The first study says that 42% of child molestors get reconvicted. Obviously, it should not be assumed that every child molestor who reoffends gets caught and convicted, so that 42% number lowballs the total percentage of pedophiles who actually reoffend. Conservatively, I don’t think it would be unfair to say that a child molestor (and I would define that offense in such a way so as to exclude stautory cases or very young offenders) has at least a 50% chance of reoffending. Should a parent be made aware that an individual they may potentially trust with their child has a 50-50 chance of molesting them? A 42% chance? A 10% chance? Should it ever be assumed that the person is completely safe?
Adtually, what the study said was that a person convicted of molestation would, between 10 and 31 years after that conviction, be convicted of either a sexual or a violent crime. It also said that those numbers were tilted by the fact that violent offenders had a 77% recidivism rate. In other word, some large number of non-violent offenders, (and offender could mean anyone, adult or teen, who actually performed sex on or received sex from either a child or an adolescent one time or someone who simply “examined” a child or adolescent’s genitals), are not ever convicted of any crime, again.
You made the claim that
Do you have any actual evidence for that claim?
My problem with the whole issue is that we have taken any person under any circumstances who has performed any sexual act with any person not capable of informed consent and declared that “they” can never be trusted and that “they” should have all sorts of sanctions imposed on them by society.
I suspect that the horror of the worst cases has shaped our societal feelings in ways to make us turn off our brains when looking at actual examples. If we are going to treat every curious and immature person exactly as we would treat Larry Singleton or John Geoghan, then we are going to surrender to hysteria (and probably fail to learn how to protect our children from those who are not in the Singleton/Geoghan monster image).
I agree that a person that has engaged in child molestation needs to be monitored. I doubt that a person who engaged in individual acts of non-violent molestation and then stopped is actually the danger that we sometimes hysterically portray him.
The people who are actually studying the problem claim that recdivism rates are highly variable, yet you claim without evidence that they “rarely, if ever, have only one victim.” If your approach is going to be dictated by uninformed emotion, then your conclusions will be driven by uninformed emotion and your proposed solutions will suffer the same problems.
It’s easy to find figures like this:
and http://www.childmolestationlaws.com/
So statistically the “average” molester has far more than one victim.
I think there’s also a bit of an implication in your own argument that those who have been convicted once had only one victim. Do you think that most convicted offenders had only one victim? I don’t.
You might want to go back and consider your sources, Diogenes. The same source that claimed that
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]The average number of victims per molester is about 117 Men who molested boys average about 150 victims each [/li][li]More than half are under the age 35[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
also claimed that “95 percent of molested children know their perpetrators”.
I’m not sure that I have even known 117 children since I got out of high school over 40 years ago. (I know, I know, they all work in schools and day care centers to get better access.) If more than half of all molestors are under the age of 35, (meaning the majority operate in a period of fewer than 19 years), claims that anyone who has ever molested a child is a clear and present danger when they are 50, 65, or 80 have to be exaggerated.
Your first link claimed “studies” without naming any such studies. Along with your quote that a “pedophile” molests 100 boys or 20 girls, the same article noted that
(I note that they throw in crimes against adults for some reason–I would guess to use numbers to show how “factual” the story is.)
So, it is sending mixed signals in alarmist tones without bothering to provide a single citation in support of its numbers.
If guys molesting boys have only a 52% recidivism rate, then it is simply not valid to claim that they are all dangerous. In fact, it would seem just as likely that half of molestors go after 200 kids and half stop after one. Should they all be treated with caution around kids? Sure. But I still maintain that with the large number of serial molesters driving up “average” rates, it is also incumbent on us to pay attention to the type and number of actual incidents involving any individual before we decide to make his life hell for the following 50 years.
Your second link is similarly short on evidence, relying heavily on unsubstantiated numbers to make their claims. (Oh, look. It is an advocacy organization. Color me surprised!)
Pedophila is an extremely serious problem. We need to do what we can to keep pedophiles from injuring children. My point is that running around claiming they all do it all the time is rather similar in approach to those running around claiming “Islam is out to get us.”
