If you don't mind telling- what did you do that was deemed jailworthy, given that it was consensual and there wasn't intercourse, nudity?
My physical sexual contact was limited to petting over clothes, with a couple instances under clothes (with their permission, always -- while in many ways meaningless, I would not have done anything otherwise). The biggest aggravating factor, which ultimately is what made the judge give me jail time, was that there was more than one victim.
I sure didn't mind;). I'd be quite shocked and even outraged if she had to go to jail, or got fired for that.
I don't think she should have to go to jail either. Jail truly does change a person, and rarely for the better. Jail is a breeding ground for criminogenic thinking. In terms of sex offenses, it has time and again been shown that jail is very rarely a deterrent. I might accept that it's a suitable sentence for denunciation and for punishment for some degrees of offenses, but it's rarely a deterrent. In reality -- that is, in today's social climate -- I think it's possible your teacher definitely would have been looking at jail time. I likely would not have seen jail time if my case had been to court a 5-10 years earlier. Things are definitely changing.
However, it is my opinion that your teacher should at a minimum have lost her job and been prevented from teaching again. Sure, you liked it, what teenaged boy wouldn't want that kind of contact from a good looking teacher! I can think of more than one teacher from my high school days that I'd not have put up much (i.e. any) resistance if they wanted to have their way with me. But a teacher is in a position of authority, and that kind of behavior is not appropriate for a student-teacher relationship. Also, that kind of behavior ("innocent" patting on the bottom) usually progresses over time to more invasive acts. It's called grooming.
My offense did not involve violence. The thought of using violence against a child quite literally makes me physically ill. And, believe me, I do (now) appreciate the irony.
Also, I did not have sex (intercourse) with either girls. Clothes never came off. They never touched me. There was no coersion. Legally speaking, the offenses were on the less severe end of the scale. In reality (in terms of psychological impact), none of that matters in any useful way.
Whether or not the child is prepubescent or whether or not there was violence is not a reliable indicator as to the psychological impact to the victim. In the absence of anything better (e.g. a crystal ball), the law uses these things to determine the seriousness of the offense and hence the severity of the punishment. But, for example, a non-violent sexual encounter between an adult and a 12-year-old can quite easily be as damaging as one with a girl half that age. There are other significant factors too, such as the stability of the home and involvement of the parents, whether or not counselling was gotten for the child, and so on.
I think to suggest that someone deserves to die if they have a sexual encounter with a prepubescent child but if the child is pubescent then, while very bad, it's not quite as bad, rather misses the point.
Figures vary based on studies, of course, but studies I have seen indicate that the number is more like 10-15% of offenders who are run through the system actually reoffend. And the number of offenders who are actually treated is lower still.
I want to clarify a poor choice of words. What I meant by "the number of offenders who are treated is lower still" is that for those offenders who complete treatment, the recidivism rate is even lower than 10-15%.
Not many people I have met have recovered from sexual abuse. I do know two people who have come to terms with it and live happily although it took years. This would be my wish for the girls, and from the sound of it yours as well.
One of the worst parts for me is that I may never know how they managed to cope. The only comforting fact is that the most recent girl received help early and quickly. Some day I may have a chance to talk again with the parents or with the girls themselves, if it will help them receive some closure. I do wish desperately that they turn out ok.
Just curious, assuming it was consensual, wouldn't the victims be rather traumatized when they are told that what they and you were doing was so very very wrong, and you were going to be punished severely for it?
First of all, victims should never be told that what they did was wrong. That's ridiculous. I'm sure that, sadly, it has happened. But any child of a loving parent who gets help will never have to hear this. The blame is always put on the offender, which is where it belongs.
Now, when the victim doesn't understand or believe that what has been happening is wrong (which was the situation in my case), then yes, that realization happens quite overwhelmingly when they learn about the arrest and punishment of the offender, it can be quite devastating.
And this is quite exactly what happened with the most recent young girl I got mixed up with. We were very close. We loved each other, however misdirected or inappropriate or misguided that love was. When she learned that I was arrested and sent to jail, she screamed and wept bitterly. (I wasn't there, but I learned about this after in the parents' statements.) This fact continues to weigh heavily on me.
