[Scott_H]

So what do you all make of this?

<A HREF="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tvaradarajan/?id=95000892" TARGET=_blank>Diary of a Deviant
If it doesn't harm children, is it child pornography?</A>
BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, July 30, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

In the history of First Amendment jurisprudence, Brian Dalton, 22, makes an unlikely--and therefore compelling--cause c�l�bre.

He is a loathsome man, with a 1998 conviction for pandering pornographic photographs of children and now, earlier this month, a second conviction for pandering obscenity. At home, on probation from prison, he kept a personal diary, which he showed to no one else, and where he wrote an elaborate and sadistic sexual fantasy in which three fictitious young children were caged in a basement, tortured grotesquely and sexually molested. The diary was uncovered during a routine and lawful search of his premises, conducted under the terms of his probation.

So thoroughly did his writings churn the stomach that members of the grand jury in Columbus, Ohio, broke down after a policeman had read aloud only two of the 14 pages in question. Dalton was sentenced to seven years in prison for these 14 pages, tantamount to six months per page.

The question raised by the case is a blunt one: Why was Dalton prosecuted for the contents of his private diary, contents that he had made no attempt to disseminate or publish? The technical answer is that he was charged under a 1989 Ohio statute--Ohio Revised Code 2907.321--that prohibits "pandering obscenity involving a minor." The statute is expansively drawn, and forbids, inter alia, the "creation" of "any obscene material that has a minor as one of its participants."

"Material" here includes not merely images or pictures but also any "description." In writing in his diary, therefore, Dalton had "created" obscene material featuring children. Since there is no further requirement in the statute that the material be disseminated--the mere fact of creation being enough to attract criminal sanction--he pleaded guilty.

Much of the reporting of this case has been sloppy and inaccurate, and this, in turn, has added to the confusion that swirls around his case. Contrary to reports--in papers ranging from New York's Newsday to the Washington Post--Dalton was charged not with pandering child pornography but with pandering obscenity. The distinction is important and should form the bedrock of any appeal he might make on constitutional grounds.

(There is a major technical obstacle that lies in his path, of course: In order to be able to appeal, he must persuade the court to permit him to revoke his guilty plea, and for this he would need to argue that he was incompetently represented at trial.)



There is a strong case to be made for the unconstitutionality of the Ohio statute-which, remember, is not a child pornography law but a special-purpose obscenity law--insofar as it criminalizes the mere possession of obscene material.

The basic definition of obscenity was set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Miller v. California. This denies First Amendment protection to material that depicts or describes sexual conduct portrayed in a "patently offensive way," which, "taken as a whole," must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." An important subsidiary rule--laid down by the Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), and central to Dalton's case--is that while the distribution of obscene material may be outlawed, the private possession of it at home may not. So whereas Dalton's diary was obscene under the Miller test, he would appear to have a lawful right to keep it in his private, domestic possession by virtue of Stanley.

Confusion arises here, in the main, because of the apparent overlay of "child pornography" in the Ohio statute. But Dalton's writings cannot constitute child pornography under prevailing law, as established by the Supreme Court in another case, New York v. Ferber, in 1982. There the court held that material constitutes child pornography if it "visually depicts" minors "performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals." The case laid the foundation for contemporary child pornography law, and Dalton has the benefit of the case's underlying reasoning.



As Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, points out in a forthcoming textbook on the First Amendment, the rationale of Ferber "is to prevent the harm to children that flows from their being used in the making of child pornography." Therefore, "the speech must in fact be a live performance or a visual representation of a live performance." If the description is purely verbal--as in the case of Dalton's diary--then the material cannot constitute child pornography. A subsidiary rule, laid down by the Supreme Court in a later case, establishes that the private possession of child pornography may be outlawed. But since Dalton's diary is technically not child pornography, this rule does not apply.

All this said, it is worth asking whether the law should, in fact, be expanded in scope to allow for prosecution in a case such as Dalton's. After all, the Supreme Court will, in its next term, examine the question of whether computer-generated images of minors--images of disconcerting verisimilitude--can attract criminal sanction as child pornography. The federal Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 would seek to bar the private possession of computer-generated images, even though "virtual child pornography" falls outside the clear boundary drawn in Ferber, i.e. the confinement of sanction to images of real children.