We will do a better job of actually addressing the issues properly if we operate on actual facts, not hysterical claims based on invented or miscalculated numbers broadcast by news agencies writing alarmist stories to get readers or advocacy groups playing up unsubstantiated numbers to make themselves look more necessary (and thus garner more donations) while soliciting for attorneys.
In the case of the OP, the incident is reported as solitary, (unlike frequent claims I have seen regarding the way repeat offenders operate), and no evidence is presented that anyone else (in or out of the family) encountered any similar situation. We do not know how old the victim might have been or how old the perpetrator was or the age difference. We do not know any details of the abuse. Generalizing from “we’ve got some unsubstantiated numbers” to “that man needs to be isolated from all children” without a bit more information is counterproductive.
Note that I do not jump to FRDE’s position that the perpetrator was clearly being set up for unfair abuse. More information might indicate that there have been other incidents and that he does need to be isolated from kids and other members of the family warned.
I simply think that situations should be examined for themselves rather than relying on either bad statistics or emotional reactions to determine actions.
Ok, I just heard back from one of the people I wrote to. They point to the Hanson et Al study done in 1993 as being a good solid one to look at. This person has done her homework on the subject of pedophilia, as a way to better prevent crimes. I am not certain if she has “official” credentials or not, but she’s read avidly on the subject. (I believe she is going through some kind of long term college plan, perhaps aiming for psychiatry?) She’d know what studies held more weight than others, is my point.
They also draw attention to this study, which goes over the other studies done. Here is a pay site that offers the Hansen study, I can’t pay to read it, but for those who might want to this one’s an inexpensive site.
Just addressing this because I think it’s the core of our disagreement and because I think you may be reading too much into my comments about how prior offenders should be treated.
First, I didn’t precisely say that they’re all dangerous, I said it should be assumed that they are as a precautionary measure. I use “assume,” not so much in a literal sense but in the sense people use when they say you should always assume a gun is loaded. That doesn’t mean I think they should be hounded or persecuted or deprived of any liberties (and I’m very ambivalent about laws which give the general public personal information about sexual offenders). I’m only speaking to the narrow question of whether they should be left alone with children or whether parents of such potential children should be made aware of the offender’s history.
The OP was essentially asking if this person’s adult children should be made aware of his history before they leave him alone with his grandchildren. I do believe they should be told of his history because statistically there is a non-zero chance that he could reoffend. I’m not saying anyone should do anything more than tell those parents of his history (he shouldn’t be confronted or harrassed) but I would want to be made aware of something like that when it comes to my own kids.
Like I said earlier, though, I suspect his kids might already know. It’s hard to keep those kinds of secrets within families.
The first big question in the OP was “Is the man a ‘time bomb’ in danger of relapse if he is put in the wrong situation?”. This question is the most important one of the three, IMO, and mere anecdotes alone would not even begin to provide the answer that was needed. Threads involving this topic have almost always turned into cite/countercite battles, and this one was heading in that direction early on, so I moved it to what I felt was the proper forum.
I was hoping that this would stay in IMHO but (as my opening line said) it’s no surprise that it migrated to GD.
I think that Diogenes the Cynic has summed up my (and, i think, the accuser’s) feelings and concerns the best:
My feelings exactly. We, as a society, are so big on ‘rehabilitation’ of a criminal (whether we really are or not is an issue for another GD) yet, in this type of case we often don’t give someone a chance. I reiterate that I think the abuser should have been charged at the time but think it’s wrong to do anything public now.
The crux of the OP. Do you tell an adult that their dad was a sleezeball 20-odd years ago? I doubt any of us would like to stand before this kind of scrutiny of our past (even if it doesn’t involve this kind of crime against children). Most of us are given the chance (this guy apparently was) to put problems in our past (and quite possibly he did)—yet we deny the same to others in this situation.
That said, I wouldn’t let my son be alone with the guy, neither would the victim, or her brother.
His kids might know, they might not—the abused (and her brother) aren’t sure by any means. They believe that they don’t know (all the kids are younger than the abused). Both the abused and her brother (and other siblings) are all pretty sure that the adults at the time of the abuse just ‘let the whole thing slide.’
