TheAgitator.com
My Segment on Stossel
Saturday, July 31st, 2010Debating Wendy Murphy on age of consent laws and sex offender registries.
71 Responses to “My Segment on Stossel”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I just really wish, some day, a prosecutor/politician/cop etc would stay on topic. Once.
I wish you had brought up the fact that even people that are proven innocent can’t be removed from the registry.
Wish you would have had more time. A bunch more arguments to be made. That is, if you could get her to STFU for a few seconds and listen.
Watching this Thursday night I was mainly impressed by your ability to remain pleasant and genial while being lectured to by a rude, condescending bitch who sees her job as a crusade. Seriously, good job. She tried to paint you as being in favor of the rape and murder of children, like there’s no other reason somebody would disagree with her, and you didn’t bite. When you stayed reasonable and remained on topic she had nothing left.
In most jusridictions, the age of consent is 16. ALso the age where a person can leave school, get a job, and get married. Not quite an adult, but an adult in training, recognizing that a 16-year-old is a sexually mature human.
Why do we insist in this country that young adults must inhabit a pretend world of extended juvenile status?
Good work, Radley, in trying to inject a note of sanity into a media world that promotes the most hysterical and unreasoned approaches to everything.
I think that the TV promotes this in very subtle ways – the average American watches 37 hours of this crap a week and its no wonder that the average American is a neurotic isolated obese disconnected cipher, driving around frantically shopping and worrying and trying to keep up.
Sick Family. That Wendy gal is in league with the Anti-Chxxxt.
I especially liked the part where Murphy said that we have nothing to worry about because most prosecutors wouldn’t go after cases of kids having sex with other kids. In other words, we should put our faith in prosecutors to do the right thing. I had to pause it at that point because beer was coming out of my nose.
According to Murphy, prosecutors who abuse their power can be simply voted out of office. Democracy in action. The American way! You know, like people in the South were so quick to give the boot to prosecutors and other city officials for abuses of power during the civil rights era.
Prosecutors are the enforcement arm of the angry mob and when there is no angry mob, they will do their best to create one. We went through a phase in the 80s and 90s where prosecutors went on a sex hysteria driven rampage against preschools and destroyed hundred of lives and harmed thousands more.
Sex crimes are career makers for prosecutors and innocence isn’t even a factor in that. Many of the ritual abuse cases of the 80s and 90s made national figures out of the prosecutors even though the cases are now almost universally considered to be flagrant witch hunts.
The emotional, illogical, and senseless diatribe demonstrated by Wendy Murphy is a perfect example of why such ridiculous laws are implemented in the first place. Radley makes an articulate and well reasoned point each time, to which Murphy has no ability to deal with.
Murphy is a big FAIL with every breath. She doesn’t mind that someone convicted of armed robbery, assault, home invasion, or any other violent crime against a person could serve their time, move right next door to her and she will never know.
Every time I hear this subject come up, I wonder why the label ‘sex offender’ is given to anyone who falls under this overly broad range of crimes, but if someone beats the shit out of their wife, sells drugs to kids, robs a liquor store and shoots the cashier, or whatever can do their time and not carry an albatross around their neck for life.
Someone once said that sex not only drives the human race, it drives the headlines.
Some things haven’t changed since Salem in the 1600s.
Radley, as usual you’re spot on. In San Francisco I’ve heard that the laws are so tough now that you can’t leave San Francisco the city under a county law as a sex offender and then the city law has pretty much zoned you to where you can live in the city at all. So every sex offender there is illegal in some capacity, including those 19 year olds who hooked up with a 17 year old. We’re almost nearing as a society creating a predator-ville place where we need to just round them up concentration camp style and relocate them (no I don’t want this to happen, it’s just that’s what will be next with the tirade of soccer moms who can’t think logically about legislation they vote for).
When she raised her voice wrongly asking “Who are you…” I would have dropped a C and B bomb on her a$$ quick. Guess thats why I don’t debate on tv. Radley just smiled and corrected her. Once again I am in aw of your skills. More time was needed to explain how these knee jerk laws bred out of emotion don’t serve the public well, Just prosecutors careers.
According to Murphy, prosecutors who abuse their power can be simply voted out of office.
The problem, as you point out, is that being “tough on sex offenders” is generally considered a good thing by most people and trying to point out unfairness in sex offender registries, and such, leads to one being case as defending child molesters, or some such.
It’s a fairly common remark in my local blogosphere when someone asks people to not rush to judgment in a sex crime case or tries to bring a different perspective up in regards sex registries, that whoever makes such a remark is “…defending child molesters“.