Since computer-generated images, as with mere words, do no harm to actual children--the prevention of such harm being the reason why even private possession of child pornography is outlawed--what rationale could there be to further abridge private speech? Why not leave such matters to be regulated under existing obscenity laws, which would permit strictly private possession of material, but arguably clamp down hard on even the slightest dissemination?

There are those who argue that lawful possession of "virtual" images would make enforcement against "real" child pornography particularly difficult--after all, what is to stop every possessor from claiming that he thought his material was "virtual"?

Yet however the Supreme Court resolves the issue, its decision will have no bearing on the Dalton case, which is about mere words. The law requires us to leave words, and Dalton's writings, alone. He ought to win his appeal--but be forever on his guard. Let him not forget the difference between the real and the imagined.

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Tuesdays.

[Cipher13]

While the thoughts running through this mans head are disgusting and dispicable - as long as he doesn't act on it, whats the problem?

In my opinion this guy should get off, but a record of this should be kept, of course, in the event he is suspected of pedophelia (sp) or something...

I see nothing wrong with writing ones feelings down, and in fact, the act of writing it or drawing it, and perhaps in his instance, even drawing pleasure from it, may indeed diffuse the urge to act on such thoughts.

I don't believe the state has the right to police thoughts and feelings. This isn't 1984. The Thought Police have no place here. And writings are merely thoughts manifested in a tangible reality, no?


"No children were harmed or corrupted or involved to any extent in the writing of this diary, and any similarity to real life characters is unintended and completely coincidental". Perhaps he should have made a disclaimer?

Its ridiculous. By their reckoning, if I were to write a diary entry "Joe Blow should die. What a fool", well, hey, I may as well have attempted to kill him, right?

"Dear diary... Joe Blow can blow me". Sexual assault upon Joe Blow?

I'll reiterate the fact that the acts portrayed in his diary are repugnant and I am completely against it - but thats not my concern.

I think the only grounds on which the state could convict him is if they had reason to believe he is mentally unstable and a danger to children - if they suspected he may act on his particular lusts...

This sounds like something Georgia would do.

[Subzero Diesel949]

While the man is sick and should be locked away in a mental institution, he should not have been convicted.

Writing thoughts or even saying them aloud does not have the same effect as acting on them.

Now wait a minute...saying them aloud...so why can you be charged for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Because doing that presents a danger to IMMEDIATE persons. In the case of the Ohio man, there is no one immediately around for him to act on his thoughts.

However jailing someone for writing pornographic thoughts is like expelling an elementary school kid for drawing pictures of tanks and other artillery.

[Kozmik]

Originally posted by Subzero Diesel949:
<STRONG>However jailing someone for writing pornographic thoughts is like expelling an elementary school kid for drawing pictures of tanks and other artillery.</STRONG>

We do both...

[Joshua]

They've essentially jailed him for his thoughts, and that's about the most dangerous power the government could ever wield.

[finboy]

I'd contend that he was on probation, and didn't have a RIGHT to have those thoughts. Being on probation, he was subject to search at any time. Therefore, he should have expected someone to FIND that diary and the contents of that could be used against him. If he knew the diary would probably become public, and the TRUTH would have to be investigated (how could we be sure that no one went through that experience until it was investigated, right?) then he provoked the incident.

He's a convicted sex offender, and a piece of filth. His rights are (SHOULD BE) limited in certain areas, and this is one of those areas. He needs extended psychological treatment for his illness, too.

[yoyo52]

Let the guy go free. Actions, not thoughts, are criminal. Thoughts can be sins, at least in some Christian contexts (remember, those who can, Jimmy Carter's "I sinned in my heart"), but that's between the guy and his god, a relationship that doesn't bear state scrutiny, period.

[maxelson]

