I'm going to say this real slow

Dr. Bill Glaser a forensic psychiatrist in the area of sex offenders said:

If we had some sort of plague or epidemic which affected one in four girls, one in eight boys, there would be a national outcry about it and we would be setting up national coordinated efforts to deal with the problem as we have with modern day epidemics such as HIV.

There are some who say that we are becoming unnecessarily panicky about child sexual abuse. The evidence is that we have not panicked enough.

We first wrote about Benjamin Radford here after he appeared on a podcast with a sex offender and a sex offender defender to commiserate about sex offender laws and what he refers to as a "predator panic".

I tried to clarify some of his errors, but that's a lot of information for such a small space and I suppose I failed to enlighten him. Still, I was rather disappointed recently on another podcast when I gave him the opportunity to explain his position and he once again did not want to be "confused with the facts". Only this time it was worse. In the intervening years he has forgotten his material and he confused the sex offender registry with community notification laws then argued against them both using residency restriction arguments. My head was spinning as Radford - puffed up and full of himself with delusions of superior intelligence and thinking skills - wove a web of lies, myths, half-truths and utter nonsense.

"People say there's no cure and that's simply not true"

Benjamin Radford said.

There's a cure? Even the most rabid pedophile apologists like Fred Berlin don't make that claim. Benjamin Radford must know something that experts who study sex offenders don't know because Benjamin Radford said the facts were there. He said they were clear. He said they were crystal clear. In fact, he said it at least 5 times in less than 5 minutes. I don't know if he was just trying to convince himself or not but he's surely convinced me. Now I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's a lying cockroach. Most importantly, he's intellectually dishonest.

Benjamin Radford has made his faulty conclusions based upon the DOJ recidivism report which showed a small percentage of recidivism after a three year period. At first I thought I would explain to Benjamin Radford why the DOJ report doesn't prove anything. I thought I might ask him why he believes it's proof when 80% of sex crimes go unreported. I thought I might ask him why he believes it's proof when almost 30% of those men in that report were ALREADY repeat offenders - sometimes multiple times. I thought I might ask him why he believed it was proof when almost half the men couldn't have committed another sex crime anyway considering that they were back in prison for another crime or a parole violation before the three year mark. I thought of asking him these things which he clearly failed to consider but he wouldn't be able to answer. He couldn't answer because he lied. He was intellectually dishonest. He read a report - not a study - and failed to question what the data actually meant.

Benjamin Radford says that to analyze information in his "investigations"

"critical thinking, critical reading and comprehension are essential"

He claimed to "thoroughly research" his topic. He claimed to "investigate" the issue. He claimed to analyze the information he found. But Benjamin Radford didn't actually analyze anything. He read it, didn't comprehend it, didn't question it and stopped looking. Why? Because it was what he wanted to hear. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Benjamin Radford has referred to the DOJ report on recidivism and a faulty Megan's Law report each time he has spoken of this issue. But that's it, that's all he got from his "investigation". If he had "thoroughly researched" and analyzed and comprehended he would know the report he references didn't even study the topic it claimed to have studied. He would know that it was rejected for inclusion in a meta analysis for its inferior methodology. He would know that the report he references said that sexual recidivism was lower in the time frame they studied but they didn't think it could be due to Megan's Law which may be effective but cost too much, they said they didn't know why recidivism was lower they just didn't think it was Megan's Law. So while Benjamin Radford claims "Megan's Law doesn't work" and that it is "crystal clear" - based on that study - he's either lying or ignorant. In either case - to attempt to persuade people on a topic such as this - or indeed any topic - while either lying or being ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.

The truth is, of course, that the answer is not crystal clear. Consensus has not been reached and the only conclusion most experts can agree upon is the fact the registry and community notification has been around for a relatively short period - not long enough to determine its effectiveness. He has written about this, spoken about this, written letters to lawmakers and journalists informing them that they have "inaccurate information". "It's a MYTH!", he says. He's tried to influence people with information he knows nothing about, information he failed to properly research, failed to analyze and failed to comprehend. For a self-hailed "critical thinker" I'm almost embarrassed for him.

