I know I am likely to take some heat for over generalizing, and the answers will all depend on a wide range of factors, most of them very personal and subjective, but let’s generalize.
Say the sexually abusive father of a childhood sexual abuse survivor (repeated, long-term abuse) is getting out of prison, after 15 years of incarceration. Is it likely, or even possible, that the man is rehabilitated? What does it take for a sexual abuser to “recover”?
Are they addicts, like alcoholics and junkies, who will never fully be cured of their illness? Or are they capable of shaking the disease?
Just what does it take to cure a sexual predator? And is it possible for him to say “I’m cured” and for the survivor(s) to believe him?
I’ve been agonizing over whether this question (or series of five questions) belongs in GQ, GD, or IMHO. This seemed like the best spot to begin. Mods, if you disagree (since the answers are likely to be more opinion than anything) please feel free to move it to the most appropriate forum.
In generalized terms, some of the data suggests that a male who abused his own female children, gets caught and gets treatment will have a lesser liklihood of committing another sexual offense.
Could some one be rehabilited? Sure. Can you predict who and guarantee they won’t reoffend? I doubt it.
I’ve heard that sex offenders are some of the toughest people to rehabilitate… but that’s mostly anecdotal.
Some people simply get caught in a cycle of incarceration, release, freedom, offense, capture, incarceration over and over again. They are victims of their own deviance.
Wring, thanks for the excellent bunch of links! You ask
and all I can say is… in the sense that he could be “trusted” after his time served, to be with his (now adult) daughters, and with his young grand-daughters without thinking deviant thoughts, or at least without acting upon them.
But I know that’s an impossible question for you or anyone else to answer, not knowing the man, not knowing what his prison experience was like, not knowing a lot of info that could make an “answer” a little easier to give, if not belive in fully.
There are no absolute answers, I know. It’s a tough question. I suppose it all boils down to trust, and the burden is on the former offender to prove his trustworthiness.
I wonder if there is a “12 Step” support/recovery program for sex offenders (addicts)?
This is going to sound strange to all of those who debated with me on the Megan’s laws threads. But.
We, as a society have choices re: molesters. We need to protect our children from being victimized. We can focus attention on identifying molesters and figuring out what to do with them or focus on protecting children and figure out how to best do that. If we focus on the molesters, we can find some of those who have in the past molested, but we don’t have a perfect method for determining which of that group will molest again, and we have absolutely no way at this point, of identifying potential molesters prior to an actual assault.
Because of this, I’d prefer personally to incarcerate those who have molested (and have the length of their incarceration be determined based on the myriad of circumstances etc) mandatory counseling both inside and when released. Once released, mandate counseling and supervision. However, let’s focus attention on how to actively protect children in general from molesters in general (which is different from protecting ‘my child’ from ‘that molester there’, IMHO). This would help protect them not only from the molesters who have been identified, but those who haven’t yet been identified.
On a generalized basis, I, as a parent, in order to keep my child safe, do/did certain things:
Rules for my child: 1. Never, ever go anywhere with anyone w/o mom knowing FIRST. This includes going on a ride with grandpa. going into a house with the next door neighbor, going into an empty basement with the church pastor. I need to know WHERE you are and WITH WHOM all the time (he’s 17 and that’s still the rule, but for different reasons).
This allows me, the parent to judge if the situation is a safe one. And a convicted child molester should not be alone with a minor. In many cases, their parole orders will mandate that they not be even in the presence of minors (in some cases this also means they cannot go to grocery stores, convenience stores etc.) As far as the adult daughters are concerned, that’s for them to decide, personally. I would hope that they’ve gotten counseling.
Rule #2 : If ever, anybody and I don’t care who, ever, ever wants to play ‘secret games’, take your picture, give you presents, have secrets (except ‘what are we giving mom for her birthday’) TELL MOMMY NOW. again, focusing attention on ‘strangers’ ‘that man over there’ or ‘grown ups’ may unwittingly set up the child for vicitimization by some one who isn’t a stranger, isn’t that man over there or who may not be a ‘grown up’ in their eyes.
