« Major Ohio sentencing and prison reforms close to becoming reality | Main | "The Criminal Class Action" »
May 5, 2011
Sex offender arrested for not telling authorities he was moving out of dumpster
This local story out of Albuquerque, headlined "Homeless man jailed for moving from dumpster," spotlights some of the sad realities that modern laws and practices present for sex offenders:
Charles Mader listed his address as a dumpster at 8th and Central in Albuquerque. As a convicted sex offender he must give the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department a physical address where he stays, so detectives can keep track of him. Mader is convicted of trying to rape a six year old boy.
Mader lists the dumpster because he is homeless, but BCSO detectives say Mader moved from the dumpster and didn't report the move within ten days. That violates his sex offender registration requirements. Mader also must re-register with BSCO every 90 days. Detectives say he failed to do that, too.
On Monday, five deputies hunted for Mader and found him at a homeless facility north of downtown. Detectives on the scene were frustrated with Mader saying they have told him over and over again to register.... Sheriff's officials say Mader now could face up to 3 years in jail because this is his third offense for failing to register.
KOB Eyewitness News 4 is told Mader moved from the dumpster to an abandoned building across the street from where deputies arrested him.
May 5, 2011 at 09:13 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e8841c377970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sex offender arrested for not telling authorities he was moving out of dumpster:
Comments
BTW, we had an important SO registration case come down yesterday in TX. The state can no longer impose sex offender restrictions (in Texas parlance, "Special Condition X") on offenders who weren't convicted of sex crimes without an evidentiary hearing. Affects about 6,900 people.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | May 5, 2011 9:28:38 AM
Is there any commenter who could give some information as to why a person would find himself unable to resist raping a six year-old?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 10:51:32 AM
For Bill Otis: I once represnented a man who broke into some stores to steal toys that were for kids younger than himself. He got probation. A few months lster, he gave a family a ride to the grocery store. He stayed in the car with their 4-year-old boy, while the parents did there shopping. They came out to find him molesting the kid. He told the probation officer doing the pre-sentence report for the new sex case that adult women didn't turn him on, that young girls didn't turn him on, but that he was really strongly attracted to young boys. He got the maximum sentnece for the probation violation on the B&E, and a within-guidelines or above-guidelines sentence on the sex case. It isn't common, but some people are attracted to kids instead of adults of the opposite gender. You'd need a shrink to give a better explanation of why that is so.
Posted by: Greg Jones | May 5, 2011 11:15:04 AM
Bill,
Dontcha know she was just asking for it? Dressed up so sexy and all. How can you expect any man to resist that?
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | May 5, 2011 11:23:05 AM
Greg Jones --
Thank you.
Soronel --
I don't get it; as Greg Jones says, I think we'd need a shrink to explain it.
We all understand sexual attraction. And every now and again you hear of some pretty weird ones, like being attracted to feet or socks or something. But what I don't understand the least little bit is the inability -- if it actually is inability, which I doubt -- to resist taking what you want by force.
Men with perfectly normal sexual appetites want beautiful women, but almost all of them refrain from rape. When a person rapes a six year-old, I have to think that it's less a function of desire, however strange, than of the very traditional strongarm theory that you can just overpower a much weaker person.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 11:34:13 AM
that is true bill. BUT it doesn't excuse the govt's CONTINUAL VIOLATION of the u.s constution and the u.s supreme courts own rulings on what is a LEAGL Registry System.
Posted by: rodsmith | May 5, 2011 11:51:26 AM
Now icky pervs are living in dumpsters? I can see the television news report now: "[omnious music plays as video of a child taking out the trash] Is it Safe for your Kids to Take out the Trash? Shocking news that you won't believe about where sex offenders are now lurking"
On a more serious note, go to the New Mexico Sex Offender REgistry and look this icky perv up - I love how they have a link to Google Maps for the permanent address of "Homeless, Alburquerque, New Mexico" - his "part time address" (guess where the dumpster is located, although it doesn't say "Dumpster" as the adress) appears to be in a downtown park (cue ominous music) "SEX OFFENDERS HIDING IN PARK DUMPSTERS"
ginny :)
Posted by: virginia | May 5, 2011 12:04:47 PM
From a former psychology student: Sexuality is not a one-or-the-other proposition. The spectrum of what people are attracted to is immense and unpredictable and there is evidence of both genetic (set at conception) and behavioral (generated/reinforced through behavior) origins. Psychologists are still trying to find a common aspect for any one particular paraphilia, let alone every variation. Attraction to children is actually one of the more common paraphilias (low double digit percentages) among men.
As to why he found it irresistible, the sex drive is one of the basic mental drives, like eating, breathing, and surviving. Resisting your primary sexual urges would be harder than resisting the urge to eat or breath, which is why people often do stupid things when sex is involved. Similarly, addictions stimulate the same pleasure areas of the brain as sex, which is what makes them so difficult to break.
Posted by: NickS | May 5, 2011 5:53:19 PM
NickS --
Yes, well, some gay men are strongly attracted to 17 year-old straight boys. But you very seldom hear of 17 year-old straight boys being homosexually raped (at least if they haven't been drugged).
The reason is that, if you're 17, you can fight back. If you're 6, you can't. That's the real story behind Mr. Mader's housing difficulties.
Society is perfectly justified in demanding that, no matter what Mader really, really wants, he have sex only with people who consent. This does not include first graders. If he can't do that, it's just hard for me to work up a lot of sympathy for the guy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 6:16:38 PM
Showing sympathy for this person is not the issue. Not differentiating between those individuals who may only view CP and those charged with hands on contact or production of the material is the issue. Where is the balance in sentencing when dealing with the wide ranges of these cases. That's what needs to be evaluated through rational thought and not politically motivated reactionaries.
Posted by: james | May 5, 2011 6:56:25 PM
Crime and Consequences gets no traffic (can anyone guess why?) so Bill Otis tries to control this blog.
Posted by: Guest | May 5, 2011 7:05:03 PM
The specifics of Mader's offense and the root of his sexual deviance are not at issue here; we could still be having this very same conversation if he was an 18 year old male who had had a consensual sexual encounter with his underage girlfriend, as both offenses require registration as a Sexual Offender.
As Doug mentioned: "This local....spotlights some of the sad realities that modern laws and practices present for sex offenders." To me, that means the real issues for discussion here are:
a) he failed to report his new address for the third; -- tsk tsk, but is jail time really necessary? Why not send him to counseling and/or a half-way house where they might able to help him get his life in order?
b) is he living in a dumpster because of ridiculous "feel-good" residency restrictions,
and/or
c) is he living in a dumpster because he can't find a job to afford to rent because no one wants to hire a sex offender?
But, unfortunately there are others here who apparently have decided to make this an issue about what he did, (read: he's a big, bad, evil sex offender pervert who doesn't deserve even a modicum of dignity, because, ya know, he's not a human being) which, while ignorant, would have been more appropriate when he actually committed the crime.
That's the problem with our society these days. Yes, people who commit sexual offenses should be punished for their crimes, just as all other criminals should. But when does it end?
Posted by: centrist | May 5, 2011 8:02:41 PM
"Crime and Consequences gets no traffic (can anyone guess why?) so Bill Otis tries to control this blog."
C&C gets fewer comments because CJLF designed the site with that in mind. Your comment is an example of why.
