First off, Ginger has the 28th Carnival of the Feminists up at her site. Visit and read.
Yesterday’s LA Times had a “column left” story by Peter Hong: On His Block, A Molester. Hong, a Times staffer, lives a bit more than a mile north of me in Altadena:
My neighbor was a child molester.
I know because of the signs.
Michael Miletti’s face, name and address appear on posters lining Wapello Street in Altadena, with the admonishment: “Leave Our Neighborhood Now Child Molester.” Up since May, the signs are staked into lawns, taped to trash cans and nailed to tree trunks.
IT started in April with an anonymous mailer sent to houses on Wapello. The fliers pictured Miletti, 53, above the words “Registered Sex Offender Movement Alert.”
Miletti had arrived a year earlier after marrying a widow who had lived for several years in a spacious Mediterranean house. Neighbors knew him mainly as a polite man who chatted with them while walking his two sheepdogs, Roy and Fiona.
After the mailer arrived, someone on the block checked out Miletti’s court record. It showed that Miletti’s 16-year-old daughter had turned him in to the police in 1993.
Miletti admitted repeatedly abusing his daughter — police said she was first molested at age 6 or 7 — and served three years in state prison.
Horrified, some residents began placing signs in an effort to warn others — and perhaps to drive Miletti out.
“We want to ostracize him,” said William Tell, 62, a retired businessman who lives across the street from Miletti.
Okay, first off, I have a hard time believing that “William Tell” is someone’s real name, but that’s beside the point.
The article, which is decidedly sympathetic to neighborhood residents and hostile to Miletti, made me very, very angry. Not angry at the sex offender who has done his time, but at the ugliness and hostility of his community — a community very close to where I live.
Let me be very, very, clear: from a Christian perspective, sex offenders are “our neighbors”; we are called to love them and to live in community with them. Should a registered sex offender wish to buy a townhome in our condo complex, I would welcome him as I would welcome any other neighbor. If I had small children, I might make certain that they didn’t spend time alone with the fellow. But I would not allow my fears to trump my responsibility to live peacably and amicably with my neighbors. Of course, if my neighbor is actively engaging in criminal behavior, then that’s something else; he belongs in prison or some form of intense, residential treatment. But if, like Mr. Miletti, his crime occurred years ago and he’s paid his dues to society, then I cannot imagine not treating him as I would any other neighbor.
Of course, I don’t have children. I have nieces and nephews whom I adore, however; I work with kids in a volunteer capacity. My concern for their safety is very high. But as I wrote last week in my post about animal research, there are certain principles that trump responsibilities to one’s loved ones. I would love to find a cure for cancer, and I would love to have been able to save my father’s life. But I will not support the search for a cure if it comes at the cost of animal life. Of course, I want to protect my future children from real and authentic dangers. But I will not allow my ungrounded fears about a man who once violated a child’s trust to override my higher call to love my neighbor. Just because someone becomes a father doesn’t mean he ceases to have vital responsibilities to the larger community of living creatures. If a sex offender came to hurt my kid, I would do everything I could to stop him — but preemptively lashing out at a man who struggled, fell, and has apparently amended his ways is not an acceptable way in which to provide that protection.
I hate the whole idea of making sex offender registries public. Let me be clear that I am not a sex offender, and indeed, most of the crimes that these men have committed appal and disgust me. But I can be disgusted by an action and still love, welcome, and live in community with the man who committed that act.
The sex offender is my neighbor. He is welcome on my street. And should I see any signs going up in my neighborhood, calling for his ouster, I will rip them down in the light of day.
Hugo, I’m going to try to be very calm here. I recognize that your interpretation of your faith calls you to do many things very differently from many other people, myself included, and that’s certainly your right. But this passage…
“If I had small children, I might make certain that they didn’t spend time alone with the fellow.”
MIGHT?!?!?!
Lots of people find themselves having different views about a great many things after they have children of their own. For the sake of any theoretical future children you have, I hope you’re one such person.
And then there’s this one…
“And should I see any signs going up in my neighborhood, calling for his ouster, I will rip them down in the light of day.”
Again, I’ll try not to be too confrontational. But if I ever saw a person coming on private property that I own and tearing down signs that I put up–especially signs warning others about these sorts of degenerate animals–that person would get a 12 guage rock salt enema.
The signs in the article, Chief, were posted on telephone poles and trees. I would not deface private property, but if put up in public, I’d rip ‘em down in a heartbeat.
Not to be flip, but I’m pretty sure this:
…that person would get a 12 guage rock salt enema
would make you a sex offender.
So where’s the guy supposed to live, Chief? Should he just kill himself or something?
I understand that you want to protect your children, as any sane parent does, but there’s a tension between what you want and the rights that people around you have.
If we believe as a society that offenders like the guy in this story can *never* be rehabilitated, then why do we ever let them out of prison?
As Hugo said, the guy has done his time. He’s paid his debt to society.
Why shouldn’t he be allowed to live in peace?
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be *careful*, but there’s a big difference between caution and mob violence.
Also, if you’re threatening to shoot people for *tearing down a sign*, you might want to think carefully about who’s really acting like an animal in this situation.
So where’s the guy supposed to live, Chief? Should he just kill himself or something?
Actually, we just passed a law in California that basically requires them to live in the desert…they’re not allowed to live anywhere near a school…which is pretty much anywhere in the city.
For once I can see Hugo’s point. I think that people should be given a chance to rehibilitate themselves. And actually, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is low2er than people assume. Pedophiles can’t be cured, but they CAN learn not to offend again.
“Paid his debt to society” however is a complete fiction. This has nothing to do with any kind of Karmic balance sheet. This is a public safety issue. If the guy is in your neighborhood, your kids are not safe. In. Your. own. neighborhood.
Actually, I think banishment from polite company is not too horrible a solution. Let them go live in a desert or a mountaintop, where there are no children and they are free from temptation. This is far more humane a solution then sending them to jail where they will be tormented by other inmates for the duration of their sentence.
“So where’s the guy supposed to live, Chief? Should he just kill himself or something?”
Sounds like a capital idea. Save everybody a lot of grief.
“If we believe as a society that offenders like the guy in this story can *never* be rehabilitated, then why do we ever let them out of prison?”
You’re asking me? I’ve wanted an answer to that question for years.
What Nat said. I have small children and I live in a neighborhood with at least two convicted sex offenders within a mile of my house, one of them on my street. It doesn’t particularly bother me as I’m mindful of where my children are and what they are doing pretty much all the time, even if I’m not with them (and at almost 5 and 18 months, I’m pretty much always with them when I’m not at work). When they get older, I’ll have to have more trust, but still, I’m not all that worried about random strangers or neighbors we don’t know all that well doing something to them.
And also, convicted sex offender could mean just about anything from a streaker to a hard core child molester. I personally know of a guy who is on a registry convicted of statutory rape for being in his early 20s and messing around with a 17 year old who lied about her age (when he mother found out, she went after him) and my high school boyfriend could have been convicted as well, as I was 16 and he was 18, if my parents had been the convicting sorts.
Wow, Hugo, it seems you are out to provoke more this week than usual. Isn’t one of the reasons why sex offenders’ lists are made public the fact that a very high proportion of them reoffend again – whether or not they have ‘paid their debts to society’ by spending time in prison? I take your point about leaving open the door for rehabilitation, for those in whose cases this does happen, and I see the tension between this and public lists. All the same, if somebody is a known danger to children – and all evidence points to the fact that time spent in prison is rarely a cure for pedophilia – how can you argue that people with children do not have the right to know this, so that they can take protective measures?
What these protective measures should and should not be able to include is a different question.
I’m with Hugo, Nat and ks here. Lot’s of convicted “sex offenders” are simply men who did something that IMO in no way justifies being convicted as a “sex offender” (e.g., streaking, 18yo men with 17women). From what I can glean from the quoted article, the man who “abused” his daughter could have simply spanked her bare butt; in our society, which has been conditioned to view all men as rapists, abusers, molesters, etc., it’s quite easy for the label of “sex offender” to be stuck on a man for what are indeed trivial incidents. Plus, just because he was convicted doesn’t mean he was actually guilty (nor doesn “not guilty” prove innocence). There are just too many questionable situations where innocent men are labeled “sex offender” and other types of criminal.
So yeah, where’s he supposed to live? If people are uncomfortable living in a neighborhood IMO they are the ones who should move. Otherwise, unless and until the person breaks the law, they should be treated as innocent.
