Here we address all sorts of terms and phrases used by Lawmakers and other Public Speakers to manipulate the minds of listeners, to foster hysteria, to further damage those they speak about. Their intent, without actually saying it, is to implant a fear of those they speak about, and generally for some hidden political type gain.
Lawmakers to get bills enacted and keep constituents in the fold to support them. Other Public speakers have all sorts of personal reasons for doing this, frequently a prejudice or bias knowing they cannot be convicted of a hate crime because the folks they speak about have no protections based on their criminal record. And sometimes just a personal hatred of the person who has committed a sex crime.
The intent here is to shed a light on these terms and phrases we see being used when speaking or writing about sex offenses and offenders. Some of these terms and phrases may just send a subtle message but still promote fears and hysteria. Lawmakers who want to promote new laws will often foster hysteria to accomplish their goal. The media uses them to generate sales. Their purpose is to manipulate the public mind, plain and simple.
These terms and phrases rarely tell the truth about the subject, they speak in the gray areas to tingle the mind to think the worst. So it is important that we know more about these terms and phrases, and ways to circumvent the inherent untruthfulness found in them.
It is important that, we as writers choose our words carefully, so that we do not foster the hysteria, that the opposition does. Our words need to explain and convey truths without minimizing what is horrible. Think about it...
We invite anyone to suggest other terms and phrases that we may have missed and we will do our best to incorporate a better understanding of them and/or suggest a more correct way of saying whatever they elude to incorrectly.
When the SMART Office first began, 2007, this was their Mission Statement:
To assure that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from preying on citizens through a system of appropriate restrictions, regulations and internment.Take note of the word "Internment" because that is exactly what the U.S. did to the Japanese when World War II broke out; interned them into camps.
Today, July 2011, their Mission statement is:
To protect the public by supporting the national implementation of a comprehensive sex offender registration and notification system.Now that the U.S. Supreme court has validated "Federal Civil Commitment" it appears the footing for "Interning" of sex offenders is firmly in place.
Sex Offender: This term now generates fear to all that hear it, the opposition has done a great job of making (brainwashing) the public so that they cringe when they hear Sex Offender.
Quoting Mayor Dan Sullivan who is trying to get an ordinance passed to ban homeless from sitting on sidewalks, here it turns out the homeless person was a sex offender: "I really try to limit my discussions with first degree sex offenders," Sullivan said. "I really don't know what the discussion would be ... I just don't look at him as a sympathetic character. I think he's probably a dangerous character."It is very likely that some very high percentage of folks in society really are sex offenders, if you consider what folks did when they were young, and were never caught. And, much of what we call sex offenses today were not sex offenses years ago, so if you judge people by today's laws you will find many sex offenders.
Are lawmakers guilty of these offenses too, likely yes, but you will never get them to admit it, they act like they were never young. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) a study by the Center for Disease Control regularly reports that somewhere around 50% of minors in high school have had, or, are having sex. Yes, sex between minors is illegal.
If you were to stand in the school yard, the CDC tells us that, 50% of the kids you see are sex offenders, by today's laws. Can you imagine what sex offender registries would be like if it included these high school kids, and those adults who will never admit what they did when they were young? Would there be any left fit for military or public service?
There is no question that sex offenses are horrible crimes: Have you ever heard that comment? Sure you have it is a common one, but what message does it send. It sends, all sex crimes are horrible, that is exactly what speakers are thinking when they make the comment.
It is true that many sex crimes are horrible, but all sex crimes are not necessarily horrible. Consider that lawmakers consider a sex crime when someone is caught urinating in public and someone sees them, is that really a horrible crime.
Earlier I mentioned that high school kids are having sex and some of them get caught, but is experimenting a horrible sex crime. No its part of growing up and unfortunately some get caught doing things many parents did when they were young.
Just so I'm properly understood, the John Couey type of sex crime is without a doubt a horrible crime, as are other similar types of crimes.
