who does Jesus look like?

In When Jesus Looks like a Sex Offender, Hugh Hollowell writes about a conversation he had with a deacon from another church.

“What do y’all do about sex offenders in church?” he asked. 

A man named Andy had been coming to their church – a nice, successful, red brick, steeple church – for the last few months. He had attended their adult Sunday School, and everyone liked him.  Andy was an older man, in his late fifties, with a short beard and horn rimmed glasses. He was well read, knew his Bible and listened with rapt attention in the service. He was thinking about joining the church, so he scheduled a meeting with the pastor. 

“That was when it went south. He told the preacher he was a sex offender, and he wanted to join the church,” the deacon said. 

The pastor told him he would have to do some research. He had then called the denomination’s regional office, who said that it was a no-go because of their “safe-child” policy. The pastor then called a meeting of the deacons to let them know what was going on, and my friend said he would talk to me, since I probably had had this come up before. 

“I don’t know what to do. What would you do if a sex offender showed up at your church,” he asked.

Hmm.

What would you do if an adulterer showed up at your church? Or a gambler? Or someone who is currently sexually abusing a child? What would you do if someone who committed armed robbery showed up at your church? What would you do if someone who perpetrated fraud showed up at your church?

Would you know?

The truth is that we sit side-by-side with people with lurid pasts and people who hide a lurid present every day. A co-worker cheats on her husband. A neighbor spends money at the casino instead of putting it away for the kids' college expenses. The neighborhood mechanic sells a little weed. The middle school teacher shoplifts at Victoria's Secret.

Hollowell continues:

“Well, it happens almost every week. I would say, ‘I’m so glad you are here’, and then probably ask him if he wanted to help me serve communion, or lead us in prayer.” 

He looked like he had swallowed something distasteful, so I went on. 

I told him that the sex offender registry as it is currently doesn’t really tell us anything about the person. Getting caught peeing in the bushes near a school, being 21 and having consensual sex with a 17 year old, and molesting a 4 year old are all things that will get you on the registry, but not all of those people are of equal risk to others. 

I also said that all relationships have boundaries, and that it was a great sign that Andy wanted the pastor to know that he needed boundaries. I also told him that a lot of the research shows that recidivism rates for sex offenders are pretty low anyway, and even lower when the perpetrator has a support network, like, you know, a church family.

Hollowell is well-educated about sex offenders. It is true that the recidivism rate for registered citizens is very low. It is true that registered citizens present varying risk levels.

It is also true that people not on the registry present varying risk levels. After all, most arrests--by far--for sex offenses are of someone not on the registry. We accept those varying risk levels without much thought.

Family and community support help offenders of every kind stay out of trouble. Can we all agree that helping someone stay out of trouble is a good thing?

What better way to help someone than to encourage them to come together regularly with like-minded people, whether it is a church or a quilting club?

A church, though, has a history to live up to.

... the Church was allegedly founded by a guy who tended to stick up for people who others had written off, and welcomed those others said were unwelcome because they were unclean. So there is some precedent. 

Yes. There is that.

He thanked me, and as he was walking toward the door, stopped, turned back and said, “So he could come to church with you guys, right? It wouldn’t be a problem?” 

One wonders if the word pusillanimous echoes in that deacon's mind.

I assure him it wouldn’t. He said he would talk to the pastor and let me know if there were more questions.

Think about this. A deacon doesn't want a sex offender in his congregation but he has no objection to the sex offender joining a different congregation. If the deacon genuinely believes the sex offender poses a danger to his congregation, then he has just foisted that danger on the more accepting congregation. That says safety concerns are only a good cover.

If safety is not the concern, then perhaps the deacon thinks sex offenders are something distasteful.

The easiest thing in the world to do is to confuse your comfort with your safety, and it is easy to be scared of what we do not know. And the work of relationship and accountability is much harder than telling a man like Andy he has to go worship elsewhere. After all, no one in your church is going to fault you for trying to “keep them safe”. 

The problem is, the gospels tell us nothing about our safety, but do say that people like Andy – the underdogs, the pariahs, the unclean and the forgotten – are actually Jesus in disguise, and that when we reject them, we reject Jesus himself.

So by all means, pray to God, and sing your organ music and pass the plate and preach about Jesus. But if you do that, you have to be prepared for what to do when he shows up, looking like a sex offender.

What does Jesus look like in your congregation?


I blogged earlier about churches and their treatment of sex offenders here (and maybe some other posts I have forgotten):

• a church welcomes registered sex offenders
• how a congregation should respond to sex offenders among them

arrested for attending church

A North Carolina man was arrested for going to church. Why, yes, he is a sex offender. How did you know?

Deputuies said they began investigating registered sex offender Kenneth Lee Cagle, 53, two months ago when they received complaints that he was starting a church. 

Two months of Sundays! One would hope the deputies would have heard something in that time about mercy.

Cagle was convicted of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor almost a decade ago, officials said.

Third-degree sounds bad, doesn't it? Like a burn. Third-degree burns are the worst. And sexual exploitation...gosh. What in God's name did he do to that child?

Third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor in North Carolina means he looked at child pornography. He molested no one.

He was wrong to look at illegal images and he certainly ought to avoid doing that again. Turning to God seems like a good idea for someone trying to be a better man.

Deputies found that Cagle had successfully opened a church where he served as a church elder and led part of church services.

Perhaps not just a good idea but an inspired idea. The families at the church knew of the man's crime. Gathering once or twice a week to worship with him in their midst can be a gentle way to remind him--and each other--that there is a better way.

His involvement in the church is a violation of state law, according to deputies.  