I could explain to him that the registry is not important because it tells you where a sex offender "gets his mail" but because it tells you who he is. The vast majority of sexually abused children know their offender in some way. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles, neighbors, coaches, family friends, etc. The registry doesn't give parents a false sense of security when they should be looking at Uncle Joe and the soccer coach. No, it empowers the parents to know not to let Uncle Joe around the kids, or not to let Susie sleep over at Mary's house. It keeps known risks from coaching soccer or luring kids in the neighborhood to their home. It helps young single mothers know not to become involved with that terribly nice guy at church who just happens to be a child molester of 5 year old girls when she has a five year old girl. It brings them out of the shadows and adds one more tool to try to help keep our children safe.

This study offers evidence that suggests broad community notification has a deterrent effect on sex offense recidivism, thus providing support for rational choice theory as a framework within which to explain, predict, and control sexual offending.

Why does broad community notification appear to have a deterrent effect on sexual recidivism? Sexual offending and, more narrowly, sexual recidivism frequently involve offenders who know their victims. To a large extent, then, sexual reoffending is about social relationships. Existing research reveals that when sex offender recidivists victimize someone they know, it is often a collateral contact victim whom they met through a friend, acquaintance, or loved one.

Examples include an offender who victimizes his girlfriends son or daughter, an offender who molests the daughter of a friend or acquaintance, or an offender who baby-sits the children of an acquaintance or co-worker. In all of these examples, the offender is able to gain access to the victim by first establishing a relationship with the victims parent, guardian, or family member.

Sex offenders often operate under a veil of secrecy, which enables them to obtain access, either directly or indirectly, to unwitting victims. By lifting this veil, community notification may severely limit their opportunities to form the types of relationships that facilitate sexual offending.

Radford didn't read that report. There are a lot of reports he didn't read. He only read the ones that appeared to prove the position he set out to prove. So why does he care anyway? Radford said that the "sex offender panic" was important to him because

"if you don't understand a social problem you can't fix it"

But he didn't try to understand the problem, he merely tried to prove there wasn't a problem at all and that none of our tools were helpful to combat it.......if there were a problem. He was intellectually dishonest.

I believe Benjamin Radford ran out of mythical monsters to disprove and decided to try and disprove real ones. He was ill equipped to do so and fundamentally misguided. Not only is this a complex issue beyond his mediocre "critical thinking" skills which he didn't even attempt to apply but only skimmed the surface and declared it was "crystal clear". He had already made up his mind. He's not a skeptic. Not really. A skeptic would have delved deeper, a skeptic would have eventually realized that the answer is not in that DOJ report. The answer is not so simple as all that.

Benjamin Radford is only "skeptical" about certain things. Things that will get him attention mostly. He doesn't believe in God, ghosts, psychics or Big foot. He doesn't believe in monsters who damage our children's hearts and their souls. I suppose he doesn't believe they even have one.

I issue a challenge to Benjamin Radford to actually do some real research in earnest on this topic otherwise he should apologize for being intellectually dishonest and retract the uninformed statements he's made. This is not Bigfoot. This is very real. You see, unlike Big Foot there are living, breathing witnesses to the monsters that do exist in this world. Benjamin Radford has become a victim-denier.

Personally I don't think he has the ability or the integrity to do either, so my expectations are low. I believe Benjamin Radford should stick with what he knows best: taste-testing gourmet monster dung

"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."

Dr. R. Karl Hansen

No, Not One

"Do they make sex offender zombie costumes? I'd like to pick me up one, so I can jump out behind some bushes and scare the little kiddies. Mew hah hah hah....."

-Michael James Gregg
Convicted Child Molester

Little does Michael Gregg aka Zman aka SexOffenderIssues know - he doesn't need a costume. No, he and others like him are scary enough as it is.

They are scary not because parents are "hysterical or "over-protective" as he claims but because there really are monsters out there. Michael should know better than to mock this serious issue. He should know because he's one of the monsters.

See that graphic above? That's what Michael Gregg is trying to sell in his "advertise you're a demented sex offender defender" store.

What goes on in the mind of someone like Michael Gregg? If we didn't already know from reading his prolific blathering histrionics - that graphic says it all. At the moment this proven liar and convicted child molester is bemoaning the fact that parents can know someone is a child molester on Halloween rather than allowing their children to blindly knock on a monster's door. Even more importantly he doesn't understand limiting convicted child molesters from participating in this children's holiday. After all, why shouldn't known pedophiles be allowed to lure children with candy and decorations?