Or maybe the guy did abuse his own children and the whole family keeps covering up for him and will keep any grandchildren away from him—I don’t know.
And that, I guess, is as close as I will come to an answer: I don’t know.
Maybe he was able to put this behind him, cure himself and get on with his life—I don’t know.
Maybe he has kept himself out of trouble but would suffer a relapse and hurt a grandchild (or another kid)—I don’t know.
Maybe he has continued to pursue abuse at some level low enough to stay off the radar and should be remove from society as a legitimate menace—I don’t know.
Maybe the abused should warn others and (probably) open up family wounds that won’t heal easily—I don’t know.
Maybe she should stay quiet since she has no reason to believe that any other crimes have been committed—I don’t know.
All I do know is that it’s a damned shame that this all happened in the first place.
Well I suppose you could re-post in IMHO
- possibly with a few approximate ages of those concerned
Here in GD, you can only get ‘statistics’, and for this sort of thing the only thing one can be sure about is that ‘statistics’ are inaccurate.
Sticking my neck out, I would suggest that you remember that Uncle P’s generation knows all about what happened. The situation has been monitored for 20 years.
I think sexual crimes require a more narrow definition. I do not think a kid who had consentual sex with his girlfriend is equivalent to a child molester. Some think this should follow a person for their entire life. Childhood sexual experimentation could get you on the roles forever.We need to be careful .
I don’t think I will repost. The whole thing comes down to the abused and what she wants to do (she was unsure the last I had heard.
Statistics do tend to run all over the place rangewise. It is hard to apply in this case since there were no convictions or charges filed.
You could well be right about all the adults knowing about it at the time (I wasn’t a member of the family or old enough) and monitoring the situation. Now the question is for the newer parents who wern’t all that old at the time.
Aproximate ages…let’s say ~7 and 25 (I could be off a bit on either one, but you get the idea).
I’ll chance a slapping from TomnDeb or Czarc.
Stats are impossible, it is like estimating how many people pick their noses in private.
I got really worried when I saw your post, I can see train wrecks before they happen - no major talent - just recognizing the signs.
In this case Little Bro sounds like he is on a mission, the avenging angel for Big Sis.
It strikes me that Uncle P’s wife is aware of the history, someone will have told her, probably him as well as others. Also if 25 is correct (45 now), then great grand/parents/aunts/uncles will be around - and they are the best for giving informal briefings.
My view is, that if he is a time bomb, then he should have gone off earlier, and that making an issue now, would simply destroy him.
I think you should ask the elders, but very discreetly.
I also suggest that you use your own judgement, people are rather opaque, but one can normally sense whether there is something seriously wrong with them.
Ask the elders - and trust your instincts.
Thank you for the response.
So you think there’s enough of a chance that he might do it again that it’s not worth putting your children at risk. I think that the other parents deserve to know that, and the other children have just as much of a right to be protected from that kind of danger.
If it opens any “old family wounds”, well, those people are adults now, and therefore in a better position to cope with whatever painful issues it raises than a child who might end up getting molested would be. I definitely think that the need to protect the current children from the chance of more abuse outweighs any other considerations.
Has anybody actually read Marienee’s link?
It claims that there are new therapies, which involve medication therapy and monitoring, that are quite effective in controlling pedophilia:
If this is true then it has significant implications for how we deal with this issue.
Well, whatever you do, I wouldn’t use the term sleezeball, but that doesn’t appear to be your style anyway.
(Sorry about the IMHO response, but the OP did ask about the best way to handle the situation.)
I seriously doubt it is. Usually figures like this are ‘when the client has completed the entire course’ becoming a bit self fulfilling, because of course you can just make the therapy so long/intensive etc that only a very small minority will actually complete the course, and until then are still ‘in treatment’ or ‘non completers’, thus giving a misleading picture about overall success rates. And anyone who does complete the course is by definition very highly motivated to change, and thus not your typical client by any means.
If you see anything claiming a 90%+ success rate in regards to behaviour change, you can be pretty sure this is probably whats going on, unless outright fibbing or the like is occurring.
Otara