Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You and I actually do agree about incarceration and the criminal justice system's role and shortcomings. We also agree that the most important thing is keeping kids from becoming victims of predators.
I understand you have reservations about medicine in general and psychiatry in particular. I have no problem with that. Where we begin to have a problem is when you accuse the psychiatric community as a whole of purposeful obfuscation, being PC to the point of ignoring evidence, advancing whatever political agenda you think they have as if these accusations were facts instead of your opinion.
I do think part of the difficulty you're describing is that especially in a population like pedophiles, who aren't particularly well studied and until the past few decades didn't even have solid diagnostic criteria to diagnose, is that we (you, me and the psychiatric community) really don't know much. We know stats on offenders after the fact, but as you rightly point out, there is not much in the way of predictive validity - figuring out who will offend and who won't or who will re-offend and who won't. In well-studied disorders, predictive validity, or at least identifying specific risk factors, is much higher.
Truth be told, in a practical sense, diagnosis is just a short-hand for doctors to talk to each other. If someone is a psychopath, they'll carry an Anti-Social PD diagnosis. But in all honesty, that doesn't do much for prevention because similar to the problem with pedophilia: 1) it's a low base rate behavior (i.e., doesn't occur in a large % of the population), 2) unless you happen to be someone with access to the psychopath's medical records, how would you even know, 3) there's no effective treatment to date, and 4) they're not likely to just wander into your office and say "hi, I feel no remorse over hurting other people or breaking laws."
Seriously, though, even among the small subset of psychiatric professionals who study sexual disorders/paraphilias (and it's a small number relative to the total number of mental health professionals), there are few calls for compassion for compassion's sake. Typically, it's compassion for the sake of developing a treatment. Whether you agree or disagree with that is one thing, but to call out the psychiatric community as a whole as trying to normalize or defend pedophilia is just inaccurate.
Finally, again whether you agree or not, there are actually quite a few empirically validated, evidence-based treatments for a whole slew of disorders, that have nothing to do with medication (though you can certainly make a valid case for over-medicating or medicating as a first line treatment where therapy would be more effective). Any fool can hang out a shingle and offer crystal therapy and call it a treatment; it doesn't make it a treatment recognized or supported by evidence or the psychiatric community as a whole. I'm not sure if it was this post or last, but part of the problem is also how the media reports one study's results at a time as if it changes the whole base of evidence that's come before. Good (social) science is the amalgamation of research supported conclusions and the replication of those findings, not just one study.
As a personal aside, the idea that therapy is singing kumbaya and saying "I'm ok, you're ok" is a bunch of BS. Teaching clients how to take responsibility for managing their symptoms, their actions and their lives, whether they be mood-based or behavior-based, is a huge part of most efficacious treatments.
ETA: Orthorexia nervosa? Not a medically recognized term - Bratman coined it, but heck, I can coin terms too. It's not recognized by the APA and is not in the current DSM nor planned to be included in DSM-V.
There's a push for it to be included in the DSM V ... that it is even topic of discussion is testament to the supreme lunacy of the psychiatric establishment. Moving on .....
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt that the majority within general medicine wish to cure physical disease, and believe they are doing just that. But desire doesn't mean squat in the greater scheme of things. And there is no magic in white coats and fancy certificates ... only the illusion of it. As for psychiatry, my feelings are far more suspicious.
Now I don't know to what capacity you serve the system, be it psychiatrist or psychologist or therapist or councilor .... but whatever position you may hold, you're a product of the system ... it's philosophies, it's dictates and mandates, and it's accepted protocols bind you. It's all you know, as the system itself serves as your singular source of knowledge and information. You may think you're well informed, but like the school kid, you're subject to the information presented you. Or, you may be one of many who absolutely have to know you're selling snake oil, and making a very good living at it.
In either case, I would contend that, should in kindergarten you were taught that 2+2=5, and that was reinforced each year, 1-12, and then reaffirmed in college, I'd have no chance of convincing you that 2+2=4. Not with apples or calculators or any rational argument, because belief requires no facts or truth, only repetition, which is exactly how our entire education system operates ... the better you are at memorizing and repeating what you are told, the more "brilliant" you're told you are through grades and accolades and certificates of authenticity.