However, Hugo, I object to your characterizing sex offenders and other criminals as exclusively “he,” “him,” etc. Plenty of women are guilty of sex offenses (even if many of them aren’t prosecuted) and other crimes, so at least use a gender-neutral term. After all, I though that you feminists were all about breaking down gender stereotypes, inclusive language, etc. Or does that only apply when it’s convenient to the rhetoric?
“The Chief” wrote:
Hugo, I’m going to try to be very calm here. I recognize that your interpretation of your faith calls you to do many things very differently from many other people, myself included, and that’s certainly your right. But this passage…
“If I had small children, I might make certain that they didn’t spend time alone with the fellow.â€
MIGHT?!?!?!
Damn, for once, I agree wholeheartedly with Hugo. I’m an MRA from way back. I disagree with probably 99% of what Hugo writes here. However, I will unabashedly give Hugo credit and admiration for this brave and enlightened blog entry.
The context of the situation matters. Before writing his post using the word “might,” I assume he considered that different facts and circumstances would call for different appropriate responses, all of which could be perfectly appropriate parental actions, depending on the exact facts involved.
You, Mr. Chief, ought to educate yourself about “sex offenders,” their treatment and rehabilitation, and their overall low rate of recidivism. You also need to come off your self-righteous high horse with your Internet tough-guy chest thumping; I am not impressed.
There is a lot of hype about sex offenders, but much of it may be either untrue or greatly exaggerated.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-05/panic.html
Hugo’s choice of the word “might” here was entirely appropriate. Like many other apparently otherwise well-meaning people, you are engaging in hysteria–irrational phobia–over the issue of sex offenders living in a particular neighborhood.
Lots of people find themselves having different views about a great many things after they have children of their own. For the sake of any theoretical future children you have, I hope you’re one such person.
And lots of people don’t. People who are committed to justice and compassion seem to remain committed to justice and compassion after they have children of their own.
And then there’s this one…
“And should I see any signs going up in my neighborhood, calling for his ouster, I will rip them down in the light of day.â€
Again, I’ll try not to be too confrontational. But if I ever saw a person coming on private property that I own and tearing down signs that I put up–especially signs warning others about these sorts of degenerate animals–that person would get a 12 guage rock salt enema.
First, I could be wrong, but it seems Hugo was talking about signs in public places. Although it’s not clear from his original text that he meant public places, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Second, even assuming arguendo that Hugo was talking about private property, you have issued a hypothetical threat to commit a crime and a tort of violence against a person who was engaging in at most a peaceable and minor trespass to land. That threat suggests to me that your proposed action makes you precisely the kind of person who ought not be allowed to own, possess, or use firearms. I say that as a responsible owner of firearms.
Third, lest you (or anyone else) dismiss me as some sort of lefty apologist for sex offenders, trust me: I am not. I am the survivor of childhood sexual abuse that occurred outside of my family for more than a decade, all committed by people who are not relatives of mine. To be blunt, what worries me a hell of a lot than sex offenders are the self-righteous vigilantes who act like their own excrement does not stink, put up vicious posters, seem to take a fiendish delight in every enactment of “Megan’s law,” and justify all of this with emotional cries of “It’s for the children.”
My own children are more dear to me than I can put into words. I do my very best to love and protect them. My wife and I have talked about our concerns with respect to sex offenders. I have some fears, to be sure, but they are not fears that are going to make me want to track people down and hound them out of my neighborhood.
We have decided to be more involved in our children’s lives. I own my own business and make time for them. My wife and I do not each work 80 hours a week. We decided to forgo the extra car and the SUV. My motorcycle is a simpler and far less expensive model than I would ideally have (although I can still do some fast laps on the track with it!). But we are involved in our kids’ lives. We don’t expect some vigilante groups out there to do our parental jobs for us.
Fine, Mr. Bad, given that there are women on the sex offender registries, I ought indeed to have used gender-inclusive language.
I certainly did not expect this to be a unifying issue between myself and the MRAs. But hey, I’m delighted.
1) Not all sex offenders are male! The majority, but not all.
2) It’s disturbing to have a sex offender in my neighborhood, but raelly where are they supposed to go after prison/treatment?
3) Sexual abuse is a huge problem. And there are many more sex offenders who are never caught than are caught, so in an odd way even as I am disturbed by their presence in the area, I am relieved to know at least who and where they are. Knowing is better than not knowing.
Tom–”You also need to come off your self-righteous high horse with your Internet tough-guy chest thumping; I am not impressed.”
Tom, where did you get the idea that I had any interest in impressing you?
As for the public property/private property debate: In the article Hugo originally cites, signs are “staked into lawns, taped to trash cans and nailed to tree trunks.” Trash cans, lawns and tree trunks connote private property to me, hence my reaction. If anybody wants to nail up/tear down a sign on public property I may call the police (where I live we have some city ordinances to prevent every telephone poll from being littered with countless garage sale signs), but no, my response will not be a strong as it will be to an infringement on my own property rights.
The “some sex offendors were just streakers or 18 year olds who slept with 17 years old” argument strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Yes, I known some men and women get unfairly tarred with the sex offendor brush–I’ve heard of cases where I guy with a bathroom emergency pulls over to the side of the road, drops his pants to urinate and then gets charged with indecent exposure and lives with a sex offendor stigma thereafter–but they aren’t who I’m talking about. A quick check of police records will reveal exactly what somebody did to be declared a sex offendor. Note that somebody did exactly this with the Milleti story. Are there any parents out there–parents, mind you, not people who might be parents some day–who would really be comfortable with this creature living next door to them?
Joe Smith’s post on banishment to the desert sounds like the best among bad choices. Not perfect–the cost sounds prohibitive, for example–but better than letting child molestors back into the general population.
I’m glad to have the sex offender registry as public information, it is a way to help me be more aware of *potential* dangers for my kids. However harrassment and cries for banishment are a reprehensible way to use the information. I know that it varies from state to state, but the Arizona Sex Offender Registry says this (in caps even):
Perhaps he has some path of legal recourse? I also feel it is fair to point out that the registered sex offenders are the ones that the legal system is already keeping tabs on. There are plenty of unconvicted sex offenders out there that are, I think, more dangerous because they haven’t been caught.
It sure would be a shame for this neighborhood to drive this man away only to find that one of their trusted neighbors was doing the very thing they feared right under their noses while they were preoccupied with getting rid of someone who may have proved himself harmless.
Starfoxy makes an excellent point, that being the danger of the sex offender that we don’t know is (IMHO) far greater than the one we do know.
Re. The Chief’s comment: “The “some sex offendors were just streakers or 18 year olds who slept with 17 years old†argument strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Yes, I known some men and women get unfairly tarred with the sex offendor brush–I’ve heard of cases where I guy with a bathroom emergency pulls over to the side of the road, drops his pants to urinate and then gets charged with indecent exposure and lives with a sex offendor stigma thereafter–but they aren’t who I’m talking about.”
I agree that the people we should worry about are the hardcore, dangerous sex offenders, but I don’t see anything in the post that details the type of “abuse” that Miletti was convicted of perpetrating. As I said, IMO it’s quite possible it could have been something that most normal, reasonable people would consider to be trivial, or even responsible parenting, e.g., spanking. Again, in some sectors our society is ultra-hysterical and androphobic, where normal (especially male) behavior is characterized as somehow pathological. Which brings me to my last point…
I believe that much of the fervor over male sex offenders stems from the pandemic mistrust and denigration of men and healthy, normal masculinty fomented by feminists. As Hugo correctly and graciously admitted, there are women on sex offender registries, and the number is not trivial or insignificant. Therefore, I would like to present a request – call it a challenge if you will: I would like to hear from any and all persons who can provide similar examples of women who have been treated in a similar way as Miletti. And please, no vague anecdotes – verifiable cases please, preferably with references and ideally with links to legitimate news sources. Being an MRA who has been keenly aware of the IMO unfair treatment of men, I’ve been monitoring this sort of thing for quite a while now and I have yet to see a single report of a woman being run out of her home by angry neighbors. I’ve heard many stories like Miletto’s but not a single one with a female sex offender.
We’re having a similar sort of drama going on here. You can read the article in my local paper that started it off here. Basically, a woman discovered a carefully-monitored halfway house for sex offenders was operating in her neighborhood and decided this was unacceptable for, frankly, the same NIMBY reasons given in the article you quoted, Hugo. Over the last few week, she’s rallied her neighbours and they’re now trying to use our especially bizarre zoning regulations (designed to prevent students from living in certain neighbourhoods, actually) to force them to relocate. You can read about that here.