As to whether it gets less traffic, I'm sure you'll show us the figures.
P.S. If you have a substantive legal argument as to why this child molestor is being treated unfairly, feel free.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 8:08:15 PM
Oh my goodness. I'm embarrassed at the amount of errors in my previous post, so I am going to repost it with the corrections (hopefully!) :)
-----
The specifics of Mader's offense and the root of his sexual deviance are not at issue here; we could still be having this very same conversation if he was an 18 year old male who had had a consensual sexual encounter with his underage girlfriend, as both offenses require registration as a Sexual Offender.
As Doug mentioned: "This local story....spotlights some of the sad realities that modern laws and practices present for sex offenders."
To me, that means the real issues for discussion here are:
a) he failed to report his new address for the third time; -- tsk tsk, but is jail time really necessary? Why not send him to counseling and/or a half-way house where they might able to help him get his life in order?
b) is he living in a dumpster because of ridiculous "feel-good" residency restrictions,
and/or
c) is he living in a dumpster because he can't find a job to afford to rent because no one wants to hire a sex offender?
But, unfortunately there are others here who apparently have decided to make this an issue about what he did, (read: he's a big, bad, evil sex offender pervert who doesn't deserve even a modicum of dignity, because, ya know, he's not a human being) which, while ignorant, would have been more appropriate when he actually committed the crime.
That's the problem with our society these days. Yes, people who commit sexual offenses should be punished for their crimes, just as all other criminals should. But when does it end?
Posted by: centrist | May 5, 2011 8:09:13 PM
james --
"Showing sympathy for this person is not the issue. Not differentiating between those individuals who may only view CP and those charged with hands on contact or production of the material is the issue."
No it isn't. The case takes root in the attempted rape of a 6 year-old. It has nothing to do with CP or the penalties for CP.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 8:19:22 PM
Bill --
"The case takes root in the attempted rape of a 6 year-old. It has nothing to do with CP or the penalties for CP."
Incorrect. In fact, it has everything to do with the penalties for CP, just as it does for attempted rape, just as it does for Romeo & Juliet cases, just as it does for indecent exposure, just as it does public lewdness... need I go on and on and on and on....?
Just because you are hung up on the specifics of his original offense does not mean that THAT is the issue at hand here. Mader has served his sentence, as is evident by the fact that he is no longer in jail. The issues here are the ever-increasing, oppressive restrictions that force people who have served their time, (again, evidenced by the fact that he is not in jail) into homelessness.
Posted by: centrist | May 5, 2011 9:05:04 PM
"Schematization of the Dominant Beliefs in Germany About ___, The Mentally Ill, and Slavs", from Hitler's Willing Executioners, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Source of Their Character
1. ___: race/biology
2. Mentally ill: biology
3. Slavs: race/biology
Essential Quality
1 ___: evil/threat
2. Mentally ill: disease
3. Slavs: inferiority
Degree of Perniciousness and Danger
1. ___: incalculable and extreme
2. Mentally ill: chronic, festering, and somewhat debilitating
3. Slavs: potentially great, yet manageable
Attribution of Motivation and Responsibility
1. ___: want to destroy Germany, and are responsible for their own malignancy
2. Mentally ill: unfortunate victims, no malignant motives, no responsibility for their condition or for the threat that they pose to the biological health of Germany
3. Slavs: no malignant intention, and no responsibility for their inferior condition
Metaphorical and Logical Implication
1. ___: "eliminate," permanently only by killing
2. Mentally ill: eradicate or quarantine
3. Slavs" "helotize" (meaning "subjugate" and decimate to whatever extent is utilitarian)
Institutional Support for Images
1. ___: state - intense and continuous barrage; Church - support for the beliefs, no counter-image offered; schools - similar to state; army - no different
2. Mentally ill: state - less direct, continuous, and intense dissemination of biological notions, and no prohibition of counter-images; Church - direct opposition to Nazi ideas on this matter; schools - tended to support these notions; army - silent on the issue
3. Slavs: state - consistent dissemination of beliefs about the "subhumanity," though lacking the intensity, the vituperation, and the virulence of these about the ___; Church - relative silence on the matter, continued preaching of universal morality (with the exclusion of ____), and considered Slavs as Christians; schools - similar to state; army - tended to concur with the state, but with dissenting opinions in all ranks
Degree of Penetration of Beliefs
(Two dimensions: breadth/depth)
1. ___: near universal/deep
2. Mentally ill: restricted to certain groups/among them deep
3. Slavs: widespread/more variation, generally less deeply rooted than ___.
Aesthetic Reaction
1. ___: offended sense of order and goodness
2. Mentally ill: offended sense of order, but not goodness
3. Slavs: offended neither if kept in the proper place, since they were useful beasts; they were not a moral blight
Ethical Attitude
1. ___: as non-humans, beyond moral law
2. Mentally ill: mixed - suspension of traditional morality of the sanctity of human life, but to be treated without cruelty and unnecessary suffering
3. Slavs: inconsistent (and often violated) application of watered-down traditional morality
Interaction of Beliefs, Tradition Morality, and Degree of Penetration into Society
1. ___: no role for traditional morality; nature of ___ invalidates their application; beliefs about ___ were so widespread that this was almost universally accepted
2. Mentally ill: biological metaphor was not so widespread, so traditional morality influenced many; also the mentally ill, unlike the ___, were not seen as morally culpable
3. Slavs" beliefs about their inferiority were widespread, though traditional morality could still influence people's actions, yet often weakly; beliefs about Slavs were not as central as those about ___, so the "problems" that they posed were not seen to be urgent.
Result
1. ___: genocide; opposed by a small minority, usually on ethical or aesthetic grounds (because of the application of "outmoded" and "inapplicable" traditional morality); no trouble finding willing and dedicated killers
2. Mentally ill: "euthanasia" program formally halted because of vigorous opposition; able to find a dedicated group of ideologically attuned medial personal to staff the killing program
3. Slavs: inconsistent policy with all sorts of major exception; absence of genocidal killing, but brutal slaying of all opposition; killers much less likely to be enthusiastic about their job; policy considerations (alliances) able to mold German image of particular Slavic group, because of the comparative shallowness of beliefs and also because the Slaves were deemed to be fundamentally not dangerous (as long as they were kept in check) and to be without malignant intentions; intended to be a massive reservoir of slave labor; millions already so employed
Posted by: Doh | May 5, 2011 9:24:13 PM
centrist --
"In fact, it has everything to do with the penalties for CP, just as it does for attempted rape, just as it does for Romeo & Juliet cases, just as it does for indecent exposure, just as it does public lewdness... need I go on and on and on and on....?"
I can see why you want to avoid the only offense this guy committed, and to pretend that sex offenses are really all just Romeo and Juliet. But they aren't and you know it. There is considerable variation, and the nature and justifiablility of post-jail conditions depend on what we're dealing with. Here, we're dealing with one of the worst and most dangerous -- attempted child rape.
"Mader has served his sentence, as is evident by the fact that he is no longer in jail."
Not even you believe that. Supervised release, for example, is a standard part of sentencing, and it imposes significantly limiting conditions well past service of a jail sentence.
