- 4:45 AM
- 0 Comments
n this article, I refer to sex offenders in the masculine he, him, his. This is for two reasons; most sex offenders, by a very large margin, are male; and it makes the writing of the article easier. The reader needs to know that everything I am writing applies also to female sex offenders, who make up approximately two per cent of the sex offender population in America.
As I sit here watching a certain newsrag program on a certain cable news channel, I hear an obnoxious woman start quoting statistics about sex offenders that are appalling! It makes me think to myself, "If they are so dangerous, why do we let them back on the streets? Why don't we just lock them up for life? If it is true that almost all sex offenders re-offend, we should never let them out of prison again." And this line of thought led me to my favorite question: Why are we doing it?
When the woman on the news show started spouting her statistics, I wrote them down to verify them. Here were the claims that were made: 90% of sex offenders will re-offend. 90% of sex offenders will commit a new sex crime within 3 years. Sex offenders cannot be treated. All child molesters are pedophiles. The only treatment that works for sex offenders is execution.
I immediately suspected there was some sort of conspiracy here. I thought for sure that the government was hiding something from us and releasing sex offenders back into the population for some nefarious purpose. I was determined to get to the bottom of it and report this information to you, the public.
Surprisingly, I did find a conspiracy after all. But it isn't the one you think. The conspirators turned out to be news media. Newspapers, cable networks, magazines and even public networks. It seems that it is more expedient to MAKE UP the news than report on the truth. The media is responsible in a very large part for the myths and misconceptions surrounding these individuals. By misreporting information over the years, the media has been able to instill enough fear into our society that the mere mention of the term sex offender on their network increases ratings. Increased ratings mean more advertising dollars. Since we are willing and actually desire to hate sex offenders, we are also responsible for perpetuating these myths.
Sex offenders are amongst the worst of the worst of our society. We love to hate them. I will not make any excuse for them such as "they are misunderstood individuals," or they are a "product of their society." They aren't. They are perverts with mental deficiencies who have chosen to commit crimes of the most despicable nature. They are sick people who need treatment, but not in the way a cancer patient is sick. Rather, they are sick in the way a drug addict or alcoholic is sick.
The myths and misconceptions surrounding sex offenders usually result in a stereotype of a grizzled old man hiding behind a bush and drooling over children in a park and offering a pocketful of candy (as in, "I have some candy in my pocket little girl, just reach in and grab some.") The truth is, this kind of offender is very rare; most child victims will be molested in their own home or in the home of a trusted friend or relative. Most rape victims will be assaulted by a spouse or trusted friend. But, by perpetuating the myths, the media and general public can make themselves feel better about demanding the worst types of vengeance. It is easier to punish the stranger than the person we know and love. In doing this, according to the Hindman Foundation, a nationally recognized leader in the treatment of sex abuse victims, "many problems emerge with the detection, prosecution and management of sex offenders."
So, let's discuss the FACTS about sex offenders.
According to the Bureau of Justice, "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense: 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." Remember, the loud-mouthed news reporter said it was 90%. Where did she get this fact? The truth is, she made it up. I found absolutely no corroborating evidence anywhere to support her claim. In fact, the most reputable agencies who track these statistics don't even support the claim that "most" sex offenders will re-offend.
The Bureau of Justice further reports that, "Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape." Additionally, when it comes to child victimizers, they report that "An estimated 3.3%... were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison."
I came across one website of a fear monger who claimed that 25% of sex offenders will commit another sex offense within 15 years. When I contacted the owner of that site requesting that he tell me how he came up with that information he sent me back a reply which basically said that he made the number up after he read some reports and didn't like their results.
Remember, the Bureau of Justice numbers are based on actual arrests, convictions, releases, re-arrests and new convictions in all 50 States.
Another reputable agency, the Center for Sex Offender Management, reports a bit differently, though they do not disclose how they arrived at their numbers. According to them, "child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period" and "rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period."
Additionally they report, "Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995)." It should be noted that these numbers are based on a considerably smaller control number than the BoJ. It doesn't make their results any less valid, but it is important to put the information in perspective.
If the CSOM studies are based on a sampling of records, then they have to face the possibility that the records that were handed over to them were not random but rather, designed to meet some person?s political ambitions. Further, if they are based on local records, then those results are only good for a small area of the country. Since they did not disclose how they arrived at their results, we have no way of knowing how to understand their study. But it should be noted that they report on their website that sexually based offenses are typically underreported which could explain why their numbers are a bit higher than the BoJ's. Also, the BoJ statistics are based on actual convictions and do not take into consideration charges dropped due to plea bargains and such. This may also contribute to the slightly higher numbers from CSOM.
Regardless of which numbers you believe, the fact still remains that sex offenders are vastly less likely to re-offend than any other criminal. Myth: the recidivism rate amongst sex offenders is 90%... BUSTED! (Myth: certain loud mouthed newsrag hosts make up statistics in order to increase ratings?CONFIRMED!)
Next we need to examine the claim that sex offenders cannot be successfully treated. I was recently watching an episode of Law and Order, Special Victim's Unit where Ice T's character stated that sex offenders could not be treated because they cannot learn to control their urges. (Please don't hold it against Ice T. He is only an actor who was reciting lines that writers provided him. You can hold it against the writers for not verifying their facts.) Again, the statement made by that character and the statement made by Ms. Blonde Ambition are not supported by the facts. CSOM reports:
"Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention." Again, it is important to read what was really said here. I highlighted those words for a reason. The offender must be compliant with treatment conditions in order for the treatment to be effective. If the offender is non-cooperative, the risk of re-offense increases by as much as eight per cent as will be discussed below.
CSOM, when discussing treatment options for offenders, tells us that: "The majority of sex offender treatment programs in the United States and Canada now use a combination of cognitive-behavioral treatment and relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse). Offense specific treatment modalities generally involve group and/or individual therapy focused on victimization awareness and empathy training, cognitive restructuring, learning about the sexual abuse cycle, relapse prevention planning, anger management and assertiveness training, social and interpersonal skills development, and changing deviant sexual arousal patterns."
A unique form of treatment that has yielded tremendous results over the past couple of decades is called ?restitution therapy? which requires the perpetrator to take responsibility for his actions and to, for lack of a better term, ?submit? to the victim. In doing this, the perpetrator relinquishes power and returns it to the victim. As will be discussed briefly later, this is very good for the victim?s treatment and recovery process.
They go on to say, "Different types of offenders typically respond to different treatment methods with varying rates of success. Treatment effectiveness is often related to multiple factors, including:
1- the type of sexual offender (e.g., incest offender or rapist);
2- the treatment model being used (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, psycho-educational, psycho-dynamic, or pharmacological);
3- the treatment modalities being used; and
4- related interventions involved in probation and parole community supervision.
Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998)."
In other words, sex offenders are less likely to re-offend than other criminals and if they are amenable to treatment they are even less likely than non-treated sex offenders to re-offend. Myth: Sex offender treatment does not work. The only treatment for sex offenders is execution: BUSTED! But in fairness, I must say it is busted with caveats.
