Church hires sex offenders

[951-Riverside]

They say they're doing God's work.

And to them that means even registered sex offenders deserve a chance.

"We are a church of redemption," said Robin Oerman, elder of personnel at The Church of the Valley.

The Apple Valley church recently hired a longtime parishioner and registered sex offender as their newest custodian. Due to what Oerman says are privacy issues, she would not release his name, but said it wasn't a hard decision for the church to make.

"It's kind of a non-event," she said.

The church is in close proximity to the town's new swimming pool which will soon be filled with youngsters. And the church has many young parishioners of its own.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/115642601950369.html

[pooja]

1. Sex Offender's are on my wary radar.... I know everyone is supposed

to have served there time and are rehabilitated, but prison doesn't rehabilitate... and releasing sex offenders without adressing the real issues to why a person feels a sexual desire for a child. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable knowing this.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. You're assuming the sex offender wasn't treated?

There is certainly a literature supporting the notion that at least some sex offenders can be successfully treated so as to substantially reduce the likelihood of reoffense. Some categories of sex offender are more responsive to treatment than others. This was MN, which does quite a lot to rehabilitate its offenders.

[Anakin Skywalker]

2. All I Can Say Is

good luck. *laughing* :)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Gotta replace the ones that got caught and or canned?? Pity.

[JuniperLea]

4. Having faith in God is one thing

Having faith in a human being who has so grossly and brutally injured another human being is pure stupidity, imho. I hope no one gets hurt. If anyone should get hurt, I hope the church officials are charged with negligence.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

If it were anything run by the church that didn't involve contact or a close proximity to children, I'd say it was a good thing. No child should knowingly be put at risk.

[madmusic]

7. How the hell do you know...

If he or she "brutally injured another human being"?

[951-Riverside]

8. Their conviction speaks for itself

In the state of California all registered sex offenders have commited "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14", this is why they are required (not forced) to register.

[Ayesha]

9. Not necessarily

Based on what I've seen on the public registry, rape of an adult gets an offender on there, and child porn related offenses and offenses on minors age 15 or 16 get them listed, but by zip code rather than exact address. Lesser offenses have to register, but only law enforcement has access to that info.

I had a bad experience with a construction company that employed a sex offender and sent him to do work in our home without notifying us at all. They also did CRAPPY work. When we found out about the nature of his crime, lewd acts on a child under 14, we immediately ended our relationship with the company. Unfortunately, the creep had the idea that we wanted to be friends with him, and called several times after that. It was scary, but we didn't answer the phone and thankfully he eventually must have gotten the hint.

I'm not a churchgoer, but if I was I wouldn't go to a church that hired serious sex offenders. And as 951-Riverside said, you have to have done something bad to be on the public registry in CA. Getting caught urinating in public, or a 19 year old with a 17-year-old girlfriend is not going to get somebody posted on there.

I am a therapist, and based on what I know, I believe that VERY FEW sex offenders can be rehabilitated. If the offense involved a victim under 15 and an offender over 21, or rape with battery or rape of a stranger, you're generally dealing with a very warped individual, someone with a sociopathic and/or narcissistic personality. There is no way for someone who lacks a conscience to develop one as an adult, they are simply too damaged. Those few sex offenders who know what they're doing is wrong AND care enough to want to stop doing it, often can't. It's really best for all involved that they be kept out of society.

[madmusic]

11. a therapist?

It is difficult to understand what you get paid for, unless it is to testify as an expert to help lock them up.

No offense, but this is a serious question. What is the point of providing therapy and getting paid for it if you know you can't do any good?

[Ayesha]

12. I don't work with sex offenders

and wouldn't want to. I have an intellectual interest in criminal psychology, however, so I have done a fair amount of reading on the topic. And yes, I don't see the point of it either, except that they are trying to help, trying strategies based on the best knowledge available. The problem is that it is next to impossible to treat a person who has no conscience. They don't have a sense of right and wrong to work with, they don't care that they are hurting people. Those structures in their psyche simply didn't develop, and never will. If they are sorry it is only sorry that they got caught. But they can put on a good act to convince people that they are not the monsters they truly are. If that were not the case, no women would have stopped to help Ted Bundy. They can even fool professionals, so again, it would be virtually impossible to know that such a person was no longer dangerous even if we did have a way to develop a conscience in them.

Not every serious sex offender is a sociopath, but as I said before, they all have urges to hurt women and/or children and a proven history of being unable to control those urges. Therefore, I believe the risk is too great to allow them into mainstream society. Why do women have to carry pepper spray and children can't play in their neighborhood anymore? WE are the ones whose rights are being violated by these offenders being allowed out of prison.

