katherine the great Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The idea that all child abuse offenders reoffend is a commonly held belief but is not true. I'm specifically referring to pedophiles. Show me the studies that say they can be cured. 2
Calm Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: that. I see no evidence that adult pedophiles are curable and until I do, Do you mean all those who experience the feelings, even if they control themselves or just those who act on the attraction?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 5 hours ago, smac97 said: In some situations, yes, it can negate the confession. Probably not in this situation. If the wife was present, she too has a privilege against being compelled to testify (see here). By way of analogy, if a client is talking to an attorney about a privileged matter, and another attorney at the same firm is invited in to hear it, that other attorney is not a "third party" whose presence would negate the privilege. Thanks, -Smac About 35-40 years ago, I was a newspaper reporter covering a court case in Ogden, Utah. A Latter-day Saint bishop was on the stand as a witness. He was asked a question at one point which he declined to answer, invoking the priest-penitent privilege. The prosecutor argued that the privilege didn’t apply, because bishops share information with other leaders such as stake presidents. As I recall, the defense got the client to waive the priest-penitent privilege, thereby getting the bishop off the hook, so I don’t know how the matter would have been resolved otherwise. Nor do I know what changes, if any, there have been in the law since then.
smac97 Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Apples and oranges, The guy wasn't just accused. He confessed. I still don't understand. Are you saying someone who confesses to misconduct loses his right to receive due process? Wouldn't that create a rather strong incentive to not confess? 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: No need to be so smug. I was not being smug. I apologize if I gave that impression. 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: A child's brain is not done growing yet so I don't expect them to behave or think as a fully grown adult. My point remains. 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Quote Do you fault doctors and attorneys who keep confidential matters in confidence? Maybe. Its probably a good thing I didn't enter into those professions. Oh. 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Quote I encourage you to give this matter some further thought and study Why? So I can have more compassion for pedophiles? No. So you can better understand what is happening, and why. The law allows for "privileged" communications. There are a good number of reasons for this. I encourage you to consider these things. 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Especially not today as I watched the biography of Jeffrey Epstein last night. It sickens me that he did those things and was protected from prosecution for so long by some very powerful men. Its also sickening that the women who procured the children for him are walking around free. What does this have to do with Due Process? 2 minutes ago, katherine the great said: If my son committed the offense as a grown man, I would support him going to prison for his offense. I would want my son to be held properly accountable, too. But I would also want him to receive Due Process. Thanks, -Smac 2
Tacenda Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Apples and oranges, The guy wasn't just accused. He confessed. No need to be so smug. A child's brain is not done growing yet so I don't expect them to behave or think as a fully grown adult. Not sure what that means. Maybe. Its probably a good thing I didn't enter into those professions. Why? So I can have more compassion for pedophiles? No thank you. Especially not today as I watched the biography of Jeffrey Epstein last night. It sickens me that he did those things and was protected from prosecution for so long by some very powerful men. Its also sickening that the women who procured the children for him are walking around free. If my son committed the offense as a grown man, I would support him going to prison for his offense. It would break my heart and I can't say that I would give up hope for him but I would feel that he needed to pay his debt to society and stay away from children. It would definitely make me more interested in understanding why it could happen to such a wonderful person (as all of my amazing sons are). As I said, I've never seen any evidence that pedophilia is curable. That doesn't mean it isn't but at this point, I see no evidence to support that. James 4:17 Good points as well! I watched the Jeffrey Epstein show as well, sometimes it was so difficult to watch, was horrified that this happened. This is becoming epidemic, along with child p o r n. I can't get over the fact that somehow we can't stop the ability to watch these. Some way our cell phones can't pick this up? Or the internet not be able to stop it? The innocent children? And the many reports daily of those that create or have dozens of files of this? Like you I'm a grandmother too, and I'm scared to death something will happen to my granddaughter. And worry about the kidnappings out there, so worry about my grandson as well, and have seen reports of attempted kidnappings in my state of Utah. Do you feel as helpless as I? That's why I want these crimes to be put up at the top.
