an article in the ny times inspired my think about this. it talks children who commit sex offenses as children and how they are dealt with and how to best deal with them.

Quote :

"In the early 1980s, a therapist named Robert Longo was treating adolescent boys who had committed sex offenses. Their offenses ranged from fondling girls a few years younger than they were to outright rape of young children. As part of their treatment, the boys had to keep journals — which Longo read — in which they detailed their sexual fantasies and logged how frequently they masturbated to those fantasies. They created “relapse-prevention plans,” based on the idea that sex-offending is like an addiction and that teenagers need to be watchful of any “triggers” (pornography, anger) that might initiate their “cycle” of reoffending. And at the beginning of each group session, the boys introduced themselves much as an alcoholic begins an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting: “I’m Brian, and I’m a sex offender. I sexually offended against a 10-year-old boy; I made him lick my penis three times.” Sex-offender therapy for juveniles was a new field in the 1980s, and Longo, like other therapists, was basing his practices on what he knew: the adult sex-offender-treatment models. “It’s where the literature was,” Longo, a founder of the international Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, told me not long ago. “It’s what we’d been doing.” As it turns out, he went on to say, “much of it was wrong.” There is no proof that what Longo calls the “trickle-down phenomenon” of using adult sex-offender treatments on juveniles is effective. Adult models, he notes, don’t account for adolescent development and how family and environment affect children’s behavior. Also, research over the past decade has shown that juveniles who commit sex offenses are in several ways very different from adult sex offenders. As one expert put it, “Kids are not short adults.” That’s not to say that juvenile sexual offenses aren’t a serious problem. Juveniles account for about one-quarter of the sex offenses in the U.S. Though forcible rapes, the most serious of juvenile sex offenses, have declined since 1997, court cases for other juvenile sex offenses have risen. David Finkelhor, the director of Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and others argue, however, that those statistics largely reflect increased reporting of juvenile sex offenses and adjudications of less serious offenses. “We are paying attention to inappropriate sexual behavior that juveniles have engaged in for generations,” he said. The significant controversy isn’t whether there is a problem; it’s how to address it. In other words, when is parental or therapeutic intervention enough? What kind of therapy works best? And at what point should the judicial system get involved — and in what ways? Longo and other experts have increasingly advocated for a less punitive approach. Over the past decade, however, public policy has largely moved in the opposite direction. Courts have handed down longer sentences to juveniles for sex offenses, while some states have created tougher probation requirements and, most significant, lumped adolescents with adults in sex-offender legislation. The best-known example is Megan’s Law. Since 1994, federal legislation has required many sex offenders to register with the police, which can aid sex-crime investigations. But Megan’s Law, which went into effect in 1996, mandates that law enforcement also notify the public about certain convicted offenders in their communities. One of the ways states do this is through publicly accessible Web sites. At least 25 states now apply Megan’s Law, also known as a community-notification law, to juveniles, according to a recent survey by Brenda V. Smith, a law professor and the director of the National Institute of Corrections Project on Addressing Prison Rape at American University’s Washington College of Law. That means on many state sex-offender Web sites, you can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses, and in some cases their birth dates and maps to their homes, alongside those of pedophiles and adult rapists. Now that concept has reached the federal level. In May, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed guidelines for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named for a 6-year-old boy (and son of John Walsh, the host of TV’s “America’s Most Wanted”) abducted from a Florida store and murdered in 1981. Among other things, the legislation, sponsored by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, and signed into law by President Bush last year, creates a federal Internet registry that will allow law enforcement and the public to more effectively track convicted sex offenders — including juveniles 14 and older who engage in genital, anal or oral-genital contact with children younger than 12. Within the next two years, states that have excluded adolescents from community-notification laws may no longer be able to do so without losing federal money. "

(far more can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22juvenile-t.html)

the bolded part gets to the heart of what i'm interested in. what do people think about treating children as adults when sex crimes are involved, specifically logging them in a database that is publicly accessible for the rest of their lives. and i guess more broadly, what do you think about these databases in general? at what point (if any) should the slate be wiped clean for criminals (sexually-related or otherwise)?

