On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:35:47 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
(in article <c001j4palin9hqa1jfg2otl8uk1lta5ase@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:50:27 GMT, "Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Brandon D Cartwright" <user@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:lrsui4tdaueleqfn2hu26gsgmmnmbkimrj@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:37:12 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>> <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Accused pedophile doctor worked with Brisbane kids
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24671082-5006786,00.htm
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>> A DOCTOR arrested in Bulgaria for allegedly having sex with underage
>>>> boys had worked in a children's hospital in Brisbane, health
>>>> authorities believe.
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Lee Smith, 35, who travelled to Bulgaria on a tourist visa was
>>>> arrested there early this month on child sex charges.
>>>>
>>>> Mater Health Services today confirmed that a doctor they believed to
>>>> be Dr Smith worked in the Mater Adult Hospital, Mater Mothers'
>>>> Hospital and Mater Children's Hospital since January 14, 2008.
>>>>
>>>> He did not work in the Mater Children's Private Hospital.
>>>>
>>>> Dr Smith worked in the Mater Children's Emergency Department from July
>>>> 21 to August 24 and the surgical unit from August 25 to October 24.
>>>>
>>>> As a junior doctor he worked under supervision.
>>>>
>>>> A hospital spokesperson said it was unlikely Dr Smith would have been
>>>> in contact with children without either a parent or staff present.
>>>>
>>>> The news of his arrest shocked his co-workers and supervisors.
>>>>
>>>> "Mater Health Services had conducted a comprehensive investigation
>>>> into this doctor's history and has found no complaints or grounds for
>>>> concern throughout his employment," the hospital said.
>>>>
>>>> In accordance with Mater policy, Dr Smith passed a criminal history
>>>> check before his tenure began.
>>>>
>>>> The doctor is no longer employed by Mater Health Services.
>>>>
>>>> Mater Health Services said it was still awaiting confirmation of the
>>>> doctor's identity from official sources.
>>
>>
>> Is cut and paste all you're capable of?
>
> News in newsgroups some sort of problem for you is it?
>
> --
>
>
http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_U
> S&PageId=3084
>
> There are those who maintain that there is a distinction between viewing
> child pornography and molesting a child.
>
> This is another fallacy. Viewing these images is often the first step in
> the timeline that eventually leads to the sexual victimization of a child.
> Dr. Andres Hernandez, Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at the
> Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, North Carolina, has treated
> several hundred inmates who were convicted of child pornography crimes.
>
> He conducted a study which found that 85% of child pornography offenders
> had, in fact, committed contact sexual crimes which were unknown to law
> enforcement. Dr. Hernandez asserts, that, while there needs to be further
>
> This is supported by another study, published in the Journal of Abnormal
> Psychology, which suggests that child pornography offending is a stronger
> diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child
> victims.[2]
>
> It is also known that images of child pornography are used in the
> victimization of children to desensitize them to sexual exploitation. They
> natural inhibitions and defense mechanisms.
>
> Let me close by reminding you what the Supreme Court held in the Ferber case:
>
> children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de
>
> The value of our children is not de minimus. They deserve the best protection
> our laws can provide.
>
> Thank you.
>
> 1 Statement of Dr. Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight
> and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of
> Representatives, September 26, 2006.
>
> Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 3, 2006.
>
>
> TESTIMONY OF CAROLYN ATWELL-DAVIS
>
> Director of Legislative Affairs
>
> THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
>
> for the MARYLAND SENATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE
>
> March 7, 2007
>
>
>
>
Clearly there is a distinction between viewing pornography and actually
molesting a child. To say that is not so is patently absurd.
Like the old saw that smoking marijauna is the first step to heroin
addiction, so we now hear that viewing pornography is the first step to
molesting children.
As an offer of proof we hear that many of those incarcerated for molestation
and pornography felonies have viewed pornograpy and/or committed crimes for
which they have not been prosecuted. That proves absolutely nothing of a
causal nature at all. It is not even a predictive statement. And, that
assumes that any of these self-selected respondents can be believed in the
first place.
Virtually every study of the relationship between viewing pornography and
actual molestation has been conducted using, as subjects, individuals who
have been convicted of molestation. As a group they are, like most
prisoners, trying to improve their situations by telling authorities whatever
they think the authorities want to hear. This is hardly a credible source.
While they may have indeed been users of pornograpy, that also proves
nothing.
The vast majority of pornography users commit no sexual crimes what so ever
(other than the aforesaid viewing which is a criminal activity in some
venues). Millions of people view pornography of one kind or another on the
internet and elsewhere and there are not millions of sex crimes (against
persons).
It is important to realize also, that the first question to ask in such
research is what is the bias? There are no unbiased research studies. So
whether or not there is bias is not a useful question. The better question
is what is the bias?
The reporting cited here is brought to us by NCMEC who depend on child
pornography and child molestation and the fear engendered therefrom for their
careers and their budgets. These are the same people who label sex between
an adult and a 17 year old as being pedophilia which it clearly is not (by
defnition).
Likewise the cited Dr. Andres E. Hernandez is not credible. The study he
did (which was reviewed (poorly) in the NY Times) was done at the bureau of
prisons and was so seriously flawed methodologically that it was never
published or released. None of its conclusions are worth mentioning and the
results were, appropriately, shelved. N.B. It is worth noting that Atty.
General Gonzales (whose reputation couldn't be lower) commissioned the study
all but directing that those conclusions be reported. The effort to please
him caused the study methodology to wildly distorted.
As for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, one could make a large bonfire
from the crap they've published over the years. Most psychiatrists and
psychologists (who are the folks who publish there) are little more than
witch doctors. Certainly what they practice in psychotherapy or
psychoanalysis is not , in any way, science.
Sorry, but those who wish to establish a causal link between viewing
pornography and child molestation have no evidence (scientific anyway) to
support the assertion.
Perhaps some will be forthcoming, but I personally doubt it for the reason I
stated earlier. Millions view pornography and there are nowhere near
millions of sex crimes. That would support a prima facie argument against
the causal relationship.
Further it is well known that the vast majority of child molestation cases do
not involved strangers, but rather family members and family friends.
Pornography would not seem to be an issue in those cases.
From USA Today (Nov. 24th) we see:
against adolescents ages 12 to 17 plunged 79% from 1993 through 2003, and the
number of substantiated sex-abuse cases involving kids of all ages fell 39%
in the same time period. Finkelhor, who has analyzed the data, sees multiple
reasons for the decline: Greater incarceration of offenders, more therapy and
use of psychiatric drugs, economic improvement in the 1990s and heightened
public concern.
So while internet sexual content is increasing, sex crimes against juveniles
are decreasing.
Of course, the facts do get in the way of good old fashioned hysteria and
witch hunting. The Salem witch trials are now a national embarrassment. So
too is the current hysteria over sex crimes. Criminalizing the viewing of
images of naked boys (non-sexual) is debased in its own right. Do children
not have genetalia? Are they dirty or naughty parts of the anatomy?
|
|