I hate the word `hysteria’ — it’s a misogynist adjective if there ever was one — but it’s hard to find another word that really captures the way people react to the sheer possibility that a sex offender — no matter what they did — lives near them. Perhaps Tom’s use of `self-righteous’ is better, but it still doesn’t seem quite accurate. Is there an adjective for having the qualities of a vigilate? Vigilantist?
I also find it fascinating how many of those who would normally radically disagree with Hugo are finding common ground with him on this issue.
Hugo,
This is a hairy one. It’s difficult to maintain rationality when talking about childhood sexual abuse. For the record, I am a survivor of long term abuse from a very young age and while I have no sympathy for the offender, but I also have no vengence.
The problem I see with sex offender registries is the false sense of security some people seem to derive from them. The kids aren’t any safer if you drive the known pedophile out of town. I don’t know perfectly how to keep your kids safe, but I suspect the best thing to do is simply be involved and make sure your kids know they can always trust you to believe what they say and will support them without judgement. I know looking back at my childhood there were many signs I was crying out for someone to ask me what was wrong, I just needed an opening and it wasn’t provided to me.
Parents, hear this…the damage done by the act of sexual abuse of children pales in comparison to the long term damage done by keeping the secret. Make sure your kids can talk to you, make sure you act on behavioural changes. I was almost thirty before anyone knew, so spent much of my young life acting out sexually and damaging my psyche in many ways. It damaged my development profoundly and I feel I will be years catching up to ‘normal’ folk. I have since come into contact with many survivors, and without exception the best adjusted people were ones who disclosed at the time and were provided with counselling and support while still children.
Anyway, the point is I agree with Hugo, just not necessarily for the same reasons.
Still, I definitely would not let my kids anywhere near him, alone or otherwise. It’s just too risky, regardless of disputes over reoffending rates.
I thought some of this about men being stuck automatically with the stigma of rapist, molester, what-have-you as interesting since I have a personal anecdote(s).
(Sorry this is somewhat off-thread but I wanted to see what reactions there might be)
My son was 2 years old and he and I went to the local grocery store to do some shopping. I carried him to the door and then he wanted to walk. I put him down and noticed that the leg of his sweat-pants had ridden up to his diaper and I tried to adjust it but he walked away from me, eager to explore. I called to him “Jordan, come back here and let me pull your pants down”. I caught a vicious glare from a woman coming into the store. I brushed her off and went about my business, my son in the little car-grocery cart he loved. After a few minutes I noticed a man who obviously worked at the grocery store watching me. Curious I approached him and asked if I could help with something. He turned beet-red and hemmed and hawed, then the store manager walked over. He apologized and said that he kind of felt stupid about it, but that a woman reported me as being a potential child molester and asked him to call the police. She reported that she observed me trying to force a young boy to take off his pants. To placate her he told her he would have someone “watch” me, which the other man was doing.
Not sure if it means anything, but I am rather large (6’2″, 280 lbs) bald with a goatee.
I have also had parent’s of my kid’s friends tell them not to get rides home with me. One in particular was interesting. My daughter is 11. A couple of her friends wanted to go to the mall, and I had some minor shopping to do, so I agreed to take them, let them wander around in a group for a while, then bring them home. I had picked up 2 of her friends and was picking up the 3rd (there were 4 or 5 in all I think that wanted to go). I had never met her parents face to face but had spoken with them a few times on the phone. We are of the same religion and our daughter had spent the night at their house before. I had even asked them if they were ok with me taking all of them to the mall before we went to pick people up. My daughter and I walked to the door to pick her up, as I wanted to meet her parents too. When we rang the bell, there was a bustle behind the door and then the daughter opened it (not all the way, just a crack) and sheepishly said she could not come with us, that something had come up. We picked up the other kids and they had a grand time at the mall. The next day my daughter said that at school her friend told her that her mom did not want her riding to the mall with me, and that maybe they should not be friends any more.
Now I know there could be something in her past, or every parent is entitled to feel something that tells them “no” about their child, but I get this kind of response pretty often.
Just for the record, I love my kids (have 4) and am also horribly apalled at what some people do to kids. I would never dream of hurting any child and would do just about anything to protect ANY child from this kind of thing.
So why do you think I get that response. My wife has even commented on it kind of jokingly before, like “shave the beard before you go so they won’t try to hide their children”.
Stereotyping?
Funny, huh?
If I had small children, I might make certain that they didn’t spend time alone with the fellow.
Yeah, “might’ made my eyes bug out, too.
Welcoming the man as a neighbor is a very different thing than placing your children at risk of abuse. It’s also doing a sex offender no favors to be careless; what’s that proverb about not placing stumbling blocks before the blind? If your neighbor were a recovering alcoholic, I doubt you would be half so glib about keeping your liquor cabinet away from him, or avoiding drinking beer in front of him. You likely wouldn’t think it was smart to park him next to a liquor store.
And, bluntly, your ‘might’ statement strikes me as less what you’d really do and more of Hugo loudly proclaiming what a tolerant, loving guy he is. Why, Hugo might even leave his kids alone with a man who admitted to, and was convicted of, abusing a seven-year-old! Whatta guy!
From what I can glean from the quoted article, the man who “abused†his daughter could have simply spanked her bare butt
Hugo linked to the whole article. Miletti does not deny that he sexually abused his child.
“Miletti said his wife’s death deeply depressed him and his children. He began to see his daughter as something of a surrogate for his departed wife. “It was a codependent thing,” he said. “I had lost someone I loved. I needed someone to love. I was only thinking about me, not my children. It was all about me.”
Hi Chad,
Not funny really, hey.
That comment you made to your son probably would have made me giggle. It’s incredible some random woman would really think child abusers act this way in shopping centres.
I think it’s appalling (and remarkably ignorant) for people to make such assumptions based on appearance. I really think it ties back to my last post about false security. Parents (like all of us) like to believe we can ensure the safety of our loved ones, but it seems we often don’t know what to protect them from.
Anyway, I just wanted to put out there that you can’t tell a pedophile by sight, otherwise hardly any kids would be abused. It’s generally someone you trust that does it, that’s why the communication with your kids is so important. Your kids HAVE to know you’ll believe them, that’s the bottom line folks. We simply cannot protect them from everything, but we do our best and make sure we’re available when required.
This a real bug bear for me. Let’s spend less time and money on sex offender registries and hate campaigns and more on helping out the kids who have been hurt. We (survivors) can end up a pretty useless (or even negative) member of society otherwise. Certainly there is a great loss of potential.
The blog and the responses have me deeply conflicted and a little infuriated. First, to hugo and all who read or comment – you DO live in a neighborhood with child abusers, between RAIN and the justice department about 200,000 children will be sexual abused in the US this year (of course since the percentage has been increasing, maybe more) – of those, just under 50% will be done by family members – who will be given light sentences (like for example, only three years for multiple instances in the quoted story) – So, while putting up pictures of someone on the registry is a “good” thing – for justice; where are these swelling of people to overturn what are commonly known as incest loopholes – short sentences for sexual abuse within the family?
As for the man in Hugo’s community; Hugo says that he has paid his debt to society and the events have happened long ago YET when another point of view comes out with the might make certain children aren’t with him. You can’t have it both ways can you – if you are going to, in your actual personal transactions, treat the person as a perpetual sexual threat to children, then how can you condemn others for doing openly what you would be doing by implication?
As for the strange reaction “hey, females are sexual predators too!” from some guys – that’s true – but the ratio is something beyond 2000:1 – It’s kind of like claiming “he” shouldn’t be used when talking about US serial killers because there has been ONE (labelled) female serial killer.
Anyway, I have ripped down signs made by communities about “child molestors” because the rule of law is one which is for all – not one which is bent or broken as a mob or community because we feel strongly or emotionally about it. My personal observation is that it is far easier to scapegoat the “outsider” who becomes the collective evildoer than face the complex reality that likely one of your ministers, your deacons, your respected business leaders or people for whom the town is emotionally invested is or has sexual abused, which may or may not have been exposed, with very little action taken against them. The Documentary Twist of Faith gives a good view of this occurance, when group of respected spiritual leaders have a history of sexual abuse yet recieve the support of the community.
