How to conduct a job search with a criminal record

Original Article

04/27/2012

By Debra Auerbach

Seventy-three percent of human resources professionals said their company, or an agency hired by their company, conducted criminal background checks for all job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. That you may undergo a background check upon applying for a job isn’t noteworthy, but for job seekers with a criminal record it can feel like an inevitable uphill battle.

“While persons with a criminal record cannot be discriminated against, they may be prohibited from working in some industries such as health care and financial services,” says Bruce Hurwitz, president and CEO of Hurwitz Strategic Staffing. “Except in rare cases, employers will want to do a background check on the candidate.”

Yet not all hope is lost. Because you know a background check is likely coming, you can take steps to prove to hiring managers that you are an upstanding member of society. Ultimately, employers want to know you have the skills necessary to succeed in the civilian workforce. Here are some ways to do so:

Look into getting your criminal record expunged

Depending on the type of crime committed, it may be possible to get your criminal record expunged, or sealed. While this doesn’t mean your record is erased, it does limit who can access it. Consult a legal professional about your options or visit your state government’s website for more information. The website eHow.com provides additional information on how this can be done.

Know everything about your conviction

Donna Ballman, a Florida-based employment attorney and author of “Stand Up For Yourself Without Getting Fired,” says it’s important to know exactly what you’ve been convicted of and whether the record was expunged. “Lots of people have no idea [about] the actual charges that they were convicted of,” Ballman says. “It makes a difference. If you don’t care enough about your criminal record to explain the details, employers may assume you think committing crimes is OK.”

Explore volunteer opportunities

“If people want to shake the stigma of a questionable past, they need to find at least two civic organizations to volunteer at so they have solid references behind their applications,” says David Perry, co-author of “Guerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters 3.0.” “Six to 18 months of volunteer work — and I do mean sincere volunteer work — will go a long way in getting a usable reference.”

Consider the type of company to which you’re applying

Depending on the type, size or management style of a company, it may or may not conduct a criminal background check or be more lenient in accepting applicants with a criminal past. “Most applications ask whether you have been arrested or convicted of a crime,” says Mary Greenwood, attorney, human resources director and author of “How to Interview Like a Pro.” “Some will say felony so that conviction of a misdemeanor might be allowed.”

John Millikin, clinical professor of management at Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business, adds, “For a convicted felon, it may be better to look for something in small business, where you may have an opportunity to explain what happened directly to the owner.”

Participate in a re-entry program

Programs are available to help job seekers with a criminal record re-enter society and secure employment. One such initiative is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program, a Houston-based nonprofit whose mission is to “stimulate positive life transformation for executives and inmates, uniting them through entrepreneurial passion, education and mentoring.” According to Jeremy Gregg, the organization’s chief development officer, their “entrepreneurship boot camp” connects convicted felons with top executives, MBA students and politicians, and provides education, training and support. This is just one example; search the Web for local organizations that offer similar services.

Be honest

Perhaps the best piece of advice? Be honest. It’s true for all job seekers, whether you’re talking about work history, references or past salaries. It’s especially true for job seekers with a record. “If you fail to disclose a criminal record when asked, and you aren’t allowed to say it didn’t happen — as with an expunction — then the employer can fire you for failing to disclose it, even if you’ve worked there for years with no problems,” Ballman says.

Adds Millikin: “A job seeker with a felony record who has ‘paid his or her debt’ should be transparent about it without having to wear it on his or her sleeve. You should mention it after real interest has been expressed in you but before you get an offer. You should always answer questions about it truthfully, and never act as if you are hiding something, as it is worse to have it exposed in a background check.”