Not all sex offenders are willing to undergo treatment. Reasons for this range from just plain denial that they have a problem to the fact that it is incredibly uncomfortable and difficult to discuss the root causes of the criminal behavior. Since it appears that over 98% of sex offenders are male, it makes sense that they would be unwilling to discuss these issues. In our culture and society, we tend to raise our boys in a manner that reinforces this behavior. With our understanding of human psychology increasing yearly, this cultural behavior is slowly changing.
We are finally beginning to understand that it is okay to let our boys cry and it is okay to discuss emotions and sex. This is a recent development and the more conservative elements in our society are still against such things. Sex is at the root of their anxieties. We have made sex such a taboo subject for so long, we can no longer bear to discuss this with our children. Ironically, these same people who will not discuss sex with their children are also at the forefront of the battle to keep sexual education out of our public schools. It seems that they just don't want anyone to know about sex. It seems that conservative elements are trying to push their ideal that sex is somehow evil or solely for the purpose of reproduction and should not, under any circumstances, be enjoyed by those participating in such activity. And then we wonder why people are developing sexually deviant behavior.
Sex offenders have the ability to cross taboo boundaries that ordinary people seem to be unable to cross. It is the opinion of many sex offender treatment providers that the reason this is possible is because of the fact that we don't discuss emotions, sexual respect and such with our young children. It seems that most sex offenders come from these kinds of conservative households. Again, from the category of irony, most sex offenders report that they were NOT molested as a child which is commonly thought by the general public. It also seems that most children who are sexually molested do not grow up to be sexual predators or sexual criminals as is also commonly thought by the general public.
So why are they able to cross those taboo boundaries that ordinary (notice that I do not use the word "normal") people don't? Theories abound about this. For some, it is to satisfy their need for power. Others get a thrill out of crossing those boundaries in the same way that a person gets a thrill from jumping out of an airplane. Still, others believe they have a religious right to engage in certain activities, such as incest. There are a host of other reasons, but I list these three as examples of the workings of the sex offender mind.
Sex offenders come in a variety of flavors. They are typically classified in the following categories: power rapists, indiscriminate child molesters, pedophiles, all others (this includes incest related crimes, prostitution, pimping, voyeurism/exhibitionism, etc.) It is interesting to note that the power rapists and the indiscriminate child molesters have the lowest recidivism rates (according to the BoJ website, it is 2.5% for rapists and 3.3% for child victimizers) leaving one to question the conventional wisdom about incarceration vs. treatment. With those statistics in mind, it means that the bulk of the sex offenders who re-offend are the pimps and prostitutes! With everyone up in arms about sex offense incarceration terms not being long enough for repeat offenders, why, then, are these offenders not receiving longer prison sentences?
Additionally, the question of registration must be revisited. It is obvious by the statistics that it is not the sex offenders we need to worry about. Once they are caught and undergo treatment, it is highly unlikely they are going to re-offend. However, other criminals, who are much more likely to re-offend, should be the ones registering. The other side of the coin is that as long as the sex offender's whereabouts is known, it helps his neighbors and the supervision officials to keep tabs on him increasing the chances of his successful rehabilitation.
Pedophiles are a unique subset of sex offenders. Most people believe that any child molester is a pedophile. That is not the case. A pedophile is one who has a mental disorder that causes him to become sexually aroused ONLY to primary sexual characteristics. Primary sexual characteristics are those of a young child or (in the case of a hebophile) a pubescent child. This means they display the undeveloped or developing sexual characteristics such as lack of body hair, undeveloped penis, vagina or breasts, or, in the case of the developing adolescent, very little in the way of pubic hair, developing breasts, vagina or penis. Myth: All child molesters are pedophiles?BUSTED.
An indiscriminate child molester is different from the pedophile in that the child molester is aroused by both the secondary sexual characteristics of an adult, that is, developed sexual organs and mature body, as well as the primary sexual characteristics of the child or pubescent adolescent.
The reason that the distinction is important is that indiscriminate child molesters can be treated successfully and, as yet, there is no means of effective treatment for pedophiles. Unfortunately, there is no known method for increasing sexual arousal to secondary sexual characteristics. The best that can be done for the pedophile is to decrease his sexual arousal to children through the use of negative behavioral modification. This means that they expose the pedophile to audio and visual stimulation and allow him to become aroused. When he becomes aroused they cause some sort of negative thing to happen to cause his mind to associate the arousal with a negative action. For example, they may shoot a blast of ammonia up his nose at the moment he begins to become aroused. This is an extremely unpleasant experience, so the brain begins, over time, to associate deviant arousal to children with the negative experience of ammonia being forced up his nose. This will lead to a decrease in arousal to children.
Once this has been achieved, cognitive modification and restitution therapy can then take place allowing the pedophile to learn to control his impulses to react to children. The combination is usually sufficient to give the pedophile all the tools he needs to prevent himself from acting out on the deviant behavior again. It should be noted that pedophilia is an extremely rare condition. It occurs in less than 1% of all child molesters. The popular media use of the word to describe all child molesters is a deliberate misuse of the term.
Child molesters and power rapists can be treated effectively through the use of cognitive restructuring, negative behavior modification, intensive self therapy, and, of course, by being made to take responsibility for their actions, also known as restitution therapy.
There is a pervasive fear amongst the population that the convicted sex offender may move in next door. This irrational fear is based upon the popular myths perpetrated by the media. The truth is that the known sex offender is not the one of whom you need be afraid; you need to be afraid of the one you don't know about. So who are they?
Typically, the sex offender works in a construction or industrial related job in a blue collar capacity. He is someone whom you know well, say a family member, neighbor or close friend. Usually it will be said of him that he was the last person one would have suspected of such behavior. He will be a church-goer, model citizen and pillar of the community.
This is not the case with all sex offenders, just the vast majority of them. Just because you know of a construction worker or factory worker who happens to be a nice guy and attends church and PTA meetings doesn't mean he is a sex offender. Remember, most people are exactly what they seem to be. The difference is that the sex offender has to pretend to be like everyone else because he knows he is not.
That guy lurking behind the bushes with a pocketful of candy drooling over children should also be suspected. Don't think that just because it is unlikely that he is a sex offender that he isn't. What I am telling you is that you are very unlikely to come across someone of that type. If you fear for the safety of a child, err on the side of caution and call the police. I usually don't advocate the calling of authorities before you have taken preventative measures of your own first, but in this case, you could be preventing a child from being molested. You could be forcing a sex offender to receive the treatment he needs to be a productive and law abiding citizen. In this case, I support using the authorities.
The next question is, how should they be punished? Many say that since they are sentencing their victims to a lifetime of pain and misery, the offender should spend their life without their freedom. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But when we dig deeper, we see that the reasoning is not valid. In most cases of rape or molestation, it usually takes the between three and five years of therapy and hard work to overcome the feelings of powerlessness and emptiness they experience. If they are motivated to recover from their experience, and they are willing to confront their victimizer, they can usually fully recover. (Yes, I said, face their victimizer. Therapists universally agree that this is an integral step, usually toward the end of their therapy, which should be taken under very controlled circumstances. Maybe I will write an article about this later as it is a fascinating subject. In essence, the victimizer has the power taken from him by the victim thus placing the power back where it belongs.)
