Why Megan's Law places children in danger

[JAG]

I know we don't like posting articles and then just stating - well that is a great article and you should read it and that is my position. However I make no apologies for this article, it is a great one and not only does it make perfect sense, it is something I passionately believe in too if we are to solve our problems.

I present Johann Hari -

Paedophiles need support, not persecution
Why Megan's Law places children in danger

Now that John Reid is considering caving in to the News of the World’s incessant demand for the government to publish the name and address of every paedophile in the country, Britain’s conversion into a Murdochracy is almost complete. If they moved the Home Office to Wapping and turned every last Sun snarl into law, would anybody notice the difference now?

Yet at first glance, this particular proposal might sound like common sense. In 1994, a seven-year-old girl in New Jersey called Megan Kanka was lured into the house of one of her neighbours, Jesse Timmendequas, by an offer to see his puppy. He raped her for days on end before finally strangling her with a belt. In the grief-strewn aftermath, it turned out that Timmendequas had a previous conviction for child molestation. Megan’s mother was appalled that she didn’t know, and launched a campaign for local police to be legally required to tell families when a paedophile moves into the neighbourhood. Who could object?

Except in practice, introducing Megan’s Law would require the government to commit a fresh blood-sacrifice of innocent children to appease their tabloid gods. John Reid claims he is only sending one of his ministers to the States to “study the evidence”, but he knows the evidence is already in, and has been clear for some time. Far from protecting little girls like Megan, the law named after her actually increases the number of children who are raped and murdered.

To understand why, you have to talk to the people who work with paedophiles and have a proven track record of bringing their reoffending rates crashing down, saving countless Megans and Sarahs. They are invariably the strongest and fiercest opponents of Megan’s Law. Pam Welch, a prison officer who works in-depth with paedophiles, explains, “It is when these people feel isolated and friendless that the risk of reoffending is highest. They feel that if the world considers them a monster they might as well behave like a monster. At least then there might be some feeling of pleasure, and some measure of control.”

Megan’s Law guarantees that a released paedophile will be put in this position. Instead of being able to find a job, build normal adult relationships and being given help to resist their darkest urges, they are plunged into a scalding bath of hatred. One newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, documented the effect of Megan’s Law in Newburgh, a small town in up-state New York. When a sex offender named John Duck Jr. was released on parole to live with his elderly parents, their neighbours were told about his crimes by hundreds of police knocking door-to-door with leaflets. All three family members received a cascade of death threats. A howling picket was established outside their house for weeks, demanding Duck “get out now!!” – presumably to a mythical place with no children. (He couldn’t anyway – it was a condition of his parole to remain at that address). He was shunned everywhere he went, unemployable and friendless. The few neighbours who did speak to him received threats of their own.

It’s hard to think of a situation more likely to make a sex offender relapse and destroy another child’s life. That’s why, despite Megan’s Law being introduced in every state, rates of child rape and murder by strangers have not fallen; in many, they have increased.

The only programmes with a proven track record of reducing reoffending adopt precisely the opposite approach to Megan’s Law. Jim Nethercott is an American who worked for twenty years as a detective tracking down paedophiles. When he started, he saw this question through a standard News of the World frame where the issue was “black and white. There was the good side and the bad side, and criminals in general deserved to be locked up for as long as they could be locked up.” But as his investigations led him to meet paedophiles – pitiful people, 70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves – he began to believe that once they have been properly punished for their crimes, “we have to give these offenders some reason to go ahead and succeed in life. Most offenders want to change, they just lack the tools.”

Nethercott decided to set up an institution where paedophiles would be given extensive, gruelling therapy to understand and control their urges. They learn to empathise with their former victims, and discover the trigger points that make them more likely to relapse. Of course there is an untreatable minority of sociopaths who don't respond and shouldn't be released. But for the vast majority, it works. The people released from Wyoming Honour Farm are 50 percent less likely to reoffend – a remarkable drop. As John Reid knows perfectly well, he doesn’t even have to look this far for success stories. A brilliant programme piloted by Thames Valley Police over the past three years here in Britain has provided released paedophiles with a similar support network of trained ‘friends’, who they can call 24/7 for help in rebuilding their lives or if they think they are at risk of relapsing. Not a single one of the 48 people on the programme has relapsed.

Before he was released, Jesse Timmendequas begged for therapy like this. The woman conducting his psychiatric evaluation persistently said he needed to undergo “intensive psychotherapy in the community following release.” He was offered nothing and went on to rape and kill Megan. Here is another area where a ‘tough’ policy only creates more victims, while a ‘soft’ policy actually works. Here is a paedophile policy that really protects kids – but it doesn’t please the News of the World, so in Tabloid Britain, it won’t happen.