If It Saves One Child

Original Article

07/02/2012

By Shelly Stow

It would be difficult today to find a person who had no idea what the sex offender registry is. It would be equally difficult to find someone with only a passing interest who didn’t feel that it is a good thing to have. It started in most states as a law enforcement tool identifying repeat, sexually violent child predators. It now has an estimated 700,000 names (PDF) on it and encompasses acts as varied as consensual teen sex, taking and sending a photo of one’s own breasts, and rape. And even though many with much more than a passing interest, including most research studies and experts in the field, are pronouncing the shaming roster to be an ineffective tool in fighting sexual crime, the battle cry of its supporters still resounds whenever the subject comes up: “If it saves one child…!”

“If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children.

There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child.

“If it saves one child….” Children themselves are registrants on sex offender registries. Nine years old is apparently the youngest at which children have been put on the registry (Delaware; Michigan). (1) Several states, including but not limited to Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, register children as sexual criminals at ages ten and eleven. By the time twelve is reached, it isn’t even a rarity. And the fifteen year old who is the child victim for having consensual sex with an eighteen year old partner becomes a predator and registered sex offender when his or her partner is fourteen. In Wisconsin last year a district attorney did everything he could, and bragged about it, to have a six year old prosecuted and targeted for sex offender registration for “playing doctor.”(2) Three year olds caught looking at and touching each other in a daycare bathroom were reported and investigated for “sexual fondling.”(3) Some of these children, after several years of being on the registry and treated as monsters, have committed suicide. The registry didn’t save any of these children; it destroyed them.

“If it saves one child….” Children do need saving. According to the Justice Dept. and the CMEC, many thousands are sexually abused and molested every year. We pour everything into the registry, millions of dollars and uncountable hours. State after state has voiced complaints about the cost of keeping up with the ever-increasing expenses and strain on limited manpower hours to satisfy the requirements of the registry. The federal government, knowing this, has offered huge financial incentives (bribes) to states to bring them into federal registry compliance. However, this is futile; the registry is not the answer. Children aren’t sexually abused and molested by nameless, faceless people on the registry. They are abused and molested by their family members and acquaintances, by those they know and trust and love, by those they see and interact with on a daily basis, often by those they live with. By the most conservative estimates, this is true for 94 out of every 100 children who are molested. The latest figures from the Justice Department's Bureau of Juvenile Justice show these startling facts: for sexual crime against a child six or under, 58.7% is committed by family members, 39.7% by family acquaintances, and 1.8% by strangers; the registered sex offenders who are in that stranger pool are so few that it is virtually incalculable. As the age of the child increases, the figures alter, but only a little. The risk to children ages 12-17 is 94.3% from family and acquaintances, 5.7% from strangers, and, again, the percentage of registered offenders in the stranger pool is minuscule. Keeping the focus on those on the registry keeps us from dealing with these facts. It keeps us looking in another direction, and it leaves us nothing in the way of resources with which to deal with it.

“If it saves one child,” isn’t good enough. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, need saving. When and how and with what will we save them?

• MI - Juveniles crowd Mich. sex offender registry
• DE - The Case for Modifying Juvenile Sex Offender Registry Requirements in Delaware (PDF)
• WI - Wisconsin DA says 6 year old is a sex offender for "playing doctor."
• WI - Six Year Old Wisconsin Boy Being Prosecuted For Playing Doctor, With A Five Year Old
• MO - State investigators looking into alleged fondling at pre-school

Shelly Stow is a member of Reform Sex Offender Laws [RSOL] and Texas Voices, the Texas affiliate of National RSOL.

Get info and help

The following was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission.

By M:
Hi Dear,

In the below website there is information of someone who where living with me about two years ago. Now he moved out of because of all hard times he had (just need to mention he was wrongly accused and labeled as sex offender according to a stupid chat for a TV show). I recently searched his name in Google, and find this website which has his information with his old address (my address). He is not living here anymore and I don’t like my address to be published. I am alone female and scare of all unexpected harassment that may accrue because of my address is published. I wanted to request to remove the information from the web site, but the web site requesting money!!!! The interesting part is that in the website they are advertising: there is a limited time for the people who are in their website to be removed without asking any questions of them (by paying money to them of curse). I would like to ask you some help and advice regarding this matter, please. Do you familiar with this website, and their activity? I am wondering how they can make this nasty business? Is this legal as they claim in their website or illegal? Is there anything that I can do regarding this? I will be really appreciated your advice in advance.