Sex offender can mean anything these days. Mythago, I couldn’t see any specific text that he sexually molested his daughter. By the way, officially parents who abduct their children away from the other parent are sex offenders. Don’t believe me? Read the law:-
http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/FAQ.aspx?dt=EFCJCFDDJ4LNGMNIL4da
Kidnapping, where the victim is a minor, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2901
So there are plenty of mothers who are, according to the law, sex offenders. They should be placed on the sex offender registry and be ostracised by the Angry Mob. Not to mention guys who take a leak in a public place, guys/girls who have sex with their 17 year old girlfriend/boyfriend etc etc.
I think the term ‘sex offender’ is too vague a description covering too many behaviours. The assumption is that someone who is a ‘sex offender’ is defacto a pedophile.
It is the self-righteous angry mob that often contains the least-educated, most reactionary types of people – a dangerous combination. I remember one such mob in the UK who campaigned outside a……pediatrician’s house……well, sounds like pedophile, doesn’t it?
I believe that men who patronize prostitutes are also sex offenders.
“As for the strange reaction “hey, females are sexual predators too!†from some guys – that’s true – but the ratio is something beyond 2000:1 – It’s kind of like claiming “he†shouldn’t be used when talking about US serial killers because there has been ONE (labelled) female serial killer.”
Elizabeth, I hope you’re going to provide evidence of this statistic (2000:1). It also seems to jar with something you said before – that around 50% of abuse is perpetrated within the family. I do know abuse is far more likely to occur in single-parent households, of which 80%+ consist of single mothers. Yet, only 1 case out of at least 2000, according to you, involves a woman as perpetrator.
I assume you’re not just making this up.
Yes, yes, yes Elizabeth McClung.
I agree with every word.
The scapegoating of the outsider is the perfect phrase to describe this. It’s all so stupid. Most kids are abused by someone their parents trust – not a stranger. The abusers are certainly given very low sentences (if any), often times shorter than the lenghth of the abuse. This is where the outrage should be.
A complicated one all right. Some years back, my mom was ticked off at dad letting a man stay on his property who might have messed with some little kid. I said that at least while he is here where there are no kids, an eye can be kept on him, and she got me good by saying now why should she have to do it. Then there was a thing that happened at work–it was a small family outfit, and one of the daughters was 40 or so but had the intellect of a first-grader. She helped out as she could. One day she came up missing, everyone was very hush-hush but it came out in a while that she had to go away for a while because of something she had done to some kid she had helped take care of. From what I gather, it might not have really happened, and now she can’t even be around kids again even with “normal” adults supervising. Something smells funny about that one, and now I find myself avoiding children in public, lest someone think I am so much as looking at them funny, when I am actually looking at, say, the food they are in front of.
Too Personal nailed it by saying more emphasis on helping the survivors and less on registries/campaigns of dubious value. But I really think that someone ought to find a cure already, or else go ahead and neuter them, especially if they want this. I read something a while back, can’t remember where, about some guy who got hauled up on charges of practicing medicine w/o a licence because he was castrating guys who wanted to be castrated, and I wondered if they were pedophiles desperate to be free of that urge. (It was probably some kinky thing instead, but anyway.)
Of course, if a way to change one’s responses is found, the homophobes will commandeer it to make gays into straights and the curing of pedophiles and so on will get lost in the shuffle, but still. I wouldn’t ever give up on it. Not just prevention (e.g., quit treating kids like property and help them learn to defend themselves) but cures for those twisted minds that want to mess with them.
Sorry if this sounds disjoint. Keep the discussion going so you can come up with better answers than I have. I did an informal count one time and out of 13 adults I knew–ages from 20′s to 90′s–11 said they’d been molested when young. That includes me.
Mythago, I couldn’t see any specific text that he sexually molested his daughter.
He admitted his crime and he stated that he used his daughter as a substitute for his dead wife. I couldn’t see anything that suggested he was unfairly persecuted for administering a spanking.
Also, you should read the entire test of the law you cite, including 1-4 under subsection (a). There is nothing that states the law only applies to fathers. (I’m also not seeing a law that puts you on the registry for public whizzing.)
You can’t have it both ways can you – if you are going to, in your actual personal transactions, treat the person as a perpetual sexual threat to children, then how can you condemn others for doing openly what you would be doing by implication?
Sorry, not following your false dilemma. Are you really saying that refusing to leave one’s children alone with somebody is punishment, akin to imprisonment? That if a parent tells their child “No, you may not play at Mr. Smith’s house”, that’s the exact moral equivalent of trying to drive Mr. Smith out of his home?
Mythago, I think what he meant by that was that if Hugo is going to be really trusting and open with this person, that’s one thing. But if he’s going to claim to be trusting and open, but in fact take steps to minimize risk and treat the person as a potentially dangerous offender, then that’s quite another.
Jesus didn’t say “turn the other cheek, and be ready to duck or hit the guy if he tries anything again”.
I’m pretty sure he also didn’t say “Turn your cheek, and then step into the blow.”
Joe Smith-”I believe that men who patronize prostitutes are also sex offenders.”
Even if both parties are consenting adults, with legal protections for the prostitute a la Amsterdam or southern Nevada? Well, you can believe the moon is made of green cheese too if you wish…
Mythago–”I’m pretty sure he also didn’t say ‘Turn your cheek, and then step into the blow.’”
Damn skippy. I didn’t believe that when I was a Christian, I believe it even less now.
Angiportis, you encourage castration or sterilization for sex offenders, but I don’t see how this will curb child abuse in any meaningful way; it will just incapacitate men from physically expressing their very real psychological urges that no castration (or any medical treatment) will cure
And by the way, spanking a 16 year old daughter on her bare butt is completely inappropriate and deserving of child molestation charges. Any response even slightly excusing his behavior is disturbing, and advocating the removal of information on public property that warns community members of the dangers in their community is troubling as well.
Evenn if both parties are consenting adults, with legal protections for the prostitute a la Amsterdam or southern Nevada? Well, you can believe the moon is made of green cheese too if you wish
No, obviously not in Nevada or Amsterdam. But here’s the list of registerable offences in New York:
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/sortab1.htm
Take a look. “Patronizing a Prostitute” is on the list.
Hugo seems to have missed the forest for the trees: this child molesting monster may well be his “neighbor,” but guess what? So is his victim. So are my kids and I anytime we visit my parents in Altadena. Many, many people are your neighbors; what makes you think only the most vicious elements among them are worthy of your compassion?
Note that I said “so is his victim,” and not “so are his victims,” as if to suggest that the one little girl he was convicted of molesting really was the only child he has molested. That was an extremely optimistic assumption on my part. Child molesters – real ones like this guy, Mr. Bad, we’re not talking about hot-blooded 20 year olds who chase 17 1/2 year old “children” who look and act 18 – are generally chronic offenders. They don’t just do the crime, say “oops, my bad,” pay their phony debt to society (all the while ignoring their much greater debt to the victim, which can never be repaid) and go on to be productive members of society. That’s not what predators do, even when they know it’s in their best interest to do so. Think scorpion + frog, then ask yourself why you feel the need to show so much sympathy toward the scorpion and so correpondingly little toward the frog.
Want something to be righteously angry about, Hugo? I’ll give you something to be righteously angry about. Not the decent, law-abding people who want to get on with their lives and not have to worry about a monster in their midst. Instead, be angry at your fellow liberals in California, whose foisted on the state a pre-1994 Penal Code so pusillanimous as to allow a sexual predator of the worst kind to serve only 3 years in prison after terrorizing his own daughter for 10.
Pingback: the mindful mission
Apologies, Joe. I thought you were saying patronizing a prostitute (under any conditions) SHOULD be a considered a sex offense, not pointing out that, at least in some municipalities, it is considered one.
mythago said: “Hugo linked to the whole article. Miletti does not deny that he sexually abused his child.
“Miletti said his wife’s death deeply depressed him and his children. He began to see his daughter as something of a surrogate for his departed wife. “It was a codependent thing,†he said. “I had lost someone I loved. I needed someone to love. I was only thinking about me, not my children. It was all about me.â€
Tthere’s nothing in there about the specifics of the sexual “abuse,” so your comment that “He admitted his crime and he stated that he used his daughter as a substitute for his dead wife. I couldn’t see anything that suggested he was unfairly persecuted for administering a spanking.” is invalid because it doesn’t specifically state what the “sexual abuse” was, so in fact we don’t know whether or not he indeed administered a spanking. Further, even if it wasn’t an incident of spanking for all we know what he did was every bit as trivial as spanking his kid and thus the “sexual abuse” that he admitted to was trivial by the standards of reasonable, well-adjusted persons.