So I am far to pragmatic to believe for a moment that I could possibly convince you of anything. I could show you the white papers stating the goals to increase pharmaceutical treatment of children with psychotropics for the purpose of pharmaceutical profits, in spite of the extreme dangers of these drugs. I could outline for you corrupt and abominable record of the FDA in performing their charter function of protecting the public health, not only approving dangerous and ineffective drugs, but covering up the dangers purposely. And it wouldn't phase you one iota.
I could even go as far as to provide evidence to you that the fundamental premise of human biology as it is currently understood and being taught today in medical schools all around the world is a total fraud, and that such information was known at least by the early 1970's .... would that make a difference in your opinions? I seriously doubt it, but just to satisfy any potential curiosity, what I am referring to is the universally accepted premise of Genetic Control ... that genes are hard coded. It's not true, and the truth has been purposely withheld, because the truth would destroy the very foundation of modern medicine, and that will not be allowed.
Genes are programmable, not hard coded, and interact with the environment. Genes can be rewritten ... recoded, to the extent of total instantaneous species change, which itself destroys widely held notions, including evolution theory, and particularly natural selection. Of course, Darwinian theory is such a preposterous level of nonsense, that itself proves that you can convince anyone of anything.
What you think you know is ALL WRONG .... it's a belief you embrace, not knowledge. There's probably little difference in our relative intelligence levels .... I'm just better informed, and not bound by the mainstream dogma that defines your world.
So forgive me when I say that what makes up the DSM is in large measure a work of fiction, laughable in many cases .... in others, just a crying shame. It's industry literature ... a sales brochure for the pharmaceutical mafia ..... somewhere in all of that couch action, and thoughtful hand holding, a prescription is generally included.
Anyone with any observable mental illness does some "damage to the society". But there are not typically calls for executing the mentally ill, except in this singular case.
Not true at all .... serial killers are universally understood to be incurable and extremely dangerous ... and more often than not prime candidates for the death penalty.
Child predators share several similar characteristics with serial killers ... including early onset of mild to extreme antisocial behaviors .... and compulsive desires they find impossible to control.
Many also share a sociopathic absence of empathy for there victims, and are calculating in their techniques to lure potential victims. Unremorseful in many cases, and consumed by their desires.
There's a push for it to be included in the DSM V ... that it is even topic of discussion is testament to the supreme lunacy of the psychiatric establishment. Moving on .....
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt that the majority within general medicine wish to cure physical disease, and believe they are doing just that. But desire doesn't mean squat in the greater scheme of things. And there is no magic in white coats and fancy certificates ... only the illusion of it. As for psychiatry, my feelings are far more suspicious.
Now I don't know to what capacity you serve the system, be it psychiatrist or psychologist or therapist or councilor .... but whatever position you may hold, you're a product of the system ... it's philosophies, it's dictates and mandates, and it's accepted protocols bind you. It's all you know, as the system itself serves as your singular source of knowledge and information. You may think you're well informed, but like the school kid, you're subject to the information presented you. Or, you may be one of many who absolutely have to know you're selling snake oil, and making a very good living at it.
In either case, I would contend that, should in kindergarten you were taught that 2+2=5, and that was reinforced each year, 1-12, and then reaffirmed in college, I'd have no chance of convincing you that 2+2=4. Not with apples or calculators or any rational argument, because belief requires no facts or truth, only repetition, which is exactly how our entire education system operates ... the better you are at memorizing and repeating what you are told, the more "brilliant" you're told you are through grades and accolades and certificates of authenticity.
So I am far to pragmatic to believe for a moment that I could possibly convince you of anything. I could show you the white papers stating the goals to increase pharmaceutical treatment of children with psychotropics for the purpose of pharmaceutical profits, in spite of the extreme dangers of these drugs. I could outline for you corrupt and abominable record of the FDA in performing their charter function of protecting the public health, not only approving dangerous and ineffective drugs, but covering up the dangers purposely. And it wouldn't phase you one iota.
I could even go as far as to provide evidence to you that the fundamental premise of human biology as it is currently understood and being taught today in medical schools all around the world is a total fraud, and that such information was known at least by the early 1970's .... would that make a difference in your opinions? I seriously doubt it, but just to satisfy any potential curiosity, what I am referring to is the universally accepted premise of Genetic Control ... that genes are hard coded. It's not true, and the truth has been purposely withheld, because the truth would destroy the very foundation of modern medicine, and that will not be allowed.