His logic seems to be

"Over the last 100 or more years, there has not been a single case of a child being sexually abused on Halloween by a known or unknown sex offender"

and

"There has not been one case of where a child was sexually abused by a known or unknown sex offender on Halloween, not one!"

He has repeated that over and over again. Frankly, I don't understand why he would believe that Halloween is immune. Why would registered sex offenders reoffend 364 days a year but not on Halloween? It makes no sense. Especially when we consider the study he links to by the sex offender apologist who has devoted her career to making life easier for baby rapers - Jill Levenson. Jill says that there are no more sex crimes committed on Halloween than any other day of the year - no fewer either for that matter.

I suppose he just missed some things. Arpana Jinaga for example who not only raped but killed his victim - at a Halloween party. How about Matthew Trakas who exposed himself to young girls while putting up Halloween decorations. How about Howard Ault - who lured two young sisters aged 11 and 7 with a promise of Halloween candy then raped and murdered the two? How about Victor Oustigoff who molested a 3 year old in his neighbors bathroom on Halloween night while her grandmother was in the other room. How about these guys? All repeat offenders. I have more, lots more. But Michael Gregg doesn't apparently - and we all know how sex offender dementia works - if he doesn't know about it - well then, it just didn't happen.

Michael Gregg's denial and rationalizations are only surpassed on the offensive scale by his tongue-lashing of victims and their families - a trait that belittles him as a man and gives him the appearance of an extremely dangerous person suffering a total disconnect with reality.

There's nothing we can do about that I suppose, although there IS help out there if Michael would seek it. As far as the offensive shirt design I can outdo him trying to scare you.........
How's that for scary?

And if you're really a fright seeker how about this mask? Available in our Store today.


The truth is sex offenders DO reoffend on Halloween. They reoffend every single day.

The sex offender defender which Michael Gregg knows and loves - Sarah Tofte - says that 25% of all sex offenders reoffend within 15 years. She also says that registered sex offenders make up one-fifth of one percent of the U.S. population and yet this tiny group is responsible for 13% of all NEW sex crimes.

The accepted authority on recidivism says this:

"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."

Dr. R. Karl Hansen

Why Michael Gregg and others like him who have the most reasons to try and prove that they aren't animals, that they are capable of rehabilitation and worthy of society's trust would choose to mock and ridicule people who have been damaged by sex offenders is a mystery. I'm of the opinion that it is because they are not capable of rehabilitation as they continue to make the same disturbing mistakes over and over and over again. What other mistakes do they continue to make?

Just keep watching. I do.

The Unmitigated Gall

Derek Logue is a master of it. And apparently it is the ONLY thing he's mastered aside from blame gaming. Now he presumes to lecture "media hounds" on the proper use of the word pedophile and claims there can be no such thing as a "convicted pedophile". Why? Well a couple of reasons, one is that pedophiles CAN control themselves according to Derek Logue, the convicted child molester. Also according to this wacked-out-victim-blaming-piece-of-shit-cockroach one can't be a convicted pedophile because pedophilia is a medical diagnosis.

Pedophilia is also a common word. It has a common meaning which is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". It's in Websters. Look it up.

A part of semantics is also the study of how words evolve. My contention is that words mean what society decides they mean. "Gay" for example. This is really unimportant though because we all know that "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and "A pedo by any other name would smell as foul". The name doesn't change what it is.

I recognize that it is important to someone like Derek Logue however because he doesn't want that word associated with himself, despite the fact that he admitted he was attracted to a child. And despite the fact that he molested that child, and then spent years online blaming her and everyone else for his crime while associating with and defending known and admitted pedophiles - he doesn't want anyone to think that about him. He prefers to minimize:

"Very few Registrants are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia"

When we consider the sex offender defender mantra has been that sex offenders are not routinely assessed to determine if they are or are not pedophiles. No registry is going to say "he was a pedophile" and therefore Derek has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever regarding how many offenders are pedophiles and even if he did - that knowledge would be wasted on a fool like Derek.

I generally just shake my head in disbelief at this pathetic and despicable excuse for a man but then he always manages to outdo himself with attempts to lecture people with convoluted statements like this

Stop assuming every registrant is a pedophile and misusing the term. You have done enough damage by misusing and abusing this term.

"You have done enough damage"

Really?

