Treatment in this area is complex, controversial.
Excerpts from a USA Today article.
Experts say treatment exists for people who have a history of sexual offenses, but the path to changing behavior is complex and seeped in controversy.
Camille Cooper, vice president of public policy at the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, explains that there is not a “cure” for sex offending because it “is not a disease, it’s criminal behavior,” but that “every sex offender should have access to treatment.”
“As a society, we tend to have … negative feelings about people who do these terrible things to kids, as we should. And because of that I think sometimes we’re short-sighted in terms of what should be provided to try and get them help,” said Whitney Gabriel, a board member with the Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute.
“The risk of harm is greatly reduced when somebody who is at risk has a community, has support,” Coleman says. “When we’re talking about sexual abuse – when somebody feels isolated, when they feel alone… that people just think of them as a bad person – that just kind of fuels the fire.”
“Many people believe that people who commit crimes are not deserving of rehabilitation,” according to the New York chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. However “our best research indicates that person-centered and strengths-based approaches to treatment are the most effective, although it can be counterintuitive to treat someone with respect when he or she has engaged in sexually harmful behavior to a child.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The final sexual assault Shriner committed in May 1989, caused a nationwide public outrage, that has been cited as one of the main catalysts for new laws allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Kenneth_Shriner
“we tend to have … negative feelings about people who do these terrible things to kids, as we should.”
“although it can be counterintuitive to treat someone with respect when he or she has engaged in sexually harmful behavior to a child.”
They need to give a shout out to the cow-eyed, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing american public whose dull fear and hysteria keeps their paychecks flowing, but they also have to insert themselves into the issue, make themselves relevant, pretend that they can make a difference. disgusting disgusting disgusting. Revolting scum humans.
That’s why I say good LUCK wining their hearts and minds, much less their trust.
Once again, claiming that published recidivism rates – virtually unchanged from pre-Megan’s Law days – are worthless due to unreported offenses.
The only reason that they and their supporters claim “treatment” is so effective is because those “treated” were never inclined to re-offend in the first place. Sexual recidivism among registrants are the exception, not the rule, because their offenses were the result of bad judgement, not some underlying mental health disorder. And for those that do have mental health issues, odds are the court-ordered converted substance abuse program (a stupid model to use considering the recidivism of drug offenders) aren’t doing them a lick of good.
Dustin, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think you nailed it.
I think Professor Ellman hit the nail on the head regarding unreported crimes. We know that somewhere in the neighborhood of 93% to 95% of reported child molestations are perpetrated by acquaintances and those not on the registry. There is no logic or data to support the supposition that the ratio would be different for unreported crimes.
I find this to be a very persuasive way to knock down the argument regarding all those unreported crimes. No matter the actual number of unreported crimes there the same small percentage would have been perpetrated by registrants with the overwhelming majority committed by acquaintances and family members who have no prior conviction.
Veritas.
@ Ed C:
I’d like to see Ellman (or anyone else, for that matter) address false accusations in their research. Like under-reported offenses, there’s no way of knowing how often it happens, but it does happen. Ask Brian Banks or the Duke Lacrosse team.
While I’m sure many of the claims against guys like Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky were legitimate, I’m equally sure there was a significant number of “Hey, my son/daughter was in that program. Cha-ching!”
In my opinion, there are three groups of sex offenders.
1) those that view and distribute child pornography,
2) those that physically touch their victim, and
3) those that solicit a minor.
Different crimes, different treatments…
Not on that list, but listed
How about those that piss in public view or those that as a teenager who express their love to another teenager or those or those who thoughts aren’t viewed as normal or whatever is viewed as not-normal, etc? David G, think before you type.