It is one thing to make an argument against registries and residency requirements for Romeo and Juliet or for some guy sitting at home looking at a lewd magazine. It is another to make the same argument for attempted child rapists. But that's what we have here. Facts count.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 5, 2011 10:22:44 PM
horse shit bill!
what it all boils down to is the state is enfocing an ILLEGAL registry scheme after that NOTHING else matters.
The very fact he's being hounding into homeless and jail because of an ILLEGAL law is all that matters!
since the last time i looked the only REAL u.s supreme court decison on it said the ONLY registry that was legal did not REQUIRE
inperson visits
living restrictions
working restrictions
being rebooked every 90 days.....
Posted by: rodsmith | May 6, 2011 12:03:32 AM
The world would be a much better place to live in if it were not for the thinking of people like Bill Otis and...Ginny :)!!!!!!
This man needs a support system, a job, and a decent place to live!! Stop the damn HATE.
He has paid for his crime and now it's over! Let the sex offenders who have completed all their requirements AND PUNISHMENT alone. If you help a sex offender feel as if they are part of society again, it is going to reduce the chances of recidivism. It's not that hard to figure out. Acceptance (and forgiveness) is the TOOL we as a society have been looking for to keep our communities safe. Not Hate!! Not pushing people away!!
Posted by: Book38 | May 6, 2011 2:10:28 AM
Book38 said: "He has paid for his crime and now it's over! Let the sex offenders who have completed all their requirements AND PUNISHMENT alone."
This individual obviously had not completed all of the requirements, as he was required to register as a sex offender and report if his residence had changed.
"If you help a sex offender feel as if they are part of society again, it is going to reduce the chances of recidivism."
Perhaps. But a VERY minor improvement in the recidivism rate comes with MAJOR risk. The question then becomes, who takes that risk? Do you want the individual in question in your neighborhood, sitting 8 hours per day at the bus stop overlooking where your children/grandchildren play in the yard? I do not. Will you invite your new neighbor for dinner, to pool parties with your kids, use as a babysitter? Probably not, because our instincts as parents are MUCH stronger than some utopian ideal (fantasy?) of sexual predators being successfully integrated into society. Some crimes by their nature permanently remove the individual from being an accepted member of civilized society. This crime is one of them.
"It's not that hard to figure out. Acceptance (and forgiveness) is the TOOL we as a society have been looking for to keep our communities safe. Not Hate!! Not pushing people away!!""
A great sentiment, but not something even you probably really believe in. Again, I doubt that your version of "acceptance and forgiveness" includes assimilating Charles Mader and those like him into your household and trusting him with YOUR family. Hey, he needs a place to live, right, and you would not want to be seen as "pushing him away?"
All that said, I feel we should do away with the registry. I worked with these people directly for 10 years as a prison teacher, saw how many of them received "Baby Gap" catalogues, and laughed behind the backs of hard-working sex offender counselors who did all in their power to treat them. One almost made me lose my lunch when he told me that he was actively pursuing becoming a mortician when he was released. No person that would attempt raping a 6 year old should ever see the light of day again, making the registry obsolete.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 6, 2011 12:28:40 PM
As I said previously, it's the disparity in sentencing (i.e. viewing or doing) that is the problem. That and the mandatory registry of all individuals convicted of these crimes with no allowances taken for the level of the charges being taken into account. Why are prosecutors driving the issues and resulting penalties, what's the purpose of judges. These decisions also have lifetime ramifications on those accused of basically victimless crimes. Sorry but viewing online is not and should not be punishable and treated at the same standards as those taken against the producers of this material. The states have realized that but the feds are still in the stone age and have no clue as to the power of the internet. The argument that tougher sentences will reduce the viewing of this material is the same argument they've taken for illegal drugs. After so many years and wasted taxpayer dollars where has that gotten us? Increased prison populations and a constant financial drain on our economy but it has provided a lucrative funding stream for our prison system, law enforment and of course the wonderfully balance judicial system we have in place today.
Posted by: james | May 6, 2011 1:17:25 PM
James stated: "As I said previously, it's the disparity in sentencing (i.e. viewing or doing) that is the problem. That and the mandatory registry of all individuals convicted of these crimes with no allowances taken for the level of the charges being taken into account."
I would love to see statistics on this alleged "disparity" along with your added comments regarding what those "viewing" shoud get compared to "doing."
Your problem is trying to separate the "viewing" from "doing", just like drug legalizers attempt to separate the property crimes drug users commit to gain access to drugs from the drug use itself. Viewers are many times more likely to become "doers" just like drug users are much more likley to beat granny over the head for her SS check.
" These decisions also have lifetime ramifications on those accused of basically victimless crimes."
Wow. The above statement is almost unbelievable. Most online child porn comes (at least originally) from for profit websites. If the dirtbags that would purchase this material are incapacitated from doing so, there are less profits, fewer websites providing this garbage, and fewer child "victims." Yes, these kids are victims and your so-called "viewers" are victimizing these kids.
"The states have realized that but the feds are still in the stone age and have no clue as to the power of the internet."
Ah, yes, let's blame an inanimate global computer network and its "power" for those who cannot sit at the computer with their pants zipped up. The next logical step is to blame the six year old girl for wearing a revealing tank top.
"The argument that tougher sentences will reduce the viewing of this material is the same argument they've taken for illegal drugs."
Putting drug users in prison does NOT prevent them from using drugs and committing related crimes?
"After so many years and wasted taxpayer dollars where has that gotten us? Increased prison populations and a constant financial drain on our economy but it has provided a lucrative funding stream for our prison system, law enforment and of course the wonderfully balance judicial system we have in place today."
The above is a series of conclusions with no argument. You unilaterally decided that the money spent is "wasted", that increased prison populations are a bad thing, that the prisons are a financial drain on the economy without even mentioning the mitigating financial benefits of not having these people in the community committing other crimes, and that our judicial system is less than adequate.
Guess what? Some of us may not agree with any of them.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 6, 2011 2:04:37 PM
TarlsQtr --
Always good to hear from you. I've been the Fascist Pig in Residence for a while. This is hard work! But some of the liberals -- and I use that word advisedly -- are trying to give me a break by getting me banned. These are the same people whose grandparents fought off McCarthy. They express their gratitude, not to mention their broad-mindedness, by proposing the Internet version of book burning.
Far out.
It's quite a crew. Stay tuned for a while and you'll see.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 6, 2011 3:30:00 PM
It's great to see you old friend. Of all people, you should know that the liberal definition of "tolerance" is to accept and respect all views that agree with theirs. They just hate it when a conservative crashes their mutual appreciation society. :-)
As history has long told us (well, history not told in the public schools by progressives), liberals have had a much closer relationship with fascism than conservatives. After all, Nazi stood for National Socialist, not National Capitalist.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 6, 2011 4:11:31 PM
There you go again Otis - just who is trying to get you banned? You laid that false one on me and I responded you are way to entertaining by taking yourself so seriously as if anyone but you cares what you think -
Posted by: Steve Prof | May 6, 2011 5:09:45 PM
Steve Prof --
Oh, don't you remember? Someone going by the name "anon" on a thread from April 16th suggested that Doug "consider banning Bill, SC, and rodsmith[,]" and since each and every person who has ever read and/or commented on a story on this blog didn't immediately rush to Bill's defense, we all must agree that he should be banned!
It's funny that you don't see SC and rodsmith whining about it every chance they get, though, isn't it?