I am not the type to defend a sexual offender, so I won't. HOWEVER... SOMEONE (^) needs to reread 1984. Freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition. Here we have someone WRITING. Not even publishing. Certainly not acting. Just writing. Fiction. The subjects were figments.
Feh. I am just as disgusted by the court's decision as I am the guy's ideas and actions. That sentencing CANNOT stand.
The rational they use- the statute cited- is obviously a stretch. It is definitely not difficult to figure out what those lawmakers had in mind.
It is truly this simple- the man- as despicable as he is- was jailed for his thoughts. If this CAN happen, well, I am screwed. I have so often thought of running some young punk in a third party tricked out Nissan off the road... punching out one of my co workers... throttling the nosey old bat across the street... banging the rude sales clerk's head into the cash register... I also write. Violence shows it's ugly head in what I write... and sheesh, I publish! Am I next?
Did not have the RIGHT to have these thoughts? Quick- finboy! DO NOT THINK OF AN APPLE!
Whoop. Jailed.
I cannot believe you are proposing that anyone- no matter how vile they may be- shuld have his right to think of something- I could not care less what it is- revoked. Think about that, will you? How do you justify that?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>I'd contend that he was on probation, and didn't have a RIGHT to have those thoughts. Being on probation, he was subject to search at any time. Therefore, he should have expected someone to FIND that diary and the contents of that could be used against him. If he knew the diary would probably become public, and the TRUTH would have to be investigated (how could we be sure that no one went through that experience until it was investigated, right?) then he provoked the incident.

He's a convicted sex offender, and a piece of filth. His rights are (SHOULD BE) limited in certain areas, and this is one of those areas.</STRONG>

Sorry, but I agree with my colleagues above ... the state simply has no right to criminalize thought, and that's the only goal of this prosecution.

Your reasoning is full of holes. He did not "provoke" prosecution by writing a diary of his private thoughts and fantasies, and if the police felt compelled to investigate to be sure the diary was fiction (I don't believe this actually was the case), it would not be his fault; there would be no reason to assume a crime had occurred (i.e., no physical evidence, no missing person report, etc.).

Child pornography, though despicable for obvious reasons, is nevertheless an area in which the hysteria of lawmakers has resulted in gross violations of personal liberty.

<STRONG>He needs extended psychological treatment for his illness, too.

</STRONG>

Agreed. Maybe the diary was part of it, eh?

[DBursey]

Hi guys. Long time no post.

A touchy subject this. On one side, we have what may seem to be an invasion by the courts into a citizen's private affairs. On the other hand, we're dealing with a man who has had previous convictions and is under probation relating to the distribution of pornographic photographs of children and for pandering obscenity.

The man is obviously a pedophile. The court has taken into account his previous history of offenses and used a convenient law to incarcerate a man who, based on the discovery of his written fantasies, seems very likely to reoffend. It seems to me the point of the matter is not that an otherwise innocent man has been prosecuted for recording his loathsome fantasies involving minors, but that in fact this man has been previously convicted on charges related to pedophilia and that his written fantasies are indicative of a strong likelyhood to reoffend in this regard.

This is certainly a debatable issue, especially in a country such as the United States, where individual liberties often take precedence over the security of the community. In this case, if the courts have erred, then they have done so on the side of community protection. It'd certainly be interesting to see how many parents who reside in this man's neighborhood come to his defense.

Maxelson, I don't believe you're serious in thinking the man was convicted solely for his thoughts. He was convicted based on his previous history of offenses, together with the discovery of a journal in which he describes sexual fantasies concerning acts of violence and depravity towards children. Taken together, they constitute a reasonably strong indication that this man will reoffend, perhaps endangering the lives and well-being of innocent children.

Also, your analogies would be much better if they had included an admission on your part to previous incidences of punching out co-workers, throttling nosey old bats and banging the heads of rude sales clerks into cash registers. Then we'd see a pattern of violent tendencies that could be weighed in concert with your written journal of violent fantasies.

Just my opinion, mind you. And yes; I have read Orwell's 1984, and I don't think it compares well with this situation at all.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>Hi guys. Long time no post.

Maxelson, I don't believe you're serious in thinking the man was convicted solely for his thoughts. He was convicted based on his previous history of offenses, together with the discovery of a journal in which he describes sexual fantasies concerning acts of violence and depravity towards children. Taken together, they constitute a reasonably strong indication that this man will reoffend, perhaps endangering the lives and well-being of innocent children.

Also, your analogies would be much better if they had included an admission on your part to previous incidences of punching out co-workers, throttling nosey old bats and banging the heads of rude sales clerks into cash registers. Then we'd see a pattern of violent tendencies that could be weighed in concert with your written journal of violent fantasies.