Sorry myth, but I’m not buying your argument because you’ve still provided no proof that the “sexual abuse” that he (under force/duress?) admitted to was anything other than trivial. As Andrew pointed out, “sexual abuse” can mean practically anyting these days.
Jas said: “And by the way, spanking a 16 year old daughter on her bare butt is completely inappropriate and deserving of child molestation charges.”
That’s your opinion, but IMHO such a viewpoint is beyond utterly ridiculous. ‘Nuff said.
Elizabeth McClung said: “As for the strange reaction “hey, females are sexual predators too!†from some guys – that’s true – but the ratio is something beyond 2000:1″
Count me as one who says ‘prove it’ to that stat. IMO it looks like it came from pulledoutofmyass.com (nod to myth for coining that website). Elizabeth, if you’re going to make assertions that on their face appear ridiculous and thus would like to avoid the inevitable eye-roll and/or snicker, you’d be well-advised to at least attempt to cite a credible reference. So, show us the money.
She continues: “It’s kind of like claiming “he†shouldn’t be used when talking about US serial killers because there has been ONE (labelled) female serial killer.”
Ok, if that ‘statistic’ is any indication of the validity of the “2000:1″ ratio then don’t bother providing evidence – I dimiss out of hand both numbers as complete BS. Female serial killers have been well-documented back to at least the 19th century. See also here for details on individuals.
Besides, you’re erecting a strawman – I did not simply say “hey, females are sexual predators too, I asked for examples of female sex offenders being treated as harshly as male sex offenders in order to examine the bias and sexism in our society re. this topic. I thought that feminism was about examining sexism, discrimination, and injustice, and addressing it wherever it exists. Or is this yet another example of how feminists only selectively following their ‘principles’, i.e., when women are victims?
Hugo, having taken child abuse prevention training with 3 different organizations, I have to admit I was a little shocked that you “might” not let your children alone with a known pedophile. One out of four girls and one out of eight boys in the U.S. will be sexually molested or abused by the time they are 18 years old. Cite (sorry about not linking this properly):(http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ3S3DRUDC&sub_cat=355
The purpose of the sex offender registries is so that the community can be aware of the known sex offenders living in their neighborhoods and take appropriate precautions (such as looking up their records and not letting their kids be alone with them). I have to confess I would not like to have a known pedophile living next door, even though one of my neighbors might be a pedophile right now and I don’t know it. I think it’s because a known pedophile is a known risk and a secret pedophile is an unquantifiable risk and I can always think that it can’t happen in my space. Even though I intellectually understand that registered pedophiles need to live somewhere, it’s still a higher risk than I feel comfortable with to have one so close. On the flip side, I’m sure some pedophiles would prefer to live out in the middle of nowhere, just so they are not exposed to temptation and hostility all of the time.
That said, a member of my church is a registered pedophile. Some of the parents tried to run him out after they found out, but the pastor put a stop to it once he figured out what was going on. Our solution is that this man is *never* unsupervised when children are around. There is always a member of the church council at his elbow any time he is on church property at the same time any children are there. This is not something that we imposed on him, BTW, this is an agreement that the church council worked out with him and the parents, and I think it works well. We also have a child abuse prevention video that all adults in the church have to watch (I think it’s every other year), so that everybody understands what they can do to keep our children safe, in a way that stretches beyond “just keep the kids away from this guy”.
But what works for a church isn’t going to work for society as a whole, I think. Posting a chaperone 24/7 on pedophiles for life is not a solution that can fly. Ultimately, we need to make pedophilia a curable mental illness. Before that happens, we need to be able to feel secure that someone who has paid his or her debt to society can live among us without inflicting harm on us, and that will let us treat them as neighbors. I think to that extent, Hugo, I agree with you.
Xrlq said:
Many, many people are your neighbors; what makes you think only the most vicious elements among them are worthy of your compassion?
Hugo did not say that explicitly or implicitly. One can genuinely experience compassion for the survivor of sexual abuse (many of us survivors, including me, eschew the term “victim”) and compassion for the perpetrator of that abuse. There is no reason why compassion for survivor and perpetrator–or, to put it in your terms, for frog and scorpion–must be mutually exclusive.
Andrew wrote:
Elizabeth, I hope you’re going to provide evidence of this statistic (2000:1). It also seems to jar with something you said before – that around 50% of abuse is perpetrated within the family. I do know abuse is far more likely to occur in single-parent households, of which 80%+ consist of single mothers. Yet, only 1 case out of at least 2000, according to you, involves a woman as perpetrator.
I assume you’re not just making this up.
Andrew, I am confident that she most definitely is making it up. Being a survivor of childhood sexual abuse myself, I have read a great deal about the statistics concerning offenders and survivors of sexual abuse. The stats I have read pretty consistently state that, at a minimum, anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the perpetrators of sexual abuse are female. Moreover, most of what I have read indicates that female-perpetrated sexual abuse is grossly underreported, for many reasons including cultural stereotypes that presume that young boys “get lucky” by having sex with adult women. Therefore, the numbers are likely even significantly higher.
The 2000:1 ratio is absurd, even coming from a feminist extremist.
Tom, I have absolutely no doubt your figures are far more realistic than Elizabeth’s (who I’m waiting to hear from – I of course, won’t hold my breath – just like waiting for substantiation on any other hyperbolic feminist myth *cough* statistic).
Newsflash to certain posters here: women are not morally superior to men. Learn that fact. Digest this ‘horrible’, incongruent-to-my-feel-good-self-righteous-view-of-life truth, and deal with it. It bears repeating: women are not morally superior to men. Men are just as bad as women. Did you get that neat reversal thing I did just then? If you did, then there’s hope you’ll understand my point. What lies between our legs doesn’t determine your moral standing. That would be…….sexist (if I remember correctly, the definition of feminism is against such things, but hey – if you ARE a modern feminist – are you really interested in such ‘minor’ details?).
Mythago wrote : “He admitted his crime and he stated that he used his daughter as a substitute for his dead wife. I couldn’t see anything that suggested he was unfairly persecuted for administering a spanking.”
Originally Mythago wrote : “Hugo linked to the whole article. Miletti does not deny that he sexually abused his child.”
Let’s be clear here Mythago: not denying something doesn’t mean you did it. If someone says to me “did you go to the moon?” and I refuse to deny it, it doesn’t mean I went to the moon. Logic 101.
It’s extremely interesting to me though, that you assume his guilt by his non-answer – you betray your prejudice quite openly here. I wonder if you would be one of the more vociferous voices within the angry mob?
“I believe that much of the fervor over male sex offenders stems from the pandemic mistrust and denigration of men and healthy, normal masculinty fomented by feminists.”
*snort*
Yeah, it has nothing to do with adult men raping girls and boys. Damn those hussy feminists and their man-hatred.
I mistrust masculinity more when men like Mr. Bad fall all over themselves shoring up the bastions of men who do rape. I didn’t realize masculinity was such a fragile thing. One learns something new every day.
Ultimately, we need to make pedophilia a curable mental illness.
That I believe, belongs on the same science- fiction shelf as curing homosexuality.
From http://www.vaonline.org/vls6.html
Read the whole article, its interesting.
“In the early 1980s, when I first began this work, female offenders only accounted for approximately one and a half to three percent of my total case load. During the past three years that percentage has risen to a level of about 35%. In the past six months, I would estimate that at least 40% of my cases have involved juvenile offenders and of that about 50% have been females.
My research also found that generally the female offender is not as predatory as her male counterpart. She does not go out and actively seek her victims nor does she appear to have multiple victims at one time. My studies demonstrate that there also may be a lengthy period of time elapse between the female offender’s victims. She tends to take less risks in selecting and abusing a child. Generally she has a relationship with the child such as babysitting, parenting, teacher, nurse, etc.
In interviewing both male and female offenders, it has been my experience that the mind set of each differs greatly. For example, when asking a male offender why they committed such acts, I have commonly heard such things as: “I was only showing my love: It was sex education: She came on to me” . There appears to be a common theme in the male offender of viewing this as a “sexual act”.
In the cases of the female offenders I have interviewed, this does not appear to be the case. They will deny absolutely that there was anything sexual. Generally they will explain with such statements as “It was a punishment: It was to show them it’s wrong: I wanted them to feel as bad as I did.”