Posted by: centrist | May 6, 2011 5:32:28 PM
centrist --
Far from whining about it, I advertise it, although not as much as I should. And it wasn't just one; it was three. I think they were all variations of "anon," although it's hard to remember. (Two liberals, SRS and John K, expressly opposed the idea).
It says something that the ONLY people who advocate banning are liberals. When has a conservative here advocated banning?
BTW, just out of curiosity, why do you call yourself "centrist"? You've taken liberal positions, but if you've ever taken a conservative one, I missed it. Have you, and where was it?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 6, 2011 6:08:03 PM
Steve Prof on May 6: "There you go again Otis....you are way to entertaining by taking yourself so seriously as if anyone but you cares what you think."
Steve Prof on May 4: "I believe the executive branch of the federal gov. should vigorously enforce existing law or Congress should change it. I am curious if Bill Otis and I are in agreement on this."
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 6, 2011 6:44:11 PM
hey TarlsQtr you want to take that drivel you have been spouting back under the rock where it's belongs!
first one was!
"This individual obviously had not completed all of the requirements, as he was required to register as a sex offender and report if his residence had changed."
Hate to break it to you but your deluded. 100's of THOUSANDS of those on the registry were placed on there YEARS if not DECADES AFTER any court ordered punishment was finished ILLEGALLY!
They comitted thier crimes and were convicted YEARS before the registry was even an empty though in a retard politicans mind!
next
"Perhaps. But a VERY minor improvement in the recidivism rate comes with MAJOR risk."
sorry considering DUI nad robbery run 50-70% reoffence rates i dont' consider 5-15% even CLOSE to a MAJOR risk!
wake up and read the 1000 plus studies released in the last 10-15 years why don't you!
next!
"our instincts as parents are MUCH stronger than some utopian ideal (fantasy?) of sexual predators being successfully integrated into society."
hmm 700,000 ex sex offenders and counting out in public EVERY DAY yet they are not snatching children off the street DAILY... this also proves you have no clue what your talking about!
and to top it all i sure as hell hope your NOT a lawyer with this statement!
"Some crimes by their nature permanently remove the individual from being an accepted member of civilized society. This crime is one of them."
Want to reference what part of the U.S. Constution you got that bit of stupidity from?
as for this statement!
"No person that would attempt raping a 6 year old should ever see the light of day again, making the registry obsolete."
IF the state passed a law today stating attempted rape of a minor will receive life in prison"
and started applying it TOMORROW!
that at least would be legal if overblown!
but what we have now with the contiual AFTER the fact rules and conditions is COMPLETLEY illegal on it's face!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 6, 2011 7:06:00 PM
and yes i dont' know about others but i feel like i'm in good company when people come here and group me with bill as one of the people they need to shut up and get removed from here!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 6, 2011 7:07:35 PM
rodsmith --
Your substantive positions are often a mite too pronounced, shall we say, from where I'm sitting, but the site would not be the same without you. With you, there's no spinning, no politicking and no B.S. You say exactly what you think. You're a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 6, 2011 7:16:26 PM
thanks bill but unfortunatly it's been so long and the courts and media and politicians have gotten so hard headed or emtpy headed...not sure which would be worse!
Pronounced unfortunatley is about the only way to get it into thier heads.
Posted by: rodsmith | May 7, 2011 1:26:06 AM
I'm curious if anyone knows how this man tried "to rape a 6 year old boy"? Was he attempting to stuff his penis in the boy's anus? Did he put his hand down the front of the boy's underwear? Or did the man expose himself while erect? The article cited doesn't say, and any of options could result in the man being convicted of "trying to rape a 6 year old boy". At the same time, the actions can have vastly different results on a child. All of them can have severe negative consequences for the child. But we must keep in mind that prosecutors have shown themselves to go for the most brutal crime with the stiffest penalties.
So I ask, do we really know what this man did in regards to the six year old boy? Was it bad enough to force him to live out of a dumpster? Regardless, having to live out of a dumpster may be enough for me to want to violate S.O. registration laws so that the taxpayer will give me a free place to live and three meals per day. Who is really benefiting from our public registration laws?
Posted by: Christian | May 7, 2011 1:38:40 AM
Bill --
"You've taken liberal positions, but if you've ever taken a conservative one, I missed it. Have you, and where was it?"
Although I've been watching you bloviate in the comments section of this blog for the past year or so, I only started actively* commenting yesterday. As such, you have nothing on which to base your claim that I have taken "liberal positions," unless of course the definition of liberal has been changed to mean "anything with which Bill Otis disagrees."
On the other hand, if you are basing this claim on my strong feelings regarding the absurdity of many sex offender laws and restrictions, etc., then you are seriously mistaken; if there's one thing that has garnered bipartisan support in this country over the past few years, it's the fear-mongering, vote-securing, legislative punishment of sex offenders, mainly the post-incarceration regulations that are anything but non-punitive.
Not that my political affiliation has any relevance to the topic we are supposed to be commenting on here. When it does, I might be more inclined to discuss my moderate political views with you.
*[In the interest of full disclosure, I commented, albeit briefly, on Judge Hornby discusses "Speaking in Sentences" back in March; other than that, I've kept my mouth shut, as it were.]
Posted by: centrist | May 7, 2011 1:38:52 AM
centrist --
-- When you call yourself "centrist," you invite the question asking you to identify some "centrist" views. It's not exactly a loaded question. But if you prefer not to go into it, it's fine with me.
-- Is something other than pique added to the discussion by "bloviate" and that sort of thing?
-- You point out that there is bi-partisan opposition to sex offender laws. You neglect to point out that there is bi-partisan support for them, WHICH IS HOW THEY GOT TO BE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE. And, your disclaimer to the contrary, opposition to them, certainly of the indignant and heated kind you display, is predominantly a liberal position.
-- "Not that my political affiliation has any relevance to the topic we are supposed to be commenting on here."
I never asked for your political affiliation. I asked for a scattering of ideological postions, which is what one would expect from a person calling himself "centrist."
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 7, 2011 7:47:26 AM
bill: "C&C gets fewer comments because CJLF designed the site with that in mind"
me: serious question: has there ever been a comment actually posted there which disagrees with the "CJLF"? I've never seen one.
book38: "The world would be a much better place to live in if it were not for the thinking of people like Bill Otis and...Ginny :)!!!!!!"
me: Please do not think that I agree with Bill Otis on this. I was making fun of the hysteria over sex offenders which results in things like icky pervs living in dumpsters.
ginny :)
Posted by: virginia | May 7, 2011 8:27:29 AM
ginny --
"has there ever been a comment actually posted there which disagrees with the "CJLF"? I've never seen one."
Yes. There used to be three commenters who loaded things up. One was named "bhaal". Another was, I think, "AbolishtheDeathPenalty." I forget the name of the third one.
"I was making fun of the hysteria over sex offenders which results in things like icky pervs living in dumpsters."
What is the dividing line between "hysteria" and warranted concern? Or is there such a thing as warranted concern?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 7, 2011 8:44:58 AM
Bill --
"You neglect to point out that there is bi-partisan support for them, WHICH IS HOW THEY GOT TO BE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE."
Aw, shucks Bill. Thanks for educating me on the process. After all, I never did get to see that episode of Schoolhouse Rock that everyone is so fond of.
