I just can't stop thinking about this and had to post about it. I was on foxnews.com the other day and read a Bill O'Reilly report of a man, Andrew James, I think his name is, who did horrible, unspeakable things to a four year old little boy in Vermont. The judge in this case gave the guy virtually no punishment, just probation and rehab. Sex offenders like this are rarely rehabilitated, and the thought of someone like this being out on the street makes me afraid for the safety of my own children. The Vermont media is slamming O'Reilly for his report, calling him names and questioning his integrity in reporting the facts of the story, but not proving themselves where O'Reilly was wrong. While this story was happening, the Vermont media did not report anything about it.
Vermont has also voted down Jessica's Law, which would require all new sex offenders to wear an electronic tracking device, helping to plug up the holes in Megan's Law, which requires all sex offenders to be registered on a national or state database (which many of them DON'T do).
To learn more about this story, go to foxnews.com for the videos, and if you'd like to email all the Vermont government officials about it, you can get their addresses at www.billoreilly.com.
Additionally, if you've never checked your neighborhood for registered sex offenders you can find out how to do that at
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm You can also google for your state and probably find it. We've checked in our own area and in the year and a half we've lived here, there are now at least five sex offenders. There were none registered when we first got here. This is absolutely epidemic...it drives me to my knees to pray for the Lord's protection on my precious little ones.
Labels: Current Events
Before you get outraged any further, get the facts straight. 90% of the time, the type of crime you are referring to happens between a child and familiar adult. Residency restrictions and GPS systems do not prevent this. Sex offenders and child molesters are the topic du jour in elections and legistlation right now. But being tough on crime doesn't necessarily advance the ball for public safety. It drives the real violent and dangerous underground and out of sight. The sex offenders living in your neighborhood may not comitted an offense even involving a child, so don't jump to a negative conclusion. If your 18 year old son had a relationship with his 16 year old girlfriend and her parents pressed charges, would you want your son sent to prison for 25 years and then strapped with a GPS for the remainder of his life? If so,then go ahead continue your outrage, otherwise, stop the hysterics and realize that there are criminals living among us and we cannot banish them. This is the U.S. and the Constitution was not written so we could decide who to apply it to.
leah s. said...
January 18, 2007 at 2:30 PM
I respect your opinon, Leah. Thanks for sharing it. Sex offenders and child molesters are the topic du jour because the problem is so epidemic it's sickening. The internet makes it easy to exploit children and for those addicted to sex to feed their addictions and act out on them.
My background in social services has shown me that, yes, most of the time it is a familiar adult, such as a mother's boyfriend, who perpetrates against a child. But you absolutely cannot deny the threat to public safety that that "mother's boyfriend" now presents to other children in a community. I hate to say it, but once someone does something like this, it's often very difficult for him or her to stop. A child must carry this pain with him for his entire life, perhaps the one who committed the crime should, too.
From discussions with police officers I know, that "reason" (some underage teenage sexual relationship in the past) for someone being a sex offender is a very convenient explanation that offenders give to try to minimize or lie about what they've done. I don't buy it, most of the time.
People need to know that this kind of sexually deviate behavior will not be tolerated. I'd just like to see the punishment fit the crime.
Julo said...
January 18, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Lets get the facts straight:
Reoffense Rates of Sex Offenders Are much lower than you might think
Reoffense or "Recidivism" Rates of Sex Offenders
According to a recent report by the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year follow-up period." It also states, "Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime."
In United States v. Mound, 157 F.3d 1153, 1154, (8th Cir. 1998) (en banc), four dissenting Judges cite Law Review articles citing statistics finding the recidivism rate of released sex offenders is the second lowest rate of recidivism of all convicted felons. In State v. Krueger, Case No. 76624 (December 19, 2000, Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, unreported), two female Judges reversed a Sexual Predator adjudication, finding the statute is based on a false assumption and in essence, an "old wives tale" of popular beliefs contradicted by empirical data.
By writing the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20849-6000, you can obtain the following reports.
NCJ-163392 (February 7, 1997), Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, finds the recidivism rate of 2,214 convicted rapists released from prison was 7.7% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (6.8%).
NCJ-193427 (June, 2002), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, finds the recidivism rate of 3,138 convicted rapists released from prison was 2.5% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (1.2%).
In April, 2001, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) released a report also on the recidivism rate of released sex offenders. In Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Paul Konicek, Principle Researcher, (available at www.drc.state.oh.us), the recidivism rate of 879 sex offenders released from Ohio’s prisons in 1989, after ten (10) years, was found to be 8% for new sex offenses.
The ODRC study finds its results as typical, citing to:
1) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way, found in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, 1989. (Twelve year study finding sex offender recidivism rate of 4%).
2) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way 1980, found in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, 1989. (Thirteen year study finding sex offenders recidivism rate of 12%).
3) Hanson & Bussiere, 1996. (Mega-analysis of sixty-one sex offender studies with a total of 28,972 sex offenders finding recidivism rate for new sex offenses five years after release was 13.4%).
4) New York Department of Corrections, nine year follow-up study. Finding a 6% rate of recidivism for new sex offenses.
These studies are cited on page 11 of the ODRC report.
At page 15 of the report, the overall findings are summarized. The ODRC finds, "Contrary to the popular idea that sex offenders are repeatedly returning to prison for further sex crimes, in this population a sex offender recidivating for a new sex offense within 10 years of release was a relatively rare occurrence." Id. at page 15, ¶ 4.
( Love 2002 )
This is in stark contrast to what is presented by politicians and the mainstream media. The amount of occurrences of violent, brutal rape and murder of children is minute. Unfortunately, the public pays the price for this massive and ongoing campaign of misinformation in multiple ways:
Firstly, the public funds the registry (staff to keep up with the registrants, etc.), secondly, the public is subject to loss of property values (due to proximity of a registered sex offender), decreased family and social cohesion with the associated increased crime and longer-term social problems, and thirdly, an increased level of anxiety with little benefit from the knowledge.
It does the public no real good to have to wade through 95 lowest risk former offenders to find the 3.5 who are considered a risk to reoffend and are out in the streets....
Anonymous said...
January 18, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Apparently, this here blog is getting hit by people who don't have any available profile or blog site, meaning they must be posting on any site that is discussing this situation. Which means discussing it with these folks is essentially useless, so I will stand by my comments and let the comments get posted as they may..whatever
Maybe they'll comment on my post about preaching the gospel to yourself?? Not likely.
Julo said...
January 18, 2007 at 4:13 PM