I know that it sounds like I am minimizing the ability of the victim to recover. I do not intend it to seem that way. I know that there is a lot of pain and suffering involved in the recovery process. The reason I only touch on it here rather than go into depth about it is because this article is about the offenders, not the victims. I will write an article about victims another time as my research into their condition concludes. I am still gathering data.
I also know that there are people who will never recover from their trauma because trauma affects everyone differently. These cases are in the extreme minority. I understand their situation and my heart goes out to them. But the facts are still the facts. Most people recover.
With this being the case, is it right to keep the sex offender behind bars forever? If we remove our emotions from the argument and listen solely to the facts, the only answer can be "no," not at all. This is a hard argument for me to make since the specter of this vile crime has touched my life as it has so many others. It is not easy to let go of the hurt that the perpetrator caused his victim and those of us who trusted him. But, once I do let go of the anger and pain, I can see clearly that the facts do not support my emotional status.
This is not to say that my emotions are wrong, they are not. I have the right to feel betrayed, angry and hurt. But I, like so many others, will get over it.
Back on topic, what then, becomes a fair punishment? Execution? Well, for the fear mongers, this seems to be their punishment of choice. Castration? This option makes absolutely no sense at all. Removing the testicles of a sex offender will NOT reduce the impulse. Sexual offending takes place in the brain, not the penis or the testicles. If the intention is to remove the offender's DNA from the gene pool, then we will also have to kill any children the offender may have had, which also makes no sense, not to mention is barbaric to even consider. Chemical castration, which uses Depo-Provera to reduce the sexual urge also makes no sense for the same reason. So it seems that incarceration is the only viable alternative.
So how long should a sex offender be incarcerated?
There was a study done some 20 years ago (unfortunately, I have been unable to find it on the internet and I admit I am working solely from memory about this study) that suggested that after three years of incarceration, an inmate will either have learned his lesson or he will never learn his lesson. During the original three years, the inmate is usually in denial of his crime or is railing against the system or is involved in the appeals process. So it makes sense, then, that if it is going to take the offender that long to come to the realization that he needs to take responsibility for crime, the punishment then should be, after three years of incarceration, the real prison term should begin. If it takes an average of five years for the victim to overcome their pain and suffering, then let the perpetrator serve eight years. Three years to get the nonsense out of his system and five years for his victim.
Now, I admit that the argument is made with some emotion. Again, the facts don't support my emotional argument. It costs far less to have a sex offender undergo treatment than it does to incarcerate him. It typically costs between $5000 and $15,000 per year to put a sex offender on an intensive supervision plan WITH treatment. Conversely, to incarcerate WITHOUT treatment, averages $22,000 per year. After the incarceration, the taxpayers then have to cough up the money for the supervision and treatment. The offender has to pick up much of this cost himself by paying a fee for supervision and by being required to pay for his treatment. But the taxpayer still has to cover some of the burden.
If the treatment option is working, why are we not discussing using that option first? Or at the very least why not be treating them while they are incarcerated?
One would think that in a country that has 20% of the worlds criminal element incarcerated, we would be trying to come up with ways to stop the cycle of violence! For example, what is being done to prevent the situation from happening in the first place? I personally know of a situation where the parents of a child were concerned that their child's behavior put him at risk to become a sex offender. They approached a therapist about it and the therapist said that the law prohibited him from doing anything about it until AFTER the child had committed a crime!
Yes, the problem is a complex one because it raises so many issues about the right to privacy, invasion of privacy by the government, unreasonable search and seizure issues, and a host of other Constitutional issues. But, at the same time, if we can prevent one child from becoming a monster, that means that we can prevent approximately 115 victims. That's right, 115. It has been determined that each sex offender creates an average of 115 victims before he is caught.
This subject is so full of myths and misconceptions that I could continue on for many more pages and still only scratch the surface. If this topic stirs up enough debate, maybe I will write another. For example, I have only barely touched on the fact that the media deliberately misrepresents this issue for the purpose of obtaining higher ratings. In fact, I learned that one year, not to long ago, television stations and cable stations ALL used the sex offender issue to gain ratings during Sweeps week! In some cases it worked, and in others it did not. In fact, the only program of all the ones I watch on a regular basis, that did NOT use that issue to gain ratings was Star Trek; Voyager. (That probably gives away how long ago it was that this happened.)
I cannot put the issue more succinctly than the late Jan Hindman, when she said:
"It is not enough to shed tears for those who suffer the tragedy of sexual abuse, nor will much be accomplished nurturing hatred and devising punishments for those who sexually abuse. Only by sharing knowledge, providing training, exchanging ideas, and challenging traditional beliefs and biases can we respond effectively to sexual victimization."
I have obviously not touched on ALL the issues involved with sex offenders. My primary goal was to dispel some of the myths surrounding sex offenders. If we can begin to understand the true nature of these people, maybe we can stop living in fear. If we can learn to educate our children to be on guard for these individuals without being afraid of them, maybe we can prevent more children from becoming victims. If we can learn more about how we can help these people become responsible citizens they will stop being a drain on our society's resources.
As I sit here watching a certain newsrag program on a certain cable news channel, I hear an obnoxious woman start quoting statistics about sex offenders that are appalling! It makes me think to myself, "If they are so dangerous, why do we let them back on the streets? Why don't we just lock them up for life? If it is true that almost all sex offenders re-offend, we should never let them out of prison again." And this line of thought led me to my favorite question: Why are we doing it?
When the woman on the news show started spouting her statistics, I wrote them down to verify them. Here were the claims that were made: 90% of sex offenders will re-offend. 90% of sex offenders will commit a new sex crime within 3 years. Sex offenders cannot be treated. All child molesters are pedophiles. The only treatment that works for sex offenders is execution.
I immediately suspected there was some sort of conspiracy here. I thought for sure that the government was hiding something from us and releasing sex offenders back into the population for some nefarious purpose. I was determined to get to the bottom of it and report this information to you, the public.
Surprisingly, I did find a conspiracy after all. But it isn't the one you think. The conspirators turned out to be news media. Newspapers, cable networks, magazines and even public networks. It seems that it is more expedient to MAKE UP the news than report on the truth. The media is responsible in a very large part for the myths and misconceptions surrounding these individuals. By misreporting information over the years, the media has been able to instill enough fear into our society that the mere mention of the term sex offender on their network increases ratings. Increased ratings mean more advertising dollars. Since we are willing and actually desire to hate sex offenders, we are also responsible for perpetuating these myths.
Sex offenders are amongst the worst of the worst of our society. We love to hate them. I will not make any excuse for them such as "they are misunderstood individuals," or they are a "product of their society." They aren't. They are perverts with mental deficiencies who have chosen to commit crimes of the most despicable nature. They are sick people who need treatment, but not in the way a cancer patient is sick. Rather, they are sick in the way a drug addict or alcoholic is sick.
The myths and misconceptions surrounding sex offenders usually result in a stereotype of a grizzled old man hiding behind a bush and drooling over children in a park and offering a pocketful of candy (as in, "I have some candy in my pocket little girl, just reach in and grab some.") The truth is, this kind of offender is very rare; most child victims will be molested in their own home or in the home of a trusted friend or relative. Most rape victims will be assaulted by a spouse or trusted friend. But, by perpetuating the myths, the media and general public can make themselves feel better about demanding the worst types of vengeance. It is easier to punish the stranger than the person we know and love. In doing this, according to the Hindman Foundation, a nationally recognized leader in the treatment of sex abuse victims, "many problems emerge with the detection, prosecution and management of sex offenders."