One possible explanation for this difference could be due to the fact that it is well documented that this crime is based on “power and control” issues. Many men still view power in the way of their own sexual prowess, while women may gain power through mind manipulation. Keeping those two beliefs in mind, it is understandable why the deviant behavior over vulnerable children differs between the male and female offender.”
……
“It is interesting to note that the latest study in Canada shows that of the 4,545 federal prisoners that are convicted of sexual offences, only 19 are women. I am not aware of any provincial studies that have been done to date and it has been my experience that the majority of sexual offenders, particularly female, tend to get light sentences (mostly probation or provincial jail time).”
It’s extremely interesting to me though, that you assume his guilt by his non-answer
It’s extremely obvious to me that you didn’t bother to read the entire article. If I ask if you went to the moon, and you say “I’ve always been interested in outer space, I guess that’s why I went on that Apollo mission”, is that a no?
Mr. Bad apparently didn’t read it either, and didn’t take the Logic 101 you support. Milletti doesn’t claim he was unfairly persecuted or that he was convicted for disciplining his child. Why we should assume he was persecuted for a bare-butt spanking until proven otherwise I have no idea, other than Mr. Bad assuming that we’re all too stupid to know better.
The Criminal Justice Review has a journal article citing the percentage of female sex offenders as between 1 and 2%. http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/284
While the VA Online article is interesting, it appears quite a bit more anecdotal.
Andrew, I don’t think any feminists are claiming that women are morally superior to men. What most feminists and male feminist allies would say is that men have a sense of sexual entitlement learned through the benefit of male privilege that women have never learned. In my mind, this is a plausible explanation for the reason the vast majority of sex offenders are men. Men are socialized to be aggressive in a way women are not, to see sex as an assertion of dominance, and have been taught to view women as objects. Since sex crimes (especially rape) are about power more than sex, the socialization of men seems to be a big factor in why men rape.
While I mostly agree with Hugo, I am a little disturbed by the tone of the comments threat. The quickness with which some here jump to claim the (possible) innocence of a convicted (yes, this means beyond reasonable doubt) is surprising, and sounds a lot like knee-jerk misogyny. Keeping in mind that the false reporting rage is low (about 8%, according to the FBI) and the conviction rate is also low, the probability that this guy is innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned is miniscule. If the crime had been, say, murder or robbery, very few people would doubt his guilt post-conviction. Why are we so quick to cast doubt on the guiltiness of convicted sex offenders?
If the crime had been, say, murder or robbery, very few people would doubt his guilt post-conviction. Why are we so quick to cast doubt on the guiltiness of convicted sex offenders?
Because we have seen so very many instances where women have lied about rape in ways that people do not lie about murder or robbery. Sadly, rape is a crime where false accusations abound and, if men form the large majority of perpetrators of rape, then men also form the large majority of victims of false accusations. This is a dirty little secret that feminists like to ignore.
Evidently my 8% statistic was wrong.
Indeed, false accusations do ABOUND. According to the site Men Against Rape (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php) 8% is the number of unfounded accusations– accusations the police dismissed because they were unprosecutable. The number of made-up stories is closer to 2 or 3%. All those poor guys languishing in jail because some lying slut…oh wait. We’re also looking at a 16% reporting rate, a 46% conviction rate, and 45% of convicted rapists spend less than a year in jail or no time at all. So according to these numbers, 7% of all rapists are convicted, and 3.3% do jail time of more than a year. Poor guys– having to fight at every turn against a system that’s stacked against them.
Googling ‘robbery false reporting’ came up with no statistics, but quite a few news stories.
It’s extremely obvious to me that you didn’t bother to read the entire article. If I ask if you went to the moon, and you say “I’ve always been interested in outer space, I guess that’s why I went on that Apollo missionâ€, is that a no?
No where in the article does Miletti state he sexually abused his daughter. It states he molested her – which can mean to ‘disturb, annoy, interfere with’ – it can mean physical abuse as much as it can mean abuse of a sexual nature. What’s interesting though is how anyone on a sex offender register is defacto a child rapist to feminists and the self-righteous, despite the problems much discussed already – with a whole range of behaviours that can be described as a ‘sex offense’.
What most feminists and male feminist allies would say is that men have a sense of sexual entitlement learned through the benefit of male privilege that women have never learned. In my mind, this is a plausible explanation for the reason the vast majority of sex offenders are men. Men are socialized to be aggressive in a way women are not, to see sex as an assertion of dominance, and have been taught to view women as objects. Since sex crimes (especially rape) are about power more than sex, the socialization of men seems to be a big factor in why men rape.
Acer, this might sound harsh, but perhaps it will serve to sharpen up your future arguments – that kind of comment starts to sound like “blah blah blah male privilege blah blah blah patriarchy blah blah blah women oppressed”. It’s rhetoric. It’s WS rhetoric. It washes off people’s backs without leaving a single impression. It follows the ignoble idea that if you repeat a myth enough times, it becomes a fact. No it does not. It remains a myth. If you repeat it 1,000,000 times over 20 years, guess what? It’s still a myth.
Why are we so quick to cast doubt on the guiltiness of convicted sex offenders?
The answer is simple: you can be on the sex offender register, but nobody knows why you’re on it.
A convicted sex offender can be guilty of crimes such as taking a leak in public, streaking, for having consensual sex with his girlfriend (who is a year under-age), for physically abusing someone (nothing to do with sex), for abduction (could be his/her own child), etc. The doubt is caused because the Angry Mob think anyone on the sex offender register is defacto a child rapist.
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Sex-Offenders-Enforcement-Protective/dp/1930461003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/earlyshow/main1715421.shtml
The attention to female sex offenders and studies isn’t as popular as a topic as the ones centered on men. I see that this is gradually changing, thankfully. The former was happening because of the double standard or even not labelling a crime as a true sexual offense when committed by a woman. It’s often considered less serious despite emotion, familial, sexual, and social damage created by it, and even acknowledged as less likely to be detected, reported, or registered. Numerous studies dedicate their evalation of male sex offenders, how many devote them on women?
What I also find puzzling, is that why our culture deems to glorify the situations about adult women with boys while the opposite would elicit automatic scorn and condemnation.
” . . . false reporting rage is low (about 8%, according to the FBI)” – Acer
Even if this is factual, this is still statistically significant.
myth, I did indeed read it Here’s the entire quote from the article describing the “sexual abuse:”
“His account:
Miletti grew up in La Crescenta and married his childhood sweetheart from Crescenta Valley High School when he was 19 and she was 18. They were married 20 years and had two sons and a daughter.
The wife suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. One day, when their daughter was 6, her mother walked into the Angeles National Forest in Sunland and disappeared. Her body was found several weeks later.
Miletti said his wife’s death deeply depressed him and his children. He began to see his daughter as something of a surrogate for his departed wife. “It was a codependent thing,” he said. “I had lost someone I loved. I needed someone to love. I was only thinking about me, not my children. It was all about me.”
Miletti said he is generally not attracted to children. “I’m not trying to minimize it, but I don’t identify myself as a pedophile.”
His former father-in-law, Eric Lee, confirmed Miletti’s account of his first wife’s death. Lee said he believed his granddaughter, who lives in another state, would not wish to be contacted for this story
I see nowhere in there any description of the actual abuse, therefore, we still don’t know that it was not something utterly trivial. Granted elsewher the author quotes Miletti as saying what he did was “horrible,” but we don’t know for sure whether or not that refers to the actual “abuse” or subjecting his daughter to the mileu of being dragged through the ‘justice’ system along with her father, being compelled to testify against him, etc. As is ocasionally the case with domestic violence, sometimes the victim (for the sake of argument in this case, Miletti) will take on the guilt-based mindset that somehow they deserved the injustice that they’ve been subjected to.
myth, you’re still grasping at straws (or strawmen) and coming up empty-handed. Try again.
Not always. The registry in AZ (I linked it above) is rather specific. It lists the offenses with titles like “Sexual Assault” “Sexual Conduct with a Minor” “Child Molestation” right next to their name and picture. Granted it doesn’t say exactly what the person did (which I think would be unfair) but it gives you a general enough idea to know what sort of thing got them there.
