Obsessed Much?

Unfortunate (4.00 / 1)

Juan, the most significant factors in whether an ex-con is convicted of a new crime -- and there is absolutely no difference between sex offenders and any other kind of offenders insofar as factors supporting reoffense are concerned -- are, does the ex-con have a job? a place to live? in treatment to keep whatever addictions he/she may have in remission, and some sort of community support, i.e., family, friends, coworkers, a volunteer job on a campaign .... ?

OBVIOUSLY this man should not be out in charge of the campaign's youth outreach (and it should be noted that his status as a sex offender was known to those who needed to know -- as it should be), but after that -- get over it. He's paid the price. He's a citizen again. 

We deny ex-cons work. We refuse to let them live in our communities. We eliminate (or never fund in the first place) substance abuse treatment programs in favor of 'no tolerance' law enforcement. And we reject those deemed 'pariahs' without even the pretense of thought. THEN we wonder, why do these guys keep committing crimes? Haven't they learned their lesson yet?

Yeah, they've learned a lesson, all right ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 13:58:52 PM UTC

Not quite ... (4.00 / 1)

"our society has judged - rightly or wrongly - that this man has done his time and paid his due to society."

Actually, our society has judged that sex offenders can never pay their due to society.  Megan's Law and the like make them criminals for their entire life.

I do not, by the way, support that.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 14:12:33 PM UTC

good point nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 14:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The demogoguing of this subject... (4.00 / 1)

By those who do such things so well, has turned us into a slavering mob, interested not in justice, but revenge. If we could figure out how to charge friends and family members of the convicted, I fear we would.

By denying those who have paid their recompense to society the right to involve themselves in civic life, we only increase the likelihood of recividism.


The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 14:29:37 PM UTC

Mixed feelings (0.00 / 0)

On the one hand, I really can't stand the demagoguery of an ex-con.  Isn't it a GOOD thing when an ex-con has served his or her time and then works hard to be a citizen of society again?  I agree totally with Juan and Dennis on that.  Where's our compassion, our sense of fairness as a society? 

On the other hand, I just as strongly disagree, based on the research, that sex crimes are no different from other crimes.  Sex crime recidivism is way higher.

So where I come out on this is -- yeah, hire the guy, but not in that position.

All this said, Sandy Cunningham - if the campaign were actually about issues rather than mudslinging - is an incredibly progressive candidate who'd make a great state Senator.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 16:00:15 PM UTC

Recidivism Rates: Facts vs. Fiction (0.00 / 0)

It is almost impossible to make a blanket statement about "sex offender" recidivism rates that is meaningful, because you are describing a wide variety of offenders and a wide variety of crimes. For instance, in California, cruising for sex and getting caught nets you a Tier 1 Megan's Law rap. Does that make George Michael a recidivist?

There is a lengthy article, published on the website of the Center for Sex Offender Management, A Project of the Offie of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, (see http://www.csom.org/... ) which quotes in part from a 1990 study:

Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:
·Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
·Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
·Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
·Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
·Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.

And also:

In Hanson and Bussiere?s meta-analysis, 61 research studies met the criteria for inclusion, with all utilizing a longitudinal design and a comparison group. Across all studies, the average sex offense recidivism rate (as evidenced by rearrest or reconviction) was 18.9 percent for rapists and 12.7 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. The rate of recidivism for nonsexual violent offenses was 22.1 percent for rapists and 9.9 percent for child molesters, while the recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists was 46.2 percent and 36.9 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. However, as has been noted previously and as these authors warn, one should be cautious in the interpretation of the data as these studies involved a range of methods and follow-up periods.

Now, at the risk of pulling another meaningless number our of my, umm, well, you know from where, as best as I can recall, recidivism rates across the board for all crimes is 40%, and THAT includes technical violations of parole. So I don?t agree that "sex offenders have WAY higher rates of recidivism." That's a meme that persists despite all evidence to the contrary.

And, even if it were true, banning ex-offenders from participating in the social life of the nation, within the obvious limits that prudence would dictate, would tend to raise, not lower, the incidence of recidivism.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 16:48:58 PM UTC

Seeing these statistics (0.00 / 0)

I would have to stand by my sentiment - I support 100 percent doing everything we can to help ex-cons - on that I agree with you totally, Dennis.  I think the attacks on Sandra have been demagogic.  Once someone has served time, that should be it. 

But these statistics, if anything, harden my view that the staffer in question should not have been assigned to that particular position.  If rapists and child molesters' recidivism ranged anywhere from seven to 40 percent, then even the 7 percent is way too much for me to want that staffer assigned to the position he held.  The 40 percent is a shock.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 18:09:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 2)

First, I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no horse in this race at all.  I could care less if Cunningham or Manzo win. 

One of the things that goes unnoticed in this story, however, is that Cunningham and her husband started a non-profit to help ex-cons get jobs.  Whatever else can be said, at least she is living what she preaches.

On the other hand, Manzo has picked Gerald McCann as a running mate.  One side hires an ex-con from her non-profit as she preaches, the other picks an ex-con to run with.