Doesn't North Carolina want someone who once looked at illegal images to be a better man? No, North Carolina legislators made it a crime for registered sex offenders to be involved at church.

During a traffic stop after a church service on Sunday, deputies charged Cagle with sex offender employment violation and being a sex offender with a child on the premises. 

It is certainly understandable that North Carolina would not want children to be molested in church but what are they doing to protect children from people not on the registry? The truth is that it is more likely that a child will be molested by someone not on the registry. 

Two month investigation, though. That's still a mystery.

Ohio Supreme Court argues that the registry can be cruel and unusual punishment

From Nebraskans Unafraid, comes a link to a video of arguments in the Ohio Supreme Court about whether a young man convicted of a sex offense could be excluded from the sex offender registry.

He was 21 when he had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. His public defender argued that a psychologist had found that he is "not a sex offender" and so should not be required to register. The psychologist had evaluated him using the Static 99, a checklist that purports to show recidivism risk. It is not a psychological evaluation.

The Court clarified with her that he is a sex offender because the law and his conviction are what make him a sex offender, not his psychological condition nor his recidivism risk no matter the level.

The Court gently nudged the attorney along the way to saying that the registry would be cruel and unusual punishment. The Ohio Supreme Court had already found that the registry is punitive in nature, so arguing whether the punishment of being on the registry is proportionate is a natural question.

When the prosecutor blithely said that the young man does deserve to be on the registry for having sex with a 15 year-old, the justices asked him to explain why the registry should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. His answer? There are cases of worse punishment that the courts have said are not cruel and unusual. 

That's like telling a kid to eat his peas even if he doesn't like them because the kids down the street have to eat brussel sprouts which taste even worse.

Strange arguments from a public defender who seemed unclear about what a sex offender is (hint: it is not something discovered by a psychologist) and strange arguments from the prosecutor who said the young man should be on the registry because, well, because the law says he should. 

Watch the video, though, and you'll be encouraged by the questions and reasoning followed by the Ohio Supreme Court justices.

"...we don't ever see Jesus rejecting. Ever."

Here's an interesting little piece that includes a story about a pastor who learns a hard lesson about excluding gays from his church. I like the story well enough to quote most of it.

The pastor, after kicking gays out of his church because of his understanding of their sins, dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates. God talks to the pastor about his work:

“... So, I’m looking over your life here… seems like you threw people out of your church, let’s see, because they were gay. Is that right?” 

Pastor smiles proudly and nods. 

“And it says you did this in my name… let’s see here… and you threw their families out too…” Looks up from notes. “Why in heaven’s name did you do all that?” 

Pastor stops nodding and smiling. “Um… because I was doing what you wanted!” 

“What I wanted?? Where did you get that idea? I never threw anyone out.” 

Pastor looking down now. “Well, uh, I thought…” 

“No, you didn’t. You didn’t think about what this would [mean] to them.”  Waits. “I never once told anyone to throw anyone out. 

Pastor shuffles his feet. “But… that was how we’d show them tough love and get them to change.” 

“Did any of them change?” 

Pastor is silent. Then quietly. “I don’t know.” 

“You don’t know?? You’re the pastor in charge of leading these people. How would you lose track of them and not know what happened? Do you remember the story I told you about leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one because each one matters?” 

Pastor looks puzzled. 

“Yeah, that’s what I was talking about. And you not only didn’t go get them, you shut and locked the gate behind them. You told them they were condemned to hell!”  Another pause.  “Do you want to know what happened to those people you and your church sent away?” 

Pastor speaks quietly. “…yes.” 

“Three of them committed suicide. They believed you when you told them they were wicked evil sinners, abominations. They’re here now… in case you wondered.  Most of the others wanted nothing more to do with God. They also believed you that God hated them and had no use for them. I sent some of my beloved faithful people to talk to them, to tell them the truth, to draw them back into God’s unconditional love.” 

Pastor looks up. “I thought my job was to stop people’s sin.” 

“No. In fact, I told you the opposite. I said for you to love them – just love them – and point them to me. I told you to serve them… even if you didn’t feel like it.”

Beautiful. 

Substitute sex offenders for gays in the story and the story is still beautiful. I left a comment suggesting just that and the author, Susan Cottrell responded:

I assume you're being sarcastic. Sex offenders -- broadly meaning those who molest children or rape anyone -- are not the same as two adult men or women in a relationship. If you don't see the difference, there is much more to talk about.

The author is very involved in LGBT issues so I understand that she has paid little attention to the facts about sex offenders; she can't know everything.

After I explained my position a little more clearly--that I was not comparing homosexuality with a crime but that I was comparing sinners with sinners, Susan Cottrell acknowledged my point:

Marie, I am sorry. I misunderstood part of your other comment. I agree with you. : )

Whew. I feel much better. Ms. Cottrell wrote so clearly about how the role of the church and the pastor is not to stop sin but to love sinners, I hated to think that she had a knee-jerk rejection of sex offenders without even asking what the offense was or if the offender was repentant.

Every day, people from the pews and the pulpits are realizing the deadly result of their attitudes. 

Every day, people are becoming welcoming, loving, and affirming. 

Every day, people are choosing the heart and truth of God.

The deadly result of their attitudes are as deadly for sex offenders as they are for gays.

Churches need a reminder that when sex offenders are rejected, the family of the offender feels the rejection, too. Families who want to worship together, to be involved in church life together, should be able to do so even when the sins of one family member are made public through the registry.

Redemption. Isn't it still a thing in the church?

Yes. 

Do you remember the story I told you about leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one because each one matters?