Thinking Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 First of all I don't fault the Church and I hope that no money is awarded to the plaintiff. Two Questions: If the man knew that his bishop would contact the legal authorities, would he have confessed? I don't ask this question because I know the answer. I think this is a very difficult situation for all parties, but I believe that the needs of the victims of this type of abuse should take first priority. If I am understanding the situation correctly, the wife discovered the abuse and they went in together to talk to the bishop. With knowledge of his abuse, is she required to report it to the legal authorities?
smac97 Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Thinking said: First of all I don't fault the Church and I hope that no money is awarded to the plaintiff. If the counselor in the bishopric "went rogue" and breached the privelege, I find that disconcerting. 11 minutes ago, Thinking said: Two Questions: If the man knew that his bishop would contact the legal authorities, would he have confessed? Probably not. 11 minutes ago, Thinking said: I don't ask this question because I know the answer. I think this is a very difficult situation for all parties, but I believe that the needs of the victims of this type of abuse should take first priority. I don't understand. In saying "the needs of the victims of this type of abuse should take first priority," are you justifying/rationalizing the breach of the privelege? 11 minutes ago, Thinking said: If I am understanding the situation correctly, the wife discovered the abuse and they went in together to talk to the bishop. Yes. But apparently the bishop did not breach the privelege, his counselor did (who apparently was participating in a disciplinary council about the abuse). 11 minutes ago, Thinking said: With knowledge of his abuse, is she required to report it to the legal authorities? Probably not. I think Oregon has a "spousal privelege." Was she legally entitled to report it to the legal authorities (if not "required")? I suspect so. Thanks, -Smac
Thinking Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. In saying "the needs of the victims of this type of abuse should take first priority," are you justifying/rationalizing the breach of the privelege? In my original post I implied that I don't know the answer, so I am not justifying/rationalizing anything. I do believe, however, that the needs of the victims should come first.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 9 hours ago, Calm said: A pastor is not an officer of the government, so unless mandatory reporting makes them such, don’t see why same rules would simply be assumed to apply. I have never had a doctor or therapist inform me that if I confessed criminal behaviour to them I was at risk for being reported, even in places with mandatory reporting for doctors. I will have ask my sister the elementary teacher if she has to announce to her class or their parents that she is required to report. A minister would be closer to the above than a police officer. Police officers would be where you start the requirement (the “even” implies there is something remarkable in requiring officers to mirandize) I did not suggest that a police officer was the same as a priest. My point was that there are very specific legal rules applying to each instance of confession, and those rules must be followed. Jurisdictions differ on which rules are applicable, but they cannot be ignored. A lot of the discussion here is ignoring those rules.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 9 hours ago, Calm said: Some mandatory reporting laws protect reporters from liability. My conclusion was based on a series of conditions: Quote The problem is the common understanding of the penitent person. Does he reasonably believe that his confession will held confidential and inviolate? Does the law permit the priest/pastor/imam to disclose anything to anybody without permission of the penitent? If it is disclosed, despite such prohibitions, can such disclosure be used as evidence in a court of law, or will it then be considered fruit of the poison tree? And is the priest then liable for civil penalties? Yes.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: I'm specifically referring to pedophiles. Show me the studies that say they can be cured. Some data from http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html , Quote The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense. -Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study. Quote • More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back. -California Department of Corrections. Quote • Recidivism rates range from 18-45%. The more violent the crime the more likelihood of repeating. -Studies by the state of Washington. • 3 in 10 child victimizers reported that they had committed their crimes against multiple victims: they were more likely than those who victimized adults to have had multiple victims. -BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment. -Dr. Ann Burges, Dr. Nicholas Groth, et al. in a study of imprisoned offenders.
strappinglad Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 Would the members of the DC be told specifically not to say anything to anyone about what went on during the council? Been so long ago that I was present , as a clerk, for one that I can't recall.
smac97 Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Thinking said: In my original post I implied that I don't know the answer, so I am not justifying/rationalizing anything. I do believe, however, that the needs of the victims should come first. Okay. But what does "come first" mean? Should "the needs of the victim" supersede the perpetrator's right to due process? Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: I'm specifically referring to pedophiles. Show me the studies that say they can be cured. You mean beyond the ability to be tempted? I was not suggesting that. I said not all reoffend.
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Would the members of the DC be told specifically not to say anything to anyone about what went on during the council? Been so long ago that I was present , as a clerk, for one that I can't recall. Generally yes. I am not so sure there was a disciplinary council. The bishop may have shared with the counselors due to the possible safety concern.
mrmarklin Posted January 10, 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 In these kinds of cases anyone that is perceived to have deep pockets is sued. Not really worth the bandwidth it is getting.
Calm Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: My conclusion was based on a series of conditions: Mandatory reporting at times super-cedes the priest/penitent laws. I think there is some debate about Oregon as to which has precedence.