Just my opinion, mind you. And yes; I have read Orwell's 1984, and I don't think it compares well with this situation at all.</STRONG>

Hey, DBursey- good to hear from you. Been too long without you...
I have a problem with the reasoning here. While we may have established a pattern of criminal behavior, in this instance, he comitted no crime. As you know, one cannot be tried and convicted on a crime he MAY or MAY NOT commit. This guy has to have broken a law- or the threat has to be proven to be imminent... I think. Even in it's biggest stretch, the statute they cite cannot be applied here. The diary would have to be proven as a blueprint or some other type of conspiracy to act. Granted, none of us have read the thing, but based on the story, I cannot see how they can revoke the guy's parole. I think we must be working on incomplete information.
My analogy refered to, as you know, the concept of thought crime, which, based on the information available, is what we have here.
Look- I lose NO sleep on the fact that the guy is in prison, but call it what it is: a probability of harm to society. There, the pattern of behavior applies. If they have decided that he should not be lose, well, then, perhaps he should not have been paroled to start with. Cooking this business up to get him back into the slammer is just, as I stated in my original reply, Orwellian.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>In this case, if the courts have erred, then they have done so on the side of community protection. It'd certainly be interesting to see how many parents who reside in this man's neighborhood come to his defense.</STRONG>

I agree with this. My opinion is that the law has to be flexible, and sometimes respond to community standards rather than just the strict letter of the law. Justice is the goal of the law, and sometimes a technical reading of the law should be stretched to fit a situation and bring about justice.

I believe in jury nullification - if the law doesn't further justice, it should be bent. When a person whose family is starving steals a loaf of bread, the jury should apply the specifics of the case and acquit, even though the thief is technically guilty. I have to agree with this "pro-prosecution" type of nullification in this porn case, too, where the grand jury here stretched the law to fit a specific case. A little bit of flexibility to do the right thing is OK.

[finboy]

I think you guys are missing the point. We don't have to stretch the law here -- this piece of SH*T doesn't enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the rest of us. He's a convicted criminal on parole, his behavior has limits. This diary is part of his behavior. He has a limited right to privacy BECAUSE HE BROKE THE LAW. Felons can't purchase guns, for a reason. Sex offenders have restrictions too, especially when on parole.

There is no slippery slope here, he's a criminal. The state isn't punishing his thoughts, it's punishing his behavior (writing in a journal). Because of his prior behavior, the contents of that journal can become public, especially if he otherwise violates parole and it becomes part of a trial revealing state of mind.

Also, if such a journal is found, it would be incumbent upon the authorities to investigate it to determine whether or not there was any fact to it. Given HIS prior behavior, they would have to assume that there was some probability of this having actually occurred or that it was a plan that he intended to execute in the future.

Had he done things differently and NOT BEEN A CRIMINAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, none of this would have happened and he could write about whatever he wanted to.

He started it -- it's the state's responsibilty to finish it. I'll gladly delegate that responsibility to the prosecutors and cops involved. Let's keep this piece of filth off of the streets.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: finboy ]

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>It seems to me the point of the matter is not that an otherwise innocent man has been prosecuted for recording his loathsome fantasies involving minors, but that in fact this man has been previously convicted on charges related to pedophilia and that his written fantasies are indicative of a strong likelyhood to reoffend in this regard.

... He was convicted based on his previous history of offenses, together with the discovery of a journal in which he describes sexual fantasies concerning acts of violence and depravity towards children. Taken together, they constitute a reasonably strong indication that this man will reoffend, perhaps endangering the lives and well-being of innocent children.</STRONG>

Sorry, but this argument is wrong. The law allows for the prosection of people engaged in concrete, tangible plans to commit a crime--that crime is called conspiracy. Seven pages of prose do not a conspiracy make.

If this man was/is so likely to reoffend that it justifies violating any sane conception of personal liberty to keep him locked up, then he should not have been paroled in the first place. When you are released from prison, whether on parole or on completion of your sentence, there is an implicit understanding that you have accepted the consequences of your criminal actions and are now in a position where you can turn away from crime and live a productive and law-abiding life. Right? Otherwise what's the point?

[finboy]

Nope, parole isn't release. Parole is an agreement to maintain certain restricted behaviors and monitoring in exchange for being let out of prison, not for being let out of the prison system. How do we know this? Parole violators are re-incarcerated WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Putting a violator back in the swim is an administrative action. Therefore, he/she doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us. Obviously, if this represented some kind of Constitutional problem it would have been challenged LONG AGO, since there never seems to be a shortage of attorneys who are willing to represent pieces of human filth like this guy.

I agree that this maggot shouldn't be walking around. But he is, subject to certain conditions. If he violates those conditions, back he goes.

