-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
I know exactly what I am talking about as in doing prison ministry I did research on the type of people I would be dealing with. In the research it came back that what people and the media have been saying about these people are lies, as those that go through the court ordered classes and finish them are least likely to reoffend then other offenders.
You just said you can not speak authoritatively and it is not your area of specialty, but now you are going to argue with somebody who has done the research on this subject??? You make no sense !!!
Then you post something from Harvard and I would caution you to use them for a source as they have made a number of false claims in the past.
Again I have done personal research and study on this subject and the findings completely refute that they can not be rehabilitated. Anybody can be rehabilitated if handled in the right manner and also if the person wants to change !!!
V
That qualifies you to say or know absolutely nothing about the mental health aspects of the disease. I don't care whether you "did research" or not, you're not qualified to make a statement such as you made, particularly when qualified mental health researchers and professionals have shown such statements to be 100% wrong. The professionals you supposedly worked with in MoDOC would laugh in your face if you said something that asinine to them.
Back off, Ken, you're in a face-losing situation here. These two posts have you saying you "know more" than the experts, including Harvard Med. You can only make yourself look stupid -- more than you already have.
Back off, Ken, you're in a face-losing situation here. These two posts have you saying you "know more" than the experts, including Harvard Med. You can only make yourself look stupid -- more than you already have.
Last edited:
K
It amazes me how you would argue on an issue even though you admitted you know nothing about this !!!
I have done the research and rather you like it or not the percentage of reoffenders for sex offenses is less then other offenses.
Get over yourself and your hateful attitude toward others, and how can you claim another is wrong when you admitted you don't know ???
I have done the research and rather you like it or not the percentage of reoffenders for sex offenses is less then other offenses.
Get over yourself and your hateful attitude toward others, and how can you claim another is wrong when you admitted you don't know ???
K
No the statistics I have seen include all sex offenders, not just one group over the other as they are all ordered to take these classes. Then they are given strict boundary lines to live by, and in some places are kept on lifetime monitoring so that their every steps are known.
For I have looked into this by talking to them, reading up on the classes and talking to therapists who lead these groups, and even read up on the monitoring process and boundary lines they have to live by.
I am not denying that some do re-offend as that is obvious, but compared to other offenses they have the smallest percentage of re-offenders.
For I have looked into this by talking to them, reading up on the classes and talking to therapists who lead these groups, and even read up on the monitoring process and boundary lines they have to live by.
I am not denying that some do re-offend as that is obvious, but compared to other offenses they have the smallest percentage of re-offenders.
K
That is partly true as some do have to have those guidelines kept on them to keep re-offending, however this is not the case in all situations. Some do change and to state they can't, then that is putting a restriction on the working power of the Holy Spirit to help people overcome this sinful behavior.
I refuse to put such restrictions on the Holy Spirit just because man made society wants us to think a certain way.
I use to be the type of person who was totally disgusted and hateful toward these types of people, until God by the Holy Spirit had me do prison ministry and talk to them and do some background research. I could not believe all the things society and our controlled media tells people, that I found out was completely falsified.
All sins can be healed and overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit working in a person, as I have even seen a few homosexuals stop being gay as well.
We should try to not look at things through carnal eyes, and realize God can do all things, including changing some of the most vial of people !!!
I refuse to put such restrictions on the Holy Spirit just because man made society wants us to think a certain way.
I use to be the type of person who was totally disgusted and hateful toward these types of people, until God by the Holy Spirit had me do prison ministry and talk to them and do some background research. I could not believe all the things society and our controlled media tells people, that I found out was completely falsified.
All sins can be healed and overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit working in a person, as I have even seen a few homosexuals stop being gay as well.
We should try to not look at things through carnal eyes, and realize God can do all things, including changing some of the most vial of people !!!
V
Masters in Behavioral Psychology, University of Missouri '97 (BA, '92), currently working on Ph.D in Behavioral Psychology at MU, Addictions and Family Therapist certifications, MA, BA, LAC, LMFT, seventeen years in practice, Masters thesis on PTSD, Cocurrent Events of Domestic Violence as Influenced by Drug, Alcohol, and Pathological (now "disordered," in DSM-5) Gambling, published in American Addictions Journal, 6(4) p. 247-256. Over 20 years in addictions counseling (thanks to Missouri's former practice of not requiring a degree for an addictions certification), including work with felons still incarcerated, veterans, homeless vets, and the homeless in general at the Salvation Army, VA, and as a referral professional for Wounded Warriors Project.