How about this one:

How about a little truth in addressing this issue? Fanning the flames of blind hate and stupidity has not helped matters

Okay, I'll give you a little truth. Derek Logue is nauseating on his best days. He should quit fanning the pain of those who have been devastated by stupid selfish demented pricks like him by saying such profoundly idiotic things. It has not helped matters.

Kill yourselves Pedophiles!

Had to post this as its the best thing you perverts can do. You pedophiles are filth and slime and you need to wipe yourselves off the face of the Earth!

Culture of Silence

Randy English, the new COO of Sosen has decided to make a splash and draw attention to himself.

Since I'm relatively positive that it is virtually impossible for him to actually believe the demented things he's written, I'm left with the opinion that he's saying them with the sole purpose of deflecting attention away from the CEO - Mary Duval and the demented things that she says.

I believe Randy must be jealous of Mary being "at the top". She says she's "at the top". She says we rocketed her "to the top".

I'm not quite sure yet what she's "on the top" OF, but I think Randy must be jealous of it. Why else would he say these things?

Randy English has joined the long historical line of those who have enabled child sexual abuse. From the notorious Catholic Church pedophile cover-up to the Boy Scouts of America: Sosen wants to silence victims of sexual crimes.

"...we also know that it is not healthy for a family who has been devastated by a loss such as this to be cast into the spotlight, rather than having time to deal with the pain and anger in order to recover mentally and emotionally. Their pain and anger begins to rule their lives. It becomes who they are and only they know the true toll it is taking on them."

This is a continuing theme among the radical extremists of Sosen - to point the finger at victims and tell them they aren't doing it right. They aren't recovering correctly or well enough or soon enough or in a way that they deem appropriate. That victims who aren't interested in rationalizing on behalf of an offender are "haters", not "true survivors", not "true victims" or "not moving on".

Instead of focusing endlessly on bashing, blaming, distracting, rationalizing, justifying and harvesting any and all comments that they believe is favorable to "their side" as Kevin Meier refers to it - they should be focusing on identifying what is wrong with THEM and their own movement - what are they doing wrong? What behaviors and attributes do they encourage, foster and nourish within Sosen.....ways of thinking that not only led those offenders to offend in the first place but also which may lead to re-offense if maintained. Distortions which also damage the very points they are trying to make.

The mission statement of Sosen says:

"At SOSEN, we do not condone what former offenders have done. In many cases the harm done by former offenders is horrendous. No one can take that away. However, we feel that with proper treatment the victims can move on with their lives and put the pain and anger behind them. We know that this is the best thing for them as many members of SOSEN are former victims who have reached out for healing and now live normal productive lives."

The truth is, of course, that the only victims associated with Sosen are those who are now offenders themselves or are associated with - and advocating for an offender. Don Sweeney (a sex offender therapist turned activist) who Mary claims is an "expert" told her how amazing it was to him how many offenders went on to marry victims of child sexual abuse. But that's not amazing at all. It is a fact that offenders have a talent for targeting those most vulnerable to their manipulations. They find victims who ARE the most vulnerable and they marry them and begin another co-dependent relationship. The victims who are the strongest of all are those who don't fall prey again to this garbage, who speak up and tell their story without making excuses for their offender, who do support strict management of people who have committed these horrible crimes and in return for their strength and commitment are faced with a daily barrage of victim-bashing, mockery, badgering, and blatant victim-blaming. And yet they carry on. They ARE the "true survivors" to use Mary's term.

Common sense tells us that this issue must be victim-centered. The experts agree. And yet Randy English says this:

"It is time to bring in the experts and remove the decision making process from grieving families and politicians that have a political bias. Though we sympathize with their cause and feel angry that this has happened to their children, they are ill-equipped to make good choices when it comes to managing issues that are exceedingly diverse."

Does Randy believe, that as an offender himself, he is better equipped to make decisions on these issues? Randy, along with all the Sosenites keep referring to "the experts" and yet experts all agree that everything we do regarding the management of sex offenders MUST be victim-centered.

Not sex offender-centered.

Randy English once wrote:

"I would like to thank the ACLU for standing up for the truly weak, the RSO’s"

I was reminded of the infamous statement from Zman:

"Why can't we let the police do their job, and let PJ geeks get real jobs? They could be protecting the country with their hacking skills or something, yet they want to go after defenseless child predators instead of OSAMA, terrorists or other hackers!"