"And, your disclaimer to the contrary, opposition to them, certainly of the indignant and heated kind you display, is predominantly a liberal position."
So, by this logic, are you declaring rodsmith to be a liberal too? Far out!
Posted by: centrist | May 7, 2011 10:48:00 AM
Rodsmith states: "hey TarlsQtr you want to take that drivel you have been spouting back under the rock where it's belongs!"
Yep. Another tolerant "liberal" who prefers any opposition to be silenced rather than engage in debate. You do a wonderful job of providing an example of the twisted Progressive mind.
You stated: "Hate to break it to you but your deluded. 100's of THOUSANDS of those on the registry were placed on there YEARS if not DECADES AFTER any court ordered punishment was finished ILLEGALLY!
They comitted thier crimes and were convicted YEARS before the registry was even an empty though in a retard politicans mind!"
Is this true in Mader's case? If so, I would expect the compassionate person in you (because we all know that compassion=liberal, LOL) to be defending him pro bono , or donating money for his defense if you are not an attorney, if this illegality is such a slam dunk. You are obviously morally superior, so, what exactly ARE you doing other than spouting on this message board?
Rodsmith stated: "sorry considering DUI nad robbery run 50-70% reoffence rates i dont' consider 5-15% even CLOSE to a MAJOR risk!"
What happened to the great Progressive analytical mind? You are comparing apples and sofas. An overhwelming majority of DWI's and robberies do not result in emotionally crushing a 6 year old for life. And, yes, this is what I call a "major risk: "Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years)." Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997)
And if you were familiar with the research, you would also know that the reporting of sex crimes is far lower than most other crimes for various reasons (shame, revicitimization, etc.). Thus, even the above number may be low.
You stated: "hmm 700,000 ex sex offenders and counting out in public EVERY DAY yet they are not snatching children off the street DAILY... this also proves you have no clue what your talking about!"
Seriously? You are claiming that there are NOT kids "being snatched off the streets" daily? Of course, you are attempting to limit the scope of the debate by excluding molestation by incest, family acquaintances, etc, that do not include "snatching off the street" but are just as horrendous and damaging.
And this is the funny part. You Progressive monsters will make any outrageous claims, and completely ignore their contradictory nature. We were just told in the thread above that these registries isolate the sex offenders, which causes them to recidivize. Now you tell us that there is no problem with recidivism. Which is it? If they are not recommitting, then we need to assume the registry system is working. If they are recommitting, then your argument is shot to he!!.
You know, one symptom of sociopathy is being incapable of embarrassment. Are you embarrassed at such an obvious contradiction or are you a sociopath?
"...and to top it all i sure as hell hope your NOT a lawyer with this statement!"
If you are the ideal model of what an attorney should be, then I sure as hell hope not too.
You state: "Want to reference what part of the U.S. Constution you got that bit of stupidity from?"
Want to reference the part of the US Constitution that prohibits us from locking up child molesters for a much longer period than we do now?
You state: "IF the state passed a law today stating attempted rape of a minor will receive life in prison"
Great, there is hope for you. Then you DO agree with my statement that you referenced above, that we can deem molestation to be a crime that permanently removes the criminal from civilized society. I never claimed we should do it extralegally.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 7, 2011 10:48:13 AM
Bill Otis stated: "What is the dividing line between "hysteria" and warranted concern? Or is there such a thing as warranted concern?"
Hysteria-When the sex offender lives miles away from a Progressive.
Warrented Concern-When a sex offender moves into the Progressive's neighborhood.
One only needs to think of windmills off of Martha's Vineyard. The libs are all for wind power when Lunchbox Joe has to look at them. If the Kennedy's have to look at them, they are an unacceptable eyesore.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 7, 2011 10:56:16 AM
TarlsQtr --
Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or are you simply going to continue unfounded ad hominem attacks on rodsmith (who, from what I've surmised from his previous posts, isn't all that fond of liberals), and I suspect now on me, as well, because I have dared to challenge you?
"Another tolerant "liberal" who prefers any opposition to be silenced rather than engage in debate. You do a wonderful job of providing an example of the twisted Progressive mind."
Are you seriously that thin-skinned that you twist such a common expression such as "take that drivel... back under the rock where it's belongs[]" to mean that someone is trying to silence you?
You know, one of the symptoms of narcissism is having a fragile self-esteem. Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior; I think that's applicable here, too, a la your "liberal monsters" comment. You might want to get that looked at.
Posted by: centrist | May 7, 2011 1:46:19 PM
centrist --
Thanks for acknowledging that the current regimen of sex laws has bipartisan support -- something that was absent from your first cut at this.
"So, by this logic, are you declaring rodsmith to be a liberal too? Far out!"
Rodsmith is sometimes difficult to categorize. His suspicion of sex laws has much more in common with you than with me. On the specific issue of registries and residency requirements, there is little if any daylight between his postion and yours.
BTW, do you want a reasonably serious discussion of legal questions, or just to be dismissive? There are plenty of well informed people here who want the former insted of the latter, and conversations with them tend to be more productive.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 7, 2011 1:56:50 PM
The Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce study TralsQtr cites was lifted from the 2001 CSOM Recidivism of Sex Offenders paper about the complications and ambiguities of all recidivism studies, and the study TralsQtr cited was one extreme. At the other extreme, a newer casomb.org study entitled "RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY" found a 3.38% return to prison rate for a new sex offense after 10 years.
It follows that much recidivism is fortunately not for the rape or attempted rape of a 6-year-old boy or anything like that. Indeed, the recidivism in the present matter is in failing to provide notification of moving from the dumpster.
Maybe studies and the media fall under the "school" category in the Schematization above.
Posted by: George | May 7, 2011 2:05:27 PM
"Centrist" stated: "Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or are you simply going to continue unfounded ad hominem attacks on rodsmith..."
Who someone attacks, defends, is a much better indicator of someone's values or positions than a nom de plume. For instance, the VERY FIRST post I have ever pointed towards rodsmith draws your ire for "unfounded ad hominem" even though it was in RESPONSE to a post of his that was chocked full of them. Yet, we receive silence from you regarding that. Sorry, but if you are attempting to portray yourself as the "level-headed moderate thinker who looks at both sides of positions and makes decisions based on fact rather than ideology" like your name implies, then you are nothing but a fraud.
And there was a ton of substance to my posts, you just chose to ignore it for an avenue of attack where you felt you could make more headway.
You state: "Are you seriously that thin-skinned that you twist such a common expression such as "take that drivel... back under the rock where it's belongs[]" to mean that someone is trying to silence you?"
Ever read Alinsky? "Silencing" does not have to equal a banning or jack-booted thugs dragging you off for reeducation. Vilification and dehumanization by characterizating someone who disagrees as somehow subhuman to be "under a rock" often works just as well.
And please, do not confuse my refusal to be intimidated by such tactics as being thin-skinned. Just the opposite. Besides, aren't you the one here playing the aggrieved party?
You stated: "You know, one of the symptoms of narcissism is having a fragile self-esteem. Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior; I think that's applicable here, too, a la your "liberal monsters" comment. You might want to get that looked at."
What was that again about ad hominem attacks? And considering that the entire liberal philosophy of the last 50 years has been based upon claiming a moral and intellectual superiority over conservativism, well, let's say you might want to consider another tactic.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 7, 2011 2:48:32 PM
George stated: "The Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce study TralsQtr cites was lifted from the 2001 CSOM Recidivism of Sex Offenders paper about the complications and ambiguities of all recidivism studies, and the study TralsQtr cited was one extreme."