Thank You,

The website is: http://www.offendex.com

See Also:

• Why is OFFENDEX getting away with extortion?

Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated

Click the image to read the full article

Meet The People Who Speak Up For Sex Offenders

Shana Rowan

Original Article

06/25/2012

By Anna North

With Jerry Sandusky just convicted of 45 counts of molesting children, it's a pretty terrible time to be on the side of sex offenders. But a small group of offenders' friends and family are advocating for big changes to the sex offender registry — and experts say they might have a point.

For many, Jerry Sandusky's conviction was a call for stricter laws punishing sex offenders. But for Shana Rowan, it was a reminder of everything she thinks is unjust and ineffective about the current laws. Rowan's fiance is a registered sex offender, and she's part of a small but increasingly vocal group arguing that he and others like him should never have been on a public registry at all.

Rowan told BuzzFeed Shift that when her fiance [name withheld] was twelve and his half-sister was six, he touched her inappropriately (she described it as "kind of like a game of doctor," though she acknowledged that the age difference made it more serious). He was convicted of sodomy, and is now a registered sex offender. When they got together, she researched sex offenders and sex crimes. What she found convinced her that [name withheld]'s crime had been a reaction to abuse he had suffered, that he wouldn't reoffend, and that many registered sex offenders were people "who made a mistake and won't do it again." Now she argues publicly, on her blog and elsewhere, that the sex offender registry in America is "far too bloated to be effective," and that law enforcement should develop "smart assessments" to determine "who really needs to be watched."
- I personally think that we don't need a registry at all.  If someone is so dangerous that they need to be monitored, then maybe they should've been sentenced to a longer time in jail/prison after an expert evaluated them and determined they were dangerous.  Once someone comes out of jail/prison, they are suppose to be able to get on with their lives, not be labeled something for life and treated like an animal.  That, in of itself, creates more stress in a persons life, and with more stress, some are more likely to commit another related or unrelated crime in order to survive.  We do NOT need a registry at all, period.  And if people think we do, then we should have one for all felons, so it's fair for all.

She's not alone. While few people are comfortable advocating for the rights of sex offenders, some friends and family members of registered sex offenders have begun to do just that. On their own or in partnership with groups like Texas Voices and the Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network, they argue for a reduction in the size of the public registry, or for making it available only to law enforcement. And some experts say they're actually right that registries may do more harm than good.
- I think, due to the vigilantism that is rising, yes the registry should be taken offline and used by police only, or better yet, use the existing criminal records database already in existence, then we'd not need to waste millions of dollars on something we don't need in the first place.

The stories of sex offender advocates often aren't comfortable to hear, especially in the wake of the Sandusky trial. Lisa, who asked that only her first name be used, told BuzzFeed her 22-year-old son was currently under investigation by the FBI for downloading child pornography and having sex with an underage girl he met online (she said he believed the girl was over 18). She said her son deserves to be punished, but that he shouldn't have to register for life. Stories of vigilante justice had her concerned for his safety, and for her own. When he gets out of prison, he may live with her, and she lives in a small town with "a bunch of good ol' redneck boys" — if her son is on the registry, they'll have her home address and possibly a description of her car. She now regularly emails her senator and other legislators to try to bring her worries to their attention.

Cynthia Mercado, professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in sex offender law and policy, says Lisa's concerns are a real issue: in one survey she conducted, nearly half of sex offenders reported being threatened or harassed. And a third of them said someone they lived with had suffered threats, assault, or property damage. In some cases, registration can also lead to the outing of the victim, especially if that victim is a family member.