It happens just about every time the subject is brought up.
Right on, Radley! I know several young men who had consensual sex with young women whose family claimed rape. Forever more they are labeled.
real nice job- your demeanor reminds me of Milton Friedman’s in some of his television debates. You KNEW he was seeing his subject clearly. He never lost his cool and he almost always had that bemused look on his face.
again, very well-done!
I like how she just dismisses the notion that innocent people go on the registries. Well, that only happens like 2% of the time. Like that suddenly makes it acceptable.
I wish you three (Radley, Wendy Murphy & John Stossel) had had more time to really delve into the unintended consequences of these broad sex offender laws. I mean, does Ms. Murphy REALLY believe that teenagers that send naked pictures to one another should go to jail and be put on a “sex offender” list for the rest of their lives? Does she REALLY believe that a high school senior who has sex with his freshman girlfriend should go to jail and be put on a “sex offender” list for the rest of his life?
Watching Ms. Murphy debate reminded me of a Bill O’Reilly. With these people, the solution to every problem is more laws. When you bring up evidence of how much damage existing laws have created, their response is either to ignore it, minimize it, or outright deny that these laws have caused any unintended consequences.
Good for John Stossel for booking Murphy who is hysterical and unintelligent. (It’s amazing someone like her could pass the bar and become a prosecutor. I think she was the model for the “won’t someone please think of the children” character on the Simpsons. ) Pity there wasn’t more time.
And great job, Radley. It takes guts to take your position. God knows a politician never would.
Regarding the disparity between crimes that get people placed on the registry, wouldn’t the obvious solution be to divide the registry so there was distinction between the two? It’s an approach that could be sold politically – for example, rename the current register the “Sexual Misconduct Register” and add something like the “Violent Sex Offenders Register” and emphasize it is to place extra scrutiny on the most dangerous criminals. Alternatively, what about a misdemeanor registry and a felony registry?
I’d be interested in knowing where that “something like 2%” statistic Murphy quoted came from – after all, as Radley pointed out, the list of crimes that can be construed as sex offences is stupidly broad.
Nice job taking Murphy apart, Radley.
Meanwhile, right up the road from my house – within a mile or two – is a registered sex offender. 1st degree unlawful imprisonment, 4 counts of 1st and 5 counts of 2nd degree sexual abuse, and unlawful transaction with a minor. Minor ages 7 and 9.
We’ve already had two burglaries on our street, so I’m already vigilant and don’t let my children outside unattended, so it’s not like I’m freaking out about this guy. It does make me wonder how to get a hold of the court documents, though. I wonder if he’s the sort who abuses family members, or if he was a more broad-ranging predator.
The others in my zip code are of similar ages (one is 70) and profiles, so at least I can be reasonably confident that teens aren’t being targeted in my neck of the woods.
I should watch the video, but I don’t feel like getting charged up and angry on this lovely afternoon.
When she said “Only something like 2 % of people are on those lists for urinating in public or romeo and juliet situations” I would have said but what if it was your son? Then 2 % would be 2% too many.
Is this video gonna piss me off? Cause I’m not in the mood, as Brfonwyn said, on this lovely afternoon.
I was never able to watch the Columbia, MO police raid video.
so this one just fell through ths cracks then. i wonder why.
http://badbadteacher.com/jerry-dembski/
And let’s not forget that the vast majority of sex offenders are friends and relatives of the family of the victim. When you’re convicted of a sex crime, you can be pretty damn sure everyone who knows you or is related to you is already aware of it before they add your name to any sex offender registry, so all the registry does is scare those who aren’t likely to be victims anyway. The registry is one of those ideas where “if it only saves one child it will have been worth it”. I think they’re still waiting for it to save that one child.
I really don’t give a shit how they rationalize it, I think the sex offender registry is simply a clever way to dish out more punishment to people who are a safe target for abuse. It’s a target list for the angry mob who are basically the people who campaigned for it.
There is nothing that shuts down people’s brains quite like the topic of sex abuse of children.
That woman seemed pretty unhinged. The cable news format is just such an awful way to discuss these issues in that they tend to bestow legitimacy on the views of people who can’t make sustained, reasoned arguments. I think Mr. Balko did a fine job in the segment. Still I can’t help but feel that discussing an issue like this requires more than a 4 and a half minute back and forth. It’s too bad there isn’t a lot of that sort of thing outside of NPR.
And one more thing…
I see prosecutors as being part of the same team as cops. For almost every cop that gets caught on video abusing his power, there’s a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute him.