From a certain perspective, one could argue that real damage was done by the system and society's perception of what we did being immoral, rather than what I did to her (which was always at her request). In fact, this observation led to many interesting and academic discussions with my psychologist about societal morals and its history. But these remain academic. This perspective can also be dangerous because it may begin a pattern of self-justification. For all the reasons that adult/child sexuality is deemed wrong by society today, and however they came to be, and however they may change in the future, they're completely irrelevant in the face of the unavoidable conclusion: it is hurtful and so it is wrong. Consent makes no difference here, and in fact, as you speculated, I also believe consent could make the act even more damaging.
You said, "successfully treated." That's the rub, isn't it? Most sex offenders are not "successfully treated," although most go through a system of court-ordered treatment that ultimately fails.
When I first drafted my original post, I hadn't included the word "successfully." When I added it, I knew it would raise an eyebrow or two.
What I mean by "successfully" is someone who completes the counselling, where "completed" is determined by both the psychologist and the patient. Anyone who is going simply because they are ordered by the court and has no remorse or desire to learn and understand and change will have a very hard time falling into the "successful" category. Not impossible, but certainly very difficult. However, the majority are quite willing to understand the pattern of relapse and deal with the issue. They simply want to get back on with life.
In fact, it seems that upwards of 50% of child rapists such as yourself (and remember, those are the ones who are actually caught and convicted--quite a minority among pedophiles) are not, in fact, "successfully treated," but are instead repeat sex offenders.
The figure of 50% is seriously significantly higher than all the research I have seen on this topic, and believe me, I have seen a lot of research.
Figures vary based on studies, of course, but studies I have seen indicate that the number is more like 10-15% of offenders who are run through the system actually reoffend. And the number of offenders who are actually treated is lower still. This is, incidentally, lower than recidivism rates for non-sex offenders. There is a basic overview here whose numbers are more in line with the kind of research I've seen in the last decade.
You're certainly right that the majority of pedophiles who have committed a crime have not been caught. There is also a large number of those who have not committed crimes yet, but are so afraid to talk to somebody about the problem that instead they let it simmer inside them until they end up offending. Then there are those who have committed an offense, feel remorse and guilt about it, but are terrified to talk to a professional about it because any psychologist is legally bound to report even vague admissions to the authorities. I would expect this class of people is far more likely to reoffend, and that many would never get caught and/or get any help. But the truth is that researches know very little about the class of pedophiles (whether they have offended or not) who never get arrested. It's very difficult to make assumptions (or generalizations) about these people because there's simply not much data.
The general impression that sex offenders have extremely high rates of reoffense is perpetuated in part by the media. After all, you certainly don't hear about those who offend once and never again. You hear about those who reoffend, even though they are truly a minority.
However, I'm a human animal with a daughter and the thought of pedophiles triggers an instinct to kill in me. It's that simple. No rational argument will change it - kill the fucker.
Your protectiveness is understandable and admirable. And while I won't attempt to sway your opinion with a cogent argument (because, as you admit, it will do no good), I will at least attempt to make a point.
I am a convicted sex offender. In my late teens, I did some things with a 12-year-old that were unspeakably stupid. This behavior worked went unchecked for several years, and developed into attitudes, that in turn developed into further behaviors with another young girl. I convinced myself that so long as I had their consent, it couldn't be hurtful. I held this belief very strongly.
My stupidity caught up with me soon enough, and I was arrested. The arrest was a turning point of my life. It sent me a message that I wouldn't have otherwise gotten from logical arguments. In that way, I can certainly relate to you when you say that no rational argument will change your opinion (which is to "kill the fuckers"). There was no trial. I plead no contest. Although I could likely have avoided jail for various legal reasons, it would have meant pleading not guilty and effectively calling the children and their families liars. It would have meant putting them on the stand. Jail was far more preferable to me, even though I was terrified of it.
When I was released from prison I sought conselling. My fundamental attitude had already been changed by then: it didn't take much time after my arrest (but long before my conviction) to understand and believe that any sexual encounter with children is devastatingly hurtful -- and not just to the girls themselves, but also to their families, and to my own family as well. Counselling helped me to understand the psychology behind pedophilia, and how to manage it.