Genes are programmable, not hard coded, and interact with the environment. Genes can be rewritten ... recoded, to the extent of total instantaneous species change, which itself destroys widely held notions, including evolution theory, and particularly natural selection. Of course, Darwinian theory is such a preposterous level of nonsense, that itself proves that you can convince anyone of anything.
What you think you know is ALL WRONG .... it's a belief you embrace, not knowledge. There's probably little difference in our relative intelligence levels .... I'm just better informed, and not bound by the mainstream dogma that defines your world.
So forgive me when I say that what makes up the DSM is in large measure a work of fiction, laughable in many cases .... in others, just a crying shame. It's industry literature ... a sales brochure for the pharmaceutical mafia ..... somewhere in all of that couch action, and thoughtful hand holding, a prescription is generally included.
The fact that you think there's a push in any meaningful way, aside from a tiny group who follow Bratman's thinking, to include it in DSM pretty much tells what I need to know. Even the link you provided said this was highly unlikely. There are fringe wackadoodles in EVERY profession. They don't speak for the whole.
Interestingly, I was going to say the same things about you as you did about me. I have no hope of convincing you that what you consider being informed smacks of conspiracy theory. I will go so far as to say, I think you probably believe what you say. I disagree with you, not because I recite what I'm told like a child (but thanks for the assumption), but because I haven't seen any evidence you've provided that supports what you're saying above any other interpretation. It would take us very far afield from the thread topic, but I actually am open to new information that I can evaluate.
I'm fine with our agreeing to disagree. You're right that you won't convince me that your take on medicine and psychiatry is accurate, and I'm sure I won't convince you. I actually think some of your criticisms are valid. As with most things, the truth of the matter probably lies somewhere in between. It has been interesting, though.
You say your main reason for posting is to clarify misconceptions. That's my goal as well. To that end, it was said earlier that the majority of the child molesters are "heterosexual", including those acts committed by men against boys. In spite of the same sex nature of this assault by men against boys, the claim is that child molestation has nothing to do with "sexual orientation", even though the perp that assaults boys generally has a history of assaulting only boys .... which seems to present an odd contradiction given the claim that most are heterosexual. How does that make an iota of sense?
The facts are, this data about the "sexual orientation" of the perpetrators comes from where? The perpetrators themselves. That's right ... the psychiatric clinicians simply ask the perpetrators whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, and then take the answer given at face value, even when the perp admits to homosexual relations with others but still claims to be heterosexual. So, you may have a man who admits to having homosexual relationships ... has furthermore molested a bunch of little boys, and then claims to be heterosexual, and that "claim" becomes part of the statistical record?
If that isn't mind numbing contradiction enough, let add to it with the claim that most child molesters are "heterosexual" in the same breath that also claims such sexual abuse doesn't recognize a particular "sexual orientation".
What we have here is one consistent them of distortions, denials, and mind numbing contradictions coming from a consistent group of liberal apologists. And I have yet to see anything from the majority of those who self identify as homosexuals except excuses and distortions, and nothing remotely close to condemnation of this most condemnable act.
Frankly, the OP's claim that the actual data shows that homosexuals are 3 times as likely to molest children as heterosexuals is actually correct, while at the same time, the statement that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexuals is ALSO correct. So this isn't a crime exclusive to either heterosexuals or homosexuals, as both are committing these crimes ... but if one is truly concerned with identifying the cause of this mental affliction, the truth must stop being the victim of political correctness, and the denials and obfuscations must stop.
If the data shows homosexuals to be more predisposed to being child molesters, stop trying to cover that up ... that doesn't mean all homosexuals are would be child molesters, but denying this pattern or trend is counter productive. And the psychiatric community is EXTREMELY guilty of engaging in this type of obfuscation and double talk ... if we are to "clarify" the misconceptions, it will not likely come from the psychiatric community.
The reality is, it's a recognized fact that the majority of molesters are male. I'm a male, and I'm not trying to deny or distort that fact ... it is simply a fact. It's also a fact that the majority of males are not child molesters. It's also a fact that little girls are two to three times more likely to be victims of molestation than boys. That suggests that around 1/3 of the victims are boys, with the overwhelming majority of perps being men .... that comes out to approximately 30% of child molestations are homosexually oriented men victimizing boys, which in spite of the inane rhetoric to the contrary, represents homosexually oriented assault on these children. Spare us the inane BS that men abusing boys is not homosexual, but is actually a heterosexual instead.