Lifted? Too funny. It's a nice bit of rhetoric, but a cited study is hardly a "lifted" study.
And, yes, it is one extreme, but let's look at why it is an "extreme." Because many such studies are not longitudinal, or have a ridiculous definition of recidivism. For instance, many studies would not count an individual as a recidivist if he molests again but the case gets thrown out because the victim will not or cannot testify. They also often do not adequately take into account the proven low reporting rate of sex crimes. Only a social scientist or defense attorney would define recidivist as someone who is "reconvicted for the same crime".
You state: "..., a newer casomb.org study entitled "RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY" found a 3.38% return to prison rate for a new sex offense after 10 years."
Uh, you do realize that in addition to not being a peer reviewed study, even CASOMB has not accepted the findings of THEIR OWN study? I found that out in about 30 seconds on their website.
You state: "It follows that much recidivism is fortunately not for the rape or attempted rape of a 6-year-old boy or anything like that. Indeed, the recidivism in the present matter is in failing to provide notification of moving from the dumpster."
Sorry, but that would not be considered recidivism in many studies. And your entire statement implies that it is for some reason not a crime, or should not be a crime, to obey the lawful restrictions placed upon an individual for the commission of a previous crime.
Again, however, if we assume for argument your point about the low recidivism rate is correct, then why is this not a strong indicator that the registry system works? Isn't a system that keeps recidivism at a stunningly low 3.38% by your calculations a smashing success? Why would you want to change it?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 7, 2011 3:09:40 PM
TarlsQtr, you're just too good, as good as Sarah Palin.
The study was from 1997-2007, before the registry was public.
Why would CASOMB not accept the "findings of THEIR OWN study"? See "state" in the Schematization above.
Insert required disclaimer here.
Posted by: George | May 7, 2011 5:57:03 PM
TarlsQtr --
"Bill Otis stated: "What is the dividing line between "hysteria" and warranted concern? Or is there such a thing as warranted concern?"
Hysteria-When the sex offender lives miles away from a Progressive.
Warrented Concern-When a sex offender moves into the Progressive's neighborhood.
**************
Ouch! Now you be nice. Still, you're a step ahead of me: According to some, I need to get banned; you only need to get your head examined.
As I was saying, quite a crew.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 7, 2011 6:12:29 PM
Bill --
"BTW, do you want a reasonably serious discussion of legal questions, or just to be dismissive? There are plenty of well informed people here who want the former insted of the latter, and conversations with them tend to be more productive."
I came to this thread to have a reasonably serious discussion regarding, as Doug stated, "some of the sad realities that modern laws and practices present for sex offenders." Your first comment on the story, "Is there any commenter who could give some information as to why a person would find himself unable to resist raping a six year-old?" jumped right past any legal discussion and set the tone for the ensuing comments.
So, if there's any reasonable discussion to be had, please let me know when it's actually going to happen, because that is why I came here to begin with.
Posted by: centrist | May 7, 2011 7:42:51 PM
TarlsQtr --
Yawn. While I will actually apologize for the ad hominem attack, to wit, the narcissism comment, your arrogance is extremely boring.
"[C]onsidering that the entire liberal philosophy of the last 50 years has been based upon claiming a moral and intellectual superiority over conservativism..."
The perceived liberal villainy by conservatives has been completely played out. Methinks you need new material.
Posted by: centrist | May 7, 2011 8:05:57 PM
centrist --
Asking why the defendant would be unable to resist commiting a crime that is unusual by any standard, and unusual in its seriousness along the spectrum of sex crimes, is a perfectly reasonable inquiry in thinking about why it draws the legal response it does. It may not (and apparently was not) the aspect that drew your attention, but in criminal law as elsewhere, outcomes tend to be pegged to the behavior that got the case going.
If Doug thought my question out of line, he certainly hasn't said so, nor did the defense attorney who was willing to answer it with relevant experience from his own practice.
And there's this. Any of us has the option of simply ignoring a comment he finds off topic and addressing those he finds more to the point. I tend to hesitate to just accept the defendant's behavior as a dropped-out-of-the-sky given and discuss ONLY what happens thereafter; how we got to where we are makes a difference to me.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 7, 2011 11:42:27 PM
"As history has long told us (well, history not told in the public schools by progressives), liberals have had a much closer relationship with fascism than conservatives. After all, Nazi stood for National Socialist, not National Capitalist."
Oh, good. A genuine bromide-spouting, talking-points mouthing, Tea Party-leaning conservative has found his/her way to Doug's blog.
Posted by: John K | May 8, 2011 10:52:58 AM
I don't know the specifics of Charles Mader since I have never met him or spoke to him in person. I can not speak to whether he is a child rapist or just trying to get a warm place to sleep and at least a couple of meals a day.
I do know of many people on the registry who have been falsely accused. I have met one who is trying to raise his family without being persecuted, but it is difficult.
I'm also curious about a parent who leaves their 6 year old alone with a strange man in a confined place.
I'm not excusing his actions if he did try to molest a child, but I am questioning how much faith should be placed in an accusation from someone who doesn't seem to have much common sense.
All it takes is an accusation from anybody to ruin a life.
Posted by: anon2 | May 8, 2011 11:14:54 AM
George stated: "TarlsQtr, you're just too good, as good as Sarah Palin."
Not a fan, but watching here make the likes of you froth at the mouth sure is fun.
You stated: "Why would CASOMB not accept the "findings of THEIR OWN study"?"
Why not take the 30 seconds it took me to look? It says in part: "CASOMB wishes to state clearly that the papers in question have never been officially approved, sanctioned or published as finished statements by the Board. In fact, precisely because they are regarded by the Board as being misleading and easily subject to misinterpretation, they should not be seen as anything but provisional drafts reflecting the Board’s work process – a process which is not now and which may never be completed - due largely to the elusiveness of the data which would allow the Board to produce a complete and acceptable statement.
Although copies of these papers were distributed to and reviewed by the Board and so need to remain available as public documents, the Board explicitly directs that they be considered as what they are - uncompleted drafts, and that they or the information contained in them not be cited or otherwise held forth as reliable, clear or in any way authorized by the California Sex Offender Management Board, or approved for any outside use." http://www.casomb.org/docs/Statement%20on%205-year%20and%2010-year%20Papers%209-16-09.pdf
I graciously accept your apology.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 8, 2011 5:32:07 PM
"Centrist fraud" stated: "Yawn."
Is this what you mean by "constructive" comments?
You stated: "While I will actually apologize for the ad hominem attack, to wit, the narcissism comment, your arrogance is extremely boring."
This is how completely out of touch you are with your own "thoughts." You apologize for an ad hom, launch right into another one, and still you have the "narcissism" and "arrogance" to claim the moral high ground? Too funny.
Do you have ANY idea how foolish you look?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 8, 2011 5:40:30 PM
John K stated: "Oh, good. A genuine bromide-spouting, talking-points mouthing, Tea Party-leaning conservative has found his/her way to Doug's blog."