Rule #3: If ever anybody and again, I don’t care who, makes you feel ‘icky’ TELL MOMMY NOW. This gets around trying to define to an child what’s an ‘ok’ touch/where and where it isn’t. If you feel icky, tell me. Then we can gently find out what is going on to make you feel that way. It may be 'cause grandma’s perfume smells like licorice and you hate licorice (or whatever).
See, to me, these rules attempt to proactively protect children, vs. trying to get the child to figure out who’s good/bad and when/how. If, instead you focus on ‘protect my child from that molester’, you may, unwittingly be setting them up for the molester over there you didn’t know about.
I agree. But, again, I would not leave a convicted child molester alone with minor children. What is more, the child molester themself should refuse to be put in that situation regardless of ‘unlikelihood’ possible reoffense. The issue for them should be “I don’t ever, ever, EVER, want there to be any question of my harming a child again, therefore I will not be in a position where harm could ever remotely occur”. By the same token, the alcoholic should not be a bartender.
There are in many areas (or at least counseling) It is highly recommended. and mandatory in many cases. If he’s on parole supervision, the supervising agent should have a referral to a suitable place. Best of luck to you and yours.
Once again, Wring, thank you. Your post was so insightful, and so well put.
Before I posted this Q (which I have since determined probably should have gone in IMHO, of course), I did a search here on the SDMB for sexual predators and a couple other catch phrases that came to mind, but I didn’t think to search for “Megan’s Law.” I’ll go do that.
For now, though, I will add you to my list of SDMB heroes, if’n you don’t mind.
I don’t really have an anwer for the OP, but I wanted to say…Welcome Back Chrome Toaster, I haven’t seen you around in awhile.
wring, excellent advice…I’ve bookmarked it under my “Important Shit” folder.
And finally, FWIW, I would never trust a convicted child molester around any children, rehabilitated or not. No way, no matter, no how, nuh-uh.
I also think it’s somewhat weird (and a testament to how much power child-molesters have over their victims) that their former victims, now grown, would even THINK about forgiving them or exposing their own children to them. How can you forgive someone like that? And WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO TEMPT FATE?
Hey, Sue, thanks for the welcome back! I’m almost always around, it’s just not often that I post. (Born… or is that Boring… Lurker.)
As for your q’s and comments… I don’t know that there is such a word as “forgive” in the survivors’ lexicon.
In the horrible case of incestuous sexual abuse, though, it is a particularly difficult and emotional issue because no matter what the father did, there is still that family bond between the abused children and the father. Fifteen years later, there is still the hope that no matter how effed up things were before, maybe there really IS a chance that a family can … heal.
Fate?!?
I am a little shocked at this choice of words, I guess.
Yeah, I thought about that when I wrote it, but I wasn’t sure how to put it. I wasn’t implying that he was fated to molest again, just that you never want to tempt fate as a general rule.
Maybe it’s just me, but my guess is that recidivism is reduced in men who molested their female children and then served 15 years because they no longer have easy access to female children. Their kids have grown up, and if those kids have children, they are probably very careful about leaving them alone with grandpa.
Anecdotal evidence: I’ve known 6 survivors of father-daughter or grandfather-granddaughter (not father-stepdaughter) incest, 3 from the same family - at least, this is how many I’ve known well enough to talk about these kinds of things. In every case, the victims have as little to do with the molester as possible, and react with open horror to the concept of allowing their children anywhere near the man (those that have children - even if the kids are boys). They, at least, don’t seem to think he’s cured so much as in remission, or at any rate they aren’t willing to test the supposition on children they love.
Frankly, on a more personal level, I see no reason to put children at risk. When we’re so cautious about leaving our children alone even with men who have no history of child molestation, why would anyone ever consider letting a convicted molester have contact with children? We don’t let ex-cons have guns, y’know, on the grounds that they might be a little more likely to misuse them - same goes, in my opinion, for letting sexual offenders hang around their former (one hopes) victim pool.
More anecdotal evidence: when I was 15 I worked in a place that provided sexual-offender 12-step programs. This was in a college psychology department, and the programs were run by a professor who is a big name in sexual offender rehabilitation. When I was given a key to an office in the basement where the meetings were held, I was also told the times of said meetings (which were also posted). The idea there was that I, as a female minor, was not supposed to go down to the basement alone during those times, even though the guys in those particular programs had served their sentences and were well along in their supposed recovery or rehabilitation.