Now, given the small percentage ratio of homosexual to heterosexual males in society, these numbers show that an inordinate number of assaults are being committed by homosexuals ... but just as telling ... there is a similar inordinate number of homosexuals attempting to make excuses for such deviant behavior as demonstrated on this thread ... other threads I have personally contributed to ... and organizations and spokespersons who sympathize with, or are proponents of this more moderate approach to how to treat these predators.
You are make a number of incorrect assumptions in your post.
1) That clinicians "simply ask the perpetrators whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, and then take the answer given at face value".
This is incorrect. It also shows you have not even read the research that you are so casually criticising. Physiological arousal can be measured. Fpr example, look at the work of Kurt Freund who developed the use of penile plesmographs in his long career of studying sex offenders. And since the 1990's, MRI (and now fMRI) or PET scans can be used to detect brain reponses to stimuli.
Even if those methods are not employed, researchers do not "simply ask" people if they are homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.
2) "that the OP's claim that the actual data shows that homosexuals are 3 times as likely to molest children as heterosexuals is actually correct"
No. This is incorrect. And once again shows you have not read the actual research. All the research shows that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. And in fact, several studies show they are less likely. The only places you will find claims that homosexuals are "far more likely to molest children", are on anti-gay websites where studies are deliberately misrepresented. (like the article maja linked to)
The confusion seems to come from lay people not understanding the differences between "fixated" or "true" pedophiles and "regressed" pedophiles or "situational child molestors". It is also confused by a lack of understanding between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Researchers DO make this distinction, but it gets lost in the anti-gay propaganda that has become so prevalent in recent years.
A "fixated" or "true" pedophile is a person who is soley fixated on prepubescent children and has no adult sexual attractions/orientation. These make up the minority of child sexual abusers but have the most victims. For example this study of about 2500 pedophilic sexual offenders showed that only about 7% were exclusively attracted to children.
If you strapped on a penile plesmographs or used an MRI on a person like this and showed them child pornography they would have a phsyiological response. Yet they would have no response to adult pornography whether heterosexual or homosexual.
A "regressed" pedophile or "situational" child molestor is someone who does have an adult sexual orientation and attractions to adults and may be in a relationship with an adult or has a history of relationships with adults (often poor ones). They abuse children in an opportunistic way, because children are available when an adult may not be, or because of a poor relationships or other stressors. These people make up the majority of child molestors but have fewer victims - often children in their own family (incest) or those of relatives/friends or in children in their care.
If you strapped on a penile plesmograph or used an MRI on a person like this and showed them adult heterosexual pornography or adult homosexual pornography they would have a phsyiological response depending on their sexual orientation. According to the researcher, as well as the responses of child molestors themselves, molestors with heterosexual orientation can be attracted to young boys as well as girls because they are more "feminine". Often boys are much more available to these men than girls. These men are heterosexual, not homosexual.
3) That your "main goal" is to "clarify misconceptions".
This is also incorrect. How can you clarify misconceptions when you haven't read the actual research and show that you have a poor understanding of pedophilia as well as sexual orientation. You are just repeating anti-gay propaganda based on deliberate misrepresentation.
4) "That homosexuals are attempting to make excuses for such deviant behavior".
There are no "excuses" necessary, as the data does not support your claims. However, lies and misrepresentations should be exposed for what they are. Pure political/religious propaganda to vilify gay people by playing on people's fears about the safety of children. This is abhorrent. And is certainly not anything to do with "protecting children".
5) "What we have here is one consistent them of distortions, denials, and mind numbing contradictions coming from a consistent group of liberal apologists"
Incorrect again. It's the conservative religious/far right and their anti-gay propaganda that has been shown conclusively to be well practiced in "distortions, denials, and mind numbing contradictions" in their efforts to vilify gay people at all costs. Even the cost of the safety and wellbeing of their own (and everyone else's) children.
Perhaps, you could actually read some of the studies before criticising them? And do a bit of research on pedophilia from reputable peer-reviewed sources rather than anti-gay propaganda sources?