Because we have the great honor of having a resident "Centrist" on board who is obviously a fair, non-partisan individual who would not think of criticizing just one side of the spectrum (that is what a "centrist" is, after all), you should expect a strong condemnation about ad hominem attacks and not not adding anything "constructive" to the discussion.
Then again, maybe not.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 8, 2011 5:46:00 PM
TarisQtr, there is something on the right side of screen called a scroll bar. Using it you can scroll back to older comments in this string. Let us go slow and take it a step at a time.
I wrote: "Why would CASOMB not accept the 'findings of THEIR OWN study'? See "state" in the Schematization above."
You can scroll back to this comment by Doh (not likely referring to you):
"Schematization of the Dominant Beliefs in Germany About ___, The Mentally Ill, and Slavs", from Hitler's Willing Executioners, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Found in that comment is this:
Institutional Support for Images
1. ___: state - intense and continuous barrage; Church - support for the beliefs, no counter-image offered; schools - similar to state; army - no different
So I answered my own question by pointing out that the state keeps up an "intense and continuous barrage" as an Institutional Support for the Images, and that recidivism study of a 3.8 recidivism rate would be too contrary to that image. Therefore, CASOMB, a state agency, killed it.
It is understandably sometimes difficult to keep up with the subject and it sometimes takes a little more work than a quick reactive reply, but I think you can do it.
Posted by: George | May 8, 2011 6:39:12 PM
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
Of the 3,138 released rapists -
46.0% were rearrested for a new crime within 3 years
18.6% were rearrested for a new violent offense
2.5% were rearrested for another rape
8.7% were rearrested for a new non-sexual assault
11.2% were rearrested for a drug offense.
--------------------------------------------------
http://sax.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/15/1079063210384634.abstract
"...a consecutive sample of 223 adolescents (mean age of 15.7 years, SD = 2.1 years) who had been convicted of a sexual crime in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, between 2000 and 2008. Based on local official recidivism data (mean follow-up period = 4.3 years; SD = 2.5 years)...Sexual recidivism (n = 7, 3.1%)...Nonsexual violent (n = 37, 16.6%) and general recidivism (n = 100, 44.8%)..."
Posted by: NickS | May 8, 2011 6:52:33 PM
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43
Methods
The current study population consisted of 231 men, who were subsequently charged with consumption of illegal pornographic material after being detected by a special operation against Internet child pornography, conducted by the Swiss police in 2002. Criminal history, as well as recidivism, was assessed using the criminal records from 2008.
Results
4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offense, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offense, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offense and one for a nonsexual violent offense. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of the study sample recidivated with a violent and/or sex offense, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offense and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offense.
--------------------------------------------------
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136
Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.
Posted by: NickS | May 8, 2011 6:52:52 PM
Not adding constructive to the "discussion"? If you've persuaded yourself liberals are the modern embodiment of facism and Nazi-style National Socialism then I doubt we have much to discuss.
Posted by: John K | May 8, 2011 6:55:52 PM
Uh, OK.
Sure, George, you "answered" it. However, there is a difference between giving an answer/position, supporting an answer/position, and supporting an answer/position with RELEVANT information.
Please take a freshman level critical thinking course to figure out where you went wrong.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 8, 2011 7:37:44 PM
John K stated: "Not adding constructive to the "discussion"? If you've persuaded yourself liberals are the modern embodiment of facism and Nazi-style National Socialism then I doubt we have much to discuss."
Of course I never said that but, hey, it's your straw man.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 8, 2011 8:49:47 PM
TarlsQtr --
"Do you have ANY idea how foolish you look?"
Do you?
Posted by: centrist | May 8, 2011 9:47:06 PM
TarisQtr:
This is my first commment on this particular post.
I have read your fulminations and they are impossible to respond to as they are incoherent, make no sense and do not follow any logical consistency. Please seek mental help. You are on one side of the mirror.
You really need the freshman level critical thinking course, or should I say, therapy with lots of nice people.
I usually address declarative sentences, but you continually run around in circles.
I know you are a legend in your own mind. Don't be afraid. The Men in White will help you!
Posted by: albeed | May 9, 2011 12:01:51 AM
it really needs to have a good law enforce and all offender must get the right punishment they deserve.
Posted by: marietta dui attorney | May 9, 2011 2:58:25 AM
all this means tar!
"Why not take the 30 seconds it took me to look? It says in part: "CASOMB wishes to state clearly that the papers in question have never been officially approved, sanctioned or published as finished statements by the Board. In fact, precisely because they are regarded by the Board as being misleading and easily subject to misinterpretation, they should not be seen as anything but provisional drafts reflecting the Board’s work process – a process which is not now and which may never be completed - due largely to the elusiveness of the data which would allow the Board to produce a complete and acceptable statement.
Although copies of these papers were distributed to and reviewed by the Board and so need to remain available as public documents, the Board explicitly directs that they be considered as what they are - uncompleted drafts, and that they or the information contained in them not be cited or otherwise held forth as reliable, clear or in any way authorized by the California Sex Offender Management Board, or approved for any outside use." http://www.casomb.org/docs/Statement%20on%205-year%20and%2010-year%20Papers%209-16-09.pdf"
Is that the CASOMB board is made up of the same type of lieing crooked politicans as the comission in texas that was looking into the truth that texas had manged to killed an innocent man becasue of junk arson science! when the govoner didnt' get the results he wanted he fired 1/2 the board and the chairman and tried his damnedest to keep it buried till after the elections.
didnt' work!
and thanks i knever know i was a liberal. i never knew that!
here i thought wanting to close down welfare and the earned income credit system not to mention the ultimate STUPIDITY of paying someone NOT TO PLANT! along with our job of policeman of the world....made me ANYTHING but a liberal!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 9, 2011 4:17:44 AM
rodsmith stated: "Is that the CASOMB board is made up of the same type of lieing crooked politicans as the comission in texas that was looking into the truth that texas had manged to killed an innocent man becasue of junk arson science! when the govoner didnt' get the results he wanted he fired 1/2 the board and the chairman and tried his damnedest to keep it buried till after the elections."
1. You provide no evidence that it is just "crooked politicians", blah, blah, blah.
2.Your statement is a genetic fallacy (among others). Even if the board IS a bunch of crooked politicians, it does not mean logically that their findings are wrong.
2. That is a genetic fallacy.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 9, 2011 12:14:27 PM
HMM
"1. You provide no evidence that it is just "crooked politicians", blah, blah, blah."
watch the news or read a paper lately? politician has become crooked politican just like used car salemen has become "crooked used car salesman"
it's pretty much become a given for anyone based in reality considering the last 30-50 years of u.s. political histroy
"2.Your statement is a genetic fallacy (among others). Even if the board IS a bunch of crooked politicians, it does not mean logically that their findings are wrong."
LOL true but just like a room of monkey's with typewriters COULD eventualy create a work of shakespear i wouldnt' want to BET MY LIFE ON IT happening anytime soon.
sorry in my book if an organization is created to study something spends million of dollars and years of manhours and then at the last min the POLITICAL LEADERS of the organizaiton suddanly repudiate their own work there really is only ONE REASON
They didnt' get the result they wanted!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 9, 2011 2:06:59 PM
Rodsmith stated: "watch the news or read a paper lately? politician has become crooked politican just like used car salemen has become "crooked used car salesman"
it's pretty much become a given for anyone based in reality considering the last 30-50 years of u.s. political histroy"
You miss the point. Crooked or not, it is a mere unsubstantiated claim to state that their alleged status as "crooked politicians" is the reason it has been repudiated. Are there a bunch of similar studies done properly that come with the same/similar number?
