms. Cannon appeared on her show complaining constantly about her sons wicked probation officer and the chaperone class she had to take which would allow her son to be around children....with her acting as chaperone. Cathy completely misunderstood the information presented regarding behaviors to be aware of and things an offender might do. She claimed "They told us when you bathe your children you're grooming them for sex!!!" And of course Mary and friends all called them "ignorant". The truth is of course that is not what Cathy was taught at all and Mary was too ignorant to see it. Not to mention of course this:
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?
A community of individuals pledged to fight paedophiles on the web. We are committed to the safety and emotional well-being of all children. This site will serve as a resource for those committed to our fight wherever you may be in the world.
