Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
http://www.dailystrength.org/groups/families-of-sex-offenders/discussions/messages/20380357
As you can see we are starting to make some progress in the media. A little at a time, but it is still something. And it's mostly in argument #3 that we are seeing progress. More and more professionals are starting to become more vocal about what then research says.
To re-summarize the arguments:
1) The registry is unfair for registrants, includes ex post facto, 1st amendment Halloween sign, marks on drives license, civil regulatory scheme vs criminal punishment, etc. These are our best legal arguments.
2) The registry is unfair to the registrants families and causes harm to their children. Our best argument in a relational setting where someone knows you and your family.
3) The registry is a smoke screen because 93% of children are abused by someone they know. It points parents in the wrong direction. It also doesn't allow offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society which can actually cause more not less recidivism. This is our best argument with anyone who can think logically.
I almost jumped out of my seat when I saw this on Twitter, it sums up everything I wish I could tell people in a easy to understand way. It comes from, Michael Seto Ph.D, he is a clinical and forensic psychologist who has done research on CoSA. I think he has the best answer for the question of society wanting to make abusers pay for what they did. We have all seen the comment section where some person says something like, "the victim has to live with this for the rest of their life, so should the offender be a pariah for the rest of their life!"
Dr. Seto's response is perfect:
"Wanting to rehabilitate abusers doesn't mean excusing or "siding" with them"
To add to his statement, it's about less victims. This has to be our mantra. People should be punished for their horrendous choices but once they are released it needs to be about maximizing the odds they won't become abusers again. The registry does the opposite of that! How can we be spending all this money on something that makes us less safe under the guise of safety?
As you can see we are starting to make some progress in the media. A little at a time, but it is still something. And it's mostly in argument #3 that we are seeing progress. More and more professionals are starting to become more vocal about what then research says.
To re-summarize the arguments:
1) The registry is unfair for registrants, includes ex post facto, 1st amendment Halloween sign, marks on drives license, civil regulatory scheme vs criminal punishment, etc. These are our best legal arguments.
2) The registry is unfair to the registrants families and causes harm to their children. Our best argument in a relational setting where someone knows you and your family.
3) The registry is a smoke screen because 93% of children are abused by someone they know. It points parents in the wrong direction. It also doesn't allow offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society which can actually cause more not less recidivism. This is our best argument with anyone who can think logically.
I almost jumped out of my seat when I saw this on Twitter, it sums up everything I wish I could tell people in a easy to understand way. It comes from, Michael Seto Ph.D, he is a clinical and forensic psychologist who has done research on CoSA. I think he has the best answer for the question of society wanting to make abusers pay for what they did. We have all seen the comment section where some person says something like, "the victim has to live with this for the rest of their life, so should the offender be a pariah for the rest of their life!"
Dr. Seto's response is perfect:
"Wanting to rehabilitate abusers doesn't mean excusing or "siding" with them"
To add to his statement, it's about less victims. This has to be our mantra. People should be punished for their horrendous choices but once they are released it needs to be about maximizing the odds they won't become abusers again. The registry does the opposite of that! How can we be spending all this money on something that makes us less safe under the guise of safety?
"it needs to be about maximizing the odds they won't become abusers again. The registry does the opposite of that! "
What do you mean by that? How does the registry do the opposite?
Exactly what Free said. There is research to show that reintegration of offenders actually reduces recidivism. The registry and all the comes with it, that stigma makes it tough for many in this country to find a place to live, find a spouse, find a stable job, have any sort of support network. I have been incredibly blessed by a great family and extended family and friends. When I was charged they wrapped their arms around me and made sure I felt loved. I know my experience is very unique and not the same experience of a lot of other people here.
Even with the positive benefits of family and friends I struggled. I lost jobs, lost girlfriends (before I was married), lost friends, it wasn't like I had a cake walk. I have a 4 year degree and a solid work history even after being fired for being on the registry, I haven't missed more than 3 months of work. However, I am definitely underemployed not just by my own thought but I have had several co-workers and subordinates tell me to leave and go get a better job. They don't know why, but the problem is I can't, I have tried several times and every time they run a background on me I don't get another call back.
So my thought is we need to maximize the chance of less victims when it comes to offenders who are released. Most offenders that come out of prison or probation do not go on to commit another sex crime, but if we could reduce the number that did isn't it worth it? What if it only saved one child??? LOL.
The funny part is being cruel to sex offenders actually increases the chance they will recidivate, so we need to re-think our policy on sex offenders if we really care about the children.