So, let's discuss the FACTS about sex offenders.
According to the Bureau of Justice, "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense: 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." Remember, the loud-mouthed news reporter said it was 90%. Where did she get this fact? The truth is, she made it up. I found absolutely no corroborating evidence anywhere to support her claim. In fact, the most reputable agencies who track these statistics don't even support the claim that "most" sex offenders will re-offend.
The Bureau of Justice further reports that, "Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape." Additionally, when it comes to child victimizers, they report that "An estimated 3.3%... were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison."
I came across one website of a fear monger who claimed that 25% of sex offenders will commit another sex offense within 15 years. When I contacted the owner of that site requesting that he tell me how he came up with that information he sent me back a reply which basically said that he made the number up after he read some reports and didn't like their results.
Remember, the Bureau of Justice numbers are based on actual arrests, convictions, releases, re-arrests and new convictions in all 50 States.
Another reputable agency, the Center for Sex Offender Management, reports a bit differently, though they do not disclose how they arrived at their numbers. According to them, "child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period" and "rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period."
Additionally they report, "Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995)." It should be noted that these numbers are based on a considerably smaller control number than the BoJ. It doesn't make their results any less valid, but it is important to put the information in perspective.
If the CSOM studies are based on a sampling of records, then they have to face the possibility that the records that were handed over to them were not random but rather, designed to meet some person?s political ambitions. Further, if they are based on local records, then those results are only good for a small area of the country. Since they did not disclose how they arrived at their results, we have no way of knowing how to understand their study. But it should be noted that they report on their website that sexually based offenses are typically underreported which could explain why their numbers are a bit higher than the BoJ's. Also, the BoJ statistics are based on actual convictions and do not take into consideration charges dropped due to plea bargains and such. This may also contribute to the slightly higher numbers from CSOM.
Regardless of which numbers you believe, the fact still remains that sex offenders are vastly less likely to re-offend than any other criminal. Myth: the recidivism rate amongst sex offenders is 90%... BUSTED! (Myth: certain loud mouthed newsrag hosts make up statistics in order to increase ratings?CONFIRMED!)
Next we need to examine the claim that sex offenders cannot be successfully treated. I was recently watching an episode of Law and Order, Special Victim's Unit where Ice T's character stated that sex offenders could not be treated because they cannot learn to control their urges. (Please don't hold it against Ice T. He is only an actor who was reciting lines that writers provided him. You can hold it against the writers for not verifying their facts.) Again, the statement made by that character and the statement made by Ms. Blonde Ambition are not supported by the facts. CSOM reports:
"Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention." Again, it is important to read what was really said here. I highlighted those words for a reason. The offender must be compliant with treatment conditions in order for the treatment to be effective. If the offender is non-cooperative, the risk of re-offense increases by as much as eight per cent as will be discussed below.
CSOM, when discussing treatment options for offenders, tells us that: "The majority of sex offender treatment programs in the United States and Canada now use a combination of cognitive-behavioral treatment and relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse). Offense specific treatment modalities generally involve group and/or individual therapy focused on victimization awareness and empathy training, cognitive restructuring, learning about the sexual abuse cycle, relapse prevention planning, anger management and assertiveness training, social and interpersonal skills development, and changing deviant sexual arousal patterns."
A unique form of treatment that has yielded tremendous results over the past couple of decades is called ?restitution therapy? which requires the perpetrator to take responsibility for his actions and to, for lack of a better term, ?submit? to the victim. In doing this, the perpetrator relinquishes power and returns it to the victim. As will be discussed briefly later, this is very good for the victim?s treatment and recovery process.
They go on to say, "Different types of offenders typically respond to different treatment methods with varying rates of success. Treatment effectiveness is often related to multiple factors, including:
1- the type of sexual offender (e.g., incest offender or rapist);
2- the treatment model being used (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, psycho-educational, psycho-dynamic, or pharmacological);
3- the treatment modalities being used; and
4- related interventions involved in probation and parole community supervision.
Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998)."
In other words, sex offenders are less likely to re-offend than other criminals and if they are amenable to treatment they are even less likely than non-treated sex offenders to re-offend. Myth: Sex offender treatment does not work. The only treatment for sex offenders is execution: BUSTED! But in fairness, I must say it is busted with caveats.
Not all sex offenders are willing to undergo treatment. Reasons for this range from just plain denial that they have a problem to the fact that it is incredibly uncomfortable and difficult to discuss the root causes of the criminal behavior. Since it appears that over 98% of sex offenders are male, it makes sense that they would be unwilling to discuss these issues. In our culture and society, we tend to raise our boys in a manner that reinforces this behavior. With our understanding of human psychology increasing yearly, this cultural behavior is slowly changing.
We are finally beginning to understand that it is okay to let our boys cry and it is okay to discuss emotions and sex. This is a recent development and the more conservative elements in our society are still against such things. Sex is at the root of their anxieties. We have made sex such a taboo subject for so long, we can no longer bear to discuss this with our children. Ironically, these same people who will not discuss sex with their children are also at the forefront of the battle to keep sexual education out of our public schools. It seems that they just don't want anyone to know about sex. It seems that conservative elements are trying to push their ideal that sex is somehow evil or solely for the purpose of reproduction and should not, under any circumstances, be enjoyed by those participating in such activity. And then we wonder why people are developing sexually deviant behavior.
Sex offenders have the ability to cross taboo boundaries that ordinary people seem to be unable to cross. It is the opinion of many sex offender treatment providers that the reason this is possible is because of the fact that we don't discuss emotions, sexual respect and such with our young children. It seems that most sex offenders come from these kinds of conservative households. Again, from the category of irony, most sex offenders report that they were NOT molested as a child which is commonly thought by the general public. It also seems that most children who are sexually molested do not grow up to be sexual predators or sexual criminals as is also commonly thought by the general public.
So why are they able to cross those taboo boundaries that ordinary (notice that I do not use the word "normal") people don't? Theories abound about this. For some, it is to satisfy their need for power. Others get a thrill out of crossing those boundaries in the same way that a person gets a thrill from jumping out of an airplane. Still, others believe they have a religious right to engage in certain activities, such as incest. There are a host of other reasons, but I list these three as examples of the workings of the sex offender mind.
Sex offenders come in a variety of flavors. They are typically classified in the following categories: power rapists, indiscriminate child molesters, pedophiles, all others (this includes incest related crimes, prostitution, pimping, voyeurism/exhibitionism, etc.) It is interesting to note that the power rapists and the indiscriminate child molesters have the lowest recidivism rates (according to the BoJ website, it is 2.5% for rapists and 3.3% for child victimizers) leaving one to question the conventional wisdom about incarceration vs. treatment. With those statistics in mind, it means that the bulk of the sex offenders who re-offend are the pimps and prostitutes! With everyone up in arms about sex offense incarceration terms not being long enough for repeat offenders, why, then, are these offenders not receiving longer prison sentences?