Sounds to me like the focus of the campaign is slanted a bit.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 17:32:25 PM UTC

Dirt (0.00 / 0)

This is just another area in which it becomes clear that anything can be turned into a campaign ad or hit job.  In 2004 there was this whole thing in Florida about felons canvassing for ACT.  The GOP turned it into a news story.  The sad fact is that it is effective.  People tend not to feel sympathy for felons and especially not sex offenders.  It is also a difficult thing to fight.  I doubt we will see a campaign not cave into this kind of pressure anytime soon.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 18:15:03 PM UTC

Welcome to Hudson County Folks (0.00 / 0)

This election is an absolute blood-lust war -- guns are drawn and the safties are off.  I'm going to excerpt an email discussion Steven and I had earlier today because it explains my views on this. 

"The felon ratio is still weighing far heavier on Manzo than Sandy . . . this guy was a volunteer, not her Chief of Staff who has a reputation of trying to rig elections . . . including one he's being sued over currently (ladies and gentlemen, Gerry McCaan).  The "find a felon" game is pretty typical for Hudson elections . . . especially if McCaan is involved since he's got to shift focus off his own misdeeds . . . no one's going to hold back a vote or stay home because of a campaign volunteer."

What tends to happen up here it that the campaigns have supporters who will do nothing but work to keep a BS story like this alive on the blogs to distract voters either from issues or their own skeletons.  In areas where there is a tamer standard, I understand how ridiculous this looks, but up here . . . we're pretty used to this.

To Steven's point . . . I agree, you don't want to assign a convicted sex offender to knock on doors; however, how extensive is the background check any of us do prior to accepting someone who wants to volunteer?  Politics in Hudson is retail . . . grass roots at its finest.  Boots on the ground are invalueable.  This guy wasn't paid staff . . . I imagine he didn't ever hit Sandy's RADAR until his petitions were tossed. 

---

by: waltb313 @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 18:39:11 PM UTC

By the way, on the Cunningham vs Manzo race (0.00 / 0)

Two progressive organizations, Garden State Equality and Hudson Diversity Action Council, interviewed the candidates and investigated whom to endorse.  We acted totally separately and came to the same conclusion - Sandy Cunningham is the better and more progressive candidate.  After each organization made its endorsement, Walt and I talked... in this race, like the others, our organizations had a totally open mind.  We weren't biased toward either candidate.  Manzo could have won us over.  He didn't.  Sandy was extremely articulate and instantly, more clearly progressive.  She hemmed and hawed on nothing, stood with us on everything - I wish the entire Blue Jersey community could have heard.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 19:44:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed . . . (0.00 / 0)

. . . on the more local level, Sandy's community connection was also a huge bonus to add to her unwavering stance with our community.  Over the past several months, Sandy appered in support of a huge fundraiser to raise money for Hudson Pride Connections' pending building acquisition as well at HDAC's annual banquet.  While Manzo has been a great resource and a laudable legislator, in Sandy, we have someone who will WORK for us, not just vote for us.

A piece of Cunningham History
In 2001, JCLGO was working to get the first JC Pride festival off the ground and [then] Mayor Schundler denied all the permits.  Once Glen Cunningham took office on July 1, not only were the permits granted, but the city contributed grants and participated in the festival.  Glen and Sandy were a big part of that celebration. 

---

by: waltb313 @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 20:02:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PNJ always needs a joke/storyline to kill (0.00 / 0)

They're still playing Paul Arohnson/rotarian-American riff they're still playing months after the election.

Other targets have included Wayne Bryant (with the pig photo and the "oink oink" headlines), and Bob Martin, whom they've been calling "Mr. Potato Head" since the 2003 primary.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 18:43:45 PM UTC

I tend not to go to PNJ. (0.00 / 0)

I find the content of their coverage to be somewhere between "Star Magazine" and "Seventeen". Their new comments section makes me want to throw my monitor off my deck and since it is a 21 incher, that could give me quite the hernia. I have to watch out for these kinds of things these days: I ain't no young buck anymore. Alas.

So tell me, do they indulge in such sport with the hapless Republicans? Do they make such merry with a joker like Capt. Mikey "Slit Trench" Doherty? Len Lance? Any of the other Republicans with known and documented faults and frailties that come with the fact of being human?

Because if they don't, then they just, objectively speaking, suck.

If they get on a riff and work it to death, never changing it, they have become the cheap Catskill comedians of NJ politics.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 13:29:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do agree with you, Steven ... (0.00 / 0)

... now that I see that the person in question was engaged in gathering signatures, that that was not an appropriate activity for him to perform in support of the Cunningham campaign. That part I didn't know.

As I said, I'm totally in favor of exercising normal levels of prudence. If this man were stuffing envelopes in a roomful of other adults, I could care. Walking the streets in some semi-official capacity, clipboard in hand, fails the "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety" test. Agreed-not good.

But (and this is not a response to anything you specifically said but to the situation as a whole) regardless of the severity of a past crime, or the statistical likelihood of any one person committing another, the prospect of trying to maintain a segment of society in permanent suspended animation (ostracism in its truest form), while somehow expecting these persons will find a way to be productive, contributing citizens, is hopeless. Not only can't we afford it, it can't be done. And IMHO, the harder we try, the more likely we are to fail.  I don't think sex offenders under supervision should live too close to schools -- but banning them from entire towns?

  And anyone who has ever worked with ex-offenders knows how difficult it is for any of them, regardless of their crime, to get work. I wouldn't hire a known embezzler as my bookkeeper, for example -- but in most firms, a record is automatic disqualification for any job.

We want 'em to be good, but we don't give them the most basic tools -- the same shot at a job and a place to live -- that the rest of us get. And them we wonder why they fail on the outside.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed May 23, 2007 at 19:25:43 PM UTC