Calm Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) Recividism depends on the type of offense being studied. There is confusion due to people applying stats wider than they should be. Quote Research has disproven the perception that sex offenders are especially prone to recidivism. In reality, recidivism rates for sex offenses are lower than for all other major types of crime, and the U.S. Department of Justice has found that only about 3 percent of child molesters commit another sex crime within three years of being released from prison. Meta-analysis of hundreds of studies confirms that once they are detected, most convicted offenders never sexually reoffend. (Not all sex offenders who victimize children are pedophiles; only about 40 percent of convicted sex offenders meet the diagnostic criteria for the disorder.) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/pedophilia%3famp Quote The Prevention Project Dunkelfeld clinics in Germany, which use cognitive behavioral methodology to teach clients how to control their sexual impulses, have treated more than 5,000 people who have voluntarily come forward seeking services. (Germany does not have mandatory reporting laws comparable to those in the United States.) The clinic also offers psychopharmaceutical interventions, including, when needed, testosterone-lowering medication to dampen sexual appetite. The project’s initial results, while based on small samples, appear encouraging: Participants have been shown to experience improvements in their self-regulation abilities and decreases in attitudes that support sexual contact with children. They usually divide ch-ld sex offenders into three categories: juvenile offenders who have success with much lower recividism if treated, pedophilic offenders (have attraction disorder), and nonpedophilic offenders (more crime of opportunity rather than attraction, children are easy targets). Will try to find research I posted before about different levels of recividism with each group. It is important to use research from the last ten years if possible imo due to changes in how research is being done. See The NY Times article for info on one aspect (online behaviour correlation to molesting) for example. Edited January 11, 2020 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) Collecting images is a high predictor of likely predatory behaviour. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/pedophiles-online-sex-abuse.amp.html A good summary of the different issues dealing with offending child molestors: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/chld-mlstr/index-en.aspx Info on juvenile offenders (1/3 of all ch-ld offenders are juvenile) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf Edited January 11, 2020 by Calm
katherine the great Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 7 hours ago, Calm said: Do you mean all those who experience the feelings, even if they control themselves or just those who act on the attraction? I'm thinking of active, predatory pedophiles. There may be some studies on the other type but I'm not sure many people would admit to it. (although I'm often surprised at what people admit to in anonymous surveys!)
katherine the great Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I still don't understand. Are you saying someone who confesses to misconduct loses his right to receive due process? How was this guy deprived of due process? Is it illegal in Oregon for clergy to report admitted child molestation? The language says that they aren’t required to report child abuse but I don't see anything stating that they can't. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Wouldn't that create a rather strong incentive to not confess? Probably. But what good is a confession if there's no legal consequence and protection of the victim? 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I would want my son to be held properly accountable, too. But I would also want him to receive Due Process. I wouldn't want my son strung up in the town square without a trial but I still don't understand why reporting the abuse to authorities is somehow depriving the perpetrator of due process.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: Mandatory reporting at times super-cedes the priest/penitent laws. I think there is some debate about Oregon as to which has precedence. Whatever the case, a crazy quilt of different rules/laws makes for confusion. American states have for a long time been trying to enact standard laws in every state, so as to reduce confusion. To go in the other direction might be counter productive. It may also impinge on religious privilege, which may be a constitutional issue.
katherine the great Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 8 hours ago, Tacenda said: Like you I'm a grandmother too, and I'm scared to death something will happen to my granddaughter. And worry about the kidnappings out there, so worry about my grandson as well, and have seen reports of attempted kidnappings in my state of Utah. Do you feel as helpless as I? That's why I want these crimes to be put up at the top. There's a lot of information coming to light lately that is very shocking. The most frustrating part of the documentary to me was how hard it was to get any justice! The State attorney calling the girls prostitutes? Seriously? 14 year old virgin prostitutes? And then generously offering to prosecute him on a misdemeanor solicitation. People astonish me sometimes.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: Recividism depends on the type of offense being studied. There is confusion due to people applying stats wider than they should be. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/pedophilia%3famp ………………………………….. Will try to find research I posted before about different levels of recividism with each group. ……………………………………. That PsychToday piece you cited included this concluding paragraph: Quote The prognosis for reducing pedophilic desire is difficult to determine, as longstanding sexual fantasies about children can be difficult to change. A practitioner can attempt to reduce the intensity of fantasies and help a patient develop coping strategies, but the individual must be willing to recognize that a problem exists and be willing to participate in treatment for it to have a chance to succeed. Dynamic psychotherapy, behavioral techniques, chemical approaches, and even surgical interventions deliver mixed results. Lifelong maintenance may be the most pragmatic and realistic approach. Somewhat reminiscent of the false claims that a variety of techniques could be used to "treat" homosexuality.
Calm Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 47 minutes ago, katherine the great said: I'm thinking of active, predatory pedophiles. There may be some studies on the other type but I'm not sure many people would admit to it. (although I'm often surprised at what people admit to in anonymous surveys!) I think it is important to make the difference and identify offending pedophiles. With mandatory reporting and other things including attitudes that all pedophiles are wannabe sex offenders, pedophiles in general are not encouraged to get treatment and that can lead to higher rates of criminal behaviour, not less.
Recommended Posts