Good enough?
Good enough?
Ken,
You're perfectly correct on several points, but a bit shy of total accuracy.
Yes, for the large part, we, the public, have been sold a bill of goods by, mainly politicians... and we have, quite expectedly, swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. Can't do much about the gullibility and paranoia of humans. That's just the way we are. (And you happen to have found one who runs rampant with even a hint of scandal, as "the truth." Can't do much about him, either.)
While the recidivism rate is lower in those who successfully completed the programs, there is a bit more to it.
The "In House" programs run by the prison system aren't as effective as they could be. The rate from these programs hardly reaches 50% of people remaining straight. However, the courses done in the free world reach as high as 80% never getting in trouble again.
The deceptive part of this tracking, however, is that those numbers reflect ANY future incarceration, for ANY crime. And because they are often on parole for a Sex Offence, THAT is how they are usually classified upon re-arrest. In other words, if a Sex Offender violates his parole for being out of his specified area... or he is caught drinking... or fails in reporting on time... or if he "violates" in any of several other ways, he is cataloged as a re-offending Sex Offender. And, on paper (which is how most "reports" are compiled) , he shows up as reoffending under the same statute as he was originally arrested.
It has been my experience that "true" reoffending (those that do the same type crime again... a Sex Crime) runs about 30% for "In House" treatment, and about 15% for "after release" treatment. Lower than the rate
And there are a variety of reasons for this, (what I consider "too high"), a rate. But that is another long subject, often having nothing to do with exclusive "attraction" to children as sex objects. Until you see the oppressively rigid restrictions the laws you and I have allowed to be passed force upon a person, you have no understanding that even YOU can be driven to desperate means to simply feed yourself, let alone free yourself from all the unceasing vigilante harassment.
By the way, they are often re-arrested for altercations with us "good citizens" doing our best to make their lives a living hell while they are on parole or probation.... until we force them to finally react to our mental torture. Then, they are, again, considered a "Reoffending Sex Offender", although their "crime" might have been cussing out one of their tormentors.
Although I was skeptical when I was first asked by a friend, to help him with this program, it took less than two or three years for me to be genuinely surprised at the "honest" success rate in restructuring the thinking and perceptions of these men.... and several women, too.
Are they all helped? Of course not. But, of the thousands, very literally, that I have dealt with, I would estimate that the recidivism rate for true "Sex" crimes is probably in the single digits.
You're perfectly correct on several points, but a bit shy of total accuracy.
Yes, for the large part, we, the public, have been sold a bill of goods by, mainly politicians... and we have, quite expectedly, swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. Can't do much about the gullibility and paranoia of humans. That's just the way we are. (And you happen to have found one who runs rampant with even a hint of scandal, as "the truth." Can't do much about him, either.)
While the recidivism rate is lower in those who successfully completed the programs, there is a bit more to it.
The "In House" programs run by the prison system aren't as effective as they could be. The rate from these programs hardly reaches 50% of people remaining straight. However, the courses done in the free world reach as high as 80% never getting in trouble again.
The deceptive part of this tracking, however, is that those numbers reflect ANY future incarceration, for ANY crime. And because they are often on parole for a Sex Offence, THAT is how they are usually classified upon re-arrest. In other words, if a Sex Offender violates his parole for being out of his specified area... or he is caught drinking... or fails in reporting on time... or if he "violates" in any of several other ways, he is cataloged as a re-offending Sex Offender. And, on paper (which is how most "reports" are compiled) , he shows up as reoffending under the same statute as he was originally arrested.
It has been my experience that "true" reoffending (those that do the same type crime again... a Sex Crime) runs about 30% for "In House" treatment, and about 15% for "after release" treatment. Lower than the rate
And there are a variety of reasons for this, (what I consider "too high"), a rate. But that is another long subject, often having nothing to do with exclusive "attraction" to children as sex objects. Until you see the oppressively rigid restrictions the laws you and I have allowed to be passed force upon a person, you have no understanding that even YOU can be driven to desperate means to simply feed yourself, let alone free yourself from all the unceasing vigilante harassment.
By the way, they are often re-arrested for altercations with us "good citizens" doing our best to make their lives a living hell while they are on parole or probation.... until we force them to finally react to our mental torture. Then, they are, again, considered a "Reoffending Sex Offender", although their "crime" might have been cussing out one of their tormentors.
