Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
2BizE

Utah Highest Sex Abuse Rate

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I read this enlightening article.  :) What strikes me is that it consistently defines the term scare quotes in relation to the author's intent and meaning.  It provides no means to distinguish whether their usage is meant as scare quotes or as appropriate punctuation denoting a specific word. 

From this I gather that you are confident enough in knowing the intent and meaning behind RevTestament's usage to insist that they are scare quotes rather than intentional punctuation.  I'm curious then, which of the purposes of scare quotes was he using?

  • a) using a word in a non-standard sense
  • b) using it in an ironic manner
  • c) using it in another special sense
  • d) using someone else's term
  • e) implying skepticism
  • f) implying disagreement
  • g) believing the word is misused
  • h) indicating that the writer intends a meaning that is opposite the word

Please enlighten those of us who can't read minds.  

 

I cannot read minds which is why I asked the question.  Thank you for your snark.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I cannot read minds which is why I asked the question.  Thank you for your snark.

Wouldn't it make sense then to ask something like: 

Why did you put abuse in quotation marks?  Are you saying these things aren't actually abuse?

Instead of labeling them as scare quotes which assumes knowledge of intent? 

Then when he articulated why he used quotations marks and denied that they were intended as scare quotes, why did you post the link?   

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Wouldn't it make sense then to ask something like: 

Why did you put abuse in quotation marks?  Are you saying these things aren't actually abuse?

Instead of labeling them as scare quotes which assumes knowledge of intent? 

Then when he articulated why he used quotations marks and denied that they were intended as scare quotes, why did you post the link?   

Oh, good grief.  I posted the link because he asked what they were. I called them scare quotes because, in my experience, that is the common assumption throughout the Internet when quote marks are used that way; your mileage may vary.

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post

I looked , but was unable to find an emoji that demonstrated a " knee jerk reaction" . An article from 5 years ago with a title straight out of the " clickbait " manual, intended to make one gasp. Notice my use of " scare quotes " . Nuance was provided by some, shame was heaped upon the Church by others etc. Utah is 100% " Mormon " right ? ( there I go again ) , I mean to say, there are all kinds of obfuscation, and headlines about statistics in studies are near the top of the list.

For your consideration.

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-statistics-can-be-misleading-mark-liddell

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If it has child and sex and abuse or something similar in the url it may 403 it.

I'm sure that was it, then

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm making a logical assumption that if Utah has some unique differences in how it tracks these statistics that other states surely also have unique differences. 

This pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf has a summary of all the different states and their laws around child abuse.  You can find more pdfs related to reporting of child abuse at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/can/reporting/.

There are definitely differences between the states but I'm not sure Utah is any more unique then the others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The same report I linked to above shows a breakdown of perpetrators by age (Table 5-2). This table represents all child abuse, not just sexual abuse. What's notable about Utah's statistics is that they seem to have the highest percentage of perpetrators in the 12-17 age range by far. I haven't done a complete analysis as this would require me to enter a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet, but just for comparative purposes Utah has 605 out of 7,284 total perpetrators in the 12-17 age range while New York has 241 out of 51,199 and Arizona has 67 out of 11,107. This supports what some have been saying regarding the way Utah reports incidents of abuse when the perpetrators are minors.

We can approximate the effect on Utah's overall abuse rate of reporting 12-17 year old perpetrators. If we assume that Utah is the only state that includes 12-17 year-olds, then we can estimate that there were 478 Utah perpetrators of child sexual abuse aged 12-17. For the 1,671 child victims of abuse we can estimate there were 1,266 perpetrators. This means that about 38% of the sexual abuse cases were perpetrated by 12-17 year olds. So if we reduce the 1.8 from my previous post by 38% we end up with 1.1 victims per thousand. This puts Utah at about 12th in the country. Still too high. Anything is too high. But this helps us get a better idea where Utah lands. Of course there could be dozens of other factors that either under- or over-estimate the true values but we can only work with the data we've got.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I also ensure me or my wife are present with our children for all interviews with the bishop or counselors. 

