Problems in Sex Crime Policy Advocacy

I have advocated certain policy reforms that many would argue are "soft" on sex crimes.  I've also advocated reforms that might be perceived as being unfairly "hard" on sex crimes.  In each case, I may find myself agreeing with persons who I disagree with on a great many matters.  This problem of the metaphorical "strange bedfellows" has long been true with sexual issues.  Famously, feminists and the religious right aligned against pornography.

This problem of uniting coalitions with different agendas has recently reared its ugly head in the area of sex offender policy reform.  The organization SOhopeful came to advocate a lot of changes in policy for the ways sex offenders are treated by our society.  I agreed strongly with their views against the use of residency restrictions for all offenders.  Unfortunately, some of the people who agreed with their agenda were also persons who would do great harm to children.  These child pornographers and molesters opposed sex offender restrictions not for moral or policy reasons.  Instead, they hoped to be less controlled so they could fulfill their illegal and immoral desires.  To the detriment of SOhopeful, one of the latter group was the organization's executive director.  From a news account:

Before he was indicted in a global child porn ring, James Freeman was a registered sex offender leading a campaign to reform Megan’s Law.

“It is illogical to present a system that tracks non-violent, one-crime one-victim, lowest-risk sex offenders as a benefit to public safety,” reads a statement at SOhopeful.org, where Freeman was listed as executive director until his indictment Tuesday.

The group emphasizes it does not excuse sex offenses or abuse. With the 47-year-old Freeman indicted on a slew of federal child porn charges, his name has been erased from the Web site. SOhopeful’s executive director position was listed as “unfilled” Friday.

Because of Freeman's indictment, the organization has disbanded.  This is an unfortunate reality of a world with overlapping coalitions.  Horrible and evil organizations like NAMBLA may agree with me and others about residency restrictions.  That sometimes makes me feel a little guilty.  But I also know that my reasons for opposing residency restrictions are because I believe the evidence supports the notion that they do not decrease sex crimes (and may actually increase them).  Nonetheless, in a world of coalitions, the criminals of the world may see me as an ally.  I wish it weren't true, but it is the nature of the sex-crime beast.  Hopefully, organizations like SOhopeful will take more protective steps to remove the Freeman's from their midst.  It is difficult to do, but it is a necessary step to prevent the discrediting of a set of policy preferences that are supported by substantial evidence.

Comments

[George]

That's devastating. Everything about it is devastating. This is going to take some thought.

[Mark]

This is a prime example of why the whole 'sex offense' movement is totally screwed up.

One corner you have parents living in fear, demanding more laws be in place because of whats shown in the media and the fear their local politician leads them to believe.

Other corner you have sex offenders wanting to be treated like normal citizens but still doing the thing that got them on the sex offender registry to start with.

Then the other two corners are occupied by politicians.

One set of politicians trying to get reelected by making tougher laws to please the parents in the opposite corner.

Other corner staring at the sex offenders are politicians that want even more stricter laws on sex offenders but fantasize about doing the nasty with the underage senator's aide.

whose the lesser of 4 evils?

[Dave]

At this point, I believe the whole advocacy movement is a lost cause and should be abandoned. A tonal shift in the psyche of Western society will take a generation or two, if it comes at all. Corey and others can write as many well thought out, logical papers on why laws need to be reversed or amended as they please, but I think everyone knows it's just, pardon the phrase, pissing in the wind. Continuing to fight for civility among sex offender discussion and policy is a foolish game, and this kind of story is akin to the killing blow.

The best everyone can hope for is, at this point, a freeze on the status quo. I doubt that will happen.

[David Hess]

This was obviously a devastating blow to the advocacy movement. It is not the end of it. The work still needs to be done. Facts need to get out. They are. John Stossel's reports on Friday's 20/20 program are an excellent example.

Sadly, leaders often have clay feet, no matter whether you are talking about James Freeman or Eliot Spitzer (I by no means want to imply an equivalence between their actions).

[George]

David Hess makes a good point. Of particular interest is the "Vigilante" Petra Luna video and the discussions on "John's Message Board" (that range from what appears to be a maddening pedophile arguing for no laws to a few victims arguing for throw away the key) but the overall tone seems to be rational and more evidence-based. The debate is far different than it was 5 or 10 years ago. No one seems to support the "Vigilante" and she is actually booed.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020

It it also important to keep in mind that the FBI undoubtedly did a thorough investigation and cleared all the other members of SoHopeful, and the FBI likely investigated if it was any of their children that were filmed while abused and tortured as well. We can assume not.

One question that nags, why did it take over 2 years to bust the ring and were the rescued children being abused all that time?

[oldman inmaine]

The on going hysteria concerning sex offender issues and laws need to be address and corrected in its purpose for truly protecting the people on a whole. The present policy seems to have been base on ill used data. When we as a people start to toss all peoples of one class into the same shoe box, it will, contain other then just the guilty. All through history there has been people fighting for causes that had hidden agendas that were canceled to hid their own illegal involvement in some unhanded activity. Yet, if the force behind the requested reform was base on truth, in the end the people were able to see the message for the truth it held. I thank you for being able to back up and look at the whole picture on this issue.

[David Hess]

It also should be noted that the sex offender registry and residency laws did nothing to prevent Mr. Freeman's crimes.

loved this part! "Hopefully, organizations like SOhopeful will take more protective steps to remove the Freeman's from their midst. It is difficult to do, but it is a necessary step to prevent the discrediting of a set of policy preferences that are supported by substantial evidence."

seeing as individuals in charge at all lvl's of Govt have been involved and convicted up and including the us congress guess we need to DISBAND them all!

I knew almost nothing about SOhopeful until now and didn't realize the organization was very active politically and indeed had some influence on the AWA debate. While it is doubtful legal entrapment would be feasible given his record, could one of the unindicted have enticed him in a sting? He apparently joined after the ring was established. The possibility does nothing to extenuate his crime, if guilty, but the government in the past has been more than happy to play "dirty tricks" to archive political gain, and what a victory it is.

[Guy]

I think it might be a bit hasty to assume that Mr. Freeman was advocating for reforms so that it would be easier for him to commit his crimes. Restricting where one can live would seem to have little effect on whether or not one can participate in a child pornography ring.

Even though it shouldn't, this will come off as -- at best -- at blow to the credibility of SO advocacy.

[none]

This is too bad. The vast majority of registered sex offenders are men who have made a single mistake that has transformed their lives. In contrast, the NAMBLA types seem to be defined by their sexual perversions. Unfortunately, the sex offender label lumps in the guy who had a single underage girlfriend with the guy who spends a lifetime stalking 8 year olds.

[JENNIFER DREW]

One important point needs to be clarified. Feminists who oppose pornography have never, never aligned with the Religious Right. That is is misinformation deliberately perpetrated by pro-pornographers. The religious Right is not interested in women's real sexual autonomy but like pornographers their sole aim is to subordinate and control women. Catherine McKinnon has frequently challenged this lie.

[Corey Rayburn Yung]

Jennifer Drew,

I'm not sure how it is a "lie." Perhaps you are arguing that the religious right and feminists have never formed a joint coalition and lobbied together. If that's your point, I agree. However, I only intended to say that religious forces and feminist forces "aligned" in the sense that they supported some, but not all, of the same policies concerning pornography. Maybe I wasn't precise. Nonetheless, I don't think anything I have said is "misinformation" or a "lie."

Respectfully,

Corey Yung

[Anonymous]

Speaking of PetraLuna and her vigilantes, who love to harass any and all sex offenders, they have even attacked a victim of sexual abuse.

See the law suit against these people, here:

http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article28.html