Most definitely.

how a congregation should respond to sex offenders among them

Yesterday, I congratulated The Lutheran for publishing Same Table, an article that talked about sex offenders in church. Its loving attitude and efforts to dispel myths about sex offenders were like the smell of bread fresh from the oven. Comforting. Promising something wonderful at the table.

The article linked to some suggested resources for churches trying to decide what to do about registered sex offenders. Heaven help the sex offenders!

Perhaps now that The Lutheran has made it known that...

1. "public perception of the risk of repeat sexual offenses [is] much higher than it is"

and

2. "offender registries and notification systems have little to no effect on recidivism rates and may, in some cases, increase the risk they will commit future sex crimes"

...the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) can rethink the "help" they offer congregations.

In a document titled Legal Resources: Responding to Sex Offenders in a Congregation, the ELCA says,

Numerous studies in recent years point to an extremely low likelihood that pedophiles can or will change. Without extensive professional treatment, virtually all child sexual offenders will re-offend. Repentance, prayer and pastoral support can be crucial elements when combined with life-long treatment, but, in themselves, they offer little hope of changing the behavior of perpetrators.

Let's begin with the casual use of that frightful word, pedophiles. Most sex offenders are not pedophiles, not even those who offend against children. Most pedophiles are not sex offenders. Pedophile is a word meant to frighten you.

As for that hopelessly grim statement, virtually all child sexual offenders will re-offend, see #1 above. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is extremely low.

The ELCA document continues:

A convicted sex offender who wishes to be part of a church community, whether one he or she has attended for some time or a new one, should expect to have conditions placed upon his or her participation. This can best be done through the development of a written covenant, signed by the offender and by church officials, preferably by both the pastor and the chairperson of the Church Council (or other administrative body of the church).

The covenant should begin with a clear statement of the role of the church as "sanctuary," with appropriate Biblical reference(s).

There's more but this is the point where I started laughing. The role of the church as sanctuary? Not for sex offenders! Sex offenders should expect to have conditions placed upon his or her participation. Forgiveness? Pfft.

The appropriate Biblical references in this case are meant to warn the sex offender that the need for sanctuary for people who are uncomfortable with former sex offenders trumps the need for sanctuary for the sex offender who wants spiritual nourishment.

Surely there must be some appropriate Biblical references about forgiveness and mercy that could guide a congregation in welcoming a sex offender. Maybe something like this:

Ephesians 4:32 - And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Back to the covenant that sex offenders must sign:

As part of your growth and penitence, you shall prepare and deliver written acknowledgments and apologies for the pain caused directly or indirectly by your actions. At the very least, you shall address these statements to your victims, their families, your own family and the members and supporters of this church. (Requests for forgiveness shall not be included). This will become part of an open letter to the congregation, informing them of your presence and of the conditions of your participation.

My, that's quite stern. I am trying to imagine the effect on children in the congregation. I am trying to imagine the effect on the family of the sex offender in the congregation.

Another condition for the covenant:

You may not use restroom facilities in the church buildings.

Welcome to church; stay away from the coffee.

Yesterday, I stood on my well-worn soapbox and was gently pulled down by someone reminding me that other people do have stories that make them fearful -- someone betrayed by a financial advisor, someone whose family suffered a murder, for example. Some fear they could be victims of another crime.

Members of the congregation who have been convicted of non-sexual crimes such as assault or fraud -- possibly leaving someone critically injured or leaving a family in dire financial straits -- those convicts can come to church with no covenant demands. They can even use the restroom.

Crimes and the effects of those crimes fall in a wide range. Some sex offenders perpetrated a violent rape; some touched no one. Some assaults don't do serious injury; some leave the victim in a vegetative state.

After serving their sentences, some criminals are allowed to continue with their lives without public self flagellation; some are seen as needing only a quick stop at the restroom to return to wicked ways.

The reason so much attention is on sex offenders is that there is a list of them. Once there is a list, the fear seems justified. They must be dangerous if the law requires them to register!

How to square this cold, demanding document with the compassionate Same Table article? At first, I assumed the document was very old but no, it was last modified November 2013. Better information was easily available at that time. I hope the ELCA realizes the disconnect between the myth-based covenant and the recent fact-based article and moves to update the document with better information and with more attention to the role of the Church in the world.

When I found Ephesians 4:32, I also ran across this:

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God gave his Son and the ELCA is putting conditions on space at the table?

This helpful document suggests that some in the congregation can partake of the Bread.
Some are allowed only to smell it.

a church welcomes registered sex offenders

In its July 2014 issue, Lutheran magazine published an excellent article by Ryan P. Cumming about a church that welcomes sex offenders.

After months of preparation and prayer, Redeemer held its first adults-only worship service at 4 p.m. Easter Sunday, welcoming 20 visitors, all registered sex offenders.

Paul (last name withheld upon request) was one of them. He hadn’t been to church for eight years and didn’t expect to go for another eight, when his parole would end. But a friend who attended Redeemer handed him a flier for the adults-only service.

“I didn’t think I’d be able to go back again until I got done with probation,” Paul said. “This church doesn’t judge. They accepted the fact that some of us had gotten into trouble and were learning from our bad decisions. A young man told his story and it struck home with me. … We had communion, which was awesome. I actually felt a sense of peace come over me. This makes me feel much better about life.”

Former offenders in church! A good thing, but why adults-only?

Ministry among registered offenders is particularly difficult. Many offenders can’t be in places where children gather.

Some former offenders are not allowed to attend worship services even with their own families. This article makes only glancing reference to families of sex offenders, profiling an offender who seems not to have one. Offenders do have families -- children, spouses, parents, in-laws, siblings, grandchildren -- families who welcome the offender back into their lives. It seems particularly cruel to withhold the experience of worshipping with family from someone who has paid his debt to society.