Additionally, the question of registration must be revisited. It is obvious by the statistics that it is not the sex offenders we need to worry about. Once they are caught and undergo treatment, it is highly unlikely they are going to re-offend. However, other criminals, who are much more likely to re-offend, should be the ones registering. The other side of the coin is that as long as the sex offender's whereabouts is known, it helps his neighbors and the supervision officials to keep tabs on him increasing the chances of his successful rehabilitation.
Pedophiles are a unique subset of sex offenders. Most people believe that any child molester is a pedophile. That is not the case. A pedophile is one who has a mental disorder that causes him to become sexually aroused ONLY to primary sexual characteristics. Primary sexual characteristics are those of a young child or (in the case of a hebophile) a pubescent child. This means they display the undeveloped or developing sexual characteristics such as lack of body hair, undeveloped penis, vagina or breasts, or, in the case of the developing adolescent, very little in the way of pubic hair, developing breasts, vagina or penis. Myth: All child molesters are pedophiles?BUSTED.
An indiscriminate child molester is different from the pedophile in that the child molester is aroused by both the secondary sexual characteristics of an adult, that is, developed sexual organs and mature body, as well as the primary sexual characteristics of the child or pubescent adolescent.
The reason that the distinction is important is that indiscriminate child molesters can be treated successfully and, as yet, there is no means of effective treatment for pedophiles. Unfortunately, there is no known method for increasing sexual arousal to secondary sexual characteristics. The best that can be done for the pedophile is to decrease his sexual arousal to children through the use of negative behavioral modification. This means that they expose the pedophile to audio and visual stimulation and allow him to become aroused. When he becomes aroused they cause some sort of negative thing to happen to cause his mind to associate the arousal with a negative action. For example, they may shoot a blast of ammonia up his nose at the moment he begins to become aroused. This is an extremely unpleasant experience, so the brain begins, over time, to associate deviant arousal to children with the negative experience of ammonia being forced up his nose. This will lead to a decrease in arousal to children.
Once this has been achieved, cognitive modification and restitution therapy can then take place allowing the pedophile to learn to control his impulses to react to children. The combination is usually sufficient to give the pedophile all the tools he needs to prevent himself from acting out on the deviant behavior again. It should be noted that pedophilia is an extremely rare condition. It occurs in less than 1% of all child molesters. The popular media use of the word to describe all child molesters is a deliberate misuse of the term.
Child molesters and power rapists can be treated effectively through the use of cognitive restructuring, negative behavior modification, intensive self therapy, and, of course, by being made to take responsibility for their actions, also known as restitution therapy.
There is a pervasive fear amongst the population that the convicted sex offender may move in next door. This irrational fear is based upon the popular myths perpetrated by the media. The truth is that the known sex offender is not the one of whom you need be afraid; you need to be afraid of the one you don't know about. So who are they?
Typically, the sex offender works in a construction or industrial related job in a blue collar capacity. He is someone whom you know well, say a family member, neighbor or close friend. Usually it will be said of him that he was the last person one would have suspected of such behavior. He will be a church-goer, model citizen and pillar of the community.
This is not the case with all sex offenders, just the vast majority of them. Just because you know of a construction worker or factory worker who happens to be a nice guy and attends church and PTA meetings doesn't mean he is a sex offender. Remember, most people are exactly what they seem to be. The difference is that the sex offender has to pretend to be like everyone else because he knows he is not.
That guy lurking behind the bushes with a pocketful of candy drooling over children should also be suspected. Don't think that just because it is unlikely that he is a sex offender that he isn't. What I am telling you is that you are very unlikely to come across someone of that type. If you fear for the safety of a child, err on the side of caution and call the police. I usually don't advocate the calling of authorities before you have taken preventative measures of your own first, but in this case, you could be preventing a child from being molested. You could be forcing a sex offender to receive the treatment he needs to be a productive and law abiding citizen. In this case, I support using the authorities.
The next question is, how should they be punished? Many say that since they are sentencing their victims to a lifetime of pain and misery, the offender should spend their life without their freedom. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But when we dig deeper, we see that the reasoning is not valid. In most cases of rape or molestation, it usually takes the between three and five years of therapy and hard work to overcome the feelings of powerlessness and emptiness they experience. If they are motivated to recover from their experience, and they are willing to confront their victimizer, they can usually fully recover. (Yes, I said, face their victimizer. Therapists universally agree that this is an integral step, usually toward the end of their therapy, which should be taken under very controlled circumstances. Maybe I will write an article about this later as it is a fascinating subject. In essence, the victimizer has the power taken from him by the victim thus placing the power back where it belongs.)
I know that it sounds like I am minimizing the ability of the victim to recover. I do not intend it to seem that way. I know that there is a lot of pain and suffering involved in the recovery process. The reason I only touch on it here rather than go into depth about it is because this article is about the offenders, not the victims. I will write an article about victims another time as my research into their condition concludes. I am still gathering data.
I also know that there are people who will never recover from their trauma because trauma affects everyone differently. These cases are in the extreme minority. I understand their situation and my heart goes out to them. But the facts are still the facts. Most people recover.
With this being the case, is it right to keep the sex offender behind bars forever? If we remove our emotions from the argument and listen solely to the facts, the only answer can be "no," not at all. This is a hard argument for me to make since the specter of this vile crime has touched my life as it has so many others. It is not easy to let go of the hurt that the perpetrator caused his victim and those of us who trusted him. But, once I do let go of the anger and pain, I can see clearly that the facts do not support my emotional status.
This is not to say that my emotions are wrong, they are not. I have the right to feel betrayed, angry and hurt. But I, like so many others, will get over it.
Back on topic, what then, becomes a fair punishment? Execution? Well, for the fear mongers, this seems to be their punishment of choice. Castration? This option makes absolutely no sense at all. Removing the testicles of a sex offender will NOT reduce the impulse. Sexual offending takes place in the brain, not the penis or the testicles. If the intention is to remove the offender's DNA from the gene pool, then we will also have to kill any children the offender may have had, which also makes no sense, not to mention is barbaric to even consider. Chemical castration, which uses Depo-Provera to reduce the sexual urge also makes no sense for the same reason. So it seems that incarceration is the only viable alternative.
So how long should a sex offender be incarcerated?
There was a study done some 20 years ago (unfortunately, I have been unable to find it on the internet and I admit I am working solely from memory about this study) that suggested that after three years of incarceration, an inmate will either have learned his lesson or he will never learn his lesson. During the original three years, the inmate is usually in denial of his crime or is railing against the system or is involved in the appeals process. So it makes sense, then, that if it is going to take the offender that long to come to the realization that he needs to take responsibility for crime, the punishment then should be, after three years of incarceration, the real prison term should begin. If it takes an average of five years for the victim to overcome their pain and suffering, then let the perpetrator serve eight years. Three years to get the nonsense out of his system and five years for his victim.
Now, I admit that the argument is made with some emotion. Again, the facts don't support my emotional argument. It costs far less to have a sex offender undergo treatment than it does to incarcerate him. It typically costs between $5000 and $15,000 per year to put a sex offender on an intensive supervision plan WITH treatment. Conversely, to incarcerate WITHOUT treatment, averages $22,000 per year. After the incarceration, the taxpayers then have to cough up the money for the supervision and treatment. The offender has to pick up much of this cost himself by paying a fee for supervision and by being required to pay for his treatment. But the taxpayer still has to cover some of the burden.
