Sunday, April 29, 2012

Vigilance or Vigilantism?


Last Monday, a website was launched by a Christian group in Alberta whose purpose is to make public the names and addresses of people who have been convicted of sex crimes against children. Until now, of all the countries in the world, only the U.S. has had a public registry where any citizen can do a search for predators in their area and find the details on each one. Nowhere else has the information on offenders been put on official websites. While this new site is not an official Canadian website, it will have the same effect – even though the information may not be as complete.

In Canada, a national sex offender registry came into force in December 2004, requiring convicted offenders to register within 15 days after being released from prison. Offenders are required to reregister annually, and reregister within two weeks of changing their home address. Only accredited police agencies have access to the information through the national sex offender database, maintained by the Mounties.

The launching of this new, private site gives rise to several questions. Will a public registry ensure the safety of children? What is the downside? Will this really make for a better society?

I believe this site will cause more problems than it will solve, that children will actually be placed at higher risk and it will turn a certain element of society into a pack of vigilantes.

Don’t even think about labeling me as soft on predators. As someone who has had her family and marriage destroyed by two of them, I’m hardly a naive “do-gooder” who has been manipulated into feeling sorry for these people. Quite the contrary. But neither am I so blinded by revenge and hatred that I cannot see clearly and find the course of action which will most surely protect our little ones. Having said that, I absolutely believe that violent offenders and repeat offenders need to be locked up permanently. No question.

But what about the offenders who have been “scared straight” in prison or are so genuinely remorseful that they can be rehabilitated? The myth that offenders usually reoffend is just that - a myth. In my booklet, “Smart Justice,” I underline the dangers of a knee-jerk response to predators who, following release from prison, try to rebuild their lives and re-enter society. I did a ton of research in my writing and was concerned about the findings of some of the researchers and treatment providers who determined that the stress and instability following release can make offenders more likely to relapse. For example, a professor at Lynn University in Florida reported that psycho-social stresses like a lack of social support have been linked to repeat offenses among criminals.

I watched a documentary that followed the lives of several child molesters after their release from prison in the U.S. The vigilantism engendered by the public registry made it impossible for them to support themselves or their families, have relationships or re-start their lives in any way that could contribute to society. Some have formed horrible, scary communes from shacks in the woods where they live in exile from society. Is that what we want in Canada – communes of people united by the red letters on their chests? Depression and loss of hope can become precursers to reoffending, sometimes purposefully, because life on the outside is harder than in prison.

I’m not ready to risk the safety of any child who could become some predator’s ticket back into a place where it’s warm and they serve three squares a day.

We need to be smart - not impulsive. We need wisdom. We can’t afford the luxury of following our natural inclinations in responding to child molesters.

So what am I suggesting? The only thing that makes sense to me is permanent lockup for violent and repeat offenders and permanent electronic monitoring of those who have been released into the community. GPS offender tracking technology monitors offenders day and night, raising the offender’s level of responsibility for his or her own actions, which in turn protects the community.

The logic is that a sex offender is a suspect when any sexual crime is committed. Wearing an electronic bracelet would clear anyone who is under suspicion by providing proof positive of the person’s whereabouts. Conversely, it would also aid in apprehending the perpetrator.

When a crime occurs, the location of the offenders would be matched against a crime incident database to validate or rule out possible involvement by a particular offender. Any released offender who truly commits to a changed life should be happy to wear one – for his or her own security as well as that of anyone else.

Electronic monitoring can be used to ensure that an individual remains in a designated place, does not enter proscribed areas, or does not approach particular people (i.e. complainants, potential victims or co-offenders). A person can be continuously tracked without having their movements so restricted that they can’t work or conduct a productive life. An active real-time offender tracking system can alert either a victim or police if the offender enters certain restricted areas (i.e. a home, workplace or school).

If the rationale against permanent monitoring is based on the concept of freedom following the legally proscribed period of incarceration, how does a public registry fit that rationale? It eliminates freedom permanently.