In addition, the stigma following [sex offenders] can be turned against congregations that would welcome all—including offenders. A primary concern for Hayden is that Redeemer could “be targeted” for backlash from its community.

Rightfully so, say many. Churches are supposed to be welcoming but also safe places where members can trust one another and where adults and children are protected from harm. In a 2010 survey, Christianity Today found that nearly half of respondents would oppose allowing a registered offender to serve in a ministry in their congregation. For many in the church, the risk of re-offending is too high.

But researchers have found public perception of the risk of repeat sexual offenses to be much higher than it is, especially when the specific characteristics of a crime are taken into account. In a 2010 study for the Justice Department, researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, found that offender registries and notification systems have little to no effect on recidivism rates and may, in some cases, increase the risk they will commit future sex crimes. [My emphasis.]

The registries isolate former offenders at a time when a strong social network is a way for them to stay on a good course. Places of worship have traditionally been a particularly fine way to build that support network. Hard to do when attendance is prohibited by probation and parole officers, and harder when the congregation fears repeat sex offenses that research shows are unlikely.

If more places of worship follow the example set by this church, the rewards will be much greater than the perceived risks.

The transformation hasn’t been limited to former offenders. As plans for the service developed, a woman approached Hayden and said: “I hear you’re having this alternative service. I’m a victim of a sex offender. But I’m going to come, because I feel like I can be healed there, because we’re all going to be at the same table together.”

Kudos to The Lutheran for daring to publish a piece promoting the inclusion of sex offenders in church services. 

"ruining the life of the offenders in the name of justice is not working"

A woman who grew up in a family that suffered incest talks about healing. She talks about the abuse her father experienced as a child and the effect that abuse had on him as a parent himself. She says the current approach--yanking the offender from the home and isolating him with incarceration and then with the sex offender registry--does little to help the family heal.

We have it all wrong. Shunning the offenders is not working. Locking them up is not working. Settling in court for massive sums of money is not working. Ruining the life of the offenders in the name of justice is not working. Leaving victims to pick up the pieces of their life alone is not working. The sexual abuse of our boys and girls is still going on, generation after generation.

Kim Cottrell watched her sister suffer through incest and considers herself an incest survivor because everyone in the family felt the effects of it. Years later, when her father had a stroke, she brought him to her home to care for him, something we do not expect to happen in families like this.

She has her own ideas about how to help families heal.

I wonder if we could agree, the first goal is to stop the molestation and abuse of children. I used to think it was as simple as finding evidence, separating kids from their parents or abuser, and locking them up. Case closed. But when I was a speech pathologist in a large trauma hospital where I worked with babies and young children who’d been hit or shaken by adults, enough to cause brain damage, I saw a different side of the story. In many situations, removing the child from the parents caused further trauma. That’s when I realized it’s not so simple.

Not so simple. Families who have been separated from the offender do not magically turn into happy families when the offender is gone. The offender was always more than what he did to harm the family. He may have been the breadwinner, the funny guy at breakfast, the one who taught the kids how to ride a bike, the one who took the kids fishing. When the offender is removed from the family, the man who plays Scrabble and teaches shoe-tying goes with him.

The current system--law enforcement, child protective services, the courts--behaves as if the child will be relieved that the offender is gone. Instead, in many cases, the child victim would be more relieved if the offending behavior stopped and the no-longer-offending family member were still in the home.

Second, and I don’t expect agreement but I believe this is crucial, we need to stop pursuing vengeance. We must lay down the judgment and shame game. 

Our capacity for forgiveness should be given more room.

For there to be any systemic, generational healing, we need to bring secrets out in the open. We need to stop banishing people, offenders or victims. We need to slow down enough to let the healing process take place. We need to support the healing process and let it be a normal part of life. There is clearly no evidence blaming, shaming, and shunning have anything to do with finding our way out of this crisis and the crisis our children are facing today.

She is clear about responsibility but she is also clear about forgiveness and shame.

...the fact I’m caring for my father does not excuse his behavior. Nor is it my place to absolve him of responsibility for those he has hurt. What is true is that, together, he and I worked on our relationship and I no longer need his penance. Knowing he wakes up every single morning with the shame of destroying his family has taken away any taste I had for restitution.

Caring for him when he still feels such shame about his life, that's mercy.

eighteen months in fed for pediatrician

A beloved D.C. pediatrician will spend 18 months in a federal prison for possession of child pornography--a compassionate sentence, compared to most. 

I blogged about this doctor when he was arrested. I pointed out that some doctors are asked by law enforcement to look at child porn images to estimate ages of the people in the images.

The difference between the prison-bound pediatrician looking at child porn and another doctor looking at child porn to estimate ages? The assumption is that one is turned on by the images and the other is not...not that we can tell for certain who is aroused and who is not...or who goes home after seeing the images to fantasize about what was seen. 

We simply cannot know what is in the mind of the viewer, no matter how entertaining it is to imagine that we can. 

At the Washington Post link, commenter DCDiva63 said,

I can't believe there are parents out there supporting this sick pervert. There is no excuse for possessing child pornography, period. I don't care how much good work he did for the community. He was in a position of trust, and this is the worst kind of exploitation and abuse of children. He was getting his jollies from it and that makes him beneath contempt.

Looking at images is the worst kind of exploitation and abuse of children? Really? I wouldn't be so sure. Thinking that looking at pictures is worse than anything else that could happen to children, is not rational.

I am glad that the doctor will serve only 18 months and I'm sorry he has to go to prison at all. It is good that his community is standing by him, recognizing that he broke the law but remembering that he was someone who did good.

