# 60 days for sexual assaulting a 6 year old? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815 "2006-01-06T23:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/21 "2006-01-07T20:05:21Z")
> [@cthiax](#): > > Okay. Which items in that broad category do you think should be punished with 60 days in jail when perpetrated on a six year old? Those items for which it can be show that the perpetrator is statistically more likely to victimize another person if he is released after a long jail term then if he is released into a counseling program after a short jail term. See my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/22 "2006-01-07T23:58:54Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Read Sam’s article. It appears counseling of this type is quite effective in preventing repeat offenders. Where in the article does it say that? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/23 "2006-01-08T00:43:35Z")
I support 60 days and mandatory counseling – for a first time, one-time “lighter” infraction such as fondling with clothes on. But a four-year habit won’t lightly be broken with counseling. Lock 'em up. (OTOH, if it were a pattern of abuse that was an even lighter offense than that, why send them to jail in the first place? Just do the counseling! It’s fscked up either way.) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/24 "2006-01-08T00:51:48Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > It’s not like they’re pulling the claim out of their butts. You may find it highly implausible that the man can be reformed, but two experts in criminal justice (the judge and VT state corrections), people who actually have spent the time studying the statistics for recdivism amonst various classes of sex offenders, think otherwise. Speaking of experts… > [@](#): > > Defense psychologist William Cunningham said Hulett showed little empathy for the harm he caused the girl and her family; regretted only “the loss of a friend;” and would require stringent supervision and dire consequences to comply with court orders, such as receiving counseling. If this guy isn’t the poster boy for “lock him up and throw away the key,” I don’t know who is. He was concerned for potential victims? Puh-leez! The judge had the power to give him a life sentence and decided not to, for Pete’s sake. Don’t feed us any bullshit about the judge’s heart bleeding for “future victims.” It’s clear where his concern lies, and it ain’t with that poor little girl, and it ain’t with the other little girls this sick asshole is going to attack. The _defense_ psychologist says he needs dire circumstances to comply with court orders! Sixty days in jail and then some couseling. Yep, that ought to do it. This is absolutely disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/25 "2006-01-08T01:51:29Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Speaking of experts…If this guy isn’t the poster boy for “lock him up and throw away the key,” I don’t know who is. He was concerned for potential victims? Puh-leez! The judge had the power to give him a life sentence and decided not to, for Pete’s sake. Don’t feed us any bullshit about the judge’s heart bleeding for “future victims.” It’s clear where his concern lies, and it ain’t with that poor little girl, and it ain’t with the other little girls this sick asshole is going to attack. The _defense_ psychologist says he needs dire circumstances to comply with court orders! Sixty days in jail and then some couseling. Yep, that ought to do it. This is absolutely disgusting. What kind of sentencing range is 60 days vs life? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/26 "2006-01-08T02:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Truw, but drug sellers, shoplifters and drunk drivers can’t do it again if they stay in prison forever, either. Or speeders or jaywalkers or people who park in handycap spaces illegally. > [@](#): > > According to judge Cashman, incarceration without rehabilitation will do nothing but harden the criminal. Hopefully the ‘good’ judge has some cites to back this up to the point that is it more benificial to release early and hope for the best then to hold a person till they are old and gray. ---
**Author:** ![hannable1975](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a87d85/32.png) [@hannable1975](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hannable1975)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/27 "2006-01-08T02:45:18Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Those are best solved by other methods, I think. Drugs should be legalized ( which would put the criminals involved out of business ). Not entirely true; even with the repeal of Alchoholic Prohibition, “moonshining” is still profitable, and people actully still seek out good ol’ “white likker” than “bonded likker”. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Shoplifting is relatively minor, and as a ( usually ) profit driven crime, is best solved financially - fine them enough that it doesn’t profit them. Again, close to the mark, but if a person does not have resources (financial disparity) and then shoplifts for needs rather than seeking legit. assistance, is a fine really the answer? In the instance where persons hijack shipments or cargo for black markets sales, then first you have to catch them, and this quickly leaves the neighborhood of shoplifting and becomes a much greater crime. In my experience, most shoplifting is simply for thrills. It is costly, with shrinkage costs for retailers being passed back on to consumers, but that is a never ending cycle of what boils down to an unfortunate cost of doing business in the first place. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Drunk drivers should be kept from driving, reformed if possible - and if neither works, only then throw them in prison forever. Again, on the surface a good idea. But Alcoholism is now more than ever recognised a a disease, so medical treatment, paired with rehab for repeat offenders would be a good route, with the termination of driving privlages, or the implementation of breathalizer devised already available for the past 20 years that require the driver to pass a “breather” to start the vehicle. There are a few flaws, such as someone else “blowing” for a drunk to then drive, but if you “blow” for a driver who has been drinking, you deserve to have to ride with them. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/28 "2006-01-08T02:46:32Z")
> [@magiver](#): > > Where in the article does it say that? Well it says, he’s unlikely to reoffend, though on reexamination it’s unclear if this is with counseling or just because of his “sex-offender” class. My dept. of justice link below does make that claim, however. > [@Ludovic](#): > > I support 60 days and mandatory counseling – for a first time, one-time “lighter” infraction such as fondling with clothes on. But a four-year habit won’t lightly be broken with counseling. Lock 'em up. Again, the state corrections dept., which presumably keeps track of these sort of things, says that a 4 year habit can indeed be broken, and that he is unlikely to reoffend. [Here’s](http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html) a page from the US dept. of justice, which claims sex offenders have, in fact, a lower recidivism rate then other criminals (it also says that counseling can lower this rate). > [@strat](#): > > If this guy isn’t the poster boy for “lock him up and throw away the key,” I don’t know who is. Puh-leez! Perhaps the class B and C sex offenders. Also, I’m not sure the judge could’ve realistically sentenced him to life. The prosecution asked for an 8 year sentence, according to todays Burlington Free Press, so I doubt it was a crime that they throw you away forever for. > [@strat](#): > > Don’t feed us any bullshit about the judge’s heart bleeding for “future victims.” It’s clear where his concern lies, and it ain’t with that poor little girl, and it ain’t with the other little girls this sick asshole is going to attack I was paraphrasing what I belived the Judge said his reasoning was in the articles linked above. I’m not sure I agree with him, but it seems a rational line of thought. If you’ve looked deep into the judges soul, and seen that he is in fact lying and attempting to place the perpatrator in a postion to sexually assault somebody again, you should post your reasons for thinking so. (why though, even if we take your belief that the judge does care more about the defendent then the victims, the defendent is surely screwed if he repeat offends, as he certainly won’t get off so lightly a second time). Personally I don’t have to much problem beliving that the judge is atleast trying to minimize the chances of a second offense. > [@](#): > > The defense psychologist says he needs dire circumstances to comply with court orders! And the court apparently agrees. See **doreen’s** post. Also, pet peeve. If you post a quote tell us where it’s from. Not that I think your making it up, but it’s nice to know where it comes from, 'specially if it’s linkable. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/29 "2006-01-08T03:52:23Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Well it says, he’s unlikely to reoffend, though on reexamination it’s unclear if this is with counseling or just because of his “sex-offender” class. My dept. of justice link below does make that claim, however. > . From your link: Myth: “The majority of sexual offenders are caught, convicted, and in prison.” Fact: Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted for their crimes. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision. Myth: “Most sex offenders reoffend.” Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense. child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period. Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). If the reconviction rate for sex offenses is between 13%-20% and few sex offenders ever get caught, what conclusion can you draw from that? I would conclude that 13%-20% is on the low side. If you divide the reconviction rate by the estimated rate of reported rape cases (12%) you end up with over 100%. This case doesn’t reflect any form of punishment for the crime or for the safety of the victim. 8 years of imprisonment will reduce the felon’s chance of sexually molesting children by 100% during that period. If there is a 37% chance that a child molester will be convicted of another crime (within 5 years) then those years can be added to the original incarceration. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/30 "2006-01-08T04:08:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and > rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period. > Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). [/COLOR] > > If the reconviction rate for sex offenses is between 13%-20% and few sex offenders ever get caught, what conclusion can you draw from that? I would conclude that 13%-20% is on the low side. If you divide the reconviction rate by the estimated rate of reported rape cases (12%) you end up with over 100%. That is an excellent point. Actual rates of recivisim are probably extremely high and even the admitted, proven statistics are way too high for my tastes. I always learned in graduate school that true peadophiles (those who are sexually attracted to children) are among the most difficult people to treat by counseling of any type. It is a sexual orientation that simply will not go away by talking about it. Even he just latched on to this one victim for other reasons, the sentence is way too light. I know that if it were my child, I would be forced to kill him upon his release and take my chances with a jury of my peers. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/31 "2006-01-08T04:15:09Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Those items for which it can be show that the perpetrator is statistically more likely to victimize another person if he is released after a long jail term then if he is released into a counseling program after a short jail term. See my previous post. I didn’t see anything that said he would be more likely to offend if he is released to counseling after a long prison sentence than if he is released to counseling after a short one. The judge is certainly right that the man needs treatment, and maybe the treatment will lower the risk of him reoffending, but in sentencing him to only 60 days so that he can get the treatment more quickly ( the judge could have sentenced him to a longer term of incarceration before treatment, so it’s not like a longer sentence eliminates the possibilty of treatment) he is clearly elevating rehabilitation above all other goals , such as specific and general deterrence, incapacitation and most of all, punishment. For this offense, the man deserves more time incarcerated than a shoplifter or a bad check writer could get. And IMHO, it doesn’t matter even if all he did was fondle her through her clothes. He was a family friend, apparently trusted enough to have access to her without her parents being present and the incidents occured over a period of four years (during which he apparently never felt the need to seek treatment). The effect on the victim would be far more serious than that of a single similar assault by a stranger. The \*defense \* psychologist said > [@](#): > > Hulett showed little empathy for the harm he caused the girl and her family; regretted only “the loss of a friend;” Corrections may consider him to be a low risk for reoffending compared to other sex offenders (and he probably is at a lower risk to reoffend than a serial rapist-killer) but his complete inability to even fake remorse to his own expert witness in my experience tells me that he is unlikely to really comply and gain anything from the treatment.He might show up for all of his appointments, but treatment can only help people who want to be helped, and if the only thing he regrets is the loss of a friend then he doesn’t really think he did anything wrong. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/32 "2006-01-08T04:53:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Myth: > “The majority of sexual offenders are caught, convicted, and in prison.” > Fact: > Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted for their crimes. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision. > > Myth: > “Most sex offenders reoffend.” > Fact: > Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense. > > child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and > rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period. > Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). I hate these statistics. They of course cannot account for those sex offenders who reoffend but aren’t caught, or for the ones who are caught but not convicted. But they also don’t account for the cases where there is a conviction for a non-sex offense which actually involved a sex offense. For example, someone breaks into an apartment and rapes a woman for one reason or another is convicted of only the burglary.Maybe he was willing to plead guilty to the burglary but not the sex offense, or maybe it was to spare the victim from testifying about the rape.(In my state the sentences for rape and burglary are similar and it’s fairly common to see a burglary conviction result from a rape arrest.) They don’t account for the situation where after one victim comes forward, it turns out that there have been tens of victims over the past four decades before there was a single arrest. I’m sure the studies are accurate for what they claim to measure, and maybe it’s the only thing we _can_ measure , but they don’t even claim to measure reoffense rates, which are certainly much higher. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/33 "2006-01-08T11:32:56Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Perhaps the class B and C sex offenders. Also, I’m not sure the judge could’ve realistically sentenced him to life. The prosecution asked for an 8 year sentence, according to todays Burlington Free Press, so I doubt it was a crime that they throw you away forever for. I’m certainly not an expert, but doesn’t the article say that any violations to the judge’s orders and he’s put away for life? Seems to me that this was in the judge’s discretion. > [@](#): > > I was paraphrasing what I belived the Judge said his reasoning was in the articles linked above. I’m not sure I agree with him, but it seems a rational line of thought. If you’ve looked deep into the judges soul, and seen that he is in fact lying and attempting to place the perpatrator in a postion to sexually assault somebody again, you should post your reasons for thinking so. Sorry, this is a straw man. I didn’t say the judge would prefer that the guy offend again. I said the judge is more concerned with the well-being of the defendant since if he really wants to make sure there’s no further crimes, it seems within his power to do so. > [@](#): > > Personally I don’t have to much problem beliving that the judge is atleast trying to minimize the chances of a second offense. I’m sure he’d be pleased if this were to occur. That doesn’t mean he did his best to ensure this outcome. His sentence was despicable. > [@](#): > > Also, pet peeve. If you post a quote tell us where it’s from. Not that I think your making it up, but it’s nice to know where it comes from, 'specially if it’s linkable. It’s from the OP’s cite. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/34 "2006-01-08T11:34:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What kind of sentencing range is 60 days vs life? Apparently the one available to the judge. ---
**Author:** ![indierock82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f14d63/32.png) [@indierock82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/indierock82)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/35 "2006-01-08T13:18:05Z")
But what if this didn’t occur under four years? What if it was only a one time instance, which in many cases is true? Does that then justify or at least make more sense if they offender is awarded a 60-day stretch? The thought that a human being would rape another is… well with lack of a better word, fucked up. But raping a child? Be it one time or repetively over four years, is monstrous. If I was a parent and discovered that my child was raped only to hear that the offender was going to do two months in a state-pen, not only is it a slap in the face, but a miscarriage of justice. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/36 "2006-01-08T20:34:10Z")