Mercado also questions whether registration laws really prevent future crimes. She says there's little data showing they keep people safe, and increasing evidence that they might actually "increase, rather than decrease, the risk that sex offenders pose to our communities." That's because registration can keep sex offenders from finding jobs or housing after they've served their time, both of which are "important factors that promote desistance from crime." She adds that being on a sex offender registry can isolate a person from positive social bonds with family and friends that might keep them from offending again.

Laura (not her real name) has experienced some of these effects firsthand. She told BuzzFeed she was eight months pregnant with her daughter when her husband was arrested for attempting to purchase child pornography. She maintains that he is innocent, but he was convicted and placed on the registry. Now, she said, he can't get a job, and suffers from chronic depression.

Laura said "the worst offenders" do belong on a public registry, but that registration should be decided "on a case-by-case basis." As it is, she said, her husband's name and face are on a school district website, and her daughter has to be careful who she's friends with — of those who make registration policy, she said, "they don't care what the collateral damage is."
- Once again, I disagree.  The worst offenders should be in prison longer, and once they come out, after therapy and rehabilitation, then, like everyone else, they should be allowed to do whatever they wish, after probation and/or parole.  Nobody should be branded and punished for life!  People can and do change.  Putting someone on a public registry is basically putting a target for vigilantes on their heads, and that shouldn't be done to anybody, regardless of their crime.

Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees with her ideas about the registry. Scott Berkowitz, founder of the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) says the public registry is a "useful tool" for both law enforcement and parents. He adds that any loosening of registration requirements "would have its biggest impact on families of small children who look to these registries to help keep them safe."

That's not how Rowan sees it. She says the story of Jerry Sandusky is a perfect example of the failure of the registry. She's glad his victims got "some semblance of justice" with his conviction. But, she says, "the ironic thing is that he was never on the registry, and he will never be on the registry."

Mercado concurs that most sex crimes, rather than being committed by strangers who could be looked up on the registry, "are committed by someone known to the victim or their family" — as Sandusky was. She also notes that not all sex crimes — or sex offenders — are the same: "despite widespread belief to the contrary, most sex offenders do not go on to commit another sex crime." Registry laws, she says, "treat all offenders as highly predatory individuals who target stranger children." But registration requirements that might be appropriate for a predatory serial child molester may not be the right punishment for someone who once committed statutory rape, serious as that offense is.
- Again we see another person saying what the registry's true intent is, PUNISHMENT!

Politically, that may not matter. Richard G. Wright, professor of criminal justice at Bridgewater State College and author of Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions says "hundreds of studies" have shown that "sex offender registries do not reduce reoffending." But they're popular because they "give people the perception that they're safer," and that popularity is unlikely to wane. While perpetrators of some crimes, like sexting or statutory rape where the victim is close in age to the offender, may be removed from registries in some states, he believes the public registry as a whole is here to stay.

For now, sex offenders' rights advocates remain on the fringes of public discourse — Rowan says she faces harsh criticism whenever she speaks out about her views, and both Lisa and Laura have lost friends after their family members' crimes. Indeed, the families of sex offenders may not be the best public advocates for change — in the wake of Dorothy Sandusky's defense of her husband, the average person may not want to hear another wife or mother of a sex offender telling her side. But regardless of whether these spouses and parents have an accurate view of their loved ones' crimes, they may be right about one thing: it's by no means certain that sex offender registries actually keep families safe. And they may put some in more danger.

Scarlet Letter

Original Article

06/22/2012

By Ann Sattley

It’s no secret that I’m against sex offender registries. In fact, it’s one of the more controversial stands I’ve taken.

As a libertarian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically restrict freedom while not actually doing anything to protect anyone.

As a Christian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically assume nobody can change. I obviously believe that people can change through the power of Jesus Christ.