Frankly, I believe that when a crime has been committed against a child, a perpetrator signs away his or her right to freedom for life - so freedom isn’t my issue. My issue is with using wisdom in how we legislate the restrictions.

Will a public registry really make for a better society? I don’t think so. Judging from my research, it won’t make our kids safer and it will encourage licence for a mindless pack-mentality. Justice needs to be smart. Justice needs to get the job of protection for our kids done right. Justice needs to foster effective vigilance - not vigilantism.
© Diane Roblin-Lee - Apr. 29/12

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

April is Child Abuse Awareness Month in the U.S.

“My child will never be molested. Our friends and family are all nice people who would never do such a thing.”

Really. I used to think that, too. Sadly, we’re no longer living in a Beaver Cleaver world.

While “Child Abuse Awareness” month is October in Canada, it’s April in the U.S. The hope is that focusing on awareness for one month will lead people to be more aware throughout every day of the year.

The following Canadian statistics, while impossible to rely upon because of lack of reporting and false reporting, are the most recent and best reflection we have of the overall prevalence of the sexual abuse of children in Canada.

* 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys experience an unwanted sexual act.
Source: Child Sexual Abuse (The Canadian Badgley Royal Commission, Report on Sexual Offenses Against Children and Youths), 1984. (pg. 175)
* 4 out of 5 incidents of sexual abuse will occur before the age of 18.
Source: Child Sexual Abuse (The Canadian Badgley Royal Commission, Report on Sexual Offenses Against Children and Youths), 1984. (pg. 175).
* 95 % of child sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator.
Source: Child Sexual Abuse (The Canadian Badgley Royal Commission, Report on Sexual Offenses Against Children and Youths), 1984. (pg. 215-218).
* Children and youth under 18 years of age are at greatest risk of being sexually assaulted by someone they know.
Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2007. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Catalogue No. 85-224-XIE, ISSN 1480-7165. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2007. (pg 6, 21).
* While children and youth under the age of 18 represent only one-fifth of the population, (21%) they were victims in 61% of all sexual offenses reported to police in 2002. (A total of 8,800 sexual assaults against children and youth were reported to police, 2,863 of which were sexual assaults against children and youth by family members.)
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics – Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 23. no. 6. Released July 2003. (pg. 7, 34)
* In 2005, the rate of sexual assault against children and youth was over five times higher than for adults (206 children and youth victims compared to 39 adult victims for every 100,000 people.)
Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2007. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Catalogue No. 85-224-XIE, ISSN 1480 -7165. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2007. (pg. 20)
* In 2005, girls under 18 years experienced rates of sexual assault that were almost four times higher than their male counterparts. (For every 100, 000 young females there were 320 victims of sexual assault, compared to a rate of 86 male victims for every 100, 000 young males.)
Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2007. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Catalogue No. 85-224-XIE, ISSN 1480-7165. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2007. (pg. 21).
* Sexual assault against children by family members was more then three times higher for female victims than for male victims (108 compared with 32 incidents per 100, 000 population). (Rates of sexual assault are higher for female victims than for male victims regardless of the relationship to the accused.)
Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2007. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Catalogue No. 85-224-XIE, ISSN 1480-7165. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2007. (pg. 22).
* 54% of girls under 21 have experienced sexual abuse; (22% of these female victims reported two or more sexual offenses.)
* 31% of boys under 21 have experienced sexual abuse; (7% of these male victims reported two or more sexual offenses.)
Source: Child Sexual Abuse (The Canadian Badgley Royal Commission, Report on Sexual Offenses Against Children and Youths), 1984. (pg 180).
* 60% of all reported sexual assaults are against children.
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2001). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2001. Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE. Ottawa: Government of Canada (pg. 13)
* 30-40% of sexual assault victims are abused by a family member.
Non-parental relatives – 35%
Friends and Peers – 15%
Stepfathers – 13%
Biological Fathers – 9%
Other Acquaintances – 9%
Boyfriend/Girlfriend of Biological Parent – 5%
Biological Mother – 5%
Source: Canadian Incidence Study (CIS) of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2003: Major Findings Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 2005. (pg.52)
* Very few cases (2%) of substantiated sexual abuse involve a stranger.
Source: Canadian Incidence Study (CIS) of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2003: Major Findings Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 2005. (pg.52)
* Child and youth victims who were sexually assaulted by family members were on average 9 years old compared to 12 years old for victims of non-family members.
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2002). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2002. Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE. Ottawa: Government of Canada (pg. 35).
* 64% of sexual offenses reported to police took place in a residence
26% took place in public and open areas, and
11% took place in commercial places.Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics – Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 23. no. 6. Released July 2003 (pg. 9)
* Boys 4-7 years of age were 3 times more often the victims of sexual abuse than boys of other ages.
* Girls aged 4-7 and 12-17 were twice as likely to be victims of sexual abuse as girls aged 0-3 and 8-11.
Source: The Juristat presents Child Maltreatment in Canada РCanadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect. Authors: Nico Trocm̩ and David Wolfe. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2001. (pg. 24)