But the danger from Megan’s Law isn’t just to paedophiles and the children they are more likely to rape. Across the US since it was introduced, there has been a Columbine-sized massacre of paedophiles, their relatives and anybody who got in the way. It started in Nova Scotia when a vigilante found the names and addresses of two sex offenders from the register, hunted them down and killed them. Almost exactly the same thing happened a few months later in Maine – and one of victims was listed on the register because as a 19 year old, he had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. In New Jersey, a man was beaten nearly to death with a baseball bat after he was mistaken for his sex offender brother. This list could go on and on.

If this was really about protecting kids, the government would be sticking to the evidence and offering the majority of paedophiles who want to go straight far more support and therapy. Incredibly, two-thirds of sex offenders leave our prisons today without going through sex offender treatment programmes. But, no, this is about something very different. It is about John Reid posturing as a hard man to please Rupert Murdoch and the most base chunk of public opinion as he tries to position himself as Tony Blair’s successor. Ah well, what’s a few raped kids when the keys to Downing Street are at stake?

The Independent - 20/06/2006

[Redleg]

I have absolutely no empthay or sympathy for a child molestor - the best way to keep them from ever revisiting their desires on children is to keep them locked up for the rest of thier lives once they are convicted in a court of law of the horrendous act of child molestation.

No program - no individual can 100% predict that a child molestor is and can be reformed completely.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I disagree with publishing the names and addresses of convicted paedophiles in that if they pose enough of a threat to children to warrant that, surely they should still be incarcerated? I'm not sure what parents would do with the information, anyway, apart from vigilantism. Refuse to let their kids go outside? Move?

I also wonder if you could end up with situations where teenagers convicted of statuatory rape would get their addresses made available to the public. This would be a bad thing.

[InsaneApache]

Both my first and second wives were raped as children. One by a realtive, the other by her fathers best freind. I worked for many years to, amongst other things, protect the children left in my care.

I have had contact with these people and believe me they think nothing of raping a child. I am against the death penalty, but if there was ever a case of returning to it they would be the top of my list. The emotional havoc the leave behind is breathtaking. Decades after their wicked ways, they leave a lagacy of despair and depression. They, with their deeds, condemn their victims to a life sentence of shame and guilt. They are evil and wicked beyond redemption. They should be locked away for life.

Then there would be no need for a 'Megans Law' in the UK.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If reforming these monsters, and giving them a 'normal life'-by not telling their neighbors of the very real and horrific threat they pose- works so well, why did they offend in the first place, when they still were 'normal' people who were thought of as normal people by everyone? Why did many do it repeatedly before being caught?

Hari offers no evidence to support his absurd claim that Megan's Law place children in danger. The article is a bunch of his conjuncture from the idea that:
1) Child rapists are decent people deep down,
2) who would not repeat their crimes if they were treated like any normal person by their neighbors
3) and it is isolation from informing the public of the threat they pose that drives them to repeat their crimes.
4) Children are safer when their parents don't know a child molester lives next door.

Each of these is wrong.

He also wants people to be unaware of any danger their children face from child rapists. I fail to see how that protects children. His criminal coddling would only endanger more children. As Redleg said, noone can predict with 100% certainty, so community notification is essential. Would you bet your child on not knowing about nearby sex offenders? Oh, wait, you want to bet other's children.

Hari also says that the "vast majority" are treatable, then says in his next breath that reoffenses- in the time those inmates have been released, has dropped 50%, which still means a heck of a lot of them reoffend.

And his example of British rehabilitation has already been torn through before.

BKS, in Washington, we get mail from the police for sex offenders likely to reoffend on a sheet that shows their picture, general address, and what they were convicted of. And it seems that these people are not ordinary criminals; they are likely to offend after decades in prison.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves

So if we reduced the number of children raped by 10% it would reduce the number of peds by 7%. So if you locked away every ped for life as soon as possible you could potentially drop the number by what 40% (Assume that 80% of the peds are repeat offenders and rape equal to or more children in total after their first jail sentence)... so that would drop the amount raped by 28%. Down to 72%, now this would have an automatic knock on effect to reducing the amount of second generation peds... 28% less children raped would reduce the "70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves" to a ratio of 50:30, a net drop of 20% of the rapists. Rinse and repeat and you can drop the "70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves" down and down.

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

[Redleg]

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

From a personal observation this is correct.

