it helps a lot in Germany as people call a hotline and remain Anonymous. This number is advertised so people know about this help. Just like other addictions, you have to advertise that help is available, so people know where they can go for help. People are calling, they are getting help. This doesn't remove mandatory reporting with other groups, like teachers, but just treatment providers.

It's been proven successful, that other European countries have enacted the same program.

here ya go ...

http://www.putthatshitonthelist.com/2012/09/can-you-actually-be-arrested-for.html

http://mic.com/articles/29026/cannibal-cop-can-we-get-arrested-for-thought-crimes-now


http://www.mediaite.com/online/nyc-women-arrested-for-isis-bomb-plot-allegedly-thought-about-bombing-cop-funeral/


Just a few - remember thinking, writing, posting, fantasizing are ALL components of thought. Even the women that were arrested for terrorism thought about it, talked about it, wrote about it. searched for information, but they did not break any laws. Were they serious? Perhaps but even buying propane taks is not against the law

Oh an I cannot forget the biggest thought that gets people arrested. The underage sex stings - there is no real victim and even in the newspaper articles they say the suspects(s) THOUGHT they were going to have sex with a minor - no crime was committed - just thoughts and words

The legal theory of a conspiracy to commit a crime, the mere thought is not enough. There needs to be a step in furtherance of said plan.

Agreed - but I think if you look up the conspiracy to commit laws they are very specific as to what crimes they pertain to - it is not a one size fits all group of laws

In the case of legal (notice I said legal!) underage sex stings the mere thought is not enough. There has to be a step in furtherance of the plan to have sex with a child. Whether setting up a time to meet up is enough to be an overt act it seems depends on the jurisdiction. I think we can all agree showing up to a sting with beer and condoms meets the definition of an overt act. We can agree sending a picture of your junk is an overt act. But just agreeing to meet up if sex isn't explicitly mentioned to happen. That's still a gray area, or it should be legally.

But I'm still kind of fascinated by the idea of having mental health providers not reporting. I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I'd love to start a post just talking about that.

Agreed! How different would so many things be if mental health professionals were not mandated reporters?!!

The mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse creates an atmosphere of false accusations and brings in the police which always elevates the situation to a new level.

These laws have given us such absurd situations as innocent, decent parents being dragged down to the police station for photographs of their three and four year old children playing in the bathtub naked.

Any fool should know that such family pictures are NOT CP, but those that work processing the photos are afraid to ignore it. After all, they themselves do not want to be charged with failure to report a crime against a child.

Fear seems to be a very effective motivator these days, especially when used by the government toward its own citizens.

So the innocent bathtub pictures are reported to the authorities, usually the police.

They come down, look at the pictures, and they proceed to arrest the parents. Most of the time common sense finally prevails and the DA sees the pictures and drops the charges.

But the damage has already been done. The family has been humiliated and the people of the town, being who they are, will always associate the incident with the innocent family. Some of the people of the town will understand that the charges were nonsense, but many will always associate the parents with child abuse.

If there is true child abuse, I don't think a mandatory reporting law should be needed. Any respectable person should report the continued abuse of a child anyway.

Mandatory reporting can so easily be misused by people.

rewdiazepam

Very well said!

I didn't think photography shops were mandatory reporters only people who work with children, the state or medical field. Which still encompasses a big portion of the population.

It is my understanding of child abuse (this is from therapy and don't have statistics to back this up) that while the typical abuser is usually well known to the child and is usually the only victim, the abuse tends to go on until either someone finds out about it, or the child develops enough personal power to say no more. So the idea of mandatory reporting is to stop the abuse as soon as possible and get help for both the abused and abuser ASAP. That is the idea in theory.

The idea of false positive results that can come from mandatory reporting, like what happened to you Rew, keeps me up at night. It is so worrisome that in this country something like that can happen! Makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it. At the same time I'm torn because we have an epidemic of child abuse in this country, 1 in 4 girls and 1in 6 boys will be abused by the time they are 18.

Mandatory reporting gives us cases like you were describing which are truly terrible and ridiculous:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9308806/minnesota-state-mankato-coach-todd-hoffner-career-was-ruined-child-porn-allegation-espn-magazine

I'm not saying our country hasn't gone off the deep end, it has. I'm just trying to play devils advocate here if you will. I am personally incredibly torn by these laws. I can see both sides of the coin, the positives and the negatives like your situation and this ex football coach. Being on here is very reaffirming, but I feel like we don't get the other side of the story much of how these laws can and do help out at the same time. It's like looking at cases only through the eyes of the defense attorneys at all times.

That's why I'm so interested in the German program. I also still see no reason why you cannot have mandatory reporting and this German program. Here is my thinking, the idea of the program is to stop people before they commit a contact crime not after.

Let's look at a scenario of no mandatory reporting for treatment providers: You call up a treatment provider and say I'm abusing a child. You think that this treatment provider should not report that crime? How can they guarantee the child is safe? Do they take the offenders word that it won't happen again? Do they say you have to come in and stay with us for treatment for years until we deem you not a threat but we aren't going to tell the government? How would it work if someone was going through treatment that way and their crime was disclosed? Should they get a get out of jail free card?

One cynical way to look at why sex offenders have a low recidivism rate is because the crimes are usually committed on people they know, 93% of the time. Once it's known to the family and friends grooming becomes much harder. That is on top of the other factors of the offender knowing they will go to jail for life if they have another crime, and they have been through treatment and better understand how their victim feels from the abuse. I don't believe the cynical reason is true for most people, it's not true of me, but it certainly is a safety net that protects against future abuse that is not there under a non-mandatory reporting set up.

I don't know the answers but I definitely have a lot of questions about mandatory reporting on both sides.

Fortunately the guy from the story above, Todd Hoffner, got his job back and had a great season this year. Went 14-1 and lost in the DII championship game.

Independent, I understand where you are coming from, and thought about the same concerns and questions. I have created a new thread to discuss these questions - look at Germany's Dukenfeld Project thread.

Perfect thanks :-)