As a regular person with common sense, I already know that most sex crimes occur by someone who knows the victim. I also realize, using my brain, that these registries serve to increase paranoia. Additionally, the crimes listed on the registry may not correspond to what we think they do. We hear legal terms like “criminal sexual conduct” and we have no idea about the corresponding offense. I also know that people have no tolerance for anyone suspected of a sexual crime. They presume guilt because they don’t want to upset the person who is alleging the crime (see Duke lacrosse scandal). I’m not saying that all people on the sex offender registry are innocent. But, I at least reserve the option that some of them are due to our societal perception of sex crimes. And, that’s not all. There are people on the registry who have committed a “crime,” but the definition of crime is too strict (as I often point out). Here’s Lenore Skenazy’s take on the issue:

There are now commercially available mobile phone apps that map out their addresses. Looking at a map with lots of red dots makes people terrified of their neighbourhoods. It also ruins the lives of many of the ‘red dots’ – a lot of whom are no threat to children at all. They may be a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (that’s considered statutory rape), or a guy who was convicted for peeing in public. So what we need is a law that identifies where DANGEROUS people are living, not just anyone who ran afoul of our increasingly draconian — and sometimes ridiculous — sex offender laws. Policy must change, and that begins (once again) with a reality check! (Source)

Instead of our society implying the common sense reasoning that I have detailed above, we continue to get more and more totalitarian about sex offender registries. Today, I found out that Louisiana passed a law mandating that all registered sex offenders have to list their status on social networking websites! Nevermind the fact that the Louisiana sex offender registry is already online. That’s not good enough for us anymore! We need to see these people hanged.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the vast amassing of government for which it stands, one nation, under siege, with indignity and paranoia for all.

Chris Voss talks about Sex Offender Laws

Only the first portion of this video is them discussing the sex offender laws, the rest is about Microsoft Windows and other unrelated stuff.

Age of Consent and Statutory Rape Laws Comparison -- Resource for your Readers

The following was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission.

By Jonny Kintzele:
Afternoon,

My name is Jonny Kintzele, and I work as a student intern at FindTheBest. I wanted to first compliment you on the complete coverage of sex offender news and resources that your blog provides. To have access to all of this in one place is impressive. Anyway, I would like to share with you a new directory of age-of-consent and statutory rape laws by state that I’ve recently completed working on. I think it would be a very informative resource for your readers. I have placed the link within the contact form.

Also, we have a rapidly growing comparison of the top blog sites on the web, and I would love to feature your site in the directory for free. FindTheBest generates over 7 million unique visitors per month, and if you’re interested I can share some of that traffic with you as well.

Thanks

Marshals catch predators in their own ’Net

Original Article

05/25/2012

By O’Ryan Johnson

The Internet has become notorious as a foul playground for child predators, but a top federal sex offender expert said the Web is now an effective if “horrible” tool for law enforcement, helping cops catch suspects who might have once gone undetected.

“There is no doubt that the Internet has facilitated our ability to detect and apprehend sex offenders,” said Michael L. Bourke, chief psychologist of the behavioral analysis unit of the U.S. Marshals Service. “It’s allowed men who believe their actions are anonymous to access material that feeds their fantasies, to engage in chats with like-minded individuals or children, and all these lead to the facilitation of additional crime,” he said. “The Internet has been a tool that helps these men carry out their crime.”
- If a person hasn't been charged with a crime yet, then they are not exactly a "sex offender!"

Sexual violence against children goes unreported by the victim in 84 percent of the cases, making it a difficult crime to prosecute. But predators who view child pornography online leave trails that can help authorities make arrests.

“This allows us to apprehend, through a different medium, actually undetected child molesters,” Bourke said. “It’s a horrible tool in the sense that this material is out there and children are exploited on a daily basis to produce the material, but from a law enforcement context, in an interesting way it’s allowing us to apprehend undetected, hands-on offenders, undetected child molesters.”

Bourke said in 1999, when Internet use was less widespread, there were 3,400 sex offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. “Now there’s 18,000,” he said.

The Marshals Service is responsible under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act for tracking down sex offenders who are unregistered or have violated the terms of their registration. Bourke profiles predators, outlining interrogation techniques and giving marshals a glimpse into their thinking. He co-authored an award-winning study based on 155 sex offenders serving time in North Carolina that revealed 85 percent of the men arrested for possession of child pornography had also victimized a child.
- I personally think, if you want a more accurate representation, you need to check more than 155 sex offenders.