When parents pretend that the molestion did not happen is the worst thing that they can do for the child. Yes, indeed I will always advocate immediate therapy for the child and the family for any molestion event that happens. The child and the family must realize that for the most part they did absolutely no wrong - the fault lies totally with the child molestor.

The child will struggle with the molestion for some time. Anexity is one of the many issues that they will face. This along with fear of the molestor (especially when the individual is a family member) can cause some severe social interaction problems for the child.

From a personal observation if I had the events surrounding my child to be reviewed - instead of advocating immediate theraphy for the family member who coducted the molestion of my child - I should of had him prosecuted to the full extend of the law, but I chose to try to save both the teenage son and the adolensent child. Bad mistake on my part - one that might have severe reprecussions on my younger son as he gets older.

One of the most terrible crimes that an individual can do to another is rape - the worst of them is the child molestors that are out there. Lock them up and throw away the key - the possiblity of their re-visiting the act is to high.

[KafirChobee]

Far to emotional a subject to be debated rationally. It is the most hideous of all crimes. It scrapes the parental nerve of everyone.

The sore thumb of it all is the bit about there being no rehab facilitys, or the lack of them, or even the semblance of caring to. It is an absolute that when person is treated as a pariah they will revert back to what they previously deemed as normal or acceptable (for them) behaviour.

Damning all, versus helping even the salvagable is so much easier. More expensive in the long run - but, easier. By not assisting those willing to go through a strenuous program of rehab we do in fact send a message to those peds amongst us to do as they will for as long as they can - after all, 100 acts is as good as one if it means a life time sentancing anyway.

One thing, however, the lumping of what child molestation is has made the term near meaningless. In California, you don't have to actually touch a child to be charged - attempting to touch them in an offensive manner is an offense. No doubt laws are even worse elsewhere.

Oh, well. Crucify them all - even the 18 yearold for sleeping with a 16 yr old. Seems about right.

[InsaneApache]

Oh, well. Crucify them all - even the 18 yearold for sleeping with a 16 yr old. Seems about right.

Apart from anything else, that isn't pædophilia. Pædophilia is being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children.

In the UK an 18 yo having sexual intercourse with a 16 yo is legal. They can marry and have children.

We have a duty to protect the children.

A 10 year follow-up study on reconviction rates for a sample of paedophiles released from prison in 1980 showed that 36 per cent of paedophiles committed further sexual offences. For serious offences, which included sex or violent offences, the rate of reoffending increased to 45 per cent. This information may appear to be dated but follow-up studies must be for a substantial period of time. Social and legal changes may also affect reconviction rates. A 10 year reconviction study is currently in progress on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but it is too early for results.

source

[doc_bean]

This is a good example of the monkeysphere. Paedophiles are always thought of as monsters, yet when some people get to meet them they realize they are humans and thus can't be all that bad. They are wrong. There are problems with this law, most importantly that it lists people sleepign with their under age (of consent) girlfriend, and I'm not sure if this is any more effective than the police having a file of all paedophiles in the area, but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for the child molestors.

What is clear to me, and other patrons have pointed this out to, is that sentences for paedophiles do not reflect the will of the people. They should be locked up for life, not just out of spite, but to protect children from then.

Is therpay possible ? Maybe. But this isn't some simple disease, for most it's a sexual orientation, you won't get that out of their system, at most you could teach them how to handle their feelings. If you could couple this to some sort of AA like meeting once a week (monitored) then maybe you can seriously lessen the amount of re-offenders.

[English assassin]

Hmm, choosing between paedophiles and howling vigilanties, its like choosing between maggots and slugs isn't it?

The issue is a simple one: with Megan's law in place, have more, or fewer, paedophiles reoffended? We shouldn't have to speculate: that data ought to be available. Although my gut reaction is with JAG and Hari on this one, it does have to be said the article is strong(ish) on anecdotal evidence from parole officers and the like, but notably absent is a plain statement like "In America, before Megans law was passed, 80% of child sex offenders were reconvicted of a sexual offence involving children within five years of release. After Megan's law was passed that percentage rose to 90%"

That data must exist and I am pretty suspicious of why Mr Hari doesn't give it.

[Kralizec]

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

Children who are victims usually get therapy already. What if they do turn out to act on pedophilic urges? I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're inherently evil people, while the majority of those strayed because society failed to protect them in the first place. The childhood of the sex offender should always be taken into account when determining what measures are necessary and just.

I think it would be a good idea in principle to put all sex offenders on permanent parole, that can only be revoked if it is sufficiently probable that they won't reoffend, like teenagers convicted on statuatory rape.