And it is perfectly manageable. What decision do I have? Hurt kids, or don't hurt kids. It's not even a question that requires considering. You hear about convicted sex offenders whose defense seems to be "I couldn't help myself." Ludicrous! They made a choice. I made a choice. I paid for it, I dealt with it, and now it's in my past. Still, I constantly worry about how the girls and their families turned out. As I should, in some respects.
Now, you would have me killed. (There was a time when I'd have obliged you, but those times are past.) Perhaps you would like to see a law passed that imposes mandatory death penalty on all sex offenders where children are involved. Even if this would solve a problem, is it feasible? Can society actually do this? Would this even happen?
No.
So what instead happens is that a large portion of the population carries the sort of rage and hate that you have, without understanding the nature of the crime and the psychology of the offender. What's very well known, however, is that high degrees of stress and concern increases the likely hood of recidivism. That is to say, the more people call us scum, wish us dead, insist we are hopeless, the greater the chance of relapse. This is true of any offender, incidentally.
I think there probably are those who are pretty much hopeless. But there are a large degree of those who are definitely not. It is a perfectly manageable problem. All I want is to live a normal life, within reasonable constraints. That is to say, I certainly don't expect I should be allowed to work at a daycare center, or teach in schools. If you knew about my past and you weren't concerned about me being around your children, I would be concerned about you. What I would like is for people to judge me for who I am now, not what ugliness exists in my past.
I owe a debt to the people I have hurt to live my life with honor and integrity, and when people at large insist that I am a worthless pariah and should be executed, there is a danger that I start to believe it. An
Slashdot Mirror
However, it is my opinion that your teacher should at a minimum have lost her job and been prevented from teaching again. Sure, you liked it, what teenaged boy wouldn't want that kind of contact from a good looking teacher! I can think of more than one teacher from my high school days that I'd not have put up much (i.e. any) resistance if they wanted to have their way with me. But a teacher is in a position of authority, and that kind of behavior is not appropriate for a student-teacher relationship. Also, that kind of behavior ("innocent" patting on the bottom) usually progresses over time to more invasive acts. It's called grooming.
Also, I did not have sex (intercourse) with either girls. Clothes never came off. They never touched me. There was no coersion. Legally speaking, the offenses were on the less severe end of the scale. In reality (in terms of psychological impact), none of that matters in any useful way.
Whether or not the child is prepubescent or whether or not there was violence is not a reliable indicator as to the psychological impact to the victim. In the absence of anything better (e.g. a crystal ball), the law uses these things to determine the seriousness of the offense and hence the severity of the punishment. But, for example, a non-violent sexual encounter between an adult and a 12-year-old can quite easily be as damaging as one with a girl half that age. There are other significant factors too, such as the stability of the home and involvement of the parents, whether or not counselling was gotten for the child, and so on.
I think to suggest that someone deserves to die if they have a sexual encounter with a prepubescent child but if the child is pubescent then, while very bad, it's not quite as bad, rather misses the point.
Thanks for your reply of good wishes.
Now, when the victim doesn't understand or believe that what has been happening is wrong (which was the situation in my case), then yes, that realization happens quite overwhelmingly when they learn about the arrest and punishment of the offender, it can be quite devastating.
And this is quite exactly what happened with the most recent young girl I got mixed up with. We were very close. We loved each other, however misdirected or inappropriate or misguided that love was. When she learned that I was arrested and sent to jail, she screamed and wept bitterly. (I wasn't there, but I learned about this after in the parents' statements.) This fact continues to weigh heavily on me.
From a certain perspective, one could argue that real damage was done by the system and society's perception of what we did being immoral, rather than what I did to her (which was always at her request). In fact, this observation led to many interesting and academic discussions with my psychologist about societal morals and its history. But these remain academic. This perspective can also be dangerous because it may begin a pattern of self-justification. For all the reasons that adult/child sexuality is deemed wrong by society today, and however they came to be, and however they may change in the future, they're completely irrelevant in the face of the unavoidable conclusion: it is hurtful and so it is wrong. Consent makes no difference here, and in fact, as you speculated, I also believe consent could make the act even more damaging.
What I mean by "successfully" is someone who completes the counselling, where "completed" is determined by both the psychologist and the patient. Anyone who is going simply because they are ordered by the court and has no remorse or desire to learn and understand and change will have a very hard time falling into the "successful" category. Not impossible, but certainly very difficult. However, the majority are quite willing to understand the pattern of relapse and deal with the issue. They simply want to get back on with life.