The preceding information was assembled with thanks by Little Warriors, a national charitable organization, based in Canada, focusing on the education and prevention of child sexual abuse. Little Warriors also provides information about the prevalence and frequency of child sexual abuse and information about healing and support resources.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Child Molester or Pedophile?

It can be helpful to know that child molesters are not necessarily pedophiles and pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder defined by a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), published by the American Psychological Association, gives the following 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.”

Thus, an individual can be a pedophile without actually engaging in a sexual act. Simply having fantasies about sexual activity with a child over a period of at least six months will qualify. Many pedophiles never engage in actual criminal activity. They just stay at home and think about it. They often have large collections of child pornography or child erotica. Staying close to children is high on their list of priorities. The most common type of pedophile is the immature individual who has never been very successful maintaining peer relationships. Those who lack social contact often spiral down deeper and deeper into a fantasy world.

Pedophiles who actually engage in child molestation become “child molesters.” They often use their collections of erotica and pornography to show to their victims as part of the grooming process of seduction. They think that when their victims see the photographs, their inhibitions will be lowered and they’ll be more inclined to accept sexual activity as something people do normally. Some use photographs and videos they have made of their victims to blackmail them into further sexual activity.

Child molesters, on the other hand, by definition engage in sexual acts with children, but they will generally go after older victims as well as children. Ninety-five percent of them are male. Only 10 percent are strangers to their victims. Fifty to 60 percent are family members. According to a Public Health Agency of Canada fact sheet, 25 percent of molesters are teenagers. The rule of thumb used by professionals is that child sexual abuse occurs when a person touches a child for sexual gratification and is four years older than the child. (Curious playmates of the same age are protected by the age issue.)

Because family members are often hidden from the criminal justice system, it’s difficult for researchers to get a handle on the true extent of the problem. They have been more successful in characterizing family friends and trusted adults outside of the family. These people usually don’t use violence on their victims. They “groom” them, or set them up for the molestation by gradually establishing bonds with the child. By the time the first touch happens, the child has been so conditioned that he or she hardly knows what’s happening.

Molesters victimize children for other motives as well as sexual gratification. Sometimes it’s just part of the mistreatment they direct toward people in general. Usually, they have low self-esteem and view children as less powerful objects on which to vent their anger or sexual frustrations. The main criteria for choosing a victim is availability. It could be anyone, anywhere, who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They can be strangers who forcefully attack children they don’t know or individuals or family known to the child who use the situation to their own advantage with no concern for the victim.

Those child molesters who prefer sex with children can have an astounding number of victims over a lifetime, if not caught. They choose particular victims and groom them for abuse through developing a relationship of trust, buying them gifts and honing in on their emotional weaknesses. According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, in more than 90 percent of cases of child rape, the offender was well-known to the children or their parents. These are pedophiles who have carried their fantasies into reality. Some are brutal and physically cruel, while others are more gentle in their approaches. They manipulate relationships to the point of expressing their perversions.

©Diane Roblin-Lee, April, 2012