CA - National study tracks number of people falsely convicted of crime

Original Article

I would like to see the study, but the reporter doesn't provide any link to it, so we can only assume what she is saying is true, and I don't like to take anyone's word for it. I can only assume this is the study (PDF) that they are referring to.

05/21/2012

By Tracey Kaplan

A new national report on the number of people falsely convicted of a serious crime reveals a baffling statistic about the Bay Area -- 10 people have been exonerated in Santa Clara County since 1989, while none have in Alameda County.

Does that mean Alameda County, with a higher crime rate, has never thrown the wrong person in prison, or at least hasn't admitted it?

Probably not, according to the report released Sunday by the National Registry of Exonerations. The authors, who teach at Midwestern law schools, say the registry is a work in progress, and they're asking the public to report any unlisted exonerations via an interactive database.

"One of the reasons we set up this registry is to beat the bushes for cases," said Samuel Gross, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and editor of the registry.

Even so, the study already has found that since 2000, exonerations have averaged 52 a year nationwide -- one a week.

The study defines an exoneration as when a defendant who was convicted of a crime was later relieved of all legal consequences of that conviction through a decision by a prosecutor, a governor or a court after new evidence of innocence was discovered.

David Angel, director of the conviction integrity unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, said it's useful to look at the big picture the registry has begun to outline.

So far, the registry lists more than 885 cases since 1989, when the first exoneration using DNA evidence occurred. DNA helped resolve 40 percent of the cases in the study.

At least 1,170 other convicted defendants were cleared in 13 "group exonerations" after scandals in Los Angeles and elsewhere revealed police had deliberately framed innocent people, mostly for drug and gun crimes.

"This study confirms that the overwhelming number of convictions are accurate and just -- but they are not always," Angel said of the study, which notes that 2.3 million people are in prison in the United States. "We all know there are problems with the system, so if you want to improve it, you need good information."

To boost the reliability of eyewitness identifications -- a major cause of wrongful convictions -- every police department in Santa Clara County recently started videotaping or recording most witnesses as they pick out a suspect from photos or a live lineup.

Gross said he believes more exonerations have come to light in Santa Clara County than in Alameda County and the rest of the Bay Area for two main reasons: the presence of the Northern California Innocence Project (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) at Santa Clara University's law school and a vigilant press that has exposed overzealous prosecution and misconduct.

San Mateo, Contra Costa and Monterey counties each had one case. Twenty have turned up so far in Los Angeles County. Kern County, with 20 exonerations, is a special case, Gross said. From 1984 through 1986, at least 30 defendants were convicted of child sex abuse and related charges and sentenced to long prison terms in a series of interrelated cases. In most of these exonerations, the children who had testified that they had been abused recanted their stories.

Several factors contributed to false convictions in homicides, rapes, robberies and other crimes, including perjury or false accusation (51 percent), mistaken eyewitness identification (43 percent), official misconduct (42 percent), false or misleading forensic evidence (24 percent) and false confession (16 percent).

The numbers add up to more than 100 percent because multiple factors are frequently involved.

Defense lawyers also were clearly at fault in at least 104 cases, the study found. But the authors believe many more of the exonerated defendants would not have been convicted in the first place if their lawyers had done good work.

Gerald Uelmen, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at the Santa Clara University School of Law, said the report shows little progress has been made since he was executive director of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which examined ways to guard against wrongful convictions.

"The bottom line is we are not doing much better in protecting the innocent," he said, "despite all the evidence uncovered in the past 10 years of wrongful convictions."

Chelsea Schilling violates Facebook TOS to pretend to be a pedophile

This just shows that vigilantes are probably the ones creating all the "pedophile" web sites and profiles. Pretending to be someone and using an alias is against Facebook's TOS. If pedophiles are truly doing this, then people like this lady are hampering police investigations by potentially scaring off people, so they are not preventing child abuse but helping it.