Victims of sexual abuse are "haters" and the offenders who created the victims are the weak and defenseless. That is the attitude of the extremists of Sosen.

When we consider that the mission statement of Sosen says:

"The mission of SOSEN is to educate the public, media, law-enforcement, and legislators regarding the facts, based on current research, of sexual abuse."

Then I am quite sure that Randy English would be interested in fixing some of the errors he has made when quoting "facts".

Error #1

• Treatment has been proven to reduce recidivism to 1%

Treatment has not been proven to reduce recidivism AT ALL. Some studies show a reduction, some studies show no reduction. None of them show a reduction to ONE PERCENT

Error #2

• Pedophilia is the sexual desire for a prepubescent child, and rare among offenders. Less than 1%.

This is an invented statistic pulled from someone's backside. There is no such statistic. There cannot BE such a statistic in existence considering the fact that most sex offenders haven't been "assessed" - according to Mary Duval. One-third of all sex crimes are committed against prepubescent children. While we can all agree that not everyone who molests a child would fit a psychiatric diagnosis of pedophilia, why would anyone believe that only 1% of them were? Randy English has no reference for that statistic, just as Tom Madison and Mary Duval didn't when they repeated it. In fact, the offenders in the infamous DOJ recidivism report they all rely on states quite clearly that 60% of the offenders had victims under the age of 13.

Error #3

• Re-offense rate averages, for auto theft -78.8%, possession/sale of stolen property -77.4%, burglary -74%, robbery -70.2%, larcenist -74.6%, sex offenders - 3.5%.

That is from the Department of Justice and on it's face that's a true statement regarding what was in the report. What Randy English didn't tell you is that the report ALSO said that 78% of the released sex offenders in that report had ANOTHER previous conviction before the crime they were released for. In other words, they were already recidivists. And 28% of them had 2 or more previous convictions for sex crimes. How do you incorporate the information that at least one-fourth of them had already re-offended with another sex crime before this release - into the recidivism data? How do you use the statistic from the DOJ that only 5% of those offenders re-offended with a new sex crime within 3 years of release when 25% of them already had a history of sexual recidivism? Which leads to the next error Randy has made

Error #4

• A study from the department of Justice found that about 94.7% of former offenders will not commit ANY other crime.

That study from the Department of Justice found that within 3 years 43% of sex offenders had committed another crime though not necessarily a sex crime. One-fourth of those were for property crimes and one-fourth were for violent crimes. THAT is what the Department of Justice said.

Staying in the closet enabled child sexual abuse to flourish and continue. The most important voice of all in this issue is the voice of those who have been victimized. Victims will no longer be badgered and shamed into silence. It is time for the culture of silence to end.

Seth the molester

Another girlchat pig is in the process of molesting a little girl.
Seth tells his pedophile friends all about it:

Another Girliscious Day with Mary

Posted by Sethon Tuesday, August 17 2010 at 04:37:41pm

Yesterday I went over to see Mary's mom, Ann, and immediately Mary jumped into my arms and mentioned something about swimming. I had told Ann the day before that I wanted to take her swimming, as it may be the last time this summer we got to go. Ann can't keep a secret either, so Mary was already excited about the idea when I arrived. So we went to the pool for a couple of hours, and again for a large part of the time we were there we had it all to ourselves. Mary has this habit of clinging to me while she's in the pool, which can be charming sometimes and annoying at other times. But I didn't mind it yesterday; I was in a good mood all day.

Later we went back to my house, and I set Mary up on my computer playing games. She loves the pinball game that comes with Windows, as well as Minesweeper, although she still hasn't completely grasped the concept of the latter. I made some pizza rolls and we had a great time just hanging out. Later, after I took her home, I stayed for awhile to visit with Ann and her friend. We watched TV for a bit, with Mary in my lap the whole time. She still hadn't changed out of her swimsuit, so her behind was a bit damp in my lap, but I didn't care. I spent the whole time rubbing and scratching her back, she directing me where to scratch; she was relaxed and limber in no time. Eventually I had to slip out from under her and go home because I was getting a little too relaxed myself.

So went another girliscious day with Mary. I can't wait till I get to do it all over again. :)

As you can see the process of molesting this child has already begun, and with her mothers blind stupidity "Mary" will become another child victim for this sick piece of pedophile shit!