[maxelson]

finboy, you'd best remember to thank GOD for those piece of filth scumbag lawyers who will defend trash like this. They force the piece of trash scubag filth prosecutors to work hard and stay reasonably honest and keep from getting overzealous.
I don't like them any more than you, but I am glad they are here.
And you'd better believe that the ACLU or some such organization already has its hands on this one. I am willing to bet cash (that's the green, not the young misguided one- he is not mine to bet) that this gets thrown out.

[DoctorGonzo]

I'd contend that he was on probation, and didn't have a RIGHT to have those thoughts.

I think you guys are missing the point. We don't have to stretch the law here -- this piece of SH*T doesn't enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the rest of us. He's a convicted criminal on parole, his behavior has limits.

Thought is one of the most basic human rights, one that cannot be limited in any way shape or form by the rule of law. To suggest that doing so is acceptable, frankly horrifies me.

It crosses a line that cannot be crossed in civilized society. It goes way beyond punitive punishment and sets us off on a road that we shouldn't even begin to consider taking.

Dehumanizing people has only brought widespread misery throught the history of our civilization. It does no good whatsoever. It may let you get your kicks in the short run, but in the long run, we all lose.

This has nothing to do with his crimes, and everything to do with not lowering ourselves to a point below that of animals.

[MikeM32]

This man is definitely sick, but his writing this in his diary doesn't constitute any harmful conduct to any specific person(s).

It'd be like locking up someone for having a picture of thier naked infant baby taking a bath. And like everyone who has a kid probably does have some sort of picture like that.

The government needs to know it's place sometimes, and this is one of them.

Mike

[Subzero Diesel949]

Think of the implications of this...yes the guy is a scumbag who should be buried in the earth...but if someone can be jailed for thoughts, then I guess someone can be jailed for writing a manuscript saying that Bush is an &lt;insert choice phrase here&gt;.

I'm not condoning what the sicko did, but thinking is one thing, and acting on it is another.

The whole morality issue is another realm...that's not the subject of this thread.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Subzero Diesel949 ]

[Scott_H]

Well I started it so I better comment.

It's difficult to defend this guy. He was convicted of a sex crime. When you are convicted a lot of your rights are taken from you. Parole is just jail without the jailing. You're out but only under conditions.

It seems like this guy should be able to keep a private journal.

What about the other part. Can they ban child porn that doesn't involve children? Hummmm? I can't see how they can justify it. After all, child porn is illegal because it hurts children. Legally a child (or anyone else) cannot give consent for it. But if it's virtual or animated or a drawing or story.... seems like it's protected even if we don't like it.

[DBursey]

The question here is whether or not the terms of probation have been violated.

I do not disagree that a paroled criminal may legally be entitled to his freedom. In most cases however, incarceration does nothing to rehabilitate a criminal. Pedophilia especially is notoriously difficult to treat. This man ideally should have been confined to a properly equipped psychiatric institution, where his condition may have been treated with some success.

Pedophilia is defined as a severe psychological disorder; specifically a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), which is published by the American Psychological Association, supplies this definition of pedophilia: "recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child".

I'm no lawyer, but I didn't intend in my previous post to suggest that an innocent person should be incarcerated solely for his written or spoken words (unless as pointed out they amount to a threat or a conspiracy to commit a crime). However, in this case a man was released from prison for a period of probation, which is defined as 'the subjection of an individual to a period of testing and trial to ascertain fitness'. Now since he was imprisoned indirectly as a result of his psychological disorder, I would argue that the discovery of his journal of violent sexual fantasies toward children indicates that his rehabilitation is at the very least questionable, that he is still a pedophile, and that he may thus be in violation of the terms of his probation. Since pedophiles are known to be at a high risk to reoffend, I believe it should be incumbent on the judge to re-evaluate the conditions of probation in the interest of public safety.

At the very least, stringent conditions should be placed on this mans parole. He should be required to undergo mandatory and continuing treatment complete with periodic psychological re-evaluation. Police and the public should be made aware of his whereabouts, and he should not be allowed to come into contact with children. After all, the larger issue of concern here is public safety, right? We're obliged to protect our children from this type of harm.

[DoctorGonzo]

At the very least, stringent conditions should be placed on this mans parole. He should be required to undergo mandatory and continuing treatment complete with periodic psychological re-evaluation.