7/25/2007 10:42:21 AM

the liberal part of me says treat the offenders as if they have a mental illness

the conservative part of me says hang then up the flagpole by their eyelids and let the crows have them

...

guess which side eventually wins out

7/25/2007 10:44:58 AM

I think that juvenile offenders should be treated less harshly than their adult counterparts. Longo suggests that environmental issues have a lot to do with their propensity to commit crimes. Isolate and treat the offender, and see what happens.

Sidebar: I think the case in GA is a perfect example of the law going too far in punishing juvenile offenders. This is kid is going to have to live the rest of his life with this on his record, and the people actually involved in the act, even the girls mother, agrees that the act was consensual.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/07/20/wilson_0721_web5.html

7/25/2007 11:20:35 AM

sex offenders have the highest rate of recidivism than any other crime. There is good research showing that these people can't be cured.

7/25/2007 11:25:38 AM

7/25/2007 11:26:50 AM

Quote :

" I think the case in GA is a perfect example of the law going too far in punishing juvenile offenders. This is kid is going to have to live the rest of his life with this on his record, and the people actually involved in the act, even the girls mother, agrees that the act was consensual."

I think ridgid laws are the major problem.....there is a big difference between a 45 year old that actively preys on small children, and an 18 year old that is in a relationship with a 15 year old. cover-all laws like the GA one are asinine.

7/25/2007 11:27:21 AM

Well a large problem I have with 'sex offenders' is that many of these people are convicted for having sex with a minor when the minor is simply 3 or 4 years younger than them and they're both in HS or HS/College. They need to make the law more clear in these stupid 'age of consent' cases then they can toughen up on the actual sex offenders.

7/25/2007 11:29:05 AM

i guess one of my biggest concerns is how for every other sort of crime (violent or otherwise) committed by a child, they are treated as children, unless it deals with sex. in that case, you're an adult and the offense will follow you the rest of your life. it just seems like a terribly harsh punishment for something that could be the act of a fucked-up kid who still has time to right himself before adulthood.

7/25/2007 11:30:25 AM

maybe the law should adopt a half your age plus 7 rule

7/25/2007 11:30:28 AM

you cant blindly apply a formula to juvenile crime and punishment.

14 year olds who brutally rape and assault (like the Florida case where they gangraped and tortured the mother and son) are completely different than, say, a 14 year old who has oral sex with a 10 year old.

you cant apply a one-size-fits-all to this sort of stuff. The first case, theres probably very little hope of rehabilitation for the first case, and probably a significant chance of rehabilitation in the second.

7/25/2007 12:45:36 PM

We don't correctly handle offenders of pretty much any law.

I think it is crazy to think that every offender is fit for society after a preset fixed amount of time served... crazy ass people on the first conviction should not be getting the same rehabilitation as someone who simply had a lapse in judgment and shown signs of reform.

7/25/2007 1:22:04 PM

7/25/2007 1:24:19 PM

Quote :

"i guess one of my biggest concerns is how for every other sort of crime (violent or otherwise) committed by a child, they are treated as children, unless it deals with sex. in that case, you're an adult and the offense will follow you the rest of your life. "

yeah, I find it funny that when a teacher in a high school has a relationship with student the claim is that the student "isn't mature or developed enough to make such a relationship decision" but they can be tried as adults in some states if they have consensual sex with a fellow student 3-4 years younger.

7/25/2007 1:34:05 PM

I think that when you mess with kids (even if you are a kid) then you lose some of your civil rights because you took them from others. If that means you will be forever stained by that criminal event then too bad, the danger of treating such offenses lightly is far greater than the possibility of over-punishment. So yeah, they should be put in a database and should never be allowed to serve in school or couch sports etc...

I'd rather not take chances with future kids.

7/25/2007 8:03:11 PM

why the distinction specifically for sex crimes? wouldn't you like to know if you lived next to a crackhead or a murderer?

7/25/2007 8:16:27 PM

generally, murderers aren't on the street, sex offenders are. A sex offender is much more likely to harm you or your children than anyone else given the recidivism rate of sex offenders.

7/25/2007 8:40:23 PM

Quote :

"generally, murderers aren't on the street, sex offenders are."

and you wouldn't know if they were.

7/25/2007 8:51:34 PM

I forget who said it,

but I agree that we should NOT be making these [convicted] offenders into 2nd class citizens.

With their ankle bracelets, mandatory address disclosure,
residence restrictions, job restrictions, etc.

I mean,.......police state, hello?