If the treatment option is working, why are we not discussing using that option first? Or at the very least why not be treating them while they are incarcerated?
One would think that in a country that has 20% of the worlds criminal element incarcerated, we would be trying to come up with ways to stop the cycle of violence! For example, what is being done to prevent the situation from happening in the first place? I personally know of a situation where the parents of a child were concerned that their child's behavior put him at risk to become a sex offender. They approached a therapist about it and the therapist said that the law prohibited him from doing anything about it until AFTER the child had committed a crime!
Yes, the problem is a complex one because it raises so many issues about the right to privacy, invasion of privacy by the government, unreasonable search and seizure issues, and a host of other Constitutional issues. But, at the same time, if we can prevent one child from becoming a monster, that means that we can prevent approximately 115 victims. That's right, 115. It has been determined that each sex offender creates an average of 115 victims before he is caught.
This subject is so full of myths and misconceptions that I could continue on for many more pages and still only scratch the surface. If this topic stirs up enough debate, maybe I will write another. For example, I have only barely touched on the fact that the media deliberately misrepresents this issue for the purpose of obtaining higher ratings. In fact, I learned that one year, not to long ago, television stations and cable stations ALL used the sex offender issue to gain ratings during Sweeps week! In some cases it worked, and in others it did not. In fact, the only program of all the ones I watch on a regular basis, that did NOT use that issue to gain ratings was Star Trek; Voyager. (That probably gives away how long ago it was that this happened.)
I cannot put the issue more succinctly than the late Jan Hindman, when she said:
"It is not enough to shed tears for those who suffer the tragedy of sexual abuse, nor will much be accomplished nurturing hatred and devising punishments for those who sexually abuse. Only by sharing knowledge, providing training, exchanging ideas, and challenging traditional beliefs and biases can we respond effectively to sexual victimization."
I have obviously not touched on ALL the issues involved with sex offenders. My primary goal was to dispel some of the myths surrounding sex offenders. If we can begin to understand the true nature of these people, maybe we can stop living in fear. If we can learn to educate our children to be on guard for these individuals without being afraid of them, maybe we can prevent more children from becoming victims. If we can learn more about how we can help these people become responsible citizens they will stop being a drain on our society's resources.
- 6:11 AM
- 0 Comments
by LISA FOGARTY
When it comes to health and wellness trends and gimmicks, I consider myself a professional lab rat on board with anything short of amputating a limb. I've allowed acupuncturists to jab needles into my forehead, let a "strawberry lipo" laser penetrate 13 millimeters into my abdomen to melt fat, and had my vagina tightened with a laser. And yet, I've somehow managed to neglect trying the easiest, most satisfying, and healthy (not to mention totally free!) experiment known to women (and men): giving myself one orgasm a day—just enough to help keep vaginal atrophy away (hurray!).
Let's talk facts first. An orgasm is, of course, that explosive, blissful moment when all of your sexual stars align and the vagina contracts in intensely pleasurable waves. But it's so much more than that. Orgasms release a powerhouse of hormones that include oxytocin, testosterone, and estrogen, says Dr. Rachel Carlton Abrams, author of Bodywise: Discovering Your Body's Intelligence for Lifelong Health and Healing. They're the best medicine imaginable to keep your hormones in balance, reduce anxiety, improve your sex life, and promote a more restful sleep, thanks to serotonin released during orgasm. Hell, they might even make you a kinder, gentler person who will one day celebrate her 99th birthday while scaling the Himalayas (we can dream, right)?
"Having an orgasm every day will make you feel happier," says Astroglide TTChealth adviser Dr. Draion M. Burch. "Orgasms release dopamine, which makes you feel great. Daily orgasms can lower your stress levels, which will positively impact your well-being in more than one way (they bring down cortisol levels, lower weight, increase fertility, etc). When you orgasm, your heart rate increases, which helps strengthen your heart and lower your blood pressure. Daily orgasms can lead to a longer life. Not to mention, they also boost your immune system."
Since only one-quarter of women experience orgasm through sexual intercourse alone, this bears repeating: Unless you have a partner with boundless amounts of energy and time to bring you to orgasm each day, you will need to take matters into your own hands. Literally. Masturbation isn't optional—it's the yellow brick road.
HAVING AN ORGASM EVERY DAY WILL MAKE YOU FEEL HAPPIER.'
I'm a wife and mother of two children under 5 who works from home. None of these roles lend themselves to dropping everything you're doing at 3 in the afternoon, saying, "Fuck it," and taking cover in a locked bedroom for 20 minutes with a Rabbit vibrator. Not to mention, I don't own a vibrator. At 13, I discovered everything I needed to achieve orgasm solo—my right hand, clitoral stimulation, and five to 10 minutes alone (yes, I've timed it).
Given my situation, the first challenge I experienced when trying to have one orgasm a day was that I had to make it happen after the kids went to bed at 8 p.m. No matter how tired I felt or whether I would have rather been binge-watching Mr. Robot and nursing a glass of Kahlúa, I faithfully stuck to my schedule. Little did I know this would serve as one of the most valuable lessons I learned this month: the brain is your no. 1 obstacle in achieving an orgasm—and your most important ally. Unless you are experiencing hormonal changes as the result of taking certain medications, breastfeeding, menopause, or illness, your body will fall right in line—but creating a mental slideshow of sexual images is kind of like boot camp training.
The first change I noticed after masturbating on the reg: my ability to summon sexy thoughts became automatic after about a week. That one fantasy I have that involves my husband and an office desk (I'll let you fill in the blanks) swelled over time to include props and even a few new characters. The more I focused on those series of images, the more I opened myself up to including other tantalizing subplots. Before I knew it, I had about 10 sexy scenarios from which to choose before settling in and shooting for an orgasm.
I learned that my menstrual cycle affected both the intensity of my orgasm and how long it took to achieve one. The orgasm that made me want to climb the walls the most was one I had the night before I got my period. The ascent to it took about 15 minutes and required a lot of start and stop so as not to overburden the clitoris with too much friction, but the beautifully explosive orgasmic release was, I swear, 25 seconds long and well worth the wait. My sweet, but quietest, orgasms happened in the first three days after my period ended. And, contrary to what I predicted would happen, the orgasms I experienced during ovulation were easier to achieve (two to three minutes from start to finish) and totally lovely—I'm not complaining—but not mind-shatteringly so.
THE BRAIN IS YOUR NO. 1 OBSTACLE IN ACHIEVING AN ORGASM — AND YOUR MOST IMPORTANT ALLY.
But, oh, the health and wellness benefits. Take these with a grain salt and keep in mind that I exercise regularly, meditate, and eat well, but I still have to give credit where I think it's due. I did not experience one millisecond of menstrual cramping the month I got myself off daily—a rarity—nor did I have one sleepless night. No matter what stress I encountered that day, it melted away the second I experienced orgasm. In fact, I was able to channel my anger one night into one of the most pleasurable orgasms I had this month, thus proving angry solo sex is a thing.
