Monday, October 21, 2013

Dr. Phil - Torn between My Mother and My Boyfriend

Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil
Original Article

For those who saw this episode, Dr. Phil does have some good statistics instead of the usual BS. He mentions that ex-sex offender recidivism for new sex crimes is very low, 5.3% to 3.5%. See more videos at the link above.


Michele says she refuses to meet her daughter, Malinda’s, boyfriend, Jack, and can’t even refer to him by name — because he’s a registered sex offender. Jack, now 26, was convicted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old relative when he was 15 years old. He admits to inappropriately touching the victim when he was 13 and she was 8. Jack says he hates being labeled as a sex offender and insists that he's now living the straight and narrow.

However, Michele maintains that she's not convinced that Jack is reformed at all. She says that she wants Malinda to break up with Jack, for the sake of Malinda's 4-year-old daughter. "It's true that I do refer to him as 'it,'" Michele says. "I honestly believe that the 'it' is pursuing my daughter to get to my granddaughter," she claims. Michele adds, "In my opinion, once a sex offender, always a sex offender."

Malinda claims that the real issue is not her boyfriend — it's her mother's need for control. "I don't feel that my boyfriend should be on the sex offender registry," she says. "He was just a kid ... I just don't get the vibe that he would ever harm anyone intentionally." Malinda says that her family has asked her to choose between them and Jack — and insists that for her it's "everybody or nobody." "I want my mother to know that I do love him, and he loves me. We're not breaking up," she says. "There's just no way."

Manufacturing Fear: Halloween Laws for Sex Offenders

Yearly Halloween Sex Offender Hysteria
Original Article


By Emily Horowitz

In North Carolina, a sheriff tells parents to check the online sex offender registry before allowing children to trick-or-treat. In Montana, a town offers a "trunk-or-treat" event where kids can get Halloween candy from trunks of cars in a parking lot to avoid potential danger. In New York, "Operation Halloween: Zero Tolerance" prohibits sex offenders from wearing masks or costumes or answering their doors on Halloween, and, as a parole source says, "There is certainly nothing more frightening than the thought of one of these men opening their door to innocent children." In Oklahoma, a city council is considering an ordinance forbidding sex offenders from decorating their homes or passing out candy on Halloween. In Orange, California, sex offenders can't answer their door or have outside lighting on Halloween, but an additional ordinance requiring window signs saying, "No candy or treats at this residence" was recently revoked after attorneys argued it was a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Why worry about sex offenders on Halloween? Research shows no evidence of increased child sex abuse on Halloween and no evidence that a child was ever a victim of sexual abuse by a stranger while out trick-or-treating. This makes perfect sense, because government data shows the vast majority (about 93%) of sex crimes against children are not committed by strangers but by family members or acquaintances. Recently, the afternoon talk show The Doctors examined the debate over the "No candy" signs, and the physicians agreed that the existing laws that barring sex offenders from decorating their homes, having their lights on, and answering the door are probably enough to keep kids safe without the additional signs. Nevertheless, the message to the audience was clear: special sex offender laws are especially important on Halloween.

These laws are the direct product of a culture marked by decades of irrational fears about children and safety on Halloween. Sociologists, such as Joel Best, have tried to understand the urban myths surrounding poisoned candy on Halloween. Media reports warning of potential dangers, such as razor blades in apples, first appeared in the early 1970s, and then spread via word-of-mouth. Best has never found a death or injury of a child on Halloween related to candy based on his decades of research -- and the only substantiated case involves a child deliberately harmed by his own father.

These myths rely on the premise that evil adults are waiting to harm innocent children on Halloween. The poisoned candy myths emerged during a time of increasing fear of crime was increasing and growing awareness about child abuse and child safety. Today, even the Center for Disease Control warns children to only eat pre-wrapped candy and to avoid all homemade treats. The implication is not just that there is a legitimate and genuine risk for poisoning -- after all, the Centers for Disease Control is a federal agency solely concerned with preventing disease and injury, and they are telling children unwrapped, poisoned treats are a real hazard -- but that buying pre-wrapped candy for children is a more caring and neighborly act than baking homemade cookies or giving out fresh fruit. In other words, the sterility of consumerism can keep us safe and sound.