If they are deemed (within a reasonable doubt,) to be a threat,

then keep them locked in prison,

or at least in a mental institution.

This selective revocation of civil rights represents a very slippery slope.

(For those of you with knee-jerk reactions to the term "slippery slope",
calm down. There is such a thing. The phrase is over-used, yes, but,
in this case.......it's accurate.)

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : \/ [carl face]

7/26/2007 10:32:49 AM

Quote :

"how should we handle (child) sex offenders?"

With kid's gloves?

7/26/2007 10:49:07 AM

^^don't leave your kids at his house.

Seriously though, there is no slippery slope here. If anything the slippery slope is not killing them for
the more serious sex crimes. We pretty much know that the majority of these folks are not just one time offenders, its a pattern offense. So until we make the jail sentences longer the sensible thing to do is to put heavy restrictions on any paroles. That's the point here I think, we as society are being nice to these folks already by letting them out of jail. It's a small sacrifice to register and be monitored. In jail the intrusion into their privacy is a lot worse (24-7).

7/26/2007 2:05:19 PM

I have NO problem with maximum punishment (death penalty or life in prison no parole) for a 2nd offense rapist. I do feel that lifetime registration and housing requirements are too far though. I don't feel that citizens should have the right to access criminal records of other people without their consent or legal reason. There is a slippery slope when you begin taking away citizens rights. Today it's sex offenders, tomorrow it's all felonies, after that who knows?

7/26/2007 2:09:12 PM

we don't take their rights away. They do it when they commit these horrible offenses.

7/26/2007 2:12:06 PM

No, they do horrible things to people then their rights are taken away as a result of that.

7/26/2007 2:13:22 PM

Quote :

"don't leave your kids at his house"

wtf is that supposed to mean?

Quote :

"not just one time offenders"

Quote :

"make the jail sentences longer"

You're agreeing with me.
I'm saying we should be locking these fucks up and throwing away the key!
We don't need these people living among us.
Why the fuck are you agreeing with me, but then suggesting that I'm a child rapist or something?

Did you even read my post?

Oh wait, it's mathman....
Don't bring your creationist hate into an unrelated thread.
Just because I think your creationist beliefs are fucking laughable, and make you laughable for believing them, it doesn't give you any ground to suggest that children aren't safe under my care. You are obviously hurt and bitter from everyone bashing you and your creationist beliefs in the evolution thread, so you do what? defame me in an unrelated thread? Go ahead and test me some more asshole, and see if you don't end up in civil court.

If anyone is unsafe around children, it's you.
You'd start pushing your creationist propaganda.
I would not want my future children or my nieces and nephews in your company.
You are a bitter, immature god-following nut.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : []

7/27/2007 10:27:36 AM

^honestly I had not even connected the two threads, I mean I don't remember your user name because I've not read many of your posts as far as I can remember.

I suppose I misread your post to say that we should ease the restrictions on certain offenders, obviously I agree with you if you are saying we should lock them ALL up and throw away the key. That was not clear to me from your post, it seemed you were more worried about some perceived police state then the welfare of potential future victims.

Besides that I did say "Seriously though, " indicating that the paragraph preceding was a joke. Apparently a joke you took too seriously.

I'm not bitter about the creationist thread, why would I be ? It's not surprising or new, you guys are just parroting the same old materialist clap-trap, I may respond once I get some spare time.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 7:01:08 PM

oic

Quote :

"lock them ALL up"

only the ones that pose a threat, you mean?
i.e. a 19 year old that screwed his 17 year old girlfriend doesn't pose a threat....right?

7/27/2007 8:06:01 PM

^well if his girlfriend was mentally retarded and he was not then I think he should spend some time away from society. Obviously some of the laws can be inappropriately applied, but this is not limited to this issue. I mean we used anti-mafia laws to prevent protest against abortion for example.

I really mean we should lock up anybody who is guilty of multiple offenses, or one violent one, the system fails to do this all the time from what I've seen on the news. If the laws on the books are to weak to put them in jail w/o parole then in the mean time I'm happy that we are violating the civil rights of these criminals when they get out on parole. I'm not sure where you should draw the line, I think judges should have some discretion on these matters. Mandatory sentences are not a good idea here, but increasing the maximum jail time would be wise.

7/28/2007 12:33:13 PM