But what about your partner, you may be asking. Is he missing out? Not at all—in fact, from sending him texts seconds after achieving orgasm alone and inviting him to join me to attacking him in his office on a random Tuesday at midnight, my husband benefited from my experiment tenfold.
However, I was afraid at first to tell my husband that I was masturbating once a day because I thought he'd wonder why I felt the need to do this if we were still having sex. But what I found was that having an orgasm on my own only made me feel more ready to have sex with him—like, minutes after. I found myself not wanting as much foreplay because I had already taken care of warming myself up—I just wanted to get to the main event. In a way, I was a lot more "all business" about sex after masturbating. My husband never complains about foreplay, but if I'm being honest, he seemed pretty damn happy to have a wife who jumped on him more often and was just ... ready. The most wonderful thing about the female orgasm is that they don't knock you out (ahem, men); rather, they rev you up for more.
Since I was taking care of my own sexual needs and learning even more ways to get myself off, my body rewarded me by making me crave more sex and connection, and, as result, making myself feel more sexual. Sex became a thing I expected, and not a thing my husband and I both wanted but were sometimes too drained to experience. And frequent orgasms have now gone from an experiment to a health, wellness, and relationship necessity.
SEX BECAME A THING I EXPECTED AND NOT A THING MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH WANTED BUT WERE SOMETIMES TOO DRAINED TO EXPERIENCE.
Now that the experiment is over, it's definitely difficult to make myself orgasm once a day (I was a little relieved I could take a night off). And that's OK. Now, I'm masturbating more than I was before—about four times a week—and I'm finding that's just enough to remind me that I should make being sexual a priority because it simply makes me feel happier and more relaxed.
Of course, sticking to any daily task can be tough. But, hey, it's a resolution that's way easier to keep than giving up junk food.
- 8:59 AM
- 0 Comments
(CNN)Donald Trump is turning the world upside down.
Some US enemies like Russia are becoming his friends, and longtime US allies like Germany are wondering whether America will be there for them any more.
Geopolitical groups and alliances like the EU and NATO that have underpinned US global leadership for generations are reeling from Trump's disparaging comments.
Amid the tumult, world leaders are hurriedly repositioning themselves to deal with the new world disorder that the incoming American president seems to herald.
China, for example, despite its Communist political system is moving into a vacuum left by Trump's hostility to free trade deals to position itself as the champion of unfettered and open commerce.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is emerging as Trump's most vocal defender, despite allegations of Moscow having cyber hacked in the US election.
In the Arab world, US allies are mustering to head off the firestorm they fear if Trump honors his campaign vow to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
And in the Western Hemisphere, another traditional American friend, Mexico, is insisting it won't pay for the wall Trump has pledged to build on the Southern border. Even Canada is bracing for tense ties with its neighbor since the President-elect has promised to renegotiate NAFTA.
It all means that the 45th president will take office with foreign allies and adversaries alike puzzled -- and, in some cases, alarmed -- that the certainties which have underpinned US foreign policy for generations no longer seem to apply.
America, always looked to for stability, continuity and as a guarantor of the liberal world order, now could become under Trump one of the most disruptive global forces -- at least if he follows through on his threats.
His hyperactive transition that has rattled the rest of the world will ensure he faces a string of simmering foreign policy questions as soon as he takes office.
China
US presidents have for decades based policy toward China on the need to avoid a clash between the world's last real superpower and the dominant power in Asia. Trump, however, seems to be doing exactly the opposite.
He's spent his transition tweaking Beijing over the status of Taiwan, warning against its territorial ventures in the South China Sea, and warning of a tough new initiative to wring a better deal on trade issues out of the Asian giant.
Many foreign policy experts agree that Washington needs to adopt a more robust posture toward China and accuse the Obama administration of not doing enough to protect US interests in the region.
But few would endorse Trump's chosen strategy of sending volleys toward Beijing on Twitter.
China's President Xi Jinping on Tuesday, in unusually frank terms for a Chinese leader, delivered a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos that appeared to be an open repudiation of much of Trump's emerging China policy.
He denied that Beijing was guilty of devaluing its currency as charged by the President-elect and warned that a trade war would benefit no one.
"There's no point in blaming economic globalization for the world's problems," Xi told the world's economic elite at the Swiss ski resort.
Xi also warned that the world must remain committed to free trade and said protectionism was akin to locking "oneself in a dark room," apparently taking aim at Trump's threats to impose tariffs on Chinese goods because of his belief Beijing has ripped off America in their economic relationship.
Xi also delivered a veiled warning to Trump not to tear up the global pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions last year, following the President-elect's warnings to do just that once he comes into office.
Xi suggested that China intends to move quickly to identify economic opportunities from what it clearly believes is a pullback by the new Trump administration on leadership on global trade.
Russia
US-Russia relations haven't been this bad since the end of the Cold War.
The Obama administration and the Kremlin have been estranged over President Vladimir Putin's apparent attempts to undermine US power and Western-style liberalism, over the incursion into Ukraine and an alleged Russian espionage operation to help throw last year's election to Trump.
Now Putin, who is hoping Trump's vow to improve relations will mean he is open to Moscow's foreign policy priorities, is paying Trump back for his warm comments toward the Russian leader throughout his campaign and transition.
"I don't know what he will be doing on the international stage. So I have no foundation to criticize him nor to defend him," Putin said on Tuesday.
The Russian leader dismissed accusations that Moscow's intelligence agencies had amassed incriminating financial and personal information against Trump in order to compromise the new US president.
These things that have been alleged are clearly false information," Putin said.
But the solicitous comments that fly back and forth frequently between Trump and Moscow are causing consternation among foreign policy experts and sparking alarm about the President-elect's motives in Europe.
Some are noting that Moscow has far more to gain than the US through a possible rapprochement, including its hopes for a lifting of US sanctions, de-facto recognition of its annexation of Crimea, and a more skeptical US view of NATO.
Comments by Trump in an interview with the Times of London and the German newspaper Bild over the weekend questioning the utility of the Western alliance, predicting more departures from the EU, and recreating some kind of great power deal-making relationship on issues like fighting terrorism and bargaining nuclear weapons, caused alarm throughout Europe.
"What Mr. Trump articulated in this series of interviews ... that is exactly the goals and aspirations of the Kremlin: to erode NATO 's credibility, to erode the European Union and to conquer and divide, to get to a great power relationship on arms control where it is back to the future and two great powers will solve everything," said Heather Conley, director of the European affairs program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"Those are Russian interests," she added.
Germany
It takes a lot to shock German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And, publicly at least, she was unruffled when Trump implied to the European journalists that he trusted Putin just as much as he did , at least for now.
But the idea that an American President could be as warm to a Russian leader accused of interfering in the US election than a German chancellor shocked many observers.
"Chancellor Merkel is the leader of Germany, which has been a very close American ally for decades," former US Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Pifer told CNN on Tuesday.
"To put them on the same plane is a pretty remarkable statement that has caused a lot of concern not just in Washington, but I think among American allies in Europe about what the Trump presidency is going to mean for how the United States engages with Europe and deals with Russia."