Sex offender laws on Halloween are a natural outgrowth of the fear of a night of social disorder and grave danger, rooted in the belief that any law that can potentially protect children, or even one child, is a good one. Unfortunately, these laws don't protect children, nor do they make us feel safer about a child-centric holiday. Children are not at any special risk from sex offenders or sadistic neighbors out to poison them, and these laws increase fear and anxiety and remove fun and excitement. Halloween should be a night to meet neighbors and connect with community, and it is incredibly harmful to view the occasion as anything else.

In New York, a county executive argued in favor of Halloween sex offender laws because, he said, this holiday is, "a unique situation where children are literally showing up at the doors of sex offenders." When we think about Halloween in this absurd way, as a night of potential child-victims presenting themselves to the sex offenders all around, the only possible response can be sheer terror. Similarly, California's "Operation Boo" promises parents that police, "will enforce the traditional compliance checks on known sex offenders to make sure they're staying away from trick-or-treaters... special transient sex-offender curfew centers will be set up in some regions and targeted transient sex-offender compliance checks will be held in other areas." Would any parent read this and send their child out on Halloween alone? Although the purpose is to threaten and monitor the sex offenders, it contrarily highlights the threat of sex offenders to children. The idea that these programs will reassure parents is absurd. It reminds us that "predators" are everywhere, and, not only that, many sex offenders are homeless and roaming the streets... and possibly an even greater threat than the ones who might lure children into their homes.

Most sex offenders live with spouses, children, or parents, and these policies subject entire families to humiliation and actual danger. Almost 95% of sex offenders are first-time offenders and very few sex offenders are "predators" who prey on the children of strangers (one study found about 5% of sex offenders are dangerous to children -- and sex offenders include those convicted of streaking, public urination, consensual sex between minors, "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios, and, in some states, even men who visit prostitutes).

In the weeks before Halloween, local news stations feature safety tips and reminders about sex offender threat. These stories remind us that sex offenders are everywhere, and that Halloween is simply another opportunity for sex offenders to lure children into their homes. A story on a local Florida news station describes how there are "hundreds of sex offenders living among us," as if we are, literally, surrounded by a creeping and predatory alien force that is not human and not like us. The caption behind the anchor has a shadowed, dark male face branded with the words "sex offender" and "predator". The story tells us that while law enforcement is doing an enormous amount of work tracking these "offenders and predators", but parents have to also help keep children safe. One way to do this, they suggest, is by using mobile applications that allow parents create maps of local sex offenders. They can use this while trick-or-treating, because it shows which houses to avoid, as well as photographs and other details about the sex offenders in the neighborhood. Just like pre-packaged candy and consumer advocacy, technology and vigilance can keep our children safe from danger and uncertainty.

The false dichotomy of evil adults and innocent children and families prevents children from meeting their neighbors and becoming part of a community. Sex offenders are subject to more post-punishment restrictions than any other ex-offenders, and have lower recidivism rates. Halloween sex offender laws, and rampant media coverage of the threat of sex offenders on Halloween and throughout the year, is creating a neurotic and fearful generation of kids who grow up thinking they are helpless prey facing threats from real monsters. Children are safest when they know their neighbors, and Halloween is a good opportunity to meet others in the community. There are some actual threats to child safety on Halloween -- like an increase in pedestrian car accidents -- but sex offenders and poisoned candy aren't among them.

"Scenes of a Crime" Trailer

Scenes of a Crime
Scenes of a Crime
Documentary Description:
SCENES OF A CRIME” explores a nearly 10-hour interrogation that culminates in a disputed confession, and an intense, high-profile child murder trial in New York state.

The film won an IFP Gotham Independent Film Award (“Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You”), won the Grand Jury Award at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival and the Grand Jury Prize at DOC NYC in the “Viewfinders” section in November.

Police video-recordings allow directors Blue Hadaegh and Grover Babcock to unravel the complicated psychological dynamic between detectives and their suspect during a long interrogation.

Detectives, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors and the suspect himself offer conflicting accounts of exactly what happened in this mysterious and disturbing true-crime documentary.

UK - (Kirsty Debanks) I'm sorry for my rape lie

Kirsty Debanks
Kirsty Debanks
Original Article


By Ben Wilkinson

A woman jailed for making a false rape claim says the lie cost her “everyone’s respect”.