[madmusic]

15. Ayesha, even the worst statistics aren't 100%

A California Republican said there is a 90% recidivism rate, but treatment does help a lot. Though the studies vary, recidivism even after 25 years for the worst offenders is never over about 50%. In other words, even for the worst offenders mostly likely to re-offend, at least about 50% DO NOT re-offend (males who prefer boys). Believe me, I hate being in the position of appearing to be defending these guys, when I'm not, at all. But the politicians are pandering to the public and enacting laws they know will not help much. "Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States":

http://www.acic.org/statistics/Research/SO_Report_Final.pdf


From a California Department of Justice study on recidivism:

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Another thing to consider is though sex offenders are 4 times more likely to recidivate for another sex offense than the average criminal population, since they are far less than 1/4 of the criminal population, there is a better chance someone never convicted of a sex offense will offend sexually. For example, say 100 people are on parole. Say 5 of them are sex offenders, that would leave 95 who are not. Though the 5 are 4 times more likely to commit a sex offense, that includes ANY sex offense, and out of the 95 there is a more likely risk from them than from the 5, since their total number is greater. Also, Arkansas found that 73% of their registrants were never convicted of ANYTHING, let alone a sex offense.

http://www.acic.org/statistics/Research/SEX_OFFENDERS_REPORT_P_DDA.pdf

The point is that we cannot rely on the registry and must use common sense and be vigilant without being paranoid. And because of the 73% figure, prevention would be safer and more effective. Because even if we put every single person on the registry ever convicted of ANYTHING, the odds would still be about 7 to 3 (73%) that the dangerous person would NOT be on the list. So the listing of meth sellers now and the others sure to follow will only mislead further.

You say it is more dangerous now, that kids can't play in the neighborhood. Remember though that the California registry started in 1947 after the murder of a young child, and the registry would not have prevented that, because the murderer, as disgusting as he was, had not been convicted of any sex crime (he was out on bail for child abuse). You can read his case here:

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/36C2d615.htm

It ain't pretty. It's ugly. And if the murder rate wasn't higher in states with the death penalty, I'd be glad he was executed. I'd even be tempted to flip the switch myself. But that's not the point.

[ProudDad]

24. You are WRONG AGAIN

the recidivism rate for sex offenses is the 2nd LOWEST OF ALL OFFENDERS.

http://www.sohopeful.org/

This is even true with the current lack of treatment in prison for most sex offenders. With adequate treatment nearly EVERY "sex offender" can be helped to lead a productive, safe life in the community.


How can you call yourself a "democrat" and not believe in redemption???

[ProudDad]

25. You are Soooooooooo off base

What evidence do you have for the following mis-statements?:

"they all have urges to hurt women and/or children and a proven history of being unable to control those urges. Therefore, I believe the risk is too great to allow them into mainstream society."

"The problem is that it is next to impossible to treat a person who has no conscience. They don't have a sense of right and wrong to work with, they don't care that they are hurting people. Those structures in their psyche simply didn't develop, and never will. If they are sorry it is only sorry that they got caught. But they can put on a good act to convince people that they are not the monsters they truly are." What evidence do you have that "sex offenders" have no conscience?

"it would be virtually impossible to know that such a person was no longer dangerous even if we did have a way to develop a conscience in them." Following this tortured, simplistic reasoning, why not execute everyone who commits any misdemeanor or felony since you can't be 100% positive they will never do it again?

THE answer to your question: "Why do women have to carry pepper spray and children can't play in their neighborhood anymore?" is that you have allowed the repukes and lazy dems to scare you into believing that there's a rapist/child abductor behind every bush...

I hate to confront you with facts but your "beliefs" are groundless prejudice.

[madmusic]

10. You're thinking of Section 288

There are a whole lot more:

http://caag.state.ca.us/registration/soffenses.htm

[Ayesha]

13. What on there

do you NOT think is a sufficient violation of a human being's body and soul to warrant locking the perpetrator up and/or monitoring and restricting them for life? Do tell us, we'd like to know. Is it

243.4(b) Sexual battery on medically institutionalized person.
261(a)(3) Rape of drugged victim.
267 Abduct minor for prostitution.
288(a) Lewd or lascivious acts with child under 14 years.

or one of the other SERIOUS, HARMFUL acts listed on that page? I didn't see peeing in the park, and "sodomy" covers only non-consenting acts. BTW to be charged with lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, the perp must be at least 10 years older than the victim.