NATO and the European Union
Trump's statements in the weekend interview triggered disbelief in Europe.
NATO and the European Union are considered centerpieces of a largely successful political effort to purge Europe of the bloodletting that stained its history for hundreds of years.
Yet Trump seems to have little use for either institution, which are both already facing pressure from the populist economic forces that the President-elect harnessed in the US election as well as Moscow's most belligerent behavior since the end of the Cold War.
"Personally, I don't think it matters much for the United States. I never thought it mattered," he said. "Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don't really care whether it's separate or together, to me it doesn't matter."
Trump's comments represented a departure from decades of US foreign policy. Despite tensions and differences with the bloc, Washington's preference has always been for a strong, united EU because it represents a fellow anchor of the world's liberal, open, trading and political system.
Trump's attitude toward NATO caused similar disquiet among Atlanticists.
The 28-nation Western alliance was set up in the late 1940s to guard against a rising Soviet threat. Many of its members, particularly in former Warsaw Pact countries now feel a similar threat from Moscow's territorial maneuverings.
The President-elect, however, considers NATO "obsolete" largely because he believes it is not doing enough to deal with terrorism, despite the fact that the only time that NATO's Article 5 mutual defense provision has ever been invoked was after a terrorist attack — on September 11, 2001.
Since then, thousands of NATO troops have served in Afghanistan, fighting to stop the war-ravaged country from again becoming a haven for extremist groups like al Qaeda.
"We were attacked on 9/11, and not any of these countries and they sent their young men and women to serve in Afghanistan, and over 1,000 were killed in Afghanistan," Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday. "Not because they were attacked but because we were attacked."
Former Sen. and Middle East peace negotiator George Mitchell, meanwhile, argued that Trump risked subverting one of America's great achievements: the building of a new transatlantic order from the rubble of two world wars in which 68 million people died.
"I believe historians will judge that to be one of America's finest hours," said Mitchell on CNN Tuesday.
- 1:32 AM
- 0 Comments
By Eugene Scott, CNN
Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump harshly responded to civil rights icon and Georgia Rep. John Lewis on Saturday, calling him "all talk" and "no action" after Lewis said Trump was not a "legitimate" president.
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad," Trump tweeted Saturday, which happened to fall on the weekend of the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday.
Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017
Lewis -- an ally of King who was brutally beaten by police in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 while marching for civil rights -- represents a Georgia district that includes most of Atlanta. On the campaign trail, Trump regularly decried crime in urban areas while pledging to revitalize neighborhoods primarily populated by black Americans.
A Hillary Clinton supporter, Lewis criticized Trump's ascension to head of state due to Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
"I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president," the long-serving Democrat told NBC News' Chuck Todd in a clip released Friday.
It was an astonishing rebuke by a sitting member of Congress toward an incoming President. Trump, however, largely launched his political career by calling into question the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's presidency by repeatedly suggesting he wasn't born in the United States.
Democrats, highlighting Lewis' contributions to the civil rights movement, swiftly condemned Trump Saturday morning.
Ahead of #MLKday2017, let us remember that many have tried to silence @repjohnlewis over the years. All have failed.— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 14, 2017
California Sen. Kamala Harris said Lewis doesn't deserve to be attacked by Trump.
"John Lewis is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality. He deserves better than this," she tweeted.
John Lewis is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality. He deserves better than this. https://t.co/WX1QDCKfzP— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 14, 2017
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic, praised Lewis, "John Lewis and his 'talk' have changed the world."
John Lewis and his "talk" have changed the world.https://t.co/qeUloAkeTxhttps://t.co/aH2vDLjKk9— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) January 14, 2017
Rep. Keith Ellison, who is vying to become the Democratic National Committee chairman, said Trump has "no clue" who Lewis is.
".@repjohnlewis knows true sacrifice. @realDonaldTrump has no clue. When cluelessness collides with power oppression results. Resistance," the Minnesota lawmaker said.
.@repjohnlewis knows true sacrifice. @realDonaldTrump has no clue. When cluelessness collides with power oppression results. Resistance! https://t.co/Eu1vWbetsl— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) January 14, 2017
Lewis is one of an increasing number of Democratic lawmakers who are boycotting Trump's inauguration after learning more about Russia's role in the 2016 election. Intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked Democratic groups with the intent of hurting Clinton's campaign and aiding Trump's. The President-elect has repeatedly expressed skepticism at the conclusions.
"You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong," Lewis told NBC News.
California Rep. Barbara Lee said earlier this week she will spend the day organizing.
"Donald Trump has proven that his administration will normalize the most extreme fringes of the Republican Party. On Inauguration Day, I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance," she said Thursday in a statement.
Reps. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Jared Huffman of California and Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, are also boycotting the historic event.
- 10:16 AM
- 0 Comments
By Sara Murray, Jim Sciutto and Daniella Diaz, CNN
Updated 1205 GMT (2005 HKT) January 14, 2017
Washington (CNN)Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for national security advisor, has been in contact with Russia's ambassador to Washington, Trump's team told CNN Friday.
Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said Flynn and the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, aren't in frequent contact but they have been in touch recently on a number of issues.
Some instances included when the two had a conversation in the wake of the shooting of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, in which Flynn expressed his condolences, according to a transition official. The two men also exchanged holiday pleasantries via text message on Christmas, according to multiple transition officials.
The Russian ambassador texted Flynn on December 28 but the two did not connect by phone until December 29, according to a transition official.
A centuries-old law, the Logan Act, forbids any US citizen acting without official US authority from influencing "disputes or controversies" involving the US and a foreign government.
The December 29 phone call was on the same day that President Barack Obama ordered sanctions on Russia, as well as ordered 35 Russian diplomats and their families to leave the country -- but a transition official told CNN that Flynn and Kislyak did not discuss the Russian sanctions.
The Washington Post first reported on the conversations.
One of the officials added that Kislyak, in a conversation on December 29, also extended an invitation for a representative from the US to attend the upcoming Syria peace talks in Kazakhstan. The same day as that conversation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made clear Trump would be welcome at the table for Syrian peace talks.
"I would like to express the hope that as soon as the administration of Donald Trump takes office, they will also be able to join these efforts," Lavrov said during a meeting with Putin in Moscow.
The Trump transition official said they are not aware of any additional conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador since December 29.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked Friday whether it bothered the administration that Flynn was in contact with the Russian ambassador.
"I've read some of these reports and I think, to answer your question as bluntly as I can, it depends on what he said," Earnest responded. "And I know that some members of the President-elect's transition team have tried to describe those conversations. Obviously, I have zero insight into what may have been communicated back and forth, so I'd refer you to General Flynn himself or spokespeople for the transition who may be able to provide additional insight into the nature of those conversations and why those conversations were initiated."
Flynn's ties to Russia have been scrutinized since Trump tapped him to become his closest adviser on national security.
On one occasion, Flynn was seated next to Putin at a Russian media gala in December 2015, and he previously had a paid speaking gig with Russia Today, the Kremlin's TV network, though it was before he took on a formal campaign role.
On Friday, Trump again, using Twitter, denied claims that Russia had compromising information on him and continued to accuse the intelligence chiefs of leaking the allegations.
- 6:31 AM
- 0 Comments