Thank you all for the attention both negitive and positive. The only reason an aticle was written was because I would not move out of the neighborhood. Not because of my past. You have almost 40 other RSO’s living here amoung us in Altadena. I could have gone back into my closet in fear of exposure, “What if they find out, I’ll be ruined”. I did not and will not, so the reporters came, and the news cameras roll-up to see what? An alleged child molester living on Wapello. Or someone who had a difficult time dealing with his life inapropreately. No, that is not news. The news is I will not leave when I have every right to be here, and a few neighbors have done everything in there power to kick me and my wife out of our home. Every is who is afraid of my potential should come talk to me about it or leave us alone. We have plenty of good friends who have children. I take the appropriate pecausions to avoid any hint of improprity. I could care less about and have no desire for sex with children. Sex is good thing but it has a place, don’t you believe that? Apparently there are those who never belive that of me. That’s OK, stay away, it is really OK! I have been blessed with a very loving and beautiful wife and I live in her house for now and life could not be better. Well maybe a little. If we decide to move we will, not because of some poor pathic misinformed vigilanty do-gooders. Besides I stll love them because I “invoke Jesus” and want them to observe my conduct in the Lord. I want everyone to see what a meaningful relationship with God looks like, it has changed my life. At least I have the courage to admit my wrongs and make my amends to others, the best way I can.
Now comes to the real issue, SEX as an addiction, like any other addiction. It needs to be addressed like every other addiction, to Stop the distructive behavior. I fault the liberial view toward sex as recreation. Sex,drugs and rock-in-roll was cool in the 60′s but it lead some of us down a wrong path. Sex is an intimate responce to a person as an expression of love to the one commeted to. That is my opinion, I believe it, so should you. I have learned from my mistakes. Sex seems to be for some a behavior that makes life for easier to cope with. Those who have no concept of this cannot and will not understand. Those who do, know what I am talking about. Go to a meeting og SAA and observe for your self.
How long will you sit by and not address the issue. Child sexual abuse is happening as we speak, 1 out of 4 if I am correct. As long as anyone wants to jump and shout and drive these “monsters” from our mist the problem will get worse. It has it needs to stop! Sexual abuse affects churches, schools, teachers, families and it is now an epidemic. Getting rid of all the sex offenders from your neighbor will not solve the problem, more will come. Our society is driving more and more sex offenders into secret, and that is a danger to YOU. Please, please, bring this subject into the open like you are doing as a community. Not with threats of more punishment and restrections, but a place where someone can come for help and healing. I sought help and I found healing in the Lord. I belive others can also get help if they want to. I pray they will seek and ask.
The 2000:1 was certainly incorrect, afterward I redid the math in my head and came up with about 200:1 – which appears that others have confirmed for me – because the claim kept coming up on different threads about how women were significant sexual offenders – I had a hard time understanding that because often, when males do other criminal acts – sexual offence becomes part of that (kidnappings, robbery, stalking, etc) – indeed, it is assumped that if a child is kidnapped for any length of time, they will likely be molested, nor does one boggle at the though of a robber, finding a female alone at home, raping her. The extrapolation was from the current sexual offenders in US prisons, I could not find one for men, only state by state – I chose one and found 1/4 of a million on sexual related charges (though perhaps not thier only charge) while the national imprisonment of female sex offenders was just over 16,000. – I suppose I could go back and find where I read these reports, except that it a paragraph of aside, an irritant response to this knee-jerk defence that men can’t be sexual offenders, or that one shouldn’t assume so – ironically, of course, the entire comments section then left the question of “who is the sex offender in my neighborhood” and whether there was a hypocritical social response or what the response should be but immediately turned to the PRESSING need to prove that yes, women sexually offend, more and more. While there are female sexual offenders, including incest, I find it interesting that RAINN and other organizations find that socially, the incest of mothers to daughters is the one which society refuses to talk about – because it threatens the idea of females and mothers. So, choose your fence, do you really want to talk about female sex offenders or do you just want to lessen the focus of males as sexual offenders?
Yipes.
Mr. Bad, you’re still chasing phantoms. “It could be” and reading Miletti’s own words as clear evidence that he or his daughter were brainwashed into thinking normal fatherly affection was rape–well, let’s just say if I were you, I’d ground your righteous outrage on a more solid foundation.
Starfoxy is correct that state registries vary. California’s is very clear about the exact charge that got the offender on the registry, which is as it should be.
I would also be rather surprised if ‘Michael RSO’ is actually the gentleman in the article.
I see nowhere in there any description of the actual abuse, therefore, we still don’t know that it was not something utterly trivial.
Wait, wait, wait. The man says he used his six-year-old daughter as a surrogate for his wife, claims he’s not really a pedophile, and he was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, and your conclusion is that we don’t know whether or not it’s trivial? Are you kidding me?
Not always. The registry in AZ (I linked it above) is rather specific. It lists the offenses with titles like “Sexual Assault†“Sexual Conduct with a Minor†“Child Molestation†right next to their name and picture. Granted it doesn’t say exactly what the person did (which I think would be unfair) but it gives you a general enough idea to know what sort of thing got them there.
Let’s see how it works in reality…..
Person A actually finds out John Doe is on the Sex Offender Registry for hiring a prostitute.
Person A tells Person B the full details omitting nothing.
Person B tells Person C that John Doe is a sex offender.
Person C tells Person D that John Doe is a child rapist.
And so it goes. “We don’t want sex offenders in our neighbourhood! Out! Out! Out!”
This is how the Angry Mob is created. Who cares about details? He’s a sex offender. To many people, this is entirely synonymous with ‘pedophile’.
“Why do you want him out of your neighbourhood?”
“Because he’s a sex offender!”
Question: are some posters here actually in favour of diluting the meaning of pedophilia and rape? Why not call a rapist a rapist, and a pedophile a pedophile? What if people start thinking “well it seems every other neighbour is on the list these days, it must just be that they hired a prostitute or something” – thus negating the purpose of the sex offender registry.
evil_fizz and mythago, you’re only highlighting the problems with the registry and its wide range of behaviours that will get you on it : you assume he sexually abused his daughter. There is no details of what he did. The closest I can see to a description is ‘molested’ which can mean physical abuse and/or sexual abuse – not exclusively sexual abuse. This problem is your assumptions are no different to anyone else’s – they ‘assume the worst’ – after all, they want to protect their children, and it is understandable to ‘prepare/assume for the worst’ which is a sensible approach to potential dangers.
The sex offenders registry is supposed to protect the public, not put men who use prostitutes, urinate in public or have consensual sex with their girlfriends on it.
Mr. Bad, you’re still chasing phantoms. “It could be†and reading Miletti’s own words as clear evidence that he or his daughter were brainwashed into thinking normal fatherly affection was rape
Where does it say he raped her? Mr Bad openly admits to guessing, because that’s all you can do. You somehow have inside info you’re not willing to reveal to us, or you’re revealing your own prejudice/assumption about ANYONE on the sex offender registry.
Where does it say he raped her? Mr Bad openly admits to guessing, because that’s all you can do. You somehow have inside info you’re not willing to reveal to us, or you’re revealing your own prejudice/assumption about ANYONE on the sex offender registry.
Mythago shares the common anti-male biases of many feminists who don’t seem to worry about the kinds of distinctions and problems you raise. She doesn’t have any inside info. It is plain prejudice, nothing else.
you assume he sexually abused his daughter.
Because he: a) was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter, and b) says he used her as a surrogate for his dead wife! You are really straining to come up with an explanation where this guy is not admitting to sexually abusing his daughter.
The closest I can see to a description is ‘molested’ which can mean physical abuse and/or sexual abuse – not exclusively sexual abuse.
Well, by dictionary definitions, yes. But I have never heard molested used to refer to physical abuse in this context.
Tom, you’re correct – mythago always assumes the worst of men and characterizes men in the most extreme terms in order to try and bolster her position. Her arguments and viewpoints are based in pure, unadulterated bigotry and misandry. This is de rigeur for her and her ilk.
Lynn, “sexual abuse” can be as benign as a man hugging or holding a child in a way that another adult finds ‘uncomfortable’ – that’s all it takes. We don’t know whether Miletti sodomized his daughter or simply held her close in his grief over losing his wife; to me there’s a big difference. However, I understand that many feminists are hyper-sensitive, practically hysterical, about such things, e.g., some extremists equate a simple long look (the “male gaze”) to a type of rape. Such viewpoints are truly lunatic-fringe and preposterous, but sadly not all that uncommon among radical feminists. And so it goes.
Folks, let’s get the thread back to civility. Feminism is not the topic here.
