Unitarians and Sex Offenders
Aug. 17th, 2004 06:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0Yesterday morning our church's Adult Forum meeting discussed registered sex offenders (RSOs). This had been added to the calendar in response to the fracas over discovering we had an RSO in the congregation. Two people were brought in to present. The son of one speaker had been convicted of statutory rape and was an RSO, the husband of the other was serving 20 years for touching his stepdaughter. They were both activists in groups trying to stop the harsh and unjust punishment of people labeled as sex offenders. This was not a popular attitude with the younger (under 50, i.e. active parents) portion of the audience. The spiel went along peacefully detailing the horrible lives RSOs lead until the speaker said "these people aren't criminals, they're ill." Another parent objected and walked out. I pointed out that anyone sent to jail following a conviction is a criminal by definition. After that the sparring became more general.
One of the speakers mentioned that her daughter (a mental patient) had been raped by another patient at a treatment center but she'd decided to not press charges because "prison wouldn't help him, he was just doing what nature made him." I challenged her on what she would see as justifying "taking him out of circulation" instead of giving him therapy and community support. Her answer boiled down to serial rape/torture/murderers. Okay, that's clear. She'd imprison those I'd want executed, and she'd put in halfway houses those I think should be imprisoned.
There was a big emphasis on the need for community support for ex-convicts. I grant that without that they can't become useful members of society again. The question is how to do it without excessive costs or risks. The example offered was a parish that accepted an RSO but imposed a new rule that no one could touch anyone's children but their own. That got a response from the crowd, with me and others complaining that it was a terrible rule that kept us from breaking up fights or comforting hurt children.
The whole thing was full of sympathy for all these unjustly punished sex offenders. As somebody who was once briefly very interested in where Massachusetts drew the line on statutory rape* I understand things can get fuzzy. On the other hand, the speaker's son had a 12 year old daughter, so I think he should have an easier time staying away from the fuzzy area. What really pissed me off was the blame-the-victim sneers at the parents of Megan Kanka. "I wouldn't have waited so long to call the police." I'd like my kids to have a chance to play with the neighbors instead of being locked in the house all the time. "They hired him to do yard work knowing he was an ex-con." Okay, so these people were providing the community support you want all RSOs to have, and therefore they should be condemned for putting their daughter at risk? The question of what should be done to keep kids safe was never considered, the agenda was complaining about the current laws being too harsh.
What did make me feel good was hearing other people in the audience speaking out and knowing I wasn't alone in disagreeing with the speakers. Our church seems to be in the middle of a transition. They built the new wing for the nursery and classrooms a few years ago to bring in families as members. It's working, but the new people have a different attitude. As far as I can tell the longer-term members of the congregation average a lot older and either don't have kids or the kids are grown up. The most visible sign is the big financial crisis. Apparently the creators of the Grand Plan thought parents would have as much disposable income as all these childless professionals in their 50's. So there is now great commotion. The distinction between church-as-resource-for-troubled-people and church-as-safe-zone-for-children is also causing problems, hence the RSO forum discussion. Or possibily it's church-as-organization-zone-for-rabid-liberals that's the root of all this. I'm hoping when this settles out we'll be happy staying part of the church, there's some good people here. But making sure it's good for the children is the most important priority, and that includes making sure they don't get taught that rape is a trivial issue not worth punishing as well as ensuring their physical safety.
*It was spring break. I was a sophomore, she was a sophomore. I didn't ask which school she went to. Turned out to be a high school. No, I didn't break the law.
One of the speakers mentioned that her daughter (a mental patient) had been raped by another patient at a treatment center but she'd decided to not press charges because "prison wouldn't help him, he was just doing what nature made him." I challenged her on what she would see as justifying "taking him out of circulation" instead of giving him therapy and community support. Her answer boiled down to serial rape/torture/murderers. Okay, that's clear. She'd imprison those I'd want executed, and she'd put in halfway houses those I think should be imprisoned.
There was a big emphasis on the need for community support for ex-convicts. I grant that without that they can't become useful members of society again. The question is how to do it without excessive costs or risks. The example offered was a parish that accepted an RSO but imposed a new rule that no one could touch anyone's children but their own. That got a response from the crowd, with me and others complaining that it was a terrible rule that kept us from breaking up fights or comforting hurt children.
The whole thing was full of sympathy for all these unjustly punished sex offenders. As somebody who was once briefly very interested in where Massachusetts drew the line on statutory rape* I understand things can get fuzzy. On the other hand, the speaker's son had a 12 year old daughter, so I think he should have an easier time staying away from the fuzzy area. What really pissed me off was the blame-the-victim sneers at the parents of Megan Kanka. "I wouldn't have waited so long to call the police." I'd like my kids to have a chance to play with the neighbors instead of being locked in the house all the time. "They hired him to do yard work knowing he was an ex-con." Okay, so these people were providing the community support you want all RSOs to have, and therefore they should be condemned for putting their daughter at risk? The question of what should be done to keep kids safe was never considered, the agenda was complaining about the current laws being too harsh.