How sad that the mother doesn't use common sense as to why this weirdo wants to be with her daughter.

And what kind of a mother would let her child lay around on a guys lap and not change out of her swimsuit?


Desperate people have desperate needs. Must be that this mother is desperate. I feel bad for "mary" because of her mothers desperation she will become another statistic.

Good vs Evil

This blog and Life is, essentially, the conflict and the conflagration involving the struggle of Good vs. Evil.

Who will win?

BZ

P.S.

You'd best give this post your molecular considerate thoughts before you respond. Your words will expose you, track you down, make your thoughts transparent and jejune. Save you or damn you.

I have no further succinct statements to make in this reality.

Hey Moms:

NOW is as good a time as any to visit your local firing range, and ensure that your skills meet or exceed those of the evil meatbags who prey on children, and whose words are featured here on Absolute Zero:



BZ

Little White Faces

My organization has done so much on the national level to shift the focus to the truly dangerous. An organization that you don't think too highly of. What's the deal?

- Jim Freeman
Executive Director SoHopeful

Remember this guy? The one with the little white face? In case you've forgotten that's Jim Freeman, former executive director of SoHopeful. He's the guy who claimed he wasn't a pedophile. He's the guy who claimed he was low risk. He's the guy who claimed he didn't pose any danger -- after all he was the perfect example of "non-dangerous" sex offender wasn't he?

When Jim tumbled down the mountainside earning himself multiple life sentences it went virtually ignored by Sosen. Well, except for their attempts to hide their association with him. And of course Cheryl Griffiths subsequent attempt to cover-up her cover-up attempt.

Sosen never stopped to consider that there could possibly be another Jim Freeman hiding in their forums pretending to only care about "No More Victims" while having children sexually assaulted and filmed to order and on demand. Little children. Toddlers. Infants.

"How could we have missed this?" or "Was there anything we missed?" or "How can we prevent this from occurring again?" were not questions they asked as they scurried about pretending they weren't involved with him. Perhaps they paid him no attention because he had a little white face?

To imply Sosen must be racists and not care about his crimes because he had a little white face and that's the reason they ignored the possibility of other Jim Freemans hiding among them and implementing changes which may help prevent them from harboring another recidivist sex offender sounds pretty offensive to me. But that must be why, mustn't it? What else could it possibly be! Certainly they wouldn't miss an opportunity to "prevent and educate" would they? Which idea is more offensive? That they really blame the victims rather than the offender, that they rationalize on behalf of the offender, that they fail to recognize the serious crimes that have been committed and the possibility of them being repeated and instead try to insult those who have been victimized because they really deep down hate victims - OR- the idea that they treat victims this way because they're racists? Which is it? Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both? Could it be something else altogether? Something perhaps deeply rooted in blame-gaming philosophy? Try to think like a Sosenite for a moment and figure this out because Sosen has sunk to an all time low - even for their standards as Richard Schalich attempts a new technique. According to Richard, people who try to make the world a little safer for children are no longer simply "the haters" they are now racists too. And he has proof.......

Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, the Adam Walsh Act and Jessica's law were all named in honor of children who were white.

A child named Lunsford or Kanka or Walsh with a little white face attached to it will attract more voters and PAC money. You probably will not see a "Christopher’s" law. His last name is Barrios. He has a brown face and looks too much like the dirty illegal’s the politicians and their pundits love to rant about.

And

it is obvious these laws are rooted in racism and discrimination

Wow! Not only do they compare their struggle to escape the consequences of their own actions to the historically widespread mistreatment of other minority groups - those minority groups who weren't labeled because they had harmed someone else but merely because they were born with it. Richard Schalich has taken it to a whole new level.

Richard doesn't understand that these laws were enacted due to the hard work of the families of those abducted and murdered children. It was due to their determination to do something to help other children, to turn their never-ending loss and pain into triumph and to assure that their own child had not died in vain.