It is important that, we as writers choose our words carefully, so that we do not foster the hysteria that the opposition does. Our words need to convey the truth without minimizing what is horrible. Think about it...
There is no cure for sex offenders. This is one that is used to make folks think, whatever it is that caused the person to commit a sex offense is caused by something in the realm of something for which you would take a pill to get rid of. i.e., a magical pill to cure something in such a way that it will never ever return again.
Time to face reality, when dealing with human beings, there is no cure for any malady a human being may be afflicted with, at least not in the sense that whatever it is will never ever return again.
Take a headache, a aspirin may relieve it, but not in the sense that it will never ever return again in that person's lifetime. Cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, overweight, etc etc etc. The human being may be temporarily cured (fixed) by some pill or change in lifestyle, but again, not so that it can never ever return again.
Society holds ONLY sex crimes to a standard that can never be achieved, because it is an impossible standard when dealing with the human being! Its like saying, go take a walk to the moon. Can you do it? No its impossible. And finally, there is no "cure" for anything declared a crime, because crime is not something that is cured.
Instead it is something society punishes, and teaches the offender self-control ways to stop reoffense should they get the urge to do it again. The very fact that, there is recidivism for all types of crimes, proves all types of offenders have the same makeup and whatever it is within the human being that drives them to reoffense, is in all human beings.
Sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism I love this one because there are times when it is absolutely TRUE! When? When you only look at a subset of offenders and ignore all other subsets. Yes speakers love to do this, they find an OLD study, likely pre-1980 when there was no recognized therapy, and try to apply that study results to today's offenders. These speakers ignore that states have provided various programs (in-prisons and after prison) to offenders to reduce the possibility of recidivism.
Examples of folks who apparently have not read, or do not accept, the DOJ study below, or have -not read- or misread recidivism studies:
"One fear among residents living with sexual offenders nearby is that they tend to have high recidivism rates. This is confirmed by law enforcement. "It's very high, and some of them will tell you that they are going to recidivate," said Defiance County Sheriff David Westrick." Can Defiance limit where sex offenders may reside? 4-20-2008
Speakers, and dozens of others, fail or refuse to recognize what the Department of Justice found in their study published in 2003. The second lowest recidivism rate of all offender types:
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 by by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. -and- Erica L. Schmitt -and- Matthew R. Durose, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Here is the reason that this study is MORE IMPORTANT than other studies: It excludes no one, it includes everyone released, no other study does this. It includes from the lowest type of sex to the highest type which laws allow offenders to be released back into the community.
Now, opinion of a Law Enforcement officer who knows the truth:
Cop debunks sex offender myths 5-13-2011
In the State of Maine, they have in-prison and after prison treatment programs, their recent study of recidivism of folks released from prison and those on probation showed a 4% recidivism rate. see After release from prison, Maine sex offenders rarely commit another sex crime, study reports quote from article:
Although these findings are similar to other studies around the country that have found relatively low recidivism rates for sex offenders, they still fly in the face of public perception, which suggests sex offenders go on to commit more sex crimes at stunningly high rates.
Sex offenders commit 4 times the number of sex offenses than do other types of offenders Have you ever heard of this "Tricky Dick," well this is that type of statement, speakers say it to make sex offenders SOUND WORSE than other types of offenders. However, when you analyze the statement using the figures provided by the study it came from, you are shocked to find that non sex offenders actually commit 6 (six) sex offenses to every 1 (one) committed by a released sex offender; 6 to 1. What you say? Its a numbers game, trickery with numbers, but here is the truth!
Here are the numbers from the study page 24 (also see pic above):
Sex offenders compared to non-sex offendersIts all in the highlighted portion, these are not our numbers, these are FACTS proven by the Bureau of Justice statisticians. The reason why speakers OMIT the actual numbers from the study is, it would prove that non sex offenders are more dangerous to the community than are sex offenders following their release from prisons.
