They say that many children do not tell about sexual offenses against them. I am wondering if we didn't criminalize familial sex offenses, but offered therapy for the offender and the entire family if that would change the results of children reporting.
130866
The problem is that many people think that there's nothing that can solve this problem than the blood of the offenders. Shoot them, hang them, lock them up, ostracize them, castrate them, and so on: these are very popular for politicians to get votes, for TV stations to enhance ratings, and for "holier than thou" individuals to get attention or to sound tough. \n\nWhile familial abuse is disgusting and destructive to the victim and the family, it indeed works out best if the family is treated and healed rather than be further victimized by Mr. Vengeance. In fact I know of a familial offender in whose case some members of the community are doing all they can to separate the offender from his family, while the family (including the victim) is doing everything they can to heal. That is to say, these good people - the self-appointed helpers are working against the will and desires of the very victim and her family that they think they owe some help (as long as the help is in their own way - as they want it to be). In other words, whereas this Christian family is relying on God for healing (with good results to show) and to put the past behind them, these people who are outsiders feel that the offending uncle should never be a part of his family anymore. Some were said to be angry that the judge didn't give him jail time when he had been been working hard to correct his past evil deeds through Christian principles and therapy. The thing is that many people sincerely believe that they know what's best for other people.\n\nFamilial offenders while they are vile, are not the kinds that go around looking for kids to rape and kill. Moreover, research shows that the recidivism rate among them is very minimal. Yet, while some victims of abuse by family members will never forgive, most desire healing and moving on with what's remaining of their shattered lives. The abusers themselves should not be in denial. Their need to protect themselves legally or to avoid bearing the shame should never override the need for the family to deal with the problem and heal. They should understand and acknowledge their wrongdoing and the tremendous damage that they have caused to many lives and be willing to change. In fact, their attitude is a central factor to the healing of the family. \n\nAmerica should take a deep breath and find out if the current attitudes towards these crimes are helping or hurting families and the society. Sex crimes are very bad, but two wrongs can't make a right.
561435
Is the cousin who is making the outcry an adult or a teen?  If under the age of 18, you are supposed to report the outcry to Child Protective Services, even if she has a history of lying or whatever in the past.  Doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to be believed.\n\nAlso, is the alleged perpetrator around children currently?  If so you have even more of an obligation to report it, to keep those children safe.\n\nStuff like this does hurt families, but it is better to deal with the problem than to just ignore it.
54324
The sex offenders list will just tell you that they are sex offenders, not if they are child molesters.  There are a lot of ways to get on that list, and many of them really aren't that much of a concern (indecent exposure when drunk, for example).  Police officers actually encourage people NOT to look up the lists.  Sometimes people just do one stupid act, then someone thinks they are a pedifile, and they end up being the victim of a lot of hate crimes.
82051
I was molested by my brother when I was 13 and while I would like to say yes, I can't. I've forgiven my brother since then, but my forgiving him doesn't mean that I've suddenly forgot about the entire incident or that I approve of what happened. I think this is not the corse to take. I do think that harsher penalties should be in place though. There was one case that I was watching on Court TV and this guy raped a minor and only got 6 months for it. That's a slap on the wrist. I don't this would be grounds for you to use the word murder though. These child molesters in a sense have murdered their victims, because I and many others will never be the same. I use the word murder because that is exactly what it seems like because they kill your soul and any hope you had for the future.
619234
Having been charged and convicted are two different things. If I knew for sure that someone had been convicted I would delve in to the matter a lot more. At one time, I would have said mind your own business, but in view of all the horrible things that have happened to children, I would have to bring it to social services. Please do not proceed unless you really have something solid and well founded. This little girl has obviously been traumatized a lot being taken away from her parents. Depending on the charge, some people can change. Did you read about this person in the newspaper or did someone gossip about this situation? Which ever way you go, let your conscience be your guide.
459023
Only sometimes, and less than you would think.\n\nBut most of them would NEVER harm a child since they know what it is like. If you already walked in the shoes of a sexually assaulted child or person, you would never want to hurt a person like that.
33218
I truly feel that if we all banned together as a "family" ... teachers and parents to alleviate "bad" behavior, it will help kids to grow up knowing that there will be circumstances or punishment for things that they do wrong.  Society has gotten too soft in my opinion ... that's why more and more children are growing up without caring what they do in society, like lying, cheating and stealing.