The figure of 50% is seriously significantly higher than all the research I have seen on this topic, and believe me, I have seen a lot of research.Figures vary based on studies, of course, but studies I have seen indicate that the number is more like 10-15% of offenders who are run through the system actually reoffend. And the number of offenders who are actually treated is lower still. This is, incidentally, lower than recidivism rates for non-sex offenders. There is a basic overview here whose numbers are more in line with the kind of research I've seen in the last decade.
You're certainly right that the majority of pedophiles who have committed a crime have not been caught. There is also a large number of those who have not committed crimes yet, but are so afraid to talk to somebody about the problem that instead they let it simmer inside them until they end up offending. Then there are those who have committed an offense, feel remorse and guilt about it, but are terrified to talk to a professional about it because any psychologist is legally bound to report even vague admissions to the authorities. I would expect this class of people is far more likely to reoffend, and that many would never get caught and/or get any help. But the truth is that researches know very little about the class of pedophiles (whether they have offended or not) who never get arrested. It's very difficult to make assumptions (or generalizations) about these people because there's simply not much data.
The general impression that sex offenders have extremely high rates of reoffense is perpetuated in part by the media. After all, you certainly don't hear about those who offend once and never again. You hear about those who reoffend, even though they are truly a minority.
Your protectiveness is understandable and admirable. And while I won't attempt to sway your opinion with a cogent argument (because, as you admit, it will do no good), I will at least attempt to make a point.
I am a convicted sex offender. In my late teens, I did some things with a 12-year-old that were unspeakably stupid. This behavior worked went unchecked for several years, and developed into attitudes, that in turn developed into further behaviors with another young girl. I convinced myself that so long as I had their consent, it couldn't be hurtful. I held this belief very strongly.
My stupidity caught up with me soon enough, and I was arrested. The arrest was a turning point of my life. It sent me a message that I wouldn't have otherwise gotten from logical arguments. In that way, I can certainly relate to you when you say that no rational argument will change your opinion (which is to "kill the fuckers"). There was no trial. I plead no contest. Although I could likely have avoided jail for various legal reasons, it would have meant pleading not guilty and effectively calling the children and their families liars. It would have meant putting them on the stand. Jail was far more preferable to me, even though I was terrified of it.
When I was released from prison I sought conselling. My fundamental attitude had already been changed by then: it didn't take much time after my arrest (but long before my conviction) to understand and believe that any sexual encounter with children is devastatingly hurtful -- and not just to the girls themselves, but also to their families, and to my own family as well. Counselling helped me to understand the psychology behind pedophilia, and how to manage it.
And it is perfectly manageable. What decision do I have? Hurt kids, or don't hurt kids. It's not even a question that requires considering. You hear about convicted sex offenders whose defense seems to be "I couldn't help myself." Ludicrous! They made a choice. I made a choice. I paid for it, I dealt with it, and now it's in my past. Still, I constantly worry about how the girls and their families turned out. As I should, in some respects.
Now, you would have me killed. (There was a time when I'd have obliged you, but those times are past.) Perhaps you would like to see a law passed that imposes mandatory death penalty on all sex offenders where children are involved. Even if this would solve a problem, is it feasible? Can society actually do this? Would this even happen?
No.
So what instead happens is that a large portion of the population carries the sort of rage and hate that you have, without understanding the nature of the crime and the psychology of the offender. What's very well known, however, is that high degrees of stress and concern increases the likely hood of recidivism. That is to say, the more people call us scum, wish us dead, insist we are hopeless, the greater the chance of relapse. This is true of any offender, incidentally.
I think there probably are those who are pretty much hopeless. But there are a large degree of those who are definitely not. It is a perfectly manageable problem. All I want is to live a normal life, within reasonable constraints. That is to say, I certainly don't expect I should be allowed to work at a daycare center, or teach in schools. If you knew about my past and you weren't concerned about me being around your children, I would be concerned about you. What I would like is for people to judge me for who I am now, not what ugliness exists in my past.
I owe a debt to the people I have hurt to live my life with honor and integrity, and when people at large insist that I am a worthless pariah and should be executed, there is a danger that I start to believe it. An