Speakers want you to follow what SOUNDS GOOD not the real FACTS! We merely put the numbers into the chart above to make it easier to see and understand.
Now consider this, NONE of the offenders released who do not have a previous sex offense in their background, none of these folks have any restrictions placed on them that are placed on released sex offenders. WHY? Stats prove many of them will commit sex offenses and lawmakers IGNORE this fact!
Lets begin our discussion by citing two recent studies by Dr. Jill Levenson, about the alleged 100,000 missing sex offenders:
100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an Urban Legend Dr Levenson concluded: "we find little evidence to support that 100,000 sex offenders are “missing,” using even the most inclusive definitions."Lawmakers trying to get new laws passed:
From the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and still professed today in 2011:
Alexandria, VA - February 28, 2007 - According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), there are an estimated 603,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. today. However, of that number, at least 100,000 sex offenders are noncompliant and no one knows where they are. A new Special Analysis Unit has been created by NCMEC to search databases, analyze information, and help identify and locate these fugitives, to enable the U.S. Marshal's Service to arrest them and bring them to justice. To date, the Marshals have located more than 850 of the fugitive sex offenders.
This "100,00 Missing Sex Offenders" statement has been a political cry, likened to Paul Reveres "The British are coming." But, how did that number come to be, that story along with the news reports, is here "The Saga of 100,000 Missing Sex Offenders: Now the truth. Its time to put this to bed and move on to debunk other falsehoods used for political gain.
I guess I must ask: "Accountable for what?" Now before jumping on me for that statement consider this, if the person has been convicted, and either, served their sentence set by the court, or is currently serving the sentence, then it appears they are being held accountable.
So, to those who keep saying this, maybe you ought to explain exactly what you are talking about, because simply blowing steam in the wind makes you look silly.
Folks can reach me at: eAdvocate@gmail.com if you want to explain in private.
Giving the impression that sex offenders, of any tier level, are monitored is the Lawmakers way of making the public think they are safer as the result of the police monitoring sex offenders. Lawmakers and others saying that are playing a very cruel joke on the public by using the word "Monitor / Monitoring" when the police do not do that at all.
What the police do, is, "Check On" registered sex offenders from time to time, maybe 2-3-4 times a year by stopping at their registered address and making face-to-face contact. But, that is not monitoring in any sense of the word!
There is a very distinctive difference
The public is being duped, it is a political illusion, which results in a false sense of security. Lawmakers are crafty at wording of their laws, they walk the line between being absolutely truthful and whatever you want to call this result; ????
See this article:
RI authorities check up on sex offenders, arrest 8 (7-30-2011)Since 2007 they have checked on 700 registrants. Without knowing how many are on that state registry, that comment means, in four years time (1460 days), roughly -on average- one registrant is checked every two days, and that is called monitoring; its a big joke being played on the public.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's map of registered sex offender (on 7-30-2011) shows Rhode Island has 1,539 registered offenders. Even recognizing that the number of registrants grow every year, it still shows what a joke is being played on society through the word "Monitoring."
We start with this article:
US Marshals: More sex offender arrests can be made with loophole closures (7-27-2011)In other words, when they checked on some sex offenders they found they were in compliance with the law -as worded- but the U.S. Marshals disagreed with the law, so if it was worded differently then they could have arrested those sex offenders.
Well folks, if it was worded differently, those sex offenders would more than likely be following that wording, and could not be arrested. As I read the Marshals comments, they are looking for more arrests because they are not finding enough offenders -out of compliance-!
Also notice, the Marshals use the term "Fly under the Radar" to imply something illegal, when at least in this story, offenders were "Flying under the Radar LEGALLY," and its a matter of the Marshals do not like the laws.
It looks like Journalists should be seeing this, but if they did then sales may not be what they are when the hysteria is HIGH!
Reality, loopholes are the result of lawmakers rushing to pass a law to get credit for passing something, they rarely take the time to study a bill and look at the consequences of the wording. Loopholes will exist forever, as long as there are Politicians, they only want the limelight.