245522
These are two separate issues, but two issues that the ignorant and the right wingers like to put together to foment hatred and stir up trouble.\n\nHere is just a little tidbit of information that is available on the Internet for those that bother to look for some of the information that is out there if they bother to try to find out the truth of the matter:\n\n"In a national study of child sexual assault in day care centres in the United States, Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski (1988) found that males were disproportionately represented as sexual abusers despite accounting for only 5 per cent of staff. Yet Finkelhor's group found no offender characteristics which would distinguish the abusers from other staff or people generally. It was specifically reported that stereotypic paedophile characteristics were notably absent. Finkelhor and colleagues made recommendations for the screening of all applicants for day care positions, but did not specify an individual's sexual orientation as a risk factor. A more recent review of studies of sexual abuse in day care also made no reference to offender's sexual orientation as a risk factor (Kelley 1994). \n\nIn a discussion paper focused on men's role in primary education, King (1994) found that there was no evidence of a relationship between homosexual male teachers and paedophile activity. Newton (1978) found that homosexual teachers were no more likely to engage in same-sex sexual abuse than were heterosexual teachers. In a study of child sexual abuse by clergy, Camargo and Loftus (1992) found that there was a clear distinction in terms of masculinity and femininity factors between clergy who were active homosexuals (adult-adult), and those engaged in same- sex paedophile activity. \n\nIn their classic study aimed at determining sexual behaviour and orientation in the community, Kinsey and colleagues (1948, as cited in DiLapi 1989), found that crimes such as child sexual assault had been historically incorrectly attributed to homosexuals and that, if anything, heterosexual males were more likely to be involved in sexual abuse. Despite methodological flaws, and what has been charitably described as a 'minimisation' of the negative effects that sexual abuse has on child victims (Finkelhor 1979), this study was one of the few to attempt to define the prevalence of homosexuals as offenders in cases of child sexual abuse (Freund and Watson 1992). \n\nFinally, studies of offender arousal patterns have indicated that paedophiles and homosexuals have different patterns of response (Freund and Watson 1992), with paedophiles not surprisingly being more aroused by images of children. Overall, what little evidence there is, although flawed, appears to indicate that sexual orientation does not play a part in child sexual assault typologies, and that the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."\n\nHope that helps to answer the question. There is much more info out there for those that want to look and there are more and more studies being done all the time and each and every one of them point to the heterosexuals as being the majority perpetrators of pedophilic crimes but that doesn't suit the agenda of the right wing crowd.
581191
I'm with ya.  Forcing them out of certain areas DOES NOT stop the problem!  It creates a bigger problem for the offender, which puts them under stress, which makes them more likely to re-offend.  Also, proximity to a school or playground or whatever will not stop someone who truly wants to commit an offense.  Instead of creating these ridiculous laws...how about we try to help the person not to re-offend?  Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders can be treated and can change.  Not all of them, of course, but many of them.  Yes, what they did is horrific, and they deserve to be punished for the offense.  But making their lives miserable (and the lives of their families) doesn't do anything but create a bigger problem.
97210
Well, this is a tough question. And there is NO easy answer. First of all, it really does not matter whether we would like them to be released or not as the legal authority has made the rules. It does however seem that many of the released sexual convicts do seem to congregate in areas near schools and young families (which is well defined in all states) although it may just be that it SEEMS that way because we only notice that. In addition, there are many types of 'sexual abuse' lumped into one legal definition. I agree that the pervert 25 to 65 year old molesting a young girl or the 20-something female schoolteacher molesting a male student has a serious problem. But what about the 18 year old boy and his 17 year old girlfriend? Or the two 15 year old lovers? (Apart from the 'rape' issue) In most states they are legally equated and must be on the offender's list. That being said, this is a major issue we are currently dealing with as my district (I am my district's representative to my state's Children's Abuse Prevention Board) is home to a very sick predator who killed a family, abducted 2 children and later killed one of them. The remaining child was rescued and the predator awaits trial. I can't imagine what goes through his sick brain to commit such an act. He was released from another state by a judge who apparently did not understand how sick this guy really is. \nWhat can you do? Know your state's laws and abide by them. Find out who these people are and avoid them. If they illegally live too close to a school or playground, report them to authorities. Be aware that you may not harrass them in most states and they have legal recourse against you if you do. Above all, know where your children are, who they are with, and that they are informed of what to do in a bad situation. Practice with your kids if necessary. AND REMEMBER, IF YOUR KIDS HAVE TO 'JUST SAY NO' IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE. A SITUATION EXISTS AND THEY MUST BE PREPARED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO.
29646
I know here in Florida, the sex offender list contains people that were caught peeing off the side of a boat. It contains 24 year old college student Frat boys that hook up with a 16 year old posing as a college girl at a keg party. Did you know that if a 16 year old girl corners a guy over 18 and touches him, even thru the clothes and without his consent, he could be the one to get arrested? And nothing happens to her. \nBut here in Florida, all these people are put on the SAME Sex Offender list and when the public look it up, they "believe" everyone on the list molested a young child. But this is hardly true. I think there should be a separate list for those that preyed upon children and those that were isolated crimes of happenstance.