And whenever there’s a case of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct, all the “good” prosecutors that Murphy talks about are strangely silent. They have their own wall of silence.
So when some prosecutor says, “trust us”, I think I’ll have to pass. Maybe I’ll reconsider when I start seeing “good” prosecutors aggressively calling out prosecutors like the ones who ruined the lives of the guests Stossel had on his show. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
A prosecutor who destroys someone’s life is no better than a sex offender who destroys someone’s life.
The 2% figure she pulled out of her ass was supposed to be the TOTAL number of sex offenders on the lists, not the percent of severe / non severe offenses.
I have no idea where she got this number, but it’s irrelevant to the debate at hand, yet she throws it out there like it proves her point or some shit.
Remember that Wendy Murphy learned her debating techniques from Nancy Grace, and she’s on Nancy’s show on a nightly basis. It’s the “everyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty and should burn in hell” line of thought that, unfortunately, is all too common in society — but no prosecutor, current or former, should ever have those beliefs (which is also why I think Nancy Grace is just about one of the worst human beings on TV)
Nothing Radley could’ve said or done in the debate would’ve mattered to her — she had her talking points and she was sticking to them. If the debate had been a half hour long, it would’ve gone the same way. It’s not in her mind to actually admit she’s wrong about anything. Just remember what she said and did regarding the Duke lacrosse case:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/wendy-murphy-file.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vNggdW3lZ8
Hey Radley you should pull some strings with Stossel and see if he would bring Dave Krueger on his show. That would be epic!
Bite your tongue. That would be a disaster. Radley convinces people he’s right using calm persuasive logic along with a friendly demeanor and engaging physical presence. I tend to preach to the choir and make everyone else angry, not to mention that I’m ugly enough to scare the spots off a salamander.
I have one more comment and then I promise I will shut up. This is slightly off topic since it’s about a different segment of the show.
I read America’s War on Sex by Marty Klein (another guest on Stossel). The book is excellent, but it has two failings that can’t be overlooked.
First, the guy places the blame for almost all irrational attitudes about sex totally at the feet of conservatives. That would be like placing all the blame for the welfare state at the feet of the liberals. Both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, capitalize on and encourage America’s sex hysteria.
Secondly, the book, though very comprehensive in scope, completely ignores the topic of prostitution. There isn’t even a single prostitution related entry in the index. If laws banning the sale of sex toys deserve prominent coverage, one would think that laws against prostitution would at least earn an honorable mention in a book about America’s War on Sex.
Wow. Great job maintaining a pleasant demeanor while being accused of being on the side of child rapists. Too bad you didn’t have more time.
For the time being, I live next to a woman that has had sexual relations with men four times, her accounting, she was raped all of them…
Call me a skeptic!
Wendy has had sex seven times, she was also raped seven times. Oh and her dog was also raped so she could make money off both the Rape and the off spring! She managed to git her bitch raped another seven times.
Aside from Nancy Grace, there does not exist another woman that has been raped, or received a pretty good shagging session with a male, EVER!
#24 Dave Krueger: “I see prosecutors as being part of the same team as cops. For almost every cop that gets caught on video abusing his power, there’s a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute him.”
Unfortunately that seems to be correct much of the time. It is not supposed to be that way (per civics and government classes) but it is. Police are far too prosecution-oriented in the United States. And elected DA’s/SA’s do, as other commenters suggested, cater to the lynch mob, “tough on crime” mentality.
Here are some quick suggestions to promote change:
1.) Attorneys employed by state circuit courts should serve as both prosecutors and defense counsel. Basically, they could do rotations in both capacities. They may specialize in misdemeanors, traffic, Felony, etc., but they would act as both the prosecution and defense as part of their job description.
2.) In court circuits there could be chief prosecutors and chief public defenders, but they would be primarily administrators, like the Sheriff. They may or may not be elected (I don’t have a blue print, just a few rough ideas).
3.) Starting in training, police officers must be taught that they are public safety officers, not prosecutors. They are first responders and investigators. The ultimate decision on guilt or innocence is not theirs to make. That is where judges and juries come into play. To re-inforce this idea, maybe police detectives should be employed by courts, rather than police agencies. If they are assigned to investigate for the court, they may be less inclined to feel like they have to be part of “the team.” Thinking longer term, perhaps private detectives should be sworn in and allowed to work upon request for the courts (maybe on rotation), or if requested specifically by a victim.
4.) Prosecutors and/or police that withold exculpatory evidence should be prosecuted. Police behavior should be monitored by independent ombudsman or inspector general’s offices, not “internal affairs.” In small communties, private investigators may be selected by the city councils, village boards, etc. to perform this function.