Video Link

Not Every Schoolboy’s Fantasy

Gabriela Compton

Original Article

05/16/2012

By Emily Bazelon

Arizona teacher Gabriela Compton sexually abused two teenage boys. Why did she get off with a slap on the wrist?

When male teachers sext or have sex with their students, nobody laughs. When female teachers do this, the titters don’t stop. Fictional examples: Skins, Big Love, and many more. Real-life example: this wink-wink blog post about Gabriela Compton, a 21-year-old (former) middle-school teacher’s aide in Phoenix, Ariz. Compton sent a 14-year-old boy at her school a picture of herself topless. He sexted back a photo of a penis he’d found on the Internet. A few sexts later, Compton found herself accused of having sex with the boy in the back of her van. A 13-year-old went to the police and said he’d sexted with Compton, too, and she reportedly admitted to that and the sex, too. She was charged with three counts of sexual abuse, three counts of sexual abuse with a minor, and one other related count. Altogether the charges carried a maximum sentence of 39 years in prison. In March, she pled guilty to the sexual abuse counts—and got a sentence of lifetime probation. She’ll have to register as a sex offender, but she won’t go to prison.

As law professor and sentencing guru Doug Berman points out, it is not really possible to imagine a male teacher getting off so lightly for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. Is Compton’s light sentence typical? Can it be justified?

The answer to the first question is mostly no: Compton’s wrist slap is in important ways an outlier. My colleague Will Saletan has been here before me. A teacher named Beth Geisel pled guilty to molesting a student in 2006, prompting CNN’s Nancy Grace to ask: “Why is it, when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail, which I’m all for, by the way, but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?” Saletan pointed out a 1991 study that found little difference in the likelihood that male and female sex offenders would go to prison. And he updated the numbers with his own informal survey of 37 inmates who’d recently been sentenced. What was different was how long they would remain incarcerated: Will found that the men were in prison for an average of 11 years, while the women were there for less than two. But the women were also far less likely to have molested multiple children or to have molested kids under the age of 16. That is where Compton is in unusual and unfortunate territory. Since she was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old and sexting him and a 13-year-old, she’s not a Notes on a Scandal gal having sex with an older teen. She was doing something ickier.

Is her sentence of probation nonetheless justified because women molesting boys is just different than men molesting girls? There are salient differences between men and women when it comes to sex offenses. For starters, men are far more likely to commit sexual assault than women are, accounting for 96 percent of the total (PDF). They are also rearrested much more frequently.

The women who perpetrate this misconduct not surprisingly have serious problems. Like the men, they have poor coping skills and trouble showing empathy. This report (PDF) by the Center for Sex Offender Management breaks female sex offenders into three types, based on clinical observations. The first group were coerced by men into abusing children, even their own. The second were themselves victims of incest or other sexual abuse—this kind of history is far more likely for women sex offenders than for men, and the women in this category also tend to victimize young children in their own families. The third type, labeled “teacher/lover,” sounds more like Gabriela Compton. They were “often struggling with peer relationships, seemed to regress and perceive themselves as having romantic or sexually mentoring ‘relationships’ with under-aged adolescent victims of their sexual preference, and, therefore, did not consider their acts to be criminal in nature.”

All the joking assumes that 13- and 14-year-old boys just want to have sex, but the law provides that it is in fact criminal behavior for an adult, male or female. Saletan has written about how the age of consent varies by time and place. The research on the cognitive ability and psychosocial maturity of teenagers shows (not surprisingly) that both tend to rise as they get older. Did the student who sent Compton Internet photos of a penis understand what he was getting into? What about the 13-year-old who went to the cops—does that suggest that something was off here, and that it makes sense to view the pairing of a young teenager and an adult as a crime, no matter who is which gender?

