Sex offender working as a CFI

A Life Aloft said:
Just an FYI from Harvard:

  • Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.
  • No intervention is likely to work on its own; outcomes may be better when the patient is motivated and treatment combines psychotherapy and medication.
  • Parents should be aware that in most sexual abuse cases involving children, the perpetrator is someone the child knows.
One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...h_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

But there are many other and more detailed studies conducted over a long period of time..... a host of them including a long term study done in Canada which I read over a bit and suggests much higher rate of recidivism as do many other studies including stats at the department of Justice. In an article entitled “Recidivism of Sex Offenders” published in the journal of the Center for Sex Offender Management, author Tim Bynum examined a multiplicity of studies on re-offending by convicted sex offenders. Bynum acknowledges that sex crimes are under-reported which can skew studies of recidivism. And there are many variables, such is the person staying in treatment and much more. Bynum cites a 1997 study which found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had a higher recidivism rate than rapists with 52% of the former re-offending vs. 39% of the latter.

While this is a very complicated subject, personally, I don't think it's worth the risk/gamble for ANY child (mine or others) to knowingly be put in contact with anyone convicted of such a crime where there is true substantial evidence and/or admittance of guilt. Period.
Click to expand...

Grenade in the room:

If it's a sexual orientation, what gives us the right to discriminate against their orientation? After all, sexual orientation is like race and cannot be helped.

(I'm not promoting this, just calling to task the logic used by many)
 
It would be one thing if the offender was on the precipice of increased risk associated with a change in employment or other social interaction. I haven't heard that. If that were the case, I would let my conscience be my guide.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
If it's a sexual orientation, what gives us the right to discriminate against their orientation?
Click to expand...

"Us"? "We" can discriminate however we like in our social interactions, etc. What we can't do is go "curb-stomping" because we don't like the cut of some dude's jib. This is simply solved: If you don't like someone, stay away from them.

Whether it's because you think homosexuals are sinners and will burn in a sea of fire for eternity because they're attracted to different person-parts than you are, or because you suspect that Dr. Lector's release might have been a bit premature and he's liable to recidivism...in either case, the solution is the same. Take care of yourself and yours, participate in the political process, observe the Law, and MYOFB.
 
In the context of I'd rather curb stomp a guy. (Plead guilty to aggravated sexual assault of two minor boys and not something less sinister) than occupy the same room as him. That does not mean that I said let's form a lynch mob. Is that computing now?

Now continue to diminish the fact that he plead guilty to a serious crime. Not streaking or juggling his junk in public or angry parents of a 17 yo girl when he was 18.

I'd feel nothing but disgust and contempt for such a person.

Is that cleat enough for you? So you can play your logic games about not knowing the facts. Speculate about what he may or may not be guilty of. Enjoy, oh and you bible scholars might check out Matt 18:6 when it comes to hurting children.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Besides.

The guy has been to the slammer. He's most likely tougher than 99% of us after that.
 
desertdog71 said:
I'd feel nothing but disgust and contempt for such a person.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that they wouldn't feel the same about "such a person". Certainly I'd be right there with you in my revulsion if I came in to contact with someone who was guilty of all of the things that have been suggested about this (supposed) person. But we're still tilting with windmills on this one, as the OP has gotten suspiciously quiet about how he knows what he knows about this anonymous dude. And, even presuming that everything the OP said about this guy is true, the Law has released him, and, in my view, it's our civic duty (unpopular word these days, I know) to leave him alone. The Law doesn't just give Freedoms, it also delineates Responsabilities. Can't have one without the other, etc etc.

It's possible to dislike people without beating their heads in. I believe it's commonly referred to as "Civilization".

My suspicion is that the OP heard a few things about this guy, posted in the hopes of getting an Interwebz Lynch Mob riled, didn't feel like the response was up to the levels of bloodlust he was shooting for, so sweetened the pot with some Kiddieporn, cause, really, who approves of THAT? But what do I know? Nothing. And neither does anyone else. Now, back to the e-lynching of an imaginary person.
 
I will give greater detail tomorrow when I can get on a desktop.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
JJ8Flyer said:
I will give greater detail tomorrow when I can get on a desktop.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...

Nah, don't worry about it. I presume you're not doing your BFR there so we have plenty of information to help you solidify that decision.
 
Boris Badenov said:
OP has gotten suspiciously quiet about how he knows what he knows about this anonymous dude. And, even presuming that everything the OP said about this guy is true, the Law has released him, and, in my view, it's our civic duty (unpopular word these days, I know) to leave him alone. The Law doesn't just give Freedoms, it also delineates Responsabilities. Can't have one without the other, etc etc.
Click to expand...

I had to return to the original post to see if there was a question on the table. Nope, just a request to discuss. What do we know? A registered sex offender appears to be living and working within the law. There doesn't appear to be a condition that presents a moral dilemma or call to action.

So, what's left, a discussion about preventing registered sex offenders and/or felons from flying in one or more capacities? He can't hide his past, so he's probably stuck as a CFI. He certainly won't get a 121 gig. Job stability might be the best thing society can hope for.

Interestingly enough, there is some research to suggest that employment and normal social interactions reduces recidivism rates among pedophiles, according to my mom and sister who are both therapists. So, his gainful employment might be a social positive. Everybody draws a line. My sister will work with sex offenders but not animal abusers.
 
scooter2525 said:
Click to expand...


WOT?! :)

Screen Shot 2013-08-04 at 11.54.47 PM.png
 
Derg said:
One of my mothers neighbors ended up on "the list" when he urinated in his own fenced backyard and a parent called the police about what the children "might have seen" through the knots in the wooden fence.
Click to expand...

A similar thing happened to a friend in college. He relieved himself in an alleyway behind a bar at 0200 in the morning. He was a veteran recently back from a war and had earned his right to drink more than he should have.

Fortunately for him, that was was many years before anyone thought about constructing "the list". When we talked about it he said the worst part was the small town newspaper printed all of the arrests and court cases, so he got to appear in the newspaper twice for indecent exposure.
 
I have a funny public urination story, but it's for "over beers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top