Are you a lawyer? If so, I could legitimately make the same argument regarding everything you say, considering the low regard people have for the profession. Just as it is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum to run the "it's pretty much become a given for anyone based in reality" argument, it would be the same to dismiss arguments because it comes from an attorney. So I will not do it regardless of your (or anyone else's) profession.
You state: "LOL true but just like a room of monkey's with typewriters COULD eventualy create a work of shakespear i wouldnt' want to BET MY LIFE ON IT happening anytime soon."
Again, a frosh level critical thinking class would do you a world of good.
You state: "sorry in my book if an organization is created to study something spends million of dollars and years of manhours and then at the last min the POLITICAL LEADERS of the organizaiton suddanly repudiate their own work there really is only ONE REASON
They didnt' get the result they wanted!"
Then name names.
And let me guess. The organizations you quote studies from never have any skin in the game and rely soley on reliable data?
It is funny how it always seems to work out that way...
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 9, 2011 3:50:52 PM
Geez, this guys rant above (TarlsQtr) sounds like an old Burger King commercial. He continues to yell 'Where's the beef!' but then proceeds to never tell us anything of substance to back up his views. I though this was a site for pro and con rational discussions on the topics presented not re-hashed drivel recycled from a rerun of the Glenn Beck show.
Posted by: james | May 9, 2011 7:30:30 PM
hmm
"And let me guess. The organizations you quote studies from never have any skin in the game and rely soley on reliable data?
It is funny how it always seems to work out that way..."
LOL what's funny is the studies i'm talking about have been released from the US DOJ
MOST of the state department of courrections in the united states and AROUND THE WORLD!
all the other side can point to is ONE study in 1994 that used 200+ men in a maximum security prison for REPEAT sexual offences and suprise! suprise! they tend to REOFFEND! NO SHIT!
the 1,000's of other studies out there cover 3-5-10 years or more and 100's of thousands of ex inmates!
i'm still waiting for the crooks in our govt to release the ONE STUIDY they will NEVER RELEASE!
would take maybe 24hr for the cray super computers under langly to run the numbers
take all individuals in the united states in 1994 with a sex crime conviction.
fast forward to 2011 how many have a NEW SEX CRIIME CONVITION!
THERE'S YOUR RE OFFENCE RATE!
at that point either the side i back is WRONG and i'd shut up in the face of proof. Or i'm right and every sex crime law passed in the last 15 or so years is ILLEGAL on it's face!
since they are all right up to the original megan's law was passed based on ONE THING!
sex offenders ALWAYS REOFFEND!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 10, 2011 2:16:44 AM
James stated: "Geez, this guys rant above (TarlsQtr) sounds like an old Burger King commercial. He continues to yell 'Where's the beef!' but then proceeds to never tell us anything of substance to back up his views."
First, you cannot even get the fast food chain correct. What kind of American are you?
Second, it is rodsmith making a claim about the casomb study. It is his job to provide something "of substance to back up his views."
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 10, 2011 12:10:29 PM
Rodsmith stated: "LOL what's funny is the studies i'm talking about have been released from the US DOJ"
"Studies" you have not cited nor referenced...
You stated: "take all individuals in the united states in 1994 with a sex crime conviction.
fast forward to 2011 how many have a NEW SEX CRIIME CONVITION!
THERE'S YOUR RE OFFENCE RATE!"
Such a process is not nearly as simple as you are.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 10, 2011 12:19:13 PM
TarlsQtr: "First, you cannot even get the fast food chain correct. What kind of American are you?"
Advertisements, of course, are primary fodder for the sticky message.111 Those who remember the 1980s Wendy’s commercial where a grandmotherly actress with a gravelly voice looks at a massive bun without much hamburger, and yells, “Where’s the beef?” will also remember everyone asking that pointed question – from in-formal talk to the Presidential primary.112 But sticky messages are found in more than advertising slogans.
"Legislative Epidemics: A Cautionary Tale of Criminal Laws that Sweep the Country"
Catherine L. Carpenter
Southwestern Law School
Buffalo Law Review Vol. 58, January 2010
Posted by: George | May 10, 2011 2:56:20 PM
hmm tarls are you a judge or a DA or politician?
we are talking about sex crimes!
you know someone does something sexual the govt and society says is ILLEGAL!
THEN
we are talking about sex criminals i.e. "sex offenders" who reoffend sexually!
seems even a judge, da, or politician should be able to figure out what we need to measure to get that is SEX CRIMES!
so again only an idiot would think it wouldn't be possible to settle all the problems and argument over reoffence rates by taking a set number like 1994 when the feds passed the first of the sex crimes laws and use the number of people who were CONVICTED of a sex crime and then compare it to how many of them who have comitted a NEW SEX CRIME in the SEVENTEEN years since to 2011 to see just HOW BAD THE PROBLEM IS!
unless of course you have something to hide! Like maybe the govt has ALREADY RUN THE NUMBERS and doesnt' like what they say!
Posted by: rodsmith | May 10, 2011 11:10:24 PM
"What happened to the great Progressive analytical mind? You are comparing apples and sofas. An overhwelming majority of DWI's and robberies do not result in emotionally crushing a 6 year old for life. And, yes, this is what I call a "major risk: "Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years)." Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) "
Huh? Are you referring to the Robert A. Prentky that said "In urging the use of ARA, we do so against the backdrop of existing SVP laws and serious concerns raised about their constitutionality and wisdom?"
FACT: Over a 10 year period, 10,000 sex offenders were tracked and it was determined that 3% of child molesters re-offend, 5% of those convicted of other sex offenses re-offend [DOJ-BOJS]. There is a higher probability that a child will be the victim of a violent crime, than a sexual crime.
"Seriously? You are claiming that there are NOT kids "being snatched off the streets" daily? Of course, you are attempting to limit the scope of the debate by excluding molestation by incest, family acquaintances, etc, that do not include "snatching off the street" but are just as horrendous and damaging."
Where is your research that proves that those on the SO registry are snatching up kids off the street? Are you suggesting that ALL kids being snatched off the streets are sexually abused?
"And, yes, it is one extreme, but let's look at why it is an "extreme." Because many such studies are not longitudinal, or have a ridiculous definition of recidivism. For instance, many studies would not count an individual as a recidivist if he molests again but the case gets thrown out because the victim will not or cannot testify. They also often do not adequately take into account the proven low reporting rate of sex crimes. Only a social scientist or defense attorney would define recidivist as someone who is 'reconvicted for the same crime'."
That's rich - an offender who has not been convicted of a new sex offense should be included in the recidivism column? I don't know in what communist society you live, but in the U.S., your are not an offender unless you have been convicted. In your theory, an assumption is all that is needed - fortunately when you assume, you make an ASS out of yoU not ME.
You should stop listening to admitted sex addict John Walsh, and child porn possessor Mark Lunsford.
SL&P is turning into a place where political lackeys come to beat their chests.
Posted by: Huh? | May 17, 2011 5:26:37 PM
I salute with the authorities who really did a good job.
They are deserving for promotions..
Posted by: Patterson lawfirm | May 23, 2011 1:56:07 AM