“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children†Journal of Sex Research -Freund, Kurt; Watson, Robin J.; Rienzo, Douglas. “Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and the erotic age preference.†Journal of Sex Research 26, no. 1 (1989): 107-117
**************************
Quote:
“..a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual." (Carole Jenny et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994)
**************************
Quote:
“The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male†National Institutes of Health – PubMed (Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.â€)
**************************
Quote:
"Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male."
A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary, “The Child Molester: Clinical Observations,†in Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse, eds. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth Press, 1982), p.136.
**************************
Quote:
"Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth."
Marshal, W.L.; Barbaree, H.E.; Butt, Jennifer. “Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences.â€
**************************
Quote:
“The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data.â€
“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual."
Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation.
**************************
The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study of over 4000 child molestors in the US also show that 97% of child molestors were religious and over 70% were married with children: Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute
**************************
And here is a general article showing how some conservative religious anti-gay groups misrepresent and distort studies like those above to vilify homosexuals. Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
What kind of pedophiles are the female teachers who sleep with their underage students? What "data" and excuses are there regarding their pedophile orientation? There are also several stories of female pedophiles who have performed or aided in the sexual abuse of small boys and girls.
So count me as one of those who thinks all individuals who perpetrate sexual pedophile behavior should be killed; this applies to both male and female pedophiles.
There's a push for it to be included in the DSM V ... that it is even topic of discussion is testament to the supreme lunacy of the psychiatric establishment. Moving on .....
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt that the majority within general medicine wish to cure physical disease, and believe they are doing just that. But desire doesn't mean squat in the greater scheme of things. And there is no magic in white coats and fancy certificates ... only the illusion of it. As for psychiatry, my feelings are far more suspicious.
Now I don't know to what capacity you serve the system, be it psychiatrist or psychologist or therapist or councilor .... but whatever position you may hold, you're a product of the system ... it's philosophies, it's dictates and mandates, and it's accepted protocols bind you. It's all you know, as the system itself serves as your singular source of knowledge and information. You may think you're well informed, but like the school kid, you're subject to the information presented you. Or, you may be one of many who absolutely have to know you're selling snake oil, and making a very good living at it.
In either case, I would contend that, should in kindergarten you were taught that 2+2=5, and that was reinforced each year, 1-12, and then reaffirmed in college, I'd have no chance of convincing you that 2+2=4. Not with apples or calculators or any rational argument, because belief requires no facts or truth, only repetition, which is exactly how our entire education system operates ... the better you are at memorizing and repeating what you are told, the more "brilliant" you're told you are through grades and accolades and certificates of authenticity.
So I am far to pragmatic to believe for a moment that I could possibly convince you of anything. I could show you the white papers stating the goals to increase pharmaceutical treatment of children with psychotropics for the purpose of pharmaceutical profits, in spite of the extreme dangers of these drugs. I could outline for you corrupt and abominable record of the FDA in performing their charter function of protecting the public health, not only approving dangerous and ineffective drugs, but covering up the dangers purposely. And it wouldn't phase you one iota.
I could even go as far as to provide evidence to you that the fundamental premise of human biology as it is currently understood and being taught today in medical schools all around the world is a total fraud, and that such information was known at least by the early 1970's .... would that make a difference in your opinions? I seriously doubt it, but just to satisfy any potential curiosity, what I am referring to is the universally accepted premise of Genetic Control ... that genes are hard coded. It's not true, and the truth has been purposely withheld, because the truth would destroy the very foundation of modern medicine, and that will not be allowed.
Genes are programmable, not hard coded, and interact with the environment. Genes can be rewritten ... recoded, to the extent of total instantaneous species change, which itself destroys widely held notions, including evolution theory, and particularly natural selection. Of course, Darwinian theory is such a preposterous level of nonsense, that itself proves that you can convince anyone of anything.
What you think you know is ALL WRONG .... it's a belief you embrace, not knowledge. There's probably little difference in our relative intelligence levels .... I'm just better informed, and not bound by the mainstream dogma that defines your world.
So forgive me when I say that what makes up the DSM is in large measure a work of fiction, laughable in many cases .... in others, just a crying shame. It's industry literature ... a sales brochure for the pharmaceutical mafia ..... somewhere in all of that couch action, and thoughtful hand holding, a prescription is generally included.
ROFLOL! Are you a member of the Church of Scientology?
Sure sounds like it.
Are you aware that Fred Baughman has been medical advisor for Scientology's looney Citizens Committe for Human Rights?