544429
Not that I've ever heard of. That is very uncommon and very wrong. This woman needs some intense therapy and so does her brother. The problems do most likely stem from the abuse they observed and/or suffered as children. Think about it--when you see something going on as a kid, you don't know it's wrong; it just is what it is. You think that's the way it should be. Sounds like this woman and her brother are maybe stuck in that thought pattern, although one would think that by now they would see it thru adult eyes and realize it's not normal. But for whatever reason, they don't see it that way. They need some serious counseling to dig thru the mountain of misconceptions, guilt, and sexual and emotional dysfunctions. I hope they can get this soon.
46502
First of all, I am not sure why people confuse the words pedophile with Sex offender. A pedophile is someone with a sexual desire for a child, usually one that had not developed yet. \n\nIt has been found that many pedophiles cannot control their sexual urges. But altering their body is not exaclty constitutional. They are required to go to treatment and if there is reason to believe they are very disturbed, they are placed in a special home. \n\nBut there are many other people on the sex offender list that are not pedophiles. Some people on the list were caught urinating off the side of a boat when another boat passed by. Some were 22 year olds that dated a 16 year old with her parents permission but after a nasty breakup, someone called the cops. Some are 23 year old Frat boys that hook up at a keg party only to find out the girl is not in college yet. Are these people pedophiles? I would have to say no, not necessarily. Do they deserve to be nuetered? \n\nI think the public needs to be better educated on this subject before casting their opinions.  Otherwise, rights of all people will be taken away one by one and we will live in the society of An Eye for an Eye like in Acient times.
358619
You have got to be kidding! The darlings of Corporate crimes get out of prison and get right on with their lives. The rehabilitated former sex offender, who has been through extensive treatment, has his and his families life in danger of vigilante murders. Is denied due process ALL the time. Can't take his children to the park. Can't go for a parent/teacher conference for his/her child. Oh yes, by the way, this goes for the single parents who are rehabilitated former sex offenders. So they can't check on their childs school progress. Attend any function their child may be performing in (which causes most of these children to not get involved in extra curricular activities). So you tell me how those convicted of corporate crimes have it so bad? They still have their money, while the rehabilitated former sex offender (possibly actually innocent) can't use his/her possible college degree and is lucky if he/she can get a job digging ditches. Yes siree, those poor corporate criminals just have it so hard!
146802
Many people confuse the term sex offender with pedophiles and rapists. There are many instances where this is not the case. These people are not threats to society and should not continue to be punished as such. \n\nAs far as "better safe than sorry"... what ever happened to "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that our legal system was based on? These people won't be crying that out when some kid accidently sees them naked thru the sliding glass window and they end up on the list.\n\nAnd then what is next? A list so we know if there are drug dealers in our neighborhood? People with Aids or Herpes? (I would like to know if the girl I just met has either... and it is my right to know, right?)\n\nThe List is Unconstitutional on the basis of Due Process of the Law. The list was created because they say that pedophiles (not all sex offenders, but pedophiles) have a likelihood of offending again. So they are on this list for a crime they MIGHT commit. They are given these restrictions as punishment for a crime they MAY or MAY NOT commit in the future? Is this Minority Report? \n\nElvis Presley was a sex offender.
228978
I think it all depends on the situation... How they heard about it, how reliable the information was, how recent the information was... the response is going to be dulled if they hear about something which might have happend 2 years ago compared to walking in on someone molesting their child.  There is bound to be disbelief, especially if it was a close friend or relative and there is no physical evidence.  The response is also going to be highly dependant on the personality of both of the parents.  There is probably no 'normal' response which you are looking for.  \n\nI've thought about it some more, it would seem that it was a relative who did the inappropriate act(s)?  Yes I think this would be a very typical response assuming they never witnessed any act.  Wanting to ignore the situation and not deal with it is also very typical of American society.  I have more ideas, but I don't wish to discuess them because it would suggest and assume a lot.
384939
On the leader board with a beast answer?  \n\nI'm not quite sure how to answer this question.  Molestation of children is never funny - whether it is a religious leader, a parent, a friend, or an unknown person to the child.  I think it is especially sad when it is someone a child, or the child's loved ones trusts - such as a religious leader.  But I hate to tell you that it is usually not religious leaders.  You would be more likely to make it to the leader board if you were to get a beast answer for every time a child was molested by a parent or step parent or relative.