Breaking the law does not--cannot!--negate the best part of a life.

persecution leads to suicides

Five recent stories, eight deaths:

• Fifteen-year-old Alabama boy hangs himself after getting into trouble for streaking at a high school football game.
• Iowa city councilman kills himself when he comes under investigation for possession of child pornography.
• Michigan father of five kills himself when he comes under investigation for possession of child pornography.
• Two charged with child porn and two under investigation (all from Tennessee) die in a murder-suicide pact.
• Ohio man accused of having child porn and plead not guilty to pandering commits suicide. (via eAdvocate)

When the threat of crushing public humiliation looms, too many decide suicide is the only way out or the surest way to keep from embarrassing their families and disappointing their friends.

How do we reduce that threat? Stop the public humiliation. Abolish the sex offender registry so offenders have a shot at a normal life when they finish serving their sentences. Stop treating sex offenders as if they are irredeemable. Stop treating sex offenders as if they are the most dangerous of all criminals. Speak up.

Churches should put their teachings about mercy and redemption into action by welcoming sex offenders. City councils should decrease the residency restrictions for sex offenders. State legislators should stop using sex offenders as the easy way to prove they are tough on crime. We should stop using the phrase "sex offender" to label a huge variety of offenses as if they are all equally bad.

I'd like to see people fight back when comments like this are made:

adios pervert .. now america dont have to pay for your prison life ..

I'd like to see a flood of responses to those comments, defending sex offenders. Yes, defending sex offenders. 

When the law encourages hatred and vigilantism, that law is wrong.

Laws that deliberately make life difficult for sex offenders are wrong.

When a law pretending to protect children results in fatherless children and a child dead of suicide, that law is wrong.

Abolish the sex offender registry.

a former offender meets the public

In Belmont MA, a registered sex offender spoke at a town meeting, saying,

"My name is Carl Peterson. I'm the level 3 sex offender all of you have been talking about," said the 48-year-old Bernard Road resident as the audience sat in rapt silence, several holding a hand to their mouth, others sitting forward in their chairs, all waiting on each sentence.  

It is extremely rare that a convicted sex offender will speak freely about their crime and the life they are attempting to live in a new community.

Many former offenders will speak to state legislators or to Senators and Congressmen. Standing up at a town meeting and explaining--not excusing--his crime? Rare, indeed.

I admire this man's courage in confronting people he knows have been saying terrible things about him, people he knows will never trust him. 

This man, his wife and daughter moved to Belmont in July, where he is currently the only level 3 registered sex offender. Level 3 indicates that someone guesses he is at risk of re-offending. 

I hope he and his family are able to live in Belmont free of fear.

incarcerate or educate?

 Two different approaches to child pornography on the Internet:

...Microsoft announced that it planned to implement a new mechanism to fight child pornography by creating a pop-up warning when someone searches for illegal images of child porn on Bing, The Guardian reports. However, Google, which owns the largest share of online search traffic, has decided not to include the new program in its search engine. 

“Child abuse imagery is illegal and we have a zero tolerance policy to it," a Google spokesperson said in an email in The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "We use purpose-built technology and work with child safety organizations like the Internet Watch Foundation to find, remove and report it, because we never want this material to appear in our search results. We are working with experts on effective ways to deter anyone tempted to look for this sickening material.”

The Most Boring Radical has related thoughts:

Certainly if we were interested in actually deterring these crimes–if we believed that these were serious criminal problems and we needed people to stop engaging in them–that’s what we’d do. We’d have commercials running during sporting events warning men of the penalties they can face for engaging in these kinds of online behaviors; we’d have health classes in school cover the legal dangers of online sexual activity; we’d put warnings up before people entered certain websites, reminding them of the penalties in their state of engaging in certain activities. 

But, we aren’t doing that. Why? Because these are crimes the police are interested in creating, not deterring. If we actually believed that scores of guys in their 20s and 30s and 40s were meeting horny teen girls in adult chat rooms and meeting up with them for sex, you can be sure that we’d have campaigns designed to deter such behavior. But, it’s not happening (probably mainly because actual 15yo girls who really want sex with older guys don’t need to resort to skeezy chat rooms to find it, and aren’t doing so). There is nothing to deter. There is, however, money to be gained from creating the crime and arresting people for it.

Money to be made. That's about right. More money is made from the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of child porn users than child pornography producers ever dreamed of making.

It costs taxpayers about $27,000 per year to incarcerate someone. At a time when government needs to spend less, it makes sense to educate people about the penalties for downloading child porn if that will keep them from committing a crime. Those penalties are not well known. 

People do not expect the penalties for looking at pictures to be greater than the penalties for molesting a child. 

People do not know that simply looking at an image online leaves a copy on the hard drive. 

People do not know that the law makes no distinction between intentional and accidental downloading or between images that have been viewed or not viewed. 

People do not know that curiosity can result in years and years in prison.

If a warning about the penalties would keep someone from clicking that link--from looking at child porn--wouldn't we all want that? 

why I publish the hostile comments

Notes from the Handbasket generally runs along quietly, not drawing much attention. Once in awhile, someone notices it and holds it up to their online friends as an example of all that's wrong with the world. What follows then is a sort of competition to see who can make the comment that will leave the mark on me that stings the most. After all, I should be ashamed of myself, staying with my husband.

I will have a few days of high traffic and negative comments from people who disapprove of me having anything nice to say about my husband. Every time it happens, I wonder if maybe I ought to think about running Google ads; after all, I could use the money for the anti-registry causes I support.

Happily, every time it happens, I end up with a few more regular readers. Some of the regulars still don't like what I have to say but they make intelligent comments. The fly-by-night commenters are here not to understand but to condemn. Some, in their condemnation, are unintentionally amusing. I doubt this earnest commenter intended the irony in her comment:

I also want to suggest (gently) that you refrain from visiting this blog in the future. I don't think there are any minds here that are open to changing. 