Kirsty Debanks said she was in a “bad place” when she made the allegation against her boyfriend and regretted it instantly.

The 21-year-old – who alleged _____ raped her in her home last July – urged women not to make the mistakes she did.

A council sexual abuse boss last night said false allegations can put off genuine rape victims from going to police.

After the claim, Mr _____ was arrested, interviewed and held for about six hours.

He declined to comment to the Oxford Mail last night. Debanks admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice at Oxford Crown Court in April.

Judge Ian Pringle was told friends inflicted fake injuries like scratches on her back after the group drank heavily and took crack cocaine.

But Mr _____’s alibi, that he was begging in George Street, Oxford, was confirmed by CCTV and she called police to confess on July 31. She told officers she wanted her ex-partner to “pay for everything he had done to her family”.

Sentencing her in May, the judge told her the “utter lie” had undermined real victims of rape.

Debanks – released in August from an eight months prison sentence – said: “I said it and I wanted to retract it straight away.”

But I was too scared to because I knew it was a serious allegation. Once I said it, it was like I had to carry it through.”

The Wood Farm resident said she fell into depression after her grandfather and father passed away within months of each other.

She said: “I regret what I did and I wouldn’t advise other girls to do what I did. I wasn’t thinking about what I was doing. If I wasn’t in a bad place I would never have said it.”

She added: “I lost everyone’s respect. I didn’t really care about my friends, but my family – that hurt me. It woke me up. I am working to get it back to this day.”

There are days when I don’t want to go out of the house because I am ashamed.”

Debanks – whose two children with Mr _____ have been taken into care – lost grandfather _____ in February 2012 and dad _____ to cancer that May.

Then her uncle, _____, was killed when he cut into an empty oil drum which exploded in College Way, Horspath, last July 27. Debanks says she suffers from depression and a multiple personality disorder.

Mother _____ said: “She has openly admitted what she said was wrong and she has apologised from the start.”

Oxford City Council domestic and sexual abuse co-ordinator Liz Jones said women who make false claims should be “ashamed”.

She said: “We struggle to get these crimes through court. When real allegations come forward they are undermined by the false ones.”

Some false claims are the result of people with mental health problems or traumatic experiences, she said.

Det Supt Nora Holford, head of Thames Valley Police’s Protecting Vulnerable People unit, said: “We treat every allegation of rape seriously and will always investigate every allegation fully.”

On rare occasions, some allegations do turn out to be unfounded.”

The force said figures on false allegations were not available.

See Also:

OR - Couple (Christopher Martin & Jessica Stroble) fined for inflight sex (That's all?)

Airplane sex
Original Article


Apparently, what happens on the way to Vegas, doesn't necessarily stay there.

A former vintner and a salon technician were each fined $250 for allegedly engaging in oral sex in front of other passengers on a commercial Allegiant Air flight from Medford, Oregon, to Las Vegas.

Christopher Martin, of Las Vegas, and Medford resident Jessica Stroble, each pleaded guilty in absentia in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas to a federal misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct on Thursday, reports Oregon's Mail Tribune.

The alleged act took place on June 21.

According to an FBI affidavit, passengers on the Allegiant Air flight saw Martin exposing his genitals and twice joining Stroble in oral sex and other acts despite warnings from flight attendants.

The affidavit states Martin and Stroble, 44 and 33 years old respectively at the time of the incident, were allegedly asked to stop by an attendant and did so during the drink and snack service, but later repeated the sex acts before landing.

One of the passengers complained to an attendant that "this is not the sex education I wanted to give my teenage sons," according to the criminal complaint.

The pair were arrested by Las Vegas police officers after the flight.

According to the complaint, they were initially charged with a federal misdemeanor crime of lewd, indecent and obscene acts on an airplane, which carried a maximum sentence of up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Inflating the auto-pilotThe Mail Tribune reports that U.S. magistrate judge George Foley Jr. ordered the fines after accepting pleas from attorneys representing Martin and Stroble, who weren't required to attend the hearing.

"I have made many mistakes in my life, none greater than this one," said Martin, former vintner of Oregon's highly regarded Troon Vineyard, in a written statement sent to the Mail Tribune.

"I have lost my job, my reputation and damaged the legacy I had worked 10 years to nurture and grow. I will learn from this and move on to the next chapter in my life."