There wasn't a new law proposed in honor of Christopher Barrios because he was Black/Hispanic, but rather because his family didn't lobby for one. The case of Christopher Barrios wasn't hidden and "not talked about" because he was Black/Hispanic - it did in fact receive widespread attention. Google "Christopher Barrios" and your results will be in excess of a half million. It faded from the forefront however, because his family allowed it to. They could have stayed in the spotlight and kept the case on everyone's lips if they had chosen to. The media would have flocked to them. Why is Richard Schalich trying to put the focus on something else which had nothing to do with this case? David Edenfield received the death penalty. He said that killing Christopher "felt good". George was a registered sex offender and is being evaluated for competency. Peggy won't face the death penalty in exchange for testifying against her husband and son. In case Richard Schalich has forgotten, these baby-raping killers - the Edenfield's all had little white faces.
Parents of murdered children are actually encouraged by law enforcement to do such things - to focus their energy - to volunteer - to lobby - to keep busy doing something to help with their grieving process. But of course Richard Schalich wouldn't be aware of that. Like the other Sosenites he's too busy trying to find someone else to blame.

But perhaps we should look at some other faces.




How about Jesse Timmendequas it looks to me as though he has a little white face. He had already re-offended multiple times before he raped and murdered little Megan Kanka in 1994. In 1979 he had sexually assaulted a 5 year old girl for which justice meant a suspended sentence. In 1981 he sexually assaulted a 7 year old girl. He got 6 years for that one. A therapist stated that she thought he would re-offend one day. Of course, no one expected he would go that far.




What have we here? Another little white face it appears. John Couey's sex crimes went back over 20 years before he abducted, raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford then buried her alive. Of course, he'd never exhibited such horrific violence before, he wasn't considered especially dangerous. Who could have predicted what he'd go on to do? Even experts now agree that it's practically impossible to accurately predict who will or will not re-offend. Which reminds me........




This is Michael Jacques, a twice-convicted sex offender, in fact a violent rapist - who was allowed off probation early because Richard Kearney of the Department of Corrections called him a rehabilitation success. In fact Richard told the court "When I make comments about successes in sex offender treatment, I have three names of which Michael Jacques is one." Of course the court didn't know that Jacques also had other convictions........a sexual assault he'd managed to have expunged from his record. And of course Richard Kearney didn't know that at the time he told the court these things - Michael Jacques was molesting a little girl and had been since she was nine years old and continued to for the next 5 years. And of course they didn't know that he would go on to rape and kill his own niece. He had groomed everyone it appears, not only his family members but the DOC as well. He was a model sex offender alright. He also had a little white face.


This is Jon Savarino Schillaci aka Dylan Thomas. An unremorseful pedophile - in fact an activist for pedophiles and one time webmaster of BoyChat. Jon served 10 years in prison for the sexual assault of two boys - twins - when he was a teenager. While in prison he earned two Master's degrees. He spoke several languages fluently, was an accomplished pianist and disturbingly articulate - for a filthy pedophile. After capturing the attention of a woman who was taken by his poetry that was printed in a prison publication he managed to convince her that he was reformed, regretted his mistakes and wanted to make a new life. She agreed to help him. She allowed him to move in with her family, he registered as a sex offender, enrolled in a doctoral program at a nearby university and gave her 5 year old son piano lessons. He also downloaded child pornography and repaid her kindness and willingness to give him a chance by molesting her son. He had a little white face.

Shall I continue? Here is John Gardner. A registered sex offender in fact a child rapist who was considered low risk to re-offend. He's confessed to raping and murdering 17 year old Chelsea King and 14 year old Amber Dubois and attempting to rape a woman. He has a little white face.

This is Joseph Duncan. His first recorded sex crime occurred when he was 15 years old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint. He was sentenced as a juvenile and sent to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma, where he told a therapist that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys. He also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. He went on to murder an entire family, kidnapping 9 year old Dylan and 8 year old Shasta Groene. He tortured Dylan, raped him - made Shasta watch, and of course raped her too. No one anticipated his actions. He had a little white face as well.


Here's a little white face for you. Thomas J. Leggs, a registered sex offender charged with the murder of Sarah Foxwell - his girlfriends niece. He's facing the death penalty.

I could go on like this all day. Instead, why don't you go here and see a wall of little white faces staring back at you. Little white repeat sex offender faces. It must be racism and discrimination! It simply must be, the lack of someone else to blame might be too hard for some people to bear.

Sex offenders vary widely in their risk to re-offend. Estimates suggest that 40%-45% of untreated sexual offenders will sexually re-offend in their lifetime. These rates are considerably lower than rates of re-offense for other types of violent offenders.

ATSA

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.