Open minds, indeed. That commenter can't open her mind even the tiniest crack to the possibility that people can change for the better.

So far, I publish all comments except for the one I deleted by accident yesterday (apologies to the commenter...repost and I will publish it) and one some time ago that was the f-word repeated for several lines. Too bad that commenter didn't include more because just one more f-word would have made me see the error of my ways.

The first time I got hit with nasty comments, I considered not publishing them. After all, I started this blog to welcome others like me who have family members in trouble for possessing child pornography. How does it feel to a visitor who is planning to stay with her husband to read cruel comments like these:

You disgust me perhaps more than your husband does. 

I am extremely disgusted there are people like you and your husband in the world. 

...you are no better than the perverts who exploit children.

...or to encounter truly ignorant things like:

Police officers don't watch child porn or look at images to get their jollies off... 

YOU should not be allowed to say whether people looking at child pornography is abuse.  

Of course there's a difference! In one instance, he's viewing pictures of victimized children -- in the other he's not!  

The ignorant comments speak for themselves. Information is easily available but some horses won't drink the water.

The cruel comments say more about the commenters than about those of us who have watched someone deal with crippling guilt, shame, and remorse. When I read them, I wonder what it feels like to write those comments, to think that way. 

Maybe it is wrong of me to publish such mean-spirited thoughts. I honestly hadn't thought that until just this moment. Is it wrong to let someone bare the worst of themselves in public?

Fallible human beings are worthy of redemption. We should all be happy to know that. Instead, some take pleasure in beating down people who try to live with hope. 

I oppose pornography and sexual abuse because it is immoral. Wrong. That isn't a secret to anyone who has read my blog. However, child pornography laws are not based on reason, sex offender sentences are draconian, and the sex offender registry is unconstitutional.

That is my focus.

It is wrong to stand by and watch a whole segment of the population--750,000 Americans on sex offender registries--be vilified and labeled as monsters. Publishing those vile comments brings the ugliness to blame for injustice out into the open where it can be examined and challenged. 

I hope that others who have family members in trouble read those comments and can see clearly that that kind of thinking is evil. Don't give in to it.

the many ways of cruelty

I was appalled by something mentioned casually in the article about the judge who refused to follow the sentencing guidelines when sentencing a man for possession of child porn (I blogged about the judge here):

A teenager depicted being raped by her father at the age of 10 in some of the videos [found in the possession  of the defendant] had told the court of the effect the case had on her. 

“Unfortunately, my hurt doesn’t end with my father,” the girl wrote before [the defendant's] first sentencing. “When I was told how many people had viewed these images and videos, I thought my pulse would stop. Thinking of all those sick perverts and viewing my body being ravished and hurt like that makes me feel like I was raped by each and every one of them.”

This girl is a teenager. Whether she is 13 or 19 or somewhere in between, who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to tell her "how many people had viewed these images and videos"? The images of her will not be--cannot be--eliminated. What good can come of telling her that the images are still out there?

If pornographic images of children are illegal to protect the children, explain how it protects this teenager to tell her that "sick perverts" are viewing her "body being ravished and hurt"? Does that help her to overcome the trauma of being abused?

Law enforcement is required to tell the "victim and/or guardians" when the child in the image is identified.

At the initiation of an investigation, victims and/or guardians are contacted by a Victim Specialist (VS) who, in addition to providing referrals for services, explains the unique circumstances surrounding child pornography investigations, and the possibility that images may appear again in future investigations or court proceedings. At that time, the VS also requests the victim and/or guardian sign a Notification Preference Form.

The victim and/or guardian uses the Notification Preference Form to indicate whether or not they want a notification every time her image is found during an investigation. In order for the victim to say that she does not want the notifications, the Victim Specialist has to tell her that the images are still out there. Once identified, the victim is not allowed not to know. 

Some will say that the children, perhaps now adults, must be notified so they can ask for restitution from the defendants who looked at the images. As you can clearly see in Emily Bazelon's piece about child porn restitution, money does not make the trauma go away. In fact, the continuing notifications can also be traumatizing events.

If the victims need financial help to get necessary therapy (and, yes, that help should be available), that could be accomplished without giving them the information that their images are still in circulation. Private charities or government funding could extend that assistance without the need to further traumatize the victims.

Proclaiming a desire to protect the children from abuse and then needling them with reminders of that abuse...that is perverted.

Awful things happen to children everywhere, all the time. We marvel at child soldiers from war-torn countries who overcome their traumatic childhoods. We praise children who survive life-threatening illness or injury when they go on to live good lives. We admire children who come from troubled families yet go on to be successful businessmen and raise good families of their own. Child sexual abuse may or may not be worse than those traumas but with care and time, children can overcome horrible events. Many, perhaps most, will. 

...if we let them.

another judge gets it

A federal judge in Ohio shows mercy by refusing to sentence a defendant according to the sentencing guidelines. Twice.

Appalled at the harsh sentencing guidelines for child pornography offenses, a federal judge sentenced an ailing, 67-year-old defendant to only one night in jail — and when an appeals court ordered the defendant resentenced, the judge imposed the same punishment. 

“If I have got to send somebody like [this man] to prison, I’m sorry, someone else will have to do it,” said U.S. District Judge James L. Graham of Columbus, Ohio. “I’m not going to do it.” ...

The unusual act of judicial disobedience by Graham — who was appointed to the bench 27 years ago by President Ronald Reagan — is the latest protest of sentencing rules for pornography possession, which other federal judges have described in opinions as “irrational” and “bordering on witch hunts.” 