I’d rather the law err on the side of caution and uniformity here. And I can’t really get my mind around probation for a woman who was facing nearly four decades in prison, even if it is probation for life that includes sex-offender registration. Thirteen-year-old boys should be shielded from predatory adults the same way girls are. If they don’t think they want the shield, well, maybe they don’t know what’s good for them.

Sexual Futurist - Romeo & Juliet Laws

Video Link

Terry Brown Interview with FOX

You will notice in the video they show "40% of offenders re-offend," which is a lie and doesn't jive with true statistics, which puts the recidivism rate around 3.5% to 5.3%, and you can find many more studies at the bottom of this post.

Video Link

The Kidnapping Hysteria

Original Article

05/09/2012

By John Stossel

If you have kids, you are probably worried about them being kidnapped. Your kids are probably worried about it, too. How could they not be after seeing all the publicity about abducted children?

In television public-service announcements the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children warns, "Every day 2,000 children are reported missing." Center president Ernie Allen told me, "Our goal is to reach into every home and to generate that key lead that leads to the recovery of a child. We need to send a message to the American public that this is serious."

That's a noble goal, but there is a downside. Kids tell me that all the talk on television about kidnapping worries them. Dozens of 7-to-12-year-olds I interviewed for "20/20" said abduction was their biggest fear. One little boy said he worries every night "because I'm asleep and I don't know what's gonna happen."

Scaring kids might be justified if abductions were common. But the media make the problem look far bigger than it is. The stereotypical kidnapping, where a child is abducted by a stranger and murdered, ransomed, or kept for a significant period of time, rarely happens. In fact, there are only 100 or so such cases every year.

Those abductions are tragic, but kids are more likely to be caught up in a tornado. Maybe we should have warnings about that, with lots of pictures to put everyone on edge.

The Center for Missing Children is a piece of the Fear Industrial Complex. It raises money by scaring us.

Businesses also profit from our fear. Brinks Security pushes apprehension about child abduction in commercials for home security systems. One terrifying ad is reminiscent of classic horror movies.

And we in the media profit from fear.

"For the media, child kidnapping is a gold mine," says David Glassner, author of the Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. "It can go on for weeks. It's not a one-shot thing. The child is still gone, you can keep following it. Is there a new lead? Then finally, if they're discovered, that's the grand finale."

Nancy Grace has become a CNN superstar by featuring grisly crimes including child kidnappings, complete with an upbeat soundtrack. And NBC's "To Catch a Predator" has become a call to arms for parents by making it seem as if nearly everyone online is out to sexually solicit your kids.

The media have parents scared stiff, says Dan McGinn, who runs focus groups. Some parents won't let their kids out of their sight.

"When they talk about their kids and the risk of kidnapping, the numbers become irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids in the United States or 10,000. They really believe 'it's my child and I could minimize that risk,'" McGinn told us.

During a focus group McGinn assembled for "20/20," parents said things like, "I won't let [my son] go to the restroom by himself" and "I do not let [my kids] go out by themselves in the yard, not even the front yard."

All this worry can't be good for our kids. One child told me, "Anyone could just grab me at any time. A lot more kids are getting kidnapped."

But more kids are not getting kidnapped.

Ernie Allen concedes the point. "The numbers of non-family abductions have been remarkably constant over the years."

But if that's true, isn't his organization needlessly scaring parents and children to death?

"We're trying very hard not to scare people."

But a child is much more likely to be hurt running into the street than kidnapped by a stranger.

"We don't want you to feel like you have to lock your child into a room and never let them out of your sight, " Allen says.

But his message certainly encourages people to do that.

That's a shame. Kids would benefit from being allowed to play in the yard or walk to school by themselves. They should be more vigilant about reckless drivers than potential kidnappers. They would learn to worry about the real risks.

Next week: what we should and shouldn't worry about.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong." To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Penn and Teller - Teen Sex

WARNING: ADULT LANGUAGE, DISCRETION ADVISED!


Video Link | See Also: Stranger Danger