Even if the chance that a pedophile would reoffend is pretty great, he should be given a chance to redeem himself after he has done his time. Parole officers should warn the local police, maybe teachers of local schools, and cooperate to keep a close watch on him. Warning the parents may sound like a good idea, but even looking at the above posts will predict that they'd never be given a chance.

[InsaneApache]

I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're inherently evil people, .

Are you serious?

I don't know if you have any children, or if you have ever met a victim of these poor, misunderstood people. What they do is hand their victims a life sentence. There is no parole for them.

Anyone that wants to have sex with children is not misunderstood or confused, they are evil, vile, wicked manipulative monsters and should never be allowed to walk the streets again.

[doc_bean]

Anyone that HAS sex with children is not misunderstood or confused, they are evil, vile, wicked manipulative monsters and should never be allowed to walk the streets again.

corrected.

[Kralizec]

I should have said:
I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're all inherently evil people

Many of them are irredeemable, even the majority of them are. Some are not and they should not and should be given a chance to redeem themselves after serving their time, and even those I would not call "poor, misunderstood people". Their crime is vile and they should be severely punished, but because the majority of them got messed up because society failed to protect them from abuse in the first place, locking all of them up for life indiscriminately and without looking at the person at hand is not justice.

[InsaneApache]

Sorry I can't agree with that statement. I come from an era where is was thought normal to hit kids. I was forever getting the cane at school, mainly for smoking behind the bogs.

Now according to your train of thought I should be a vicious thug who goes around beating people, because that's what happened to me.

As an aside, I never hit my kids. There are far more effective sanctions at one's disposal, you just have to use your imagination at bit more.

[Kralizec]

So you were traumatized by getting an occasional hit?

Of course not all child victims turn out to be pedophiles. But as said, it's a fact that around 70% of the perpetrators were victims. I talked to my dad a while ago (he's a psychotherapist) and he gave me a similar figure.

[Devastatin Dave]

Boy JAG, you sure do a good job trying to assist these predators to their prey. Amazing.

[rory_20_uk]

Boy JAG, you sure do a good job trying to assist these predators to their prey. Amazing.

Did you even bother to read the article? Name calling is going to make things worse, not better.

Labelling people as "evil" is not helpful.

The person who committed the crime can not be freed from all guilt, but assuming that the 70% were molested themselves it is highly likely that this event has at least partly caused their behaviour.

Kids from "broken homes" seem to be allwed to get away with anything - fighting, robbing, even beating up elderly people as it's not their fault. Why not the same understanding (at least in the first instance) here?

The task should be to find those that can be helped and place them with support in a community where there is little room for temptation - a retirement village for example. I would have said that they are not allowed to travel freely, but that is the price that they pay.

Those that are truely sociopathic monsters should be locked up or shot.

So, yes over the years there might be a downturn in numbers. But to lock up the undesirables to help future people could be argued for entire swathes of people on Council Estates - families who live on benefits - we're better off without them, right?

[Strike For The South]

This is an issue in the west we overthink. We beleive we are so enlightend we can cure anyone and we are dead wrong. Pedapholies are scum and deserve to be treated as such plaini and simple. Its not like the dont now what they are doing. They are masters are there trade seeking out kids they are cold and calculated. So they deserve nothing less to rot in the pit of hell.

[rory_20_uk]

So, nature over nurture. Thanks for simplifying that debate for us!

I take it you speak from a background of Child or adult psycology in this area, and are not just waving your pitchfork going "grrrrr".

I love your use of "they". All one homogenous mass, eh? Same with murderers is it? All same type of person, same motives? Humans reduced down to a one dimensional characature.

Your argument - no, wait - emotional statement would grace the Daily Mail.

[Strike For The South]

Oh youre so caring. Pedapholies are people to. Look at what they do. Look at the reoffender rate. 70% of pedapholies were raped as kids. Lock them up for good and there will be less of them. These people know what they are doing. They are cold maclicous they activley seek out youngins. Its disgusting.

[doc_bean]

This is an issue in the west we overthink

In in most other parts of the world is simply ignored...
We're not handling it that badly really, considering we didn't handle it at all some 50 years or so ago.

The task should be to find those that can be helped and place them with support in a community where there is little room for temptation - a retirement village for example. I would have said that they are not allowed to travel freely, but that is the price that they pay.

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

As I said in another thread, I also support free psychological help for paedophiles who haven't done anything wrong and wish to make sure their desires are kept in check.