They are rabidly anti-psychiatry.
But what do you think they propose to replace it with?
The scam practice of "Auditing" with an "E-meter" to identify "engrams" of Thetans (aliens)?
What kind of pedophiles are the female teachers who sleep with their underage students? What "data" and excuses are there regarding their pedophile orientation? There are also several stories of female pedophiles who have performed or aided in the sexual abuse of small boys and girls.
So count me as one of those who thinks all individuals who perpetrate sexual pedophile behavior should be killed; this applies to both male and female pedophiles.
Your example of the female teacher and underage students is not Pedophilia.
Probably not even Hebophilia, but possibly Ephebophilia (which would probably include a lot of adult heterosexual men if all the school-girl themed porn is anything to go by.)
There are female child sexual abusers. However they are not that common. As for female Pedophiles? Rather rare.
That's not true at all. There is no "special exemption" to the basic rule of law requiring evidence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt to attain a conviction for any crime, including child sexual assault.
Furthermore, there is no area of criminal law where the victim is more highly scrutinized, and virtually put on trial themselves than in cases involving sexual assault. This is why so many cases are plea bargained, to spare the victim further distress of having to testify and suffer through intense cross examination.
Although it is true that fundamentally, no one is to be convicted of a crime based on hearsay alone, without corroborating evidence ....the reality is that the criminal justice system is rife with corruption, with police routinely committing perjury ... forensic labs repeatedly caught manipulating evidence, and prosecuting attorneys more interested in winning a conviction than in seeing true justice is served. In light of that reality, I am against the death penalty in any case that is not 100% conclusive ... whereas basic criminal conviction requires evidence beyond a "reasonable" doubt ... the criteria for a death sentence should be beyond "any doubt whatsoever". And particularly in cases of repeat offenders, your fears of false conviction are more excuse than reason. It's highly unlikely that the same innocent Joe Blow would find himself falsely convicted of such crimes in two separate cases, by two separate victims, or in the case of many child pervs, SEVERAL victims often come forward.
If you've got multiple, unrelated victim testimony ... and physical evidence like DNA .... and a prior conviction for such a crime (which should be part of the record in the sentencing phase, not the trial phase), get a rope, and put this pervert out of society's misery.
Let these perverts understand society, not the other way around. Harm a child, and prepare yourself for a date with a large oak tree and a piece of rope.
Really!?! I don't have time this AM as I have to leave for work, but later I will look up the actual laws on this. I do know what I'm talking about as I've lived it with a loved one who was falsely accused. I said nothing about multiple false accusations. All it takes is one person with agrudge or a reason (in their mind) to lodge a false complaint and it can and does ruin lives.
I do know that in PA, Michigan and many other states, the only evidence needed (and it's considered evidence) is the accuser's statement. And as far as, the victim being scrutinized...maybe 10-15 years ago or more, but now (esp. with minors or those who claim they were minors when an the incident supposedly happened) there's little to no scrutiny thanks to the Rape shield law.
In my loved one's case, we had letters that stated the accuser lost her virginity 3 times to 3 different guys ...she'd written to friends and lied at least twice ... but the jury wasn't allowed to see that she had such propensities to lie.
There was no evidence in my loved one's case (other than her accusation) and she had motive to lie, as she wanted to go live with her very permissive Aunt and Uncle.
The Asst. district attny was overheard by 2 people telling her aide that she didn't care about Mr. "X's" guilt or innocence, she just wanted a win with so little evidence as it would be a step up in her career.
I and several others overheard the accuser's Uncle asking the accuser,
"Did you use your words?' "Did you turn on the waterworks?" "Do you think they bought it?"
So please don't tell me, that false allegations don't happen. They happen more and more frequently.
My loved one got a hung-jury out of his trial, and then took a plea (to something he didn't do) rather than put his sons and his wife and friends thru all that again...esp after knowing the Asst. DA didn't give a fig about the truth and wias willing to even twist the truth for her own benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no hope of convincing you that what you consider being informed smacks of conspiracy theory. I will go so far as to say, I think you probably believe what you say. I disagree with you, not because I recite what I'm told like a child (but thanks for the assumption), but because I haven't seen any evidence you've provided that supports what you're saying above any other interpretation. It would take us very far afield from the thread topic, but I actually am open to new information that I can evaluate.
