60 days for sexual assaulting a 6 year old?

[saoirse]

@doreen

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.

Yes, of course I was assuming Shagnasty was talking about molestation.

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 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"

The only measure they have of reoffense is reconviction. If the reconviction rates are higher for one type of crime, the reoffense rates are assumed to be the same. Otherwise, we would be introducing elements into the question without justification. If there were some way to identify a variable in the reoffense and reconviction rates, we could use that to determine which crimes have a greater number of reoffences per reconvictions, but we dom’t have that information.

In the case of the verdict in question, placing the molester under supervision for the rest of his life seems like the best way to keep him from doing it again. According to the article, the judge has the ability to send him to prison any time one of his conditons is not met.

[Shagnasty]

@saoirse

Yes, of course I was assuming Shagnasty was talking about molestation.

I was only talking about pedophilia in a general sense as well. However, I think it would be logical to presume that a sexual orientation without any legal means of sexual gratification would be more likely to reoffend than those with other options. The data simply isn’t good enough to know although it looks grim based on a couple of small logical leaps.

[doreen]

@saoirse

The only measure they have of reoffense is reconviction. If the reconviction rates are higher for one type of crime, the reoffense rates are assumed to be the same.

That’s an unwarranted assumption, which is why I say that reconviction rates give nothing but a floor for reoffense rates. Different crimes have different reporting rates, different arrest rates and different conviction rates.

Otherwise, we would be introducing elements into the question without justification. If there were some way to identify a variable in the reoffense and reconviction rates, we could use that to determine which crimes have a greater number of reoffences per reconvictions, but we don’t have that information.

Which means we can’t take a position either way. We don’t know whether burglars have one conviction for every ten reoffenses while sex offenders have one conviction for every twenty reoffenses, or vice versa or if it’s the same rate for both. And therefore we don’t have any idea of the actual reoffense rate or even the relative reoffense rate. All we can be sure of is that the reoffense rate is higher than the reconviction rate. Even the DOJ website says “For these reasons, relying on rearrest and reconviction data underestimates actual reoffense numbers.”

In the case of the verdict in question, placing the molester under supervision for the rest of his life seems like the best way to keep him from doing it again. According to the article, the judge has the ability to send him to prison any time one of his conditons is not met.

I’m sure keeping him under supervision for the rest of his life is part of a good solution. What I fail to see is why 60 days in jail followed by lifetime supervision is a better solution than 4 (or 8 or 2) years in prison followed by lifetime supervision, or for that matter, immediate release followed by lifetime supervision. The 60 days can only be for punishment purposes-any risk is not going to be magically lowered by 60 days passing- but it’s not long enough to be an appropriate punishment And while the judge might have the ability to send him back to prison for violations, that doesn’t mean he’ll have the will to do it.Maybe he’ll prioritize rehabilitation over punishment for the first (or second or tenth) violation as well.

[Debaser]

It’s shocking and outrageous that any person could rise to the position of judge yet be so idiotic. He should be removed from the bench ASAP. Last night a state rep from VT was on the news and she said they would start working on it as soon as they next meet.

Almost as shocking and alarming is that some people here are defending this decision. Shame on you, Malodorous. The views you have presented here are as chilling and disturbing as any I’ve ever seen. It appears to me that they are a result of you simply being naive, but that doesn’t make them any less evil.