[madmusic]

14. Granted, making sense of it requires a lot of research.

This may help, and it includes the peeing statute.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/workingpapers/MChoksi_05.pdf (PDF)

To answer your question, my first response was going to be all of them. However, there CAN be extenuating circumstances in some.

For example, a person might be convicted or plead guilty to 243.4(b) even if the touching was inadvertent. Or if it was intentional, it could be a slight and single incident. That would not equal the others, I don't think. The person should probably be restricted from working with institutionalized persons at least until completing probation. There are a lot of variables. Like children, the institutionalized need more protection. If there were a series of similar abuses, the person should probably be banned from that kind of work.

Another example might be 261(a)(3) Rape of drugged victim. Does that include statutory rape of someone drunk? Say both are 17 and both are drunk, is that the same as someone who intentionally spikes a drink for the purpose of violent rape? The latter might need to be watched for life. The first might depend on circumstances.

267 would qualify and so would 288(a), though not ALWAYS necessarily for life. After so many years, there should be a hearing to determine dangerousness. For example, incest perpetrators are the least likely to reoffend (2-3% re-offense rate). But that would depend on the individual circumstances of the case, since under 14 includes 1-2- or 3-year-olds. Not every case is the same.

So though my gut reaction was ALL OF THEM, after some thought, there could be different circumstances. That's the problem with taking options away from judges, since they are the trier of facts. Based on the totality of the circumstances, who is still dangerous? That's what the above link is about, and it should help those trying to use the online registry for protection.

So my answer is "All of them, unless..."

[madmusic]

16. Forgot this:

"BTW to be charged with lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, the perp must be at least 10 years older than the victim."

I don't think so. If you can, show me where it says that. OK, I found it :)

288. (a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or
lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes
provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member
thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent
of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or
sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three,
six, or eight years.
(b) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)
by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and
unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of
a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for three, six, or eight years.
(2) Any person who is a caretaker and commits an act described in
subdivision (a) upon a dependent person by use of force, violence,
duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on
the victim or another person, with the intent described in
subdivision (a), is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(c) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)
with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a
child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older
than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished
by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or
by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In
determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the
child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of
the person to the birth date of the child.

So you definition applies to section 288(c)(1), if the child is 14 or 15 years old. "(c) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child..."

You can read the entire section here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=63399021765+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

[ProudDad]

23. you're wrong

Read the statute:

--------------------------

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/290.html

--------------------------

2) The following persons shall be required to register pursuant to paragraph (1):

(A) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, or paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5, or 289, Section 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; or any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.

(B) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or hereafter is released, discharged, or paroled from a penal institution where he or she was confined because of the commission or attempted commission of one of the offenses described in subparagraph (A).

(C) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or hereafter is determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender under Article 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or any person who has been found guilty in the guilt phase of a trial for an offense for which registration is required by this section but who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity in the sanity phase of the trial.

(D) (i) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) Any person ordered by any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, to register as a sex offender for any offense, if the court found at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification.

(iii) Except as provided in clause (iv), any person who would be required to register while residing in the state of conviction for a sex offense committed in that state.

(iv) Clause (iii) shall not apply to a person required to register in the state of conviction if the conviction was for the equivalent of one of the following offenses, and the person is not subject to clause (i):

(I) Indecent exposure, pursuant to Section 314.

(II) Unlawful sexual intercourse, pursuant to Section 261.5.

(III) Incest, pursuant to Section 285.

(IV) Sodomy, pursuant to Section 286, or oral copulation, pursuant to Section 288a, provided that the offender notifies the Department of Justice that the sodomy or oral copulation conviction was for conduct between consenting adults, as described in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), and the department is able, upon the exercise of reasonable diligence, to verify that fact.

(E) Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to this section for any offense not included specifically in this section if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.

(F) Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of this section, regardless of whether the person's conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

(G) (i) Notwithstanding any other subdivision, a person who was convicted before January 1, 1976, under subdivision (a) of Section 286, or Section 288a, shall not be required to register pursuant to this section for that conviction if the conviction was for conduct between consenting adults that was decriminalized by Chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1975 or Chapter 1139 of the Statutes of 1976. The Department of Justice shall remove that person from the Sex Offender Registry, and the person is discharged from his or her duty to register pursuant to the following procedure:

(I) The person submits to the Department of Justice official documentary evidence, including court records or police reports, that demonstrate that the person's conviction pursuant to either of those sections was for conduct between consenting adults that was decriminalized; or

(II) The person submits to the department a declaration stating that the person's conviction pursuant to either of those sections was for consensual conduct between adults that has been decriminalized. The declaration shall be confidential and not a public record, and shall include the person's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and a summary of the circumstances leading to the conviction, including the date of the conviction and county of the occurrence.