What did make me feel good was hearing other people in the audience speaking out and knowing I wasn't alone in disagreeing with the speakers. Our church seems to be in the middle of a transition. They built the new wing for the nursery and classrooms a few years ago to bring in families as members. It's working, but the new people have a different attitude. As far as I can tell the longer-term members of the congregation average a lot older and either don't have kids or the kids are grown up. The most visible sign is the big financial crisis. Apparently the creators of the Grand Plan thought parents would have as much disposable income as all these childless professionals in their 50's. So there is now great commotion. The distinction between church-as-resource-for-troubled-people and church-as-safe-zone-for-children is also causing problems, hence the RSO forum discussion. Or possibily it's church-as-organization-zone-for-rabid-liberals that's the root of all this. I'm hoping when this settles out we'll be happy staying part of the church, there's some good people here. But making sure it's good for the children is the most important priority, and that includes making sure they don't get taught that rape is a trivial issue not worth punishing as well as ensuring their physical safety.
*It was spring break. I was a sophomore, she was a sophomore. I didn't ask which school she went to. Turned out to be a high school. No, I didn't break the law.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 04:55 pm (UTC)I probably would have stood up and given them a hell of a lot more very explicit information than they wanted about my own experiences with sexual predators.
The UU congregation in which Sam and I were very involved did, despite its many faults, have good policies in place to protect the children. Nobody was allowed to work with minors in any way unless she had been an official member of the congregation for at least 1 year. Then, she had to go through a criminal background check before being allowed to work with them.
All of the doors in the building were also replaced while we were there, so that every one had a window. Of course, covering those windows for any reason was completely verboten.
When Sam ran the kids' track at Dragon Con, one of the things I insisted on was that no adult *ever* be alone with any child, period. We had to have enough volunteers in place at all times so that someone could run around doing the errands that inevitably came up and still have at least two people with the kids. Because we didn't have rooms with bathrooms, we had to deal with escorting the younger children to the bathrooms - they were usually assigned buddies close to their own ages. I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with that, even, because I know how much abuse happens between children, too.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 06:22 pm (UTC)We do the background check for anyone working with kids too. There's no formal minimum time before getting one of those positions, though. If there was I'd be under it. There is a recommended six month waiting period before working with the kids but that's to give you time to get to the adults in the congregation. I think they're hard up for teaching volunteers. There's also a no-lone-adult policy but enforcement is pretty lax.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 05:03 pm (UTC)how is that?
-DS
"Live from Baghdad"
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 06:06 pm (UTC)that would be an interesting blood bath.
ooh, or a gay rights activist on self defense against hate crimes against the same folks.
*sighs*
a religion can't encompass everything. It's not supposed to, that's why all the ones that have been around for a while have some form of exclusions in them.
-DS
"Live from Baghdad"
UU RSO discussion
Date: 2004-08-17 09:32 pm (UTC)I stumbled onto this and wanted to assure you about a few things.
First I must say I didn't attend the Adult forum. I have been attending your UU church for 7 or 8 years and my read on the congregation is that 29 out of 30 members would agree with you on most of what you had to say. Several years ago a member of the church was involved with a girl 2 months away from her 18th birthday (17 is legal in TX). By involved, they said some petting on one night. He was a total idiot, but didn't break any laws. He said that he would stay away from the church if we thought it was best. The board said that they thought that would be best and he hasn't been back since. He was even asked not to attend the once a month coffee house with at best has 5 members attending any given show and the rest is the general public. I am sure that 29 out of 30 didn't agree with that decision, but in that case it was more important for everyone to feel safe, and that is why there really wasn't even an informal vote.
I have 2 boys (9 & 12) that are hopefully getting old enough to stand up for themselves and recognize a "creepy" person when approached by one as well as tell us if something ever happened. I also realize that when it comes to a topic like this, I am so glad I have boys (the parents with girls always say, “but you have boys”). I do know that things can happen to boys as well.
I am sure that 29 of 30 (I keep using those numbers because I am sure it is much more than 9 out of 10) members would say that RSOs should not be allowed near schools or churches.
I think on issues like this the parents will always have the final say as it should be. I feel like I am part of the old guard. Most of the old timers that I know there don’t have much use for RSOs. I think RSOs have no place around churches or schools. I wish I knew what to do with them. The sad part is that 99% of all RSOs were sexually abused as kids. 99% of sexual abuse is by immediate family members. The situation sucks. Bottom line almost everybody realizes that the kids have to come first.
If you had seen what the old RE wing looked like, you would have turned around with you kids and left. It was literally rotting and no one in their right mind would have wanted their kids crawling around in that building. The church couldn’t afford (financially) at the time to rebuild, but they realized that they also couldn’t afford (situation) not to rebuild.
Hang in there! One Adult Forum of nonsense isn’t too bad. Now you know what the few Republicans we have in the church feel like EVERY Sunday. They get to hear stuff they disagree with on a regular basis.
Robert Scarborough
jfcafe@jeffersonfreedomcafe.org