Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

A comment on my post above:

In my professional life, I have worked with adults who have been molested and with people who have molested children.  My comments come out of that context.

In all (no exception) every adult whom I have worked with who had sexually molested a child, either justified it or blamed the child.

The clasic example of this was a highly educated person, earning a very good salery who knocked on a house door one day.  The   4 year old female who came to the door was naked.  As he said to me:  What would you expect.  I am a male.  She was a naked female.  IOW the 4 YO female was responsible!
 

[Bob Pickle]

A homosexual is probably no more likely to be a pedophiliac than is a person who is not homosexual.

Gregory, could you comment on this article? http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp Specifically:

Citing a study (Freund and Watson, 1992) which was reported in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, NARTH found that homosexual males were “three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations.”

Cameron’s own research shows even higher rates of homosexual molestation. In the Nebraska Medical Journal Cameron said that when data from both genders are combined, homosexuals are at least 8-12 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals.

[Gregory]

No, I cannot comment on it.  I have no personal knowlege of those articles to be able to make an intelligent comment about them.

It of course could be that I am wrong.

In any case my major point is this:  One should not equate homosesuality with pedophelia.  Just because one is a homosexual does not mean that that person would be a pedopheliac.  That is my major point.

[Gregory]

Bob Pickle has asked me to comment on an article written by Ed  Vitagliano in the American Family Association Journal.  O.K.  I will bite and make a few comments on the article.

1) The article seems to be more a Literature Review written in the style of the popular media rather than that of a peer-reviewed journal.  As such it can have some value.  I am simply pointing out that it does not pretend to be original scientific research.

2) Bob asks me to comment on research by Freund & Watson (1992) and Cameron.  I cannot make an intelligent comment on this without reading the original article.   However, the citation appears to come from a credible journal.  But, I do not know the sample size, the limiting characteristics of the sample and a number of other pieces of information that would be needed to comment.

3) I believe that Cameron has made some valid points, if cited accurately, in his criticism of certain published research.

4) I strongly agree with the following statement:

Furthermore, research also shows a strong link between the sexual abuse of a child and that child’s later pedophilia as an adult. At the Connecticut Correctional Institution, for example, clinical psychologist A. Nicholas Groth, director of the sex offender program, said 85% of the pedophiles were themselves sexually assaulted as youths.

Whatever the number (I do not know if 85% is correct.)  it should be noted that it is not 100%  IOW it must be understood that some people molested by a pedophile do not go on in life to molest other children.

5) I have issues with the following statement:

This casts certain parts of the homosexual agenda in a more sinister light – such as the drive to lower the legal age of sexual consent and to expunge sodomy laws from the books. It might also cause parents to wonder why homosexual activists are tireless in their efforts to use the courts as a crowbar to pry open the doors of the Boy Scouts to homosexual troop leaders.

First: While that is the agenda of the NAMBLA, their agenda should not be associated with homosexuals.

Secondly: Sodomy laws, as commonly written, can be applied against heterosexuals who practice marital sex.  As such, many heterosexuals wish to expunge sodomy laws from the books.

5) Vitagliano states:  ". . . most homosexuals do not abuse children."  I agree.

6) He also states:  ". . . there are some elements of the homosexual movement which openly endorse pedophilia."  Probably true.  Do we tar every person with the brush of the few?  Just as there are some homosexuals who are pedophiliac so also there are heterosexuals who are pedophilic.

7)  He also says:  ". . . children can be recruited into the homosexual lifestyle, . . ."  My comments:  He fails to differentiate between  recruited and forced into.  What one may be forced into as a child does not dictate what one does as an adult.    There are many who would say that a child who has been abused (and forced into, so to speak, a homosexual life style) does not make that person a homosexual.

Just a few short comments--pro, con and in between.  

[princessdi]

Just as spousal abusers always blame their victims.........."You/She/He made me do it.  They made me angry., etc.  Classic.

A comment on my post above:

In my professional life, I have worked with adults who have been molested and with people who have molested children.  My comments come out of that context.

In all (no exception) every adult whom I have worked with who had sexually molested a child, either justified it or blamed the child.

The clasic example of this was a highly educated person, earning a very good salery who knocked on a house door one day.  The   4 year old female who came to the door was naked.  As he said to me:  What would you expect.  I am a male.  She was a naked female.  IOW the 4 YO female was responsible!
 

[ex3abnemployee]

I don't see what all the psychology talk has to do with this subject.

[Fran]

I don't see what all the psychology talk has to do with this subject.

Ditto!

[princessdi]

This is true.  We are a bit off topic, but sometimes threads waunder a bit, right?     

[ex3abnemployee]

This is true.  We are a bit off topic, but sometimes threads waunder a bit, right?     