[Yupster]

5. I wish them the best of luck

This is what churches should be at their best.

Giving chances to the least of us.

[chi1444]

17. details

Hey folks, a newbie here, drawn by this very thread.  This
site seems to move through topics at lightning speed, so I
wonder if anyone is paying attention to this thread anymore,
but thought I'd post and find out.

I am aware of some details not included in the original
newspaper story and I'm wondering if the details would affect
anyone's thoughts.  Here they are.

One of the individuals, the woman sent to the church by the
county, has been reassigned.  When the article came out,
church leadership (who was not initially aware of her status)
investigated and asked the county to reassign her.  Evidently
the county has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy
regarding this kind of stuff.  The fact that the woman was a
registered offender was discovered by the church through a
check on the Megan's Law website.  

The incident that resulted in the trial and conviction of the
other individual, described in the article as a long-time
parishoner, happened about 8 years ago.  It involved an
inappropriate website being seen by students in a
middle-school classroom.  The individual - a teacher at the
time - was charged with "annoying a minor."  The
prosecution asked for 5 years imprisonment, but the judge,
after observing that there was no attempt to have
"private" time with any student, that no student was
touched in any way and that the individual did not attempt to
expose himself or otherwise engage kids in sexual activity,
issued a sentence of three years probation, along with some
kind of class.  He was required to register as a sex offender
for the duration of the probation, which ended some time ago. 
So, that person is no longer a registered offender.  Also,
there has been no hint of trouble since the incident 8 years
ago, and there were no incidents before that either.

Do these details, especially regarding the second individual,
mitigate any of the concerns expressed in this thread? 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[chi1444]

18. Oops - one more detail

I meant to mention this - the charge against the second individual - annoying a minor - was a misdemeanor.

Thanks again

[newyawker99]

20. Hi chi1444!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[madmusic]

21. Welcome, and it makes a difference to me.

It evidently doesn't matter to most. True, annoying or molesting a minor is a misdemeanor. The word "molest" in there tends to imply "child molester," but it is really meant as a synonym for "annoy." The offense can be as minor as spoken words, though at times it can be more serious. If that is the only offense, the person can petition to not appear on the Megan's Law website, though the person will still have to register, if I understand that correctly.

Thanks for the details. It seems many don't really understand who is listed and why and some even thought everyone must be the stereotypical "child molester" we read about in the news. I'd call this one stupid, and maybe harmful in ways, depending on the content, but it hardly ""brutally injured another human being."

[Oerdin]

19. Part of Christianity

Is learning how to forgive. Most of these church help groups do require people to be in treatment but if the person is making progress in his treatment or has completed their treatment then the Churchs often will give them a job for a set period of time to help them get back on their feet. I'm shocked that supposed liberals are against this. If we don't rehabilitate past offenders then the only other option is to keep them in jail forever.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

22. Indeed, L.A., The Dodger bus- RTD.

Sex offenders / Arsonist over thirty/terrorist.

As it will seem, the old tent revival has blossomed into solid structures.

And indeed, there are those fire and brimstone persons of deep believing faith that believe that the power of Christ can cure all.

But, one must also recall the question placed to Jesus by Thomas,. The question was of all that are here, who is the most important in the eyes of God. (?)

As the answer was all are, Thomas infused the question ,most important,. As the story goes Jesus pointed to a child ,he said, there is who is most important.

Than you may realize a thing called unforgivable sin.

Questions were asked philosophically- to be inturpted absolutely. Each word in a question used in absolutes, a few words .

This is why preachers must be educated. Or just what does it mean, one who has not conscience? Than ask, will conversion to christianity place conscience where there is not?

And you will find , there is no more of an answer there ,from within the clergy ,- than there is from within the phiacritric community.

Or, just what is the incureable sexual psychopath?

The answer being incureable- No Conscience.

[ProudDad]

26. The vast majority of people

on the "sex offender list" are NOT, I repeat NOT "incurable sexual psychopaths". They are not, clinically, sociopath or psychopathic.

In fact, incurable sexual psychopaths are not released from prison in California, they are Civil Commitments for life.

You are promulgating a fallacious assumption. C'mon, get your facts straight.

http://www.sohopeful.org/