...Graham declared the guidelines were seriously flawed because, among other things, they require an enhanced sentence if a computer is used — even though, as Graham pointed out, a computer is nearly always used.

As far as I can tell, the defendant is pleading guilty to possession, a charge that does not carry a mandatory minimum. Sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory.

The defendant has already had two strokes and his wife is in poor health. The judge said he worried that the defendant wouldn't get sufficient health care in prison. In another article, the prosecutors blithely brush aside those concerns:

The 6th Circuit pointed out that prisons have doctors and that [the defendant] has four adult children living near him who could help take care of his wife.

The prison where my husband is incarcerated has no doctor on staff. I do not know if that is usual.

“We’re not of a belief that someone should get a senior discount because of their age,” said Fred Alverson, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Well, that's certainly true. Federal prosecutors have been busy putting elderly people in prison and keeping others there until they are elderly--the majority of them for non-violent crimes.

The population of aging and elderly prisoners in U.S. prisons exploded over the past three decades, with nearly 125,000 inmates aged 55 or older now behind bars, according to a report published Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. This represents an increase of over 1,300 percent since the early 1980s. 

More than $16 billion is spent annually by states and the federal government to incarcerate elderly prisoners, despite ample evidence that most prisoners over age 50 pose little or no threat to public safety, the report said. Due largely to higher health care costs, prisoners aged 50 and older cost around $68,000 a year to incarcerate, compared to $34,000 per year for the average prisoner. 

The feds want to put this man in prison, putting his health and that of his wife at risk, and they want taxpayers to pay the increased cost of incarcerating an elderly man in poor health. Why?

In the article linked above, the prosecutors explain that

...he was participating in a global market with millions of members that “constantly demands that more children be abused in order to create new images.” 

“Child pornography images themselves are their own currency,” prosecutors wrote. “Possessors are the engine of demand that fuels the molestation of children to create more supply.”

Note that prosecutors do not have to prove these assertions. They don't have to prove that this man's online activities demanded new images or that he wanted more children to be molested. They are allowed to make broad accusations about a general practice of looking at child pornography as if it naturally applies to everyone charged with possession. No one challenges them.

Welcome, Judge Graham, to the ranks of those who recognize that sentences for child porn users are not proportionate to the crime. There is probably a large number of judges in that group. If only more of them would stand up and publicly acknowledge the wrongs done to those who look at pictures.

Bordering on witch hunts, indeed.

protect the children

Protect the Children is a great slogan, almost impossible to argue against. No sane person wants to argue  that we should torment children. What kind of person would think that way?

As it turns out, every defense of the sex offender registry is an argument to torment children. It's tricky, though, because the defense of the registry is tucked inside the unassailable Protect the Children slogan.

...Human Rights Watch released the results of an exhaustive new study on the long-term impact of placing minors on sex-offender registries in the U.S. “Raised on the Registry,” examining 517 cases of youth sex offenders across 20 states, reveals an almost incomprehensible reality in which children as young as 9 are being added to sex-offender databases, sometimes for life, and often as a result of sketchy plea deals or faulty juvenile-court proceedings.

Nine! Think about yourself at nine and what you knew about sex at that age. Of the information you had, and perhaps you even had a lot of it, how much of it did you truly understand? Maybe you understood how pieces and parts fit together but you couldn't have understood how sex affects people, their emotions and their sense of self for a lifetime. Nine-year-olds are simply too young to fathom the effects of adult behavior. How can a nine-year-old understand that sexual behavior today can affect himself and others for years to come? He has only nine years on which to base his understanding.

A child who gets into trouble for sexual behavior and ends up on the sex offender registry not only needs to deal with his faulty understanding of sex, he will need to deal with public humiliation as well. How does that help him? To protect the children, this child is put into another situation he is completely unprepared to handle: that of being labeled a sex offender.

Children who are abused by family members or by a trusted friend often do not feel better when their abuser is taken from them. Love and trust are twisted when sex abuse is part of the relationship. What child can make sense of that? Telling them that their uncle did a bad thing might be something they understand but they are not prepared to deal with the inner turmoil resulting from that bad thing. Children can feel guilt for sending the abuser away, grief for the person now missing from their lives.

On top of that confusion, the abuser is on the registry. A family member, a close family friend. The abuse is publicly known and talked about. Family know about the child's role--a role without blame, for certain, but how does a child deal with the rest of the family (and strangers as well?) knowing what the child did or what happened to him? When a sibling is the abuser, two children are tormented. Putting the abuser on the registry does not help matters for the rest of the family; it introduces more heartache.

With a parent on the registry to protect the children, the child's address is also on the registry. Her house can be searched by law enforcement at any time; the family car can be pulled over for a search at any time. Parents of her friends learn something very private about her family when they find her parent on the registry. Perhaps friends are forbidden to come to her house, perhaps she knows that people look at her and wonder if she had been abused, perhaps others look at her and wonder if she would be an easy mark for further abuse.

The registry is for a lifetime for former offenders even if their names are removed after 15 or 25 years. Nothing disappears from the Internet. A child who abuses a six-year-old will forever be labelled an abuser of a six-year-old. When the child is nine, people might understand how the abuse happened. When he is 17 and asks a girl to prom, a six-year-old victim will be a problem. The older the abuser is, the further away from his abuses--the worse his offense looks.

In jurisdictions that notify the neighborhood whenever a sex offender changes residence, how does an abused child deal with the periodic reminders of his abuse? A postcard arrives at the house, announcing where the offender now lives. Oh, you remember which offender, dear. The guy who did that terrible stuff to you. This is not a good way to help children deal with memories.