5.) Jurors should remember their right to weigh the morality of the law, not just the innocence or guilt of the defendant. Nullify if necessary!
Just a few ideas. Please provide feedback. I would like to develop some of these ideas to assess their feasibility.
Good catch Andrew S. I was just getting ready to point out Ms. Murphy’s record of abject failure.
Murphy gets air time because she is so bombastic and unrepentently biased. I long ago learned to tune her out or just flat out laugh at her blind feminist/state is never wrong (unless its against women) mindset.
I agree. I think that take-no-prisoners, tough-on-crime attitude isn’t just limited to running for political office. It’s a good way to generate ratings for shows like Nancy Grace.
#19 | JS |
‘When she said “Only something like 2 % of people are on those lists for urinating in public or romeo and juliet situations” I would have said but what if it was your son? Then 2 % would be 2% too many.’
she’s part of the ruling class- even if her son/daughter was guilty, they wouldn’t go on a registry. she wouldn’t have been able to understand your point.
That’s not what she said.
She said:
“Something like 2% of all sex offenders are on registry. That’s a problem, that number should be much higher.”
She was not discussing the romeo and juliet cases or the urinating in public cases. She was just pulling unrelated crap out of her ass. She had no point, and was not contributing to the conversation at all.
As an aside, I was trying to find the source of her “2%” claim. I think it might be this:
http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1080448945/WENDY-MURPHY-
I think the link is broken. That piece is here.
Does that mean she’s pissed off because sex offenders (rapists) who have never been convicted aren’t listed on the registry? Indeed she seems to be talking about offenses that have never even been reported.
She seems to be using the popular “tip of the iceberg” strategy where estimates are used in place of statistics to inflate the numbers.
If a town only gets ten rapes convictions per year, no one is going to get excited. But, if you can ratchet that up by saying only 2% of rapists are convicted (not to mention only 10% of rapes were even reported), then you can claim five hundred rapes per year AND you can claim that almost all the rapists are out there walking the streets and you might bump into one on your way home from work tonight!
Maybe you could hire the guy in this video (about half way through) to sound the alarm.
Marty #36, you’re right and that’s whats so scary. People like her are incapable of empathy because it doesn’t happen to them or anyone they care about. She’s a typical self righteous law and order conservative.
Dave,
I think she’s pissed because there are still some men who are not in jail.
Love ya Radley, but you allowed her to sidetrack you in that exchange. You should have not let her slip away without answering a question, like “Should an 18 yo be on a sex offender list for life because he had consentual sex with his 16 yo girlfriend” and not let up. By forcing her to answer would have given you much leverage in the debate.
#32 | Helmut O’ Hooligan |
’1.) Attorneys employed by state circuit courts should serve as both prosecutors and defense counsel. Basically, they could do rotations in both capacities. They may specialize in misdemeanors, traffic, Felony, etc., but they would act as both the prosecution and defense as part of their job description.’
Helmut- you always put a lot of thought into your posts and you have an underlying optimism that I don’t have… So, looking at your post that you asked for feedback on, I’m just going to tackle your first point. I understand what you want to happen- but I think this will further corrupt the system. We already have public defenders working deals with prosecutors to expedite cases- many times to the detriment of their clients. I think having attorneys rotate through on both sides would create more ‘dealing’.
I think, to really create change, we’re going to need to elect more people who understand the constitution and are willing to work to restrain and reel in the govt.
I don’t see this happening, because too many people have their fingers in the pie.
RE: #43 Marty
Understood Marty, and thanks for the feedback. You might be right that this set-up could encourage more “dealing” to expedite the process of “justice” (Whatever that is. Trust me, I had to try to define justice in a college legal studies course and it was pretty tough).
In addition to having representatives (not rulers) that understand the constitution, I believe we need to focus on some of my other points involving accountability for all actors in the criminal justice system. We also need to remove obstacles to improved ethics and professionalism (such as the drug war which corrupts the system while providing a convenient trough for morally suspect actors to feed off of) and encourage transparency. Striking down laws which make it tougher to get FOIA information or make it illegal to videotape any public official (not police) would help immensely. Transparency and an authentic give and take between the people and law enforcement bodies is the only way we can turn the system aroung. People need to understand that the police and prosecutors are their employees, and they need to hold them accountable as employers generally would.
Correction: I meant to say “or make it illegal to videotape any public official (not just police)…”
I have to agree with Bob Barker, Drew Carey seems like he is just going through the motions. Drew comes off as a nice guy, but if you don’t like your job you should quit. He comes off like he’s too cool for the rubes from Indiana.