Well, ok.  Although do you also keep your children indoors at all times?  Because they have a far greater chance of being hit by lightning than being abused by a bishop or counselor.

And don't even get me started on letting them be in a moving vehicle...`

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I also ensure me or my wife are present with our children for all interviews with the bishop or counselors. 

These are some things I am doing.

Good for you.  We are having more parents come in and request to be present in all of their children's (youth's) interviews.  I think more are learning this option is available to them and feel it's right for them to do.  My Bishop fully supports this.

Share this post


Link to post

In the report from JarMan, it also breaks down by age of the victim in table 3-5 (though, this is for all victims, not just s-x abuse victims).  If you rank the states, then Utah is:

<1 years old: 31st
1 year old: 27th
2 year old: 28th
3 year old: 23rd
4 year old: 24th
5 year old: 20th
6 year old: 26th
7 year old: 19th
8 year old: 22nd
9 year old: 20th
10 year old: 19th
11 year old: 20th
12 year old: 18th
13 year old: 15th
14 year old: 11th
15 year old: 10th
16 year old: 5th
17 year old: 3rd

Utah sits around the middle of the pack for most ages and only for the teenage years does it start to climb.  This is probably when s-xual abuse starts being seen.

Interestingly enough, only Utah and District of Columbia have this type of large of a climb where they are low in the earlier ages and then go up in the later ages.  A few states have a high rank in the lower ages and then get a lower rank as the age progresses but most states appear to stay relatively stable.  Massachusetts is either ranked 1 or 2 for all age groups.  Kentucky is ranked 2, 3, or 4 for all age groups.  Indiana is ranked 3, 4, 5, or 6 for all age groups.

I would have expected more states to show a change once teenager years start.  If you look at Vermont (which has the highest per capita child s-xual assault per this report), its highest rank is only 13 overall and that is for 14 year olds.  The rest of the time, it is ranked in the 18 or lower (mostly in the upper 20s or 30s).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Good for you.  We are having more parents come in and request to be present in all of their children's (youth's) interviews.  I think more are learning this option is available to them and feel it's right for them to do.  My Bishop fully supports this.

And once again it raises the question, what if it’s the parents who are the abusers?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For all worried parents it is important to remember that statistically the most likely person to molest your children is you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Traela said:

And once again it raises the question, what if it’s the parents who are the abusers?

 

I don't think that is really an issue.  More of a problem to me is in a worthiness interview that a youth may be inclined to say what they think their parents want to hear rather that what they should say.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

For all worried parents it is important to remember that statistically the most likely person to molest your children is you.

Oh wow.  That's true, isn't it.  Never heard it put that way before - it makes sense, brings perspective, and also brings a little kick.  Good factoid.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2018 at 10:47 AM, ttribe said:

Why the scare quotes? Are you saying these things aren't actually abuse?

Rev might be suggesting that mixed in with these stats is everything from rape to simply playing "doctor."  I am reminded of first graders who have touched or kissed a fellow student being charged with sexual assault and getting arrested  or suspended for it.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/sexual-harassment-6-year-old-dropped_n_4435382.html .  Sometimes we lack any sense of proportion.

Quote

Indeed, calling a matter “sexual” when a first-grader is involved seems at odds with California statutes that indicate that such intent can only be applied to children who are in fourth grade or older.

Stuart Lustig, a board-certified child psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that in general it is quite common, normal even, for young children to touch each other’s genital areas. “It’s curiosity,” he said. “It’s not sexual in the adult sense.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/education/boy-6-suspended-in-sexual-assault-case-at-elementary-school.html .

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/17/2018 at 9:03 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, ok.  Although do you also keep your children indoors at all times?  Because they have a far greater chance of being hit by lightning than being abused by a bishop or counselor.

And don't even get me started on letting them be in a moving vehicle...`

2 deep leadership is for pansies. Seat belts are for the weak!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×