> [@indierock82](#): > > If I was a parent and discovered that my child was raped only to hear that the offender was going to do two months in a state-pen, not only is it a slap in the face, but a miscarriage of justice. You’re talking about rape, but whatis the definition of “sexual assault”? If the man had squeezed her bottom through her clothes as a “greeting” each time he met her during four years, would it qualify, for instance? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/37 "2006-01-08T21:19:38Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I hate these statistics. They of course cannot account for those sex offenders who reoffend but aren’t caught, or for the ones who are caught but not convicted. But they also don’t account for the cases where there is a conviction for a non-sex offense which actually involved a sex offense. For example, someone breaks into an apartment and rapes a woman for one reason or another is convicted of only the burglary.Maybe he was willing to plead guilty to the burglary but not the sex offense, or maybe it was to spare the victim from testifying about the rape.(In my state the sentences for rape and burglary are similar and it’s fairly common to see a burglary conviction result from a rape arrest.) They don’t account for the situation where after one victim comes forward, it turns out that there have been tens of victims over the past four decades before there was a single arrest. I’m sure the studies are accurate for what they claim to measure, and maybe it’s the only thing we _can_ measure , but they don’t even claim to measure reoffense rates, which are certainly much higher. Yes, but that is true for any type of crime. Murderers reoffend and are never caught in some cases. A certian fraction of any type of crime goes unsolved. The cite here in the DOJ provides data on the people they catch. There is no data on criminals who are not caught, for obvious reasons > [@Shagnasty](#): > > I always learned in graduate school that true peadophiles (those who are sexually attracted to children) are among the most difficult people to treat by counseling of any type. It is a sexual orientation that simply will not go away by talking about it. That little factoid has been kicking around for years, and never had any evidence to back it up. You’ve seen the DOJ stats. Do you have data to the contrary? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/38 "2006-01-08T23:01:56Z")
> [@indierock82](#): > > But what if this didn’t occur under four years? What if it was only a one time instance, which in many cases is true? Does that then justify or at least make more sense if they offender is awarded a 60-day stretch? The thought that a human being would rape another is… well with lack of a better word, fucked up. But raping a child? Be it one time or repetively over four years, is monstrous. If I was a parent and discovered that my child was raped only to hear that the offender was going to do two months in a state-pen, not only is it a slap in the face, but a miscarriage of justice. Vermont describe sexual assault as a forceful sexual act, Vermont describes sexual acts as: > [@](#): > > A “sexual act” means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and the vulva, the penis and the anus, the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or any intrusion, however slight, by any part of a person’s body or any object into the genital or anal opening of another. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/39 "2006-01-08T23:05:09Z")
Quote the wrong post above, meant to quote post #36. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815/40 "2006-01-09T01:35:30Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Yes, but that is true for any type of crime. Murderers reoffend and are never caught in some cases. A certian fraction of any type of crime goes unsolved. The cite here in the DOJ provides data on the people they catch. There is no data on criminals who are not caught, for obvious reasons I know that. I said I’m sure the studies are accurate for what they claim to measure, which is the reconviction rate. But people keep treating reconviction rates as if they are reoffense rates. This quote from earlier in the thread is exactly what I mean > [@](#): > > "Myth: > “Most sex offenders reoffend.” > Fact: > Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense. . . The “myth” refers to reoffense rates, but the “fact” talks about reconviction rates. They aren’t the same thing- the reconviction rate can be at most a floor for the reoffense rate. The last paragraph in the original web page makes that pretty clear, but somehow people either don’t understand or don’t read the whole page or forget it. An accurate fact in response to the myth would be " We have no idea how many sex offenders reoffend" > [@](#): > > That little factoid has been kicking around for years, and never had any evidence to back it up. You’ve seen the DOJ stats. Do you have data to the contrary? Pedophilia is a sexual orientation involving attraction to prepubescent children. It is no easier to change a pedophile’s sexual orientation than it is to change anyone else’s. It’s the attraction, not the behavior. Child molesting is not the same as pedophilia. A person can be a pedophile and never molest a child, just as one can be heterosexual but remain celibate for life. A person can molest children, but not be a pedophile. The DOJ statistics don’t say a word about pedophilia, and therefore statements that it is an orientation that will not go away by talking about it or that peophiles are the most difficult to treat is not at all contrary to the DOJ statistics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/60-days-for-sexual-assaulting-a-6-year-old/338815.md?page=3)