Although I was skeptical when I was first asked by a friend, to help him with this program, it took less than two or three years for me to be genuinely surprised at the "honest" success rate in restructuring the thinking and perceptions of these men.... and several women, too.
Are they all helped? Of course not. But, of the thousands, very literally, that I have dealt with, I would estimate that the recidivism rate for true "Sex" crimes is probably in the single digits.
Last edited:
You want a real "eye-opener?" Go find yourself the % of Sex Offenders (Yes, even Child Molesters) that are Pedophiles. I could hardly believe how low it was, and I worked with Sex Offenders for decades.
In just shy of 25 years, officially, and probably 15, casually, I doubt I ran across more than 6 Pedophiles.
In just shy of 25 years, officially, and probably 15, casually, I doubt I ran across more than 6 Pedophiles.
V
You do realize, don't you, that the main reason for that is that child molesters rarely see the light of day again post-conviction?
It is you who makes no sense, as you are not even qualified to read psychological research. You can claim all you want that you have "done the research," but that involves far more than looking stuff up on the Internet.
Do you even know that you have to have nine hours of "Research Methods" education before you are allowed to cite research in scholarly papers with any authority? Probably not, nor do you realize that means you are unaware, due to your lay education, as to what the word "research" actually means.
For example, research doesn't actually "prove" anything. It only points to probables, and "indicates" rather than proves. Nothing from the viewpoint of psychology or psychiatry -- or for that matter, any of the sciences -- is "knowable" by any absolutes. Only trends, indications, and likelihoods. We shy away from making statements regarding how any one client or patient will react, because each person being a unique individual means that no one knows -- not even the individual -- what they will do until they are confronted with a situation.
So I say with no offense intended that your claims are worthless. One, because you don't have the necessary knowledge to interpret scholarly research. Two, because any "research" you do is filtered through media that have no better understanding of what actual research is than you do.
So, while I may have allowed by one unique individuality to show through in my other posts in expressing an irrational anger for your blanket statements, I can still say, with confidence, two things: You don't know enough to know what you don't know. For that matter, neither do I -- but I'm educated enough to know how dangerous are my personal opinions. And, the likelihood of a child predator reoffending upon release from custody is nearly twice as high as any other ex-felon who was imprisoned for any other crime, including other sex crimes.
It is you who makes no sense, as you are not even qualified to read psychological research. You can claim all you want that you have "done the research," but that involves far more than looking stuff up on the Internet.
Do you even know that you have to have nine hours of "Research Methods" education before you are allowed to cite research in scholarly papers with any authority? Probably not, nor do you realize that means you are unaware, due to your lay education, as to what the word "research" actually means.
For example, research doesn't actually "prove" anything. It only points to probables, and "indicates" rather than proves. Nothing from the viewpoint of psychology or psychiatry -- or for that matter, any of the sciences -- is "knowable" by any absolutes. Only trends, indications, and likelihoods. We shy away from making statements regarding how any one client or patient will react, because each person being a unique individual means that no one knows -- not even the individual -- what they will do until they are confronted with a situation.
So I say with no offense intended that your claims are worthless. One, because you don't have the necessary knowledge to interpret scholarly research. Two, because any "research" you do is filtered through media that have no better understanding of what actual research is than you do.
So, while I may have allowed by one unique individuality to show through in my other posts in expressing an irrational anger for your blanket statements, I can still say, with confidence, two things: You don't know enough to know what you don't know. For that matter, neither do I -- but I'm educated enough to know how dangerous are my personal opinions. And, the likelihood of a child predator reoffending upon release from custody is nearly twice as high as any other ex-felon who was imprisoned for any other crime, including other sex crimes.
Last edited:
K
I did not say you did just stating that I do not put worldly understanding above and before God and the working power of His Holy Spirit !!!
To Willie-T I don't disagree with what you said in post #34, just didn't go into detail.
I seen one guy in prison who was there for forgery but they had him classified as a re-offending sex offender because of a sex offense he did in 98. Sad they state re-offender for a different offense.
Windows 10 will not let me post to long post some times without getting booted !!!
To Willie-T I don't disagree with what you said in post #34, just didn't go into detail.
I seen one guy in prison who was there for forgery but they had him classified as a re-offending sex offender because of a sex offense he did in 98. Sad they state re-offender for a different offense.
Windows 10 will not let me post to long post some times without getting booted !!!