Speaking as a true victim/survivor of nearly 13 years of sexual abuse from 3 different men (an uncle, a cousin and a ‘grandfatherly-type’ man in my neighborhood), I can honestly say that I can see Radley’s point better.
I do think there is some redeeming quality in everyone. (No, I’m not Anne Frank). However, not everyone, as Radley said, is going to forgive or accept a known sex offender in their neighborhood.
I certainly wouldn’t stand there with open arms especially if I had minors for children.
That being said, I do believe that everyone deserves another chance and to ostracize these people from society is not the right thing to do. Just as with someone who has been convicted of other crimes, they have a hard time finding anyone who will hire them so they can become self-sufficient and productive. Then they resort to re-offending because we paint them into a corner and give them no options.
If I knew a registered sex offender was moving into my neighborhood, I would approach the person face to face, let them know I know and that I want to be fair and give them a chance…then the rest is up to them. However, I would also be frank in letting them know I will be watching them and I am sure they should expect that.
Convicting teens for having sex with other teens and making them register as sex offenders is absurd unless the victim was younger than 15. My son is 21 and said he does not know of one male or female in his graduating class that was not sexually active or had been since age 13…maybe a few even earlier.
Stamping a teen with the indelible mark of a sex offender for “Romeo/Juliet” sex is only creating a shaky if any, foundation for this kid’s future. If he/she cannot find employment because of the offender status, then we continue the cycle.
This “Wendy” person should walk a mile or two in my shoes before she spouts off about stuff she obviously has no idea about.
As far as forgiveness? Well a meeting with one of my perpetrators is now underway. Forgiveness has taken 42 years.
Thanks for the brave, honest and thoughtful comment, Judi. I have a little bit of an idea of where you’re coming from. I have been raped at knifepoint and also ny an acquaintance; both rapes happened over 30 years ago, when I was a very young woman. Although I have at times fantasized awful fates for both men, I don’t confuse my need to imagine revenge with justice, and I don’t need the likes of Wendy Murphy to exact revenge on my behalf. Lock them up for life? Sure, I can live with that, but if that doesn’t happen? Once they’ve served their time, that should be that. Registries are a way of both extending a sentence indefinitely and punishing for crimes that might happen in the future, and neither of those things are even remotely ok.
As it happens, my husband has had to live through the devastating experience of being accused of a rape that never occurred, and while the charges were ultimately dismissed the arrest itself remains on his criminal record, another injustice built into the system. Rape may be a uniquely devastating crime for victims, but everyone would be better served if the emotional impact was not a factor in how the legal system treats it. I’m tired of politicians claiming they speak for me about this, because they don’t even come close.
So Radley complained that it was unfair to restrict the residency of convicted sex offenders so rigidly that it was literally impossible for them to live in any house within the city limits. Murphy claimed that meant Balko wants to deny people open access to public records. She wasn’t arguing in good faith.
Wendy Murphy: My life on the prosecutor’s D list.
#47 | Judi
‘As far as forgiveness? Well a meeting with one of my perpetrators is now underway. Forgiveness has taken 42 years.’
good luck- this has been a long time coming. you seem to hit this straight on, which looks like the best way to me. do you have any siblings that were also abused? were the ‘perps’ abused as kids?
I hope I’m not creating heartaches/headaches with my questioning- I’m just fascinated/horrified with how much damage this does…
I believe her 2% figure was for how many sex offenders overall are on registries. The problem, as she ignores, is that there’s a reason the others are not on them — they have never been convicted of anything. Most of the time, when a child is molested, the perpetrator had no prior record. This is actually an example of the uselessness of registries, since it is *far* more likely a child will be hurt by someone they know who has no record than some random stranger who does.
Sorry for the thread jack.
Is anyone following the Phoenix story that started last week with the gone-wrong attempted SALE of 500 pounds of pot that resulted in the death of an undercover narcotics cop, the injury or 2 others, and the death of 2 others?
Police in Arizona are playing it FAST AND LOOSE here. Check out the contradicting and ancillary stories.
First… 500 pounds of pot and 90,000 dollars recovered in a random stop and frisk traffic stop:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/DPS-officers-seize-nearly-500-pounds-of-marijuana-and-more-than-90000-92551789.html
Note that this was just a random traffic stop that segued into a search that found huge amounts of pot.
So, what do you do when you seize 500 pounds of pot and 90 Gs? Why, you sell it!