People complain about the inability of sex offendors to reform, yet very often no attempt is made to treat them. Some consider doing so being "soft" on crime. Locking someone up in a cage and then relesing them is supposed to magically cure them, and if it doesn't, we say they cannot be treated and they can never reform.

I see circular logic going on here.

Long sentances and Sex Offender Registries do absolutely nothing to address the underlying issues and when they fail to prevent repeat offenses we actually act surprised and and throw our collective hands in the air and say that nothing can be done.

Treatment will not be sucsessful in every case. But we have to face the fact these people are going to return to society eventually, and without dealing with their problem we will have accomplished very little. We might as well make an attempt at treatment, what we are doing now does not even begin to solve the problem and is essentially a bunch of feel-good mesures designed to put the public's mind at ease. They do not work, and they are not designed to work. And we get up in arms when they don't.

Wake up people.

I honestly don't see how prolonged confinement will aleviate a mental disorder or how public notification will be an effective means of preventing future crimes. If a sex offendor is going to commit another offense, I don't see how it could possibly deter them from doing so.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<STRONG>
Long sentances and Sex Offender Registries do absolutely nothing to address the underlying issues and when they fail to prevent repeat offenses we actually act surprised and and throw our collective hands in the air and say that nothing can be done.</STRONG>

Please. No one thinks Sex Offender Registries are going to "address the underlying issues". Its just a responce to sex offenders getting out of jail in moving in next door to a famliy of 6 or a school.

<STRONG>I honestly don't see how prolonged confinement will aleviate a mental disorder or how public notification will be an effective means of preventing future crimes. If a sex offendor is going to commit another offense, I don't see how it could possibly deter them from doing so.</STRONG>

We but we have to protect people from criminals. Confinement isn't always meant to cure sex offenders. It's punishemnt for criminals. But confinement VERY effecting at keeping sex offenders away from everyone else. Can't stop ****ing kids? Well? We'll just have to lock you up then.

[DoctorGonzo]

Please. No one thinks Sex Offender Registries are going to "address the underlying issues". Its just a responce to sex offenders getting out of jail in moving in next door to a famliy of 6 or a school.

I have seen it presented as a solution on many occasions.

While I agree that notifying police, schools, day care centers, etc is a very good idea, I fail to see how notifying the general public would make any difference. I see the potential for vigilante "justice" but little else. Perhaps knowing there is a dangerous sex offender living nearby will make parents and kids more cautious, but it's not going to protect them from a criminal.

There was a case in my area a few years back that showed, in the most horrifying way possible, how true that is.

We but we have to protect people from criminals. Confinement isn't always meant to cure sex offenders. It's punishemnt for criminals. But confinement VERY effecting at keeping sex offenders away from everyone else. Can't stop ****ing kids? Well? We'll just have to lock you up then.

Agreed.

However, the way the system works now, we use confinement as a (relatively) short-term solution to the problem. Sentancing sex offenders to many years in prison is a good idea, but we can't afford to use it as the only way of dealing with these people, as we do now.

As I said before, taking them out of society is a good thing, but we as a society better be prepared to do something to deal with the problem these people have. Because they do come back and if nothing is done, then how can we expect differnt results?

Whenever sex offendors are discussed, people marvel at the unusually high rate of repeat offenses. Yet they ignore the fact we do nothing to change the situation.

I want sex offenders sent to prison for a long, long time. I also want them treated because they will re-enter society and failing to make any attempt at treatment will leave the door wide open for future crimes. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best one I can think of.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<STRONG>
Whenever sex offendors are discussed, people marvel at the unusually high rate of repeat offenses. Yet they ignore the fact we do nothing to change the situation.</STRONG>

I don't think that's the case either. I can't provide a survey of treatment programs but many states do have them.

Here's an example. One guy who worked her before me got convicted of "touching" boys. He always maintained his innocence. Says he didn't do it and the kids made it up because he was the one who stood up to the gangs/bullies in the neighborhood. Who knows? Not me, never met the guy. Guy goes to jail in Indiana. Serves almost full time because he still wont admit to his crime. Gets out and has to join treatment program. He can't. Why not? You have to admit to your illness to join any of the programs. He still says he didn't do it. Wont say he did. So he doomed to violate his parole and go back to jail.

From what I read a lot that do get treatment violate again.

The whole issue is almost moot because the vast majority of child molesters do it in the piracy of their own home. They're never caught, convicted, treated....