A guy who merely hugged his daughter would not respond to a sex abuse conviction by saying, well, yes, he was at fault in making his daughter a surrogate for his dead wife. That’s a confession. Nobody says about normal parental hugs and kisses that he was making his daughter a surrogate for his wife.
Whow! You guys and gals are way over the top. I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Hatters Tea Party.The point is this: It is not a good thing to use your children to make you feel more secure. It is an abuse of power over someone who cannot make that choice. It was a mistake I made during a very emotional time in my life. It was not that I love being sexual with a child and my daughter was availible. I had no other way out, mentally I was boxed in. It was a mistake based on the reallity of the “lunitic in my head”. Children make children mistakes, adults make adult mistakes. Any one in the depravtion I experianced, for as many years as I had to endure would not row with with both ores in the water. No one has a clue to my mental state at the time. I make no excuses! I am so glad to be where I am today, I love living here and becoming the person God want me to be, I am a worshiper of God, who came to earth as a human named Jesus, he paid my debt, so I do not have to live in shame and guilt. It is the Reason for the Season. What is past is in the past, I am not that person any more. I do not moleste children nor desire to do so. It is wrong and should be punished. I’ve been punished. If you feel you need to keep an eye on me,fine,follow me. I don’t mind, maybe you will become a Christian too. I will not move unless we want to move. Now, if there is a pedifile in your neighborhood, stop them from acting out. If you think I am one, come talk to me and find out. You have a moral obligation to do so. Stop speculating on what I did or did not do. Start discussing what you can do the stop using and abusing children. That does not include driving every RSO out of your mist. It does include making sure of those who live around you are healthy and they are keeping themselves that way. I am more concerned of those in my neighborhood who want to ostracise me for being human, and not being obediant to their commands. This is America…life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness…In God we Trust. Remember? What are your values based on? Relitive or absolute truth? I know what I believe, I once was blind but now I see.
Because he: a) was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter, and b) says he used her as a surrogate for his dead wife!
Can someone point to any news article which specifically says he sexually abused his daughter? The closest description I got was ‘molested’ which is a vague term that can mean ‘to interfere with, to annoy’.
This is important because evil_fizz is making a great example of how people ignore the details to assume the worst.
Andrew, I am not ignoring the details. I’m reading the damn article.
Can someone point to any news article which specifically says he sexually abused his daughter?
Direct quote: “If I apply for a job, I have to say I have a conviction. When they see ‘continuous sexual abuse of a child,’ who’s going to hire me?”
His conviction is for continuous sexual abuse of a child. That suggests, you know, that he sexually abused his daughter.
Can someone point to any news article which specifically says he sexually abused his daughter?
OK, I’m looking him up right now in the California Sex Offender Registry. I am able to type in his name, and get a page, which shows his photo, height, weight, etc., and last known address. I then click on the tab that reads “Offenses,” and get Offense Code 288.5 and “continuous sexual abuse of a child.”
Here’s a description of California statute 288.5.
288.5. (a) Any person who either resides in the same home with the minor child or has recurring access to the child, who over a period of time, not less than three months in duration, engages in three or more acts of substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1203.066, or three or more acts of lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 288, with a child under the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense is guilty of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 6, 12, or 16 years.
Q.E.D.
OK Lynn and evil_fizz, fair enough – Milletti has been convicted of sexual abuse. I genuinely overlooked that in the article and wasn’t trying to be argumentative. You get to enjoy my eating humble pie I guess
Of course, this doesn’t negate my other points about the whole issue of the Sex Offender Registry and its wide definitions of what constitutes a sex offense.
Also, even upon reading the details here:-
http://www.protect.org/california/caPC_288.html
Can anyone see through the fog of this:-
288. (a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(b) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
After reading that, it’s even harder to draw up a possible list of actual behaviours this concerns – i.e. Mr Bad’s point earlier up thread.
Now that you figured it out can you move on to more important matters? Molesters in your mist.
Now comes to the real issue, SEX as an addiction, like any other addiction. It needs to be addressed like every other addiction, to Stop the distructive behavior. I fault the liberial view toward sex as recreation. Sex,drugs and rock-in-roll was cool in the 60’s but it lead some of us down a wrong path. Sex is an intimate responce to a person as an expression of love to the one commeted to. That is my opinion, I believe it, so should you.
Hey Michael, recovering sex offender, please accept that you did something wrong, and that what you did cannot be generalized into a problem that all of us share. You are a sex offender. The vast majority of us are not. My “liberal view of sex as recreation” didn’t cause me to molest anyone. I was not alive in the 1960s and I have not used drugs (including alcohol) since I was a teen. Your attempt to turn your personal recovery into a jihad against other people’s sex lives is a way to subtly shift responsibility for your actions. In fact, I have heard this rhetoric before, and it almost certainly comes from some sort of socially conservative evangelical stance. Either you are being used for their agenda, or you have found a way to tell yourself that it wasn’t really “you” that did the bad thing because somehaw the sexual revolution was to blame. Either way, STOP IT.
I am a sex offender, I broke the law and the law won. The problem comes when you cannot admit that you break the law every time you have a sexual encounter out side the boundries of marrage. That makes you a fornicator. That tern come from the greek word “pornia” Assorted types of chronic sexual misconduct which would be implied in the term “pornia” such as homosexuality, bestiality, pederasty, exhibitionism, etc. Even if you do it the privacy of your own mind if you only had the chance, make you a sex offender. But legally you won’t go to jail, you are not breaking civil law. I broke civil law, was punished, recovered, remarried and live in Altadena. I have no agenda, I know what I did was wrong. Do you know I believe I was wrong or do you make your own rules as you go along? Whether you molest any one is not the point. How you or me or anyone else use sex as source of power, leads always to perversion. And that is not “love” Being a socially conservative evangelical has nothing to do with being a committed human being. I was selfish ,that I admit. What is your jihad,to make sex offenders the scapgoat so no one will point the the finger towaed your so called “normal sex life”. My actions were irreprehencible, what are yours, acceptable because you never molested a child?
Hugo wrote:
Folks, let’s get the thread back to civility. Feminism is not the topic here.
This is how the “moderation”of comments goes on this blog. The feminists are being exposed for the man-hating bigots they are, and they’re getting their sorry butts kicked all over the place. At that point, Hugo steps in conveniently to tell us that feminism is not the topic. Who was it that said correctly that feminism cannot survive in an open debate?
MichaelRSO, the internet is full of imposters who hijack someone’s identity to try and make their point ‘louder’. I am 99% sure you are one of these people.
I agree, and the other 1% means he’s a sociopath who thinks his crime was no worse than the non-crime of having voluntary sex with adults outside marriage, or even the non^2-crime of privately fantasizing about it. Either way, he’s not worth listening to.
Hugo, I think it might be prudent to close this thread.
I am a registered sex offender , five years ago i was arested for chating in and adult chat room to a police officer. when I started chating with this person there was no profile, picture, or anything that would make you assume this person was underage. I can provide the transcript if anyone wants to see. I assumed this person was an adult
as we chated the person stated I am 13 but i want to meet you.. I thought this was a joke and i responded I don’t believe 13 year olds are looking for sex on the internet. the officer then asked that i meet him and set up a place. (I didn’t go) i ended up chating with this individual again and was asked why i didn’t meet him? I didnt think this is how 13 year olds acted. for the record I did not cyber sex with this person or send nude pics of myself. finally out of curiosity i said i would meet him . I went and showed up and had a gun pulled on me.
my bond was set at $100,000. my parents help me get out. I hired an attorney which ended up costing $10,000 just to represent me. I didn’t hear anything for over 5 months my attorney said the feds where not going to prosecute me. the state would prosecute me after telling my attorney they didn’t see me as a threat. at this point i have spent $20,000 on legal bills. my attorney advised me to settle this and plea bargain so i did . this went on over a 2 year period. i was given a $500 dollar fine and 20 hours community service. and i have to register as a sex offender after i registered I was evicted from my apartment and forced to move. so i moved , then i had an anonymous person turn me in to my employer after working for this company for 11 years they terminated me.. four years after this event took place . I cant find work and haven’t been able to work living with the help of my family. I never raped or had sex with an underage youth, i never urinated in public or exposed my self to anyone. I am a sex offender … and i cant get a job , and I cant go to school . by the time you read this line I will have taken my life cause i don’t want to live anymore..
by the time you read this line I will have taken my life cause i don’t want to live anymore..
1-800-SUICIDE. Go call them. Please.
Thread closed now.
Pingback: Hydrocodone consultations.