Next, in the failed bust, the cops were trying to SELL 500 pounds of pot:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/chandler-undercover-drug-bust-shooting-07302010
Here’s the part that confuses me about this story:
If you’re SELLING drugs, why would you also bring huge piles of cash?
But wait! They weren’t SELLING the drugs! They were there BUYING drugs!
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/07/30/20100730phoenix-police-drug-bust-gone-wrong.html
Man, you are looking uber handsome these days, Radley! And well done, mate; how you restrained yourself from throttling that woman is beyond me.
Sadly, anyone who even so much as mentions that the sex offender registry and zoning laws are an out of control mess or that they are not saving the children or that we need to rethink our strategies for dealing with various types of sex and sexual violence crimes… will get painted with the “You’re on the side of child rapists!” brush. It’s a topic that’s full of landmines. I’m impressed you kept it cool when she went completely off on you with the “who are you….” bit.
Why solve the problem of child abuse when there’s so much money to be made in perpetuating it?
Marty
To answer your question, YES. He molested my older brother as well. My brother and I have talked about this at length on several occassions and decided to confront our uncle who by the way, called me and my brother Christmas morning 2009. The conversation from him was, “How are you?…People make mistakes…and I have a kidney stone”. No apology. No time to let him know just how much his actions affected my entire life.
So my brother and I decided that once again it was his way of controlling us even if it was only through conversation. Our feeling is, “Okay, you want to re-establish communication and make amends? Fine, but it will be on OUR terms and NOT yours!” He will be given a choice. Sit down face to face with my us and my family and HEAR what WE have to say…or fade away into oblivion.
I KNOW for a FACT there are countless other children he molested over his ‘career’ as a pedophile and predator. He DID finally serve 3 lousy years in the early 90′s for molesting his OWN GRAND CHILDREN.
Supposedly he found “Jailhouse Jesus” while incarcerated.
My only regret is that I did not come forward when I was a child to help avoid further molestation of other children. But I was brainwashed, threatened and scared…He began molesting me from infancy. My brother, who is only 5 years older than me, remembers walking in on him on top of me once. I was not even a year old but he does remember I was kicking, screaming and crying. He threatened my brother with DEATH if he told and shooed him from the room.
I vividly remember certain incidents and even the clothing I was wearing on those occassions when he was violating me. One of the times I was around 3 years old…and he had taken me into a wooded area near my home. I remember seeing the bright sun streaming down through the leaves in the trees. I kept trying to move into the beams of light because I thought Jesus could see me better and find me quicker…but He never came. Even to this day, a simple walk in a wooded area on a sunny day haunts me.
Men who resemble him, repulse me. I cannot have a romantic relationship (haven’t dated in 15 years after my divorce) with anyone remotely near my age (54 as of yesterday) or older. My first marriage was, unknown to me at the time, to an alcholic who physically and mentally continued the torture my former perpetrators had begun. Pychologically, I think that I felt I was getting a ‘deserved’ punishment for the molestation that had occurred since I felt for MANY years, it was my fault.
Those are only a couple of warped aspects in my life. The list goes on and on.
HOWEVER, now I refuse to let him dictate who I am or change my loving, generous heart. He may have won those battles then, but I’ll be DAMNED if he or the others who violated me win the WAR.
I suppose in a way, I have him and others like him to thank for building my fortitude and tenacity to stand up and fight for others today.
Hence my WAR on the ergregious injustices in Mississippi.
The mere fact that no one was there to defend me when I was suffering through these years of torure, gives me more reason and the guts to stand up for others who cannot defend themselves.
That doesn’t make me anyone special, mind you. It’s just that I truly know what love is because I first find out what it isn’t.
Wendy is an ignorant Bitch!
DA’s are all potential Nifongs! They need to be changed at EVERY possible moment!
Nobody in this nation sould become comfortable with lying asshole attorneys!
And if your prospect has so much as smelled the halls of a aw school….. DO vote for them, and for gawd sake Re-Elect NO-ONe!
Marty: P.S.
One more thing in reference to my ‘regret’ for not having come forward as a child. This was in the 50′s, 60′s and early 70′s. Talking about molestation was taboo and rarely brough to light. I was also threatened with death and certainly believed my torturers.
But I will carry this guilt the rest of my life.
Geez…forgot to answer one more question from Marty.
NO, he was NOT molested himself (uncle). He was the ‘baby’ of the family catered to and protected. As for the others? I know the ‘cousin’ wasn’t molested either…as for the old man in the neighborhood? I really don’t know. He took that to his grave.
