Originally Posted by vespacat
Here are a few stats that I posted to an earlier thread - a good example of who the perpetrators are and just HOW much children are suffering. The statistics are from the Georgia Center for Children.
One of the myths regarding child molesters is that they â€œlook differentâ€ or behave differently from others in some way. Here are some statistics describing child molesters:
97% are male
91% are heterosexual
91% are religious
75% are married or formerly married
73% are Caucasian
65% earn a middle income or above
48% are college educated
I said I would get back to this, Jen, so here I am. Sorry it took so long.
I don't know if Bumpy responded to this post but I may as well.
Firstly, I question why you used a US agency (I presume in Georgia) for the source of your statistics. I know we are both in Canada and there are many sources and transcripts available from the Correctional Services of canada, The John Howard Society and the Governor General reports.
There is nothing terribly wrong with using another country's statistics but you have to be careful as in many cases, they can be misleading.
If I wanted to view the relationship between teen crime and guns, for example, I couldn't possibly look to a US site for any references.
That being said...
I support for the most part what is said above. Its a great idea for people to realize that the "boogeyman" doesn't exist. As I stated in another of my posts, "he" (or even "she") is your father, family friend, coach, babysitter...
Although, we also have to be careful not to rely entirely on statistics in a population such as sex offenders. Its still a very new crime in the sense that our information is roughly only 30+ years old.
You also have to take into account the crimes that aren't reported or detected.
For example, the female sex offender population is estimated by prison population or rates of conviction at approx. 3%-10%. However, what has been found is that due to the sometimes non-detectable or reported nature of the crime, that this number can reach as high as %50 in some areas. (at the upper limit, that is)...
What I am saying is essentially, is that sometimes statistics can be very misleading.
By the way, did you know that the majority of sex offenders reside in the Ontario and Prairie Provinces? If I recall, its 25% and 25% respectively.
This would make for an interesting causal study.
â€¢ Contrary to popular belief, only about 30-35% of molesters were sexually abused as children (Hanson & Slater, 1988).
I have to apologize here for seeming to mislead you when I said that many sex offenders were offended against as children.
Though the above study is from 1988, you are correct and this stat. seems to hold steady today and in Canada as well.
However, according to (Becker and Murphy, 1998), these statistics do not seem to apply to offenders of young boys where the numbers are much higher.
Also, in terms of adolescent sex offenders, the incidence of previous overall abuse and neglect remains at at least %50.
I only state this because compared to "general offenders", the population of sex offenders has a higher incidence of sexual assault in general. It is no excuse, but simply cannot be ignored for this reason. This is why previous victimization proves to be a valuable tool in therapies for sex offenders.
My point here is that when we use the catch all term of "molester", we aren't being realistic. There are so many different kinds of "molester" or sexual predator that the statistics vary, the therapy models vary, the offences vary in nature...We can't possibly say that the incest molester has the same numbers, motive or operative process as the non-bio offender, etc, etc..
Hysterical, no. Emotional, yes. ONE instance of child abuse is TOO much, Bumpy. I know you're a corporate lawyer, but not everyone thinks like a lawyer, thank heavens. Otherwise, we would not have nearly as many children's rights advocates as children do not have the ability and/or finances required to hire a lawyer. And any lawyer who represents a sexual predator should be living in shame eternally for representing such a "client".
Emotional? Sure. I understand that. This is a hugely emotional area for many.
Do you think that when one works with offenders that you bring it up at dinner parties? Not likely.
The response you will get is the most stated one: "They should be strung up, castrated, sent away to an island"....
While this is a nice fantastic way of internally dealing with the horrific, its not realistic. It feels good to say, but it doesn't do much for the problem, does it?
It doesn't make the issue go away.
Its a nice balance of emotion and logic that is needed to address the problem.
And I don't think you can wholly condemn people who work with sex offenders (lawyers, police, social workers, judges, group home workers, etc, etc,)
Someone has to do the dirty jobs. And someone has to do this one.
Whom do you suggest do it?
While I can't speak for all professions, why do you automatically think that a social services worker that works with offenders is not also an advocate for children or women? I would tend to think the opposite.
Those are once again, my 10 cents..