So, yes over the years there might be a downturn in numbers. But to lock up the undesirables to help future people could be argued for entire swathes of people on Council Estates - families who live on benefits - we're better off without them, right?

1. poor people don't necessarily harm people
2. pedophiles (would) have to be convicted before they can be locked up (and lets make it clear that they shouldn't be locked up for robbing a boy's hair or having pictures of his naked kids playing in the backyard, I'm talking convicted for serious abuse here)
3. pedophilia is a sexual orientation and therefor not similar to something like stealing, unless (and even that's stretching) you're dealing with a kleptomaniac, but we threat those too don't we ?
4. People who get robbed aren't much more likely to become thieves, people who get abused as a child have a far greater chance of abusing children themselves later in live. Society has a serious long term interest in making sure paedophiles don't cause too much trouble.
5. families living on welfare often do so from generation to generation, so you'd target a certain segment of society. paedophiles are found in all layers of society.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh youre so caring. Pedapholies are people to. Look at what they do. Look at the reoffender rate. 70% of pedapholies were raped as kids. Lock them up for good and there will be less of them. These people know what they are doing. They are cold maclicous they activley seek out youngins. Its disgusting.

Great post...

70% were attacked as children. Therefore they were likely damaged by this.
They know what they are doing: yes, but so do murderers. They get let out and usually have less mitigating circumstance.
"Cold, malicious": pure, splecualtive and subjective. Anything resembling evidence to back that up?

Please, a bit more fact and a bit less sabre rattling and you'll sound less like an ill educated lynch mob.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

They could have normal but restricted lives in these places. Costs would be lower than in a jail for years.

Paedophilia is not really an orientation as it is usually the result of previous trauma. Other orientations are inherent.
My point with the generaional welfare parasites is exactly that they can be targeted, and if they don't breed then they'll be far less of them. I fail to see that being able to target a specific group is a bad thing, especially as their grouping is defined by their action.

[Tachikaze]

It's sad that the people that are being labeled as "sociopathic monsters that should rot in hell" were often once the very children we were trying to protect when they were young from sociopathic monsters that should rot in hell. When they are the victims, we feel for them and are protective of them. When they grow up and carry the burden of emotional trauma to the point of doing the act themselves, they are viewed as subhuman.

One thing we should distinguish is pædophilia from underage sex. Many of my peers and young people I have know of since I was in junior high school were sexually active at 16, 15, even 14 years of age. Their partners were often of about the same age. In most cases, these are just young people who fall in lust or love at a young age. This is not unusual: it has been very common throughout the world for people to marry and begin having children starting at 15.

On the other hand, the rape of a prepubescent child is an act of violence and domination by someone with extreme emotional problems. It is an act of power over the weak and helpless by someone who feels an excessive lack of power in normal relationships.

[doc_bean]

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

They could have normal but restricted lives in these places. Costs would be lower than in a jail for years.

Possibly, I doubt any of our politicians could handle it well. It's been a while since we had even one capable person in office...

My point with the generaional welfare parasites is exactly that they can be targeted, and if they don't breed then they'll be far less of them. I fail to see that being able to target a specific group is a bad thing, especially as their grouping is defined by their action.

Society needs people, the EU is already complaining that there are too few people, I don't see how eliminating them will solve anything. Besides, being born in the lower class isn't always a 'death sentence', lots of people manage to work themselves up and they often bring fresh blood/ideas to the scene. Eliminating them will only lead to another group becoming lower class anyway

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The article makes it pretty clear that releasing the information is a bad idea compared with therapy. It also makes it clear that life in prison for child rapists is a better solution than either. Sure they can't help their desires, but they have to know that they are wrong and show some restraint. Celibacy isn't that hard. If everyone else but me thought it was horribly wrong to have sex with any woman under the age of 95 I wouldn't go around raping 20 year olds.

[rory_20_uk]

If that was the law, I doubt you'd need to rape 20 year old girls... Most people have... needs.

[King Henry V]

The article makes it pretty clear that releasing the information is a bad idea compared with therapy. It also makes it clear that life in prison for child rapists is a better solution than either. Sure they can't help their desires, but they have to know that they are wrong and show some restraint. Celibacy isn't that hard. If everyone else but me thought it was horribly wrong to have sex with any woman under the age of 95 I wouldn't go around raping 20 year olds.

Are you saying that you are certain you would be able to control your urges?

The paedophile-->child-->paedophile cycle is a vicious circle. They way to destroy a vicious circle is to remove one of the components of that circle, i.e paedophiles.