Sheesh, is everyone aware that people with felony convictions can’t even qualify to get food stamps? From time to time I wonder what the heck they were thinking when they decided that people who have shown the proclivity to commit armed robbery, burglary, murder etc should go hungry. I can say with certainty that if I were starving with no resources to fix that that I would steal or rob someone to fix that. No, I doubt that I’d kill someone, but whack them over the head and knock them out?
I’d like to see the gov’t set up a closed community where child molesters can be placed. There would be no one but kiddy diddlers living there. There wouldn’t even be a need for a child to be molested, perverts could place themselves in this community before such a crime occurs. I honestly believe that the reason Catholic priests’ positions are overly populated by kiddy diddlers is because these perps honestly think that they can become a priest and that would stop their urge to molest, but it doesn’t actually work and they find themselves running a church and surrounded by alter boys. I honestly think most kiddy rapers are ashamed of themselves and want to keep it from happening.
Those people that think castration is a solution should take a step back and realize that the majority of kiddy rapers don’t penetrate their victims with their genitals, and that molestation includes penetration of the victims with objects.
Please think about this before you get a knee jerk outrage response. I think kiddy rapers are deviants that are hard wired to be kiddy rapers, the same as gay people are hard wired to be gay. No, I don’t believe that means they should be allowed to express this sexual need, absolutely not. But without segregating these perverts or thinking that they can be controlled through threats is not reality. Give them an island, let them live a reasonably comfortable life, and keep them away from children. Those who volunteer to go to this kiddy rapers Devil’s Island before they get caught violating children could be given a higher ranking in the pecking order than those who are sent there after completing their sentence. Yes, I know it’s popular thinking that one just wants to punish even those that think of doing this shit but it just doesn’t work.
I’m always open to considering another opinion, and must say that my thinking on this subject is irrelevant at this stage unless a lot of other people look at the idea and decide to back it or a similar plan. I see the objective being to keep as many children as possible from being molested in the first place. I see that end being reached only if we can get the molesters to voluntarily self segregate before the crime occurs. I’m much less worried about giving a kiddy raper a relatively decent but child free lifestyle than I am about kids becoming victims. If my opinion of why kiddy rapers sign up for the priesthood is correct it would work. Anyway I hope noone is too mad at me. My honest preference would be to tar and feather the fuckers and ride them out of town on a rail but believe that satisfying that blood lust would result in many more victims than my plan as detailed above.
@ #61
Here lies a classic problem in the debate: Without differentiation, the topic of sex offender registries, their problems, poorly crafted laws, illogical application and subsequent societal results takes a direct route to ‘kiddy diddlers’ aka pedophiles.
A 20 year old can catch a felony for feeling up a 16 or 17 year old sweetie just like a deviant can catch a felony for abusing a child or forcibly violating another adult.
Apples and Oranges.
Radley is correct, these laws are too broad (I did like his idea about putting adults who molest children in prison for life; I’m a “weld the door shut” kind of person myself). I’m waiting for the first 6 year old boy to get imprisoned for playing “doctor” with the 6 year old girl next door. The way things have been going, it will happen, if it hasn’t already.
But one thing all the age of consent laws ignore is that as far as biology is concerned, once you can reproduce, you’re an adult. Every species on the planet wants to reproduce once it has reached adulthood. For some reason, there are those who think humans should be different. Hint: we aren’t.
Girls become women at 14 or earlier (just go looking for stories about “child” pregnancy; BTW – if she got pregnant, by definition, she is NOT a child). Trying to keep young women who want to have sex from having sex by punishing those who have sex with them, while NOT punishing the young woman as well will not change her behavior, especially when she knows that the law will never punish her no matter how many times she has sex. Try to keep two kids from playing ball in the house by consistently punishing one of them for throwing balls in the house while simultaneously telling the other one it’s OK to throw balls in the house, and see how their behavior changes.
I could spend all day writing about this, but here’s the bottom line about why we have age of consent laws: shortly before these laws first started to appear, as our society started the transition from cottage industries (where, for most men, home and business were co-located), to factory industry (where workers travelled to another location to work in a factory, usually by walking), women who were 30+ wanted to eliminate the need to compete sexually for their husband’s affections with the 14 year old hottie looking for a husband (or in some cases, a “john”) who hung out along the route he walked to and from the factory where he worked. So older women, in an effort to make it easier to keep their husbands from leaving them or cheating on them, lobbied their state legislature to restrict men’s access to younger women. It really is that simple, and it still is.
I already posted this on the reason thread on this.. but I thought I’d post it here too…
How about this?