According to the SMART Office:
SORNA refers to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. SORNA aims to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law and generally strengthens the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs.In other words, SORNA is to make all state sex offender registry programs the same. Loopholes, as SMART Office refers to them, are differences in opinions of state lawmakers (resulting from years of handling registrants), SORNA's purpose is to override the historical thinking of state lawmakers who have decided what is proper for their state. i.e., that alone is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
However, in a minute we will see why that CANNOT be achieved, but reviewing that statement and learning why it CANNOT be accomplished folks will realize what a cruel joke is being played on the Public by folks in Washington DC (Specifically those who crafted SORNA and pushed it through Congress using a procedure known as "Under suspension of the rules (see detail in Footnote below)" which is not supposed to be used for legislation like SORNA, but no lawmaker objected so it slipped through and became law).
Within SORNA is the following:
42 USC 16912 SEC. 112. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS.
42 USC 16913 SEC. 113. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS.
In the above (from SORNA) there are three words used: Rules, Guidelines and Regulations, and each has a very specific meaning in law:
1) Rules: Must be followed because they are law;Now, look closely at WHAT covers WHO:
Guidelines and Regulations only apply to "JURISDICTIONS" (State legislatures), and Rules apply directly to "SEX OFFENDERS." It is this way so that "SEX OFFENDERS" can be punished for not following the RULE, but "JURISDICTIONS" will not be punished for not following the Guidelines and Regulations.
Congress TOLD the USAG to use a Rule when deciding "retroactivity" (as to sex offenders) and to use Guidelines and Regulations when speaking to state legislatures (Jurisdictions).Hidden in this mess is this, Congress told State Lawmakers, -in a very convoluted way, or should I say, very crafty way, when you change your state laws YOU MUST MAKE THEM RETROACTIVE for all sex offenders. Is it any wonder why states are fighting enacting SORNA?
So why have any states enacted SORNA, especially since they know it violates the 10th Amendment? Thats a even longer story which has its roots in money and shame a state lawmaker could face costing him/her their job as a lawmaker, and thats for another day.We need to get back to, why SORNA cannot make all state sex offender registration systems, exactly the same, hence cannot meet its stated goal.
Since these do not have to be followed, using them allowed state lawmakers (Jurisdictions) to pick and chose what they wanted to follow in the Guidelines and Regulations. That allows states to be different from each other, and because this was done in this crafty way, the SMART Office stated GOAL for SORNA is nothing but a ruse, a cruel joke on the public, it SOUNDS GOOD and will get public support while not doing what it says! Wake up America!
Can folks now see why the SMART Office only expects "Substantial Compliance" and not "Full Compliance" its a way that circumvents the original goal. Anyone who doesn't think this is a cruel joke on society, please, please stand up!
And to those remember this, today its sex offenders who are disfavored, tomorrow it may be the group you belong to, your door may knock and the police ask ... ... ...
This response develops when someone seems to be losing the first argument, here is an example from the news:
Kendall said only 8 percent of sex offenders return to prison for new sex offenses. She said 14 percent return to prison for a non-sexual crime.Kendall is citing statistics, proof supporting what she is saying. Now the other side of the argument (police) have no real response, so they create one to raise doubts in the minds of readers, but notice, they have no apparent support but maybe personal belief.
I always find this argument interesting because, how many adults of today, based on today's standards of what is a sex crime, committed a sex crime in their younger years and never got caught. Is this what the police are talking about? No? OK, just making a point!
Here the police should have cited a statistic, if there is one, instead of just blowing smoke to fuel hysteria. The real purpose of law enforcement is to promote peace in the community, not incite the masses or the media.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that law enforcement loses this argument, and does nothing to help the community support them.
Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, David Finkelhor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, Janis Wolak JUNE 2000 (Their Facebook page)
Debunking the 1 in 5 figure
Another 1 in 5 source
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (BACK to the Top Page)
2 days ago