What about the children I haven't mentioned yet? Your children. You know...the ones who deserve protection from sex offenders. Does the registry protect them? Nope. Family members who are abusers are still bringing pumpkin pies to Thanksgiving dinner, still whispering secrets with your children. Those abusers are not on the registry. Ninety percent of sex offenses are committed by first-time offenders.

In plain terms, the next sex offense arrest in your town will most likely be at a home not listed on the registry.

The registry does not protect the children. It does, however, make life painful for a very large number of children. With over 750,000 Americans on registries, the number of children affected must be staggering. Abolish the registry and protect those children.

what do sex offenders have to do with the Farm Bill?

Senator David Vitter, R-LA, proposed an amendment to the Farm Bill currently in the Senate:

[The amendment] would prohibit convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from receiving food stamps. Under current law, there is a lifetime ban for convicted drug felons, though many states have opted out of or modified that ban. Vitter’s amendment would extend the lifetime food stamp ban to dangerous sex offenders and murderers. 

Pedophile is such a funny word. People use it to mean many things, but its meaning is quite specific. Pedophilia is a psychological diagnosis. Does this amendment propose to look at the mental health records of those who apply for food stamps to weed out those with a pedophilia diagnosis? HIPAA prevents that if that is what Vitter intends. Of course he doesn't mean pedophile in its true sense; he uses the word to mean registered sex offenders, whether they are pedophiles or not:

(1) IN GENERAL.—An individual shall not be eligible for benefits under this Act if the
individual is convicted of—
(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code;
(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code;
(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of theViolence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or
(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney General to be substantially
similar to an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Put a man in prison, watch him do his time, make it very, very difficult for him to find employment, and then take away federal assistance available to other citizens. Not only that, but the families of "murderers, rapists, and pedophiles" would be made ineligible for food stamps, too:

(2) EFFECTS ON ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS FOR OTHERS.—The amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an eligible household under this Act shall be determined by considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not to be a member of such household, except that the income and resources of the individual shall be considered
to be income and resources of the household.

The best way to help former offenders isn't the food stamp program; the best way would be to make it easier for former offenders to find employment. Eliminating the sex offender registries would be a giant step forward toward that goal. Tell that to your Senator.

You'd think if any Senator would be sympathetic to those on the sex offender registry, it would be Senator Vitter himself since he knows what it feels like to be publicly humiliated because of sexual matters. Vitter's name appeared on a list of clients of the DC Madam in 2009. He apologized, charges were never brought against him, and he went on his merry way to torment those more unlucky than he was.

Despicable.

Vitter isn't the only despicable Senator, though. His amendment passed the Senate today. Unanimously.

if you can't do the time

When families of sex offenders point out the harsh penalties for sex crimes, we usually hear some version of If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. This comment  is a good example:

Quick question, was your husband aware of the reprecautions for having child porn on his computer? I'm sure he knew it is illegal and what could happen if he got caught. He took the risk didn't he? You should be angry with him, not with the system.

If my husband didn't want to go to prison for four years, he should have simply not looked at child porn. That answer satisfies the self-righteous but The Most Boring Radical asks us to think about how that reasoning could be used to excuse all kinds of draconian punishments.

We could argue, I suppose, that a woman in Saudi Arabia who doesn’t want to get stoned to death just shouldn’t commit adultery. That a person in China who doesn’t want to get thrown in prison just shouldn’t own a Bible. That a young man in Somalia who doesn’t want his hand cut off just shouldn’t steal. That, in the 1950s in America, a gay man who didn’t want to be arrested just shouldn’t have engaged in sodomy.  

We could argue those things, but we’d be wrong. We’d be demonstrating a limited, immature form of ethical thinking. We’d be acquiescing our sense of right and wrong to the state.

Unless you have been exposed to the workings of the justice system, it is easy to assume criminals get what they deserve, that the laws properly identify what is a crime and what is not. It is easy to let the justice system hum along in the background of your life, without noticing how it works. However, you are responsible for thinking about whether justice is served. 

This should not be the way we understand justice. As long as we keep the mindset that there is no such thing as a too-severe consequence because the consequence can be avoided simply by obeying the law, we are handing our own powers of moral reasoning over to the government. We have succumbed to totalitarianism. And, as soon as we do that, we have set the stage for even greater injustices in the future.

Is it fair that streakers can end up on the sex offender registry? The sex offender registry did not begin with streaking listed among registrable crimes but the registry set the stage for even greater injustices in the future. Are we sure that streaking and public urination will be the end of those added injustices?

Back to the comment I quoted, No, my husband was not aware that he could spend years in prison for a first offense of looking at videos of teen-aged girls. Even his relatively short sentence is unthinkable. 

If Morton Berger knew he could be sentenced to 200 years for twenty child porn images, does that make his sentence just?

the power of mercy

People made such a fuss over Les Misérables but I was in no hurry to follow the crowd...then I saw it.

Perhaps I'm the last to have seen it for the first time; if not, I recommend the 2012 movie. If you aren't a fan of musicals, you will miss something truly special.

It is the story of a a man who learns to love and the story of another man who cannot show mercy and tragically cannot accept mercy.

Sex offenders and their families will find much that is familiar--the shame, the unreasoning hate, the lifelong burden of fear--and yet Les Mis is veritably awash in the idea of the power of mercy. Conferring or receiving mercy bestows freedom. Freedom from hate--your hate for your persecutors and their hate for you--is mercy.

Mercy is bestowed by those humble enough to recognize the truth in this:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

My husband and I have have received untold gifts of mercy and while there is joy in it, it is also humbling. Mercy received is breathtaking, sacred.