Alleged victim may at any time create a notarized letter commanding the court to drop the charges, and they must comply. Also, enabling them to have defendant released if they have already been tried and convicted of statutory rape and have them removed from any registries.
Or enable the person sign papers at the courthouse freeing defendant from further prosecution in any sex crimes against said person as well as above said release/removal from registry for said crime.
State should provide assistance in filling out any paper work needed. Also expungement should be provided…
If you are emotionally mature enough to request the court to not prosecute the defendant in writing then I’d say you are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex.
I’ll name it the “Forgiveness Act”. (after crazy prosecutor lady)
Here’s an interesting anecdote: After I graduated high school, I worked retail, and the manager was a convicted sex offender (gay teacher/student relationship). He said that the rehabilitation program in Kentucky *required* admission of guilt in a group (therapy?) session. If a person did not complete the program, they were not released, even if their sentence was complete. The setup of the program totally dismisses the possibility of innocence or the Romeo and Juliet scenario (the latter being “yes, I did it, but no, I’m not sorry.”)
Why does Wendy not acknowledge that Romeo and Juliet
“crimes” shouldn’t be getting people put on the lists or
that teen “sexting” should not get people busted for sex crimes.
Instead she turns to the “Who are you?”: an attempt to
make the opponent feel insignificant.
Sounds like a frustrated/angry wife
digressing form the disagreement at hand and telling her husband he has a small dick.
Gotta wonder,
Did she go to Dyke Q. Bytch Law School with Nancy Grace?
thanks, Judi. I really appreciate you sharing your story- it helps give me a little perspective on a complex issue.
It’s people like Wendy Murphy really stretch my absolute belief and commitment to free speech. There are plenty of reasonable and good points for the sex offender registration, but Ms. Murphy offers none of them. The hysterical, alarmist nature of her kind in the media has done a lot of damage in this country and will continue to do so. Radley did a fantastic job, but the short segment worked to his disadvantage. In such segments the loud mouthed, bulldozer usually sticks in people’s heads. If the subject was given the proper time, Radley would have completely dissected her talking points. This is a complicated issue and a five minute segment does it no justice, it really deserves more time.
Man, I’m sorry they didn’t give you some one with a brain or any real world experience to deal with.
The cops in the small town I went to middle school in came and had a big talk with our whole 8th grade class about 30 people at a time and let us know that if 2 underage people had consensual sex it could place us on the sex registry…
It’s prett absurd. Even with the lists and stuff half the time they don’t tell people enough to know what to watch for. They just ostracize the people.
Good on you man!
First, Radley should be commended on taking an inevitably unpopular position on this topic.
Jack above states the central problem with regard to sex offender laws/registries/restrictions and public debate. The categories of “sex offenses” are so broad and far ranging that the registries are useless. And, at any time in the discussion, “child molester” becomes a proxy for “sex offender.” Of course nobody believes child molesters should be wandering around our neighborhoods. Murphy and other “tough on crime” advocates (who, frankly, harp on this and other issues only because they are easy ways to win votes, not because they are serious public problems) do not want to discuss this because the facts are that a minority of “sex offenses” are violent and a minority of “sex offenders” have high rates of recidivism. That’s because most “sex offenses” are, well, bullshit.
An example: if your 16 year old daughter models, it’s possible that some photos could be taken without your knowledge that a prosecutor and a judge may deem pornography. In my state, you (the parent) can then be convicted for “sexual exploitation of a child.” A “sex offense.” And, after serving your entire sentence, be placed on a public register of “sex offenders” for, potentially, the rest of your life.
Forget the absurdity of who can be prosecuted and for what for a moment. Focus on this:
You can serve your entire sentence in prison and you still have to register for life. You might as well put all sex offenders in prison for life. You can move to a different state without the consent of that state. You are subject to ex post facto changes to your sentence. You are subject to residency restrictions which can be arbitrary. In my state an individual on the registry could not live within 1000 feet of a school bus stop. Where are bus stops? Who determines where those stops are? In many cases, the driver simply stops where students congregate. In other words, a school bus driver could be potentially determining, arbitrarily and on a daily basis, where legally a person can live. Even if school boards officially designated bus stops, this is a major problem. Thankfully, the law was/is challenged; but the types like Murphy see nothing wrong with it because they are “protecting our children” when, in fact, there is absolutely no evidence that registries or residency restrictions have any effect.
Politics always trumps policy.
On a different note, I’ve always thought that public defenders offices should shadow district attorneys in every way possible, but especially in funding. If public defenders were offered the same budgets and resources as prosecutors, then justice might be attainable.