I just get weary of all the stuff out of psychology books when most of it is written by people who have no clue what they're talking baout when it comes to sexual abuse. I don't care how much studying a person does, how many books they read or how many lectures they hear, unless you have been abused you don't know anything about it.

[Snoopy]

I think there are some among us who simply like to pontificate for the sole purpose of trying to impress readers with their vast array of irrelevant knowledge.

[Sister]

I think there are some among us who simply like to pontificate for the sole purpose of trying to impress readers with their vast array of irrelevant knowledge.

Amen!

[princessdi]

Duane, can we also add someone who works in the field, so to speak?  My family has been in foster care/adoption for as long as I have been alive.  We have seen a great many things in the children who have passed through our home(s).  One little one had been abused by her own birth parents everyway conceivable by the time she was three and came to live with my parents.

I quite understand your feelings.

I just get weary of all the stuff out of psychology books when most of it is written by people who have no clue what they're talking baout when it comes to sexual abuse. I don't care how much studying a person does, how many books they read or how many lectures they hear, unless you have been abused you don't know anything about it.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Tommy Shelton has been indicted on 6 felonies. 

That should have been 60 felonies!!! Wonder if they subpoenaed the son and his medical
records???

Gailon Arthur Joy, a Radical, Right-Wing, Tea-Party Fundamentalist per the declaration of Dr. Lawrence Geraty
AUReporter

[Johann]

Recordings of a program where I questioned a well-known lawyer on this subject is still being broadcast on radio in our country. Although he remarked that greater research is needed he pointed to the main differences in the two systems. Either one has its weaknesses and its strength.

This lawyer was well acquainted with the American system with 24 people appointed to be members of the jury and where each side can ask 6 to withdraw. The remaining 12 will decide if the person is guilty or not. The trouble is that these can be swayed in either direction by eloquent oratory. Then it is not longer the law of the land that rules, but the feelings of the few selected individuals.

He thought the term Napoleonic system is a misnomer. The Nordic European juridical system is based on long traditions where ours is mainly based on the Danish. But this system is based on the laws of the country rather than the whims and feelings of a small select group. We have jury members as well, but it is the judge, knowing the laws, who makes the final decision. These judges are appointed and not elected so they are not swayed by political interests. Here the case of a felon declared innocent by a lower court can be appealed by the prosecution if that is felt justified.

Is there guaranteed full justice for all by either system? Probably not.

Two of the major legal systems in the world are English Common Law which generally forms the basis of the legal system in the United States.  In much of Continental Europe and in Latin America their legal systems are substantially based upon the Napoleonic Code.

NOTE:  The legal system of the State of LA has a substantial basis in the Napoleonic Code.   There laws are modified by the U.S. Constitution when that becomes a factor.

Under English Common Law, guilt and/or innocence is generally determined in a legal proceeding or trial and the person is considered innocent prior to a determination of the court that the individual is guilty.  Of course, trials do not generally take place prior to a determination (A Grand Jury is one method used to bring to trial.) that the evidence is sufficient to raise a question of innocence and it is appropriate to bring the person to trial to determine if the person is guilty and to apply the appropriate judgment in the event guilt is determined.

The Napoleonic Code differs from English Common Law in many ways—although it does have its positive points.    Wikipedia makes this statement in part:  “ . . . the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries.”

The above is a very simplistic statement on the subject.  Let me ask: Would rather live in a country with a legal system based upon English Common Law, or in one based upon the Napoleonic Code?

[Gregory]

Johan said:

This lawyer was well acquainted with the American system with 24 people appointed to be members of the jury and where each side can ask 6 to withdraw. The remaining 12 will decide if the person is guilty or not. The trouble is that these can be swayed in either direction by eloquent oratory. Then it is not longer the law of the land that rules, but the feelings of the few selected individuals.

The above statement is a generalized simplistic statement which  is somewhat inaccurate as are most generalizations that are simplistic, includiing such that I sometimes make. 

Just prior to the jury going into deliberations the judge gives them final instructions as to the law (no eloquent oratory here) and gives them specific instructions as to how the jury is to reach its verdict in accord with the law.  NOTE:  If the jury fails to follow the law the presiding judge and/or an appealate court may throw out the decision of the jury and order a new trial.

While the laws in relation trials often are based up local State law (with the exception of Federal trials) I am not aware of any place where 24 peple are appointed to a jury and after that appointment each side can exclude 6 leaving a jury of 12.  In a typical jury all exclusions are made prior to the establishment of the jury.  Exclusions for cause are unlimited and clearly may exceed 12.  Preemptory challenges are lilmited.  The number allowed will depend upon State law and the type of trial.  E.g.  In one State the number of preemptory challenges ranges from 3 to 15 based upon the type of a trial.  Further, in some types of trail,in some places, a jury may consist of less than 12 people--e.g. 9.

All in all, the lawyer that Johan cited is wrong in much of what was stated, at least wrong in part.