Those of you who have prosecuted these types of cases have undoubtedly heard the "psychobabble" of psychiatrists and psychologists presented by defense that they can cure/rehabilitate sex offenders who target children.<BR><BR>I ask jurors on voir dire if they think molesters can be cured/rehabilitated and overwhelmingly, the public agrees with me, that in most cases they cannot.<BR><BR>The recent thread by JB points out the fallacy, as many of us have long known, in the long held myth that castration can "cure" child molesters, or at least render them safe.<BR><BR><A HREF="http://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6941002871" TARGET=_blank>http://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6941002871</A><BR><BR>I'm interested in your opinion as prosecutors. Do you think most child molesters can be cured/rehabilitated?<BR><BR>[This message was edited by Greg Gilleland on 10-09-08 at .]No, I don't think most predators/molesters/pornographers can be successfully treated or changedYes, I believe the psycho babble that brilliant psychiatrists/psychologists can successfully change the stripes on a zebra and cure/rehabilitate sex offenders

Your poll sounds like some of the push polls that called me during the presidential primary. "In the upcoming primary, would you vote for Candidate X who is a God-fearing, patriotic American or for Candidate Y who coddles criminals and would let terrorists blow up our country?"

I never said I didn't have a bias against child predators, Jeff.

Greg

I've never had one outright testify that one of these freaks can be cured.

I have heard them say that they can try to "manage" the behavior. We have a lot of fun with that on cross. Most concede that that the only way to guarantee that they will not reoffend is to keep them away from children permanently which makes for great argument. We've built just such a place.

Well, they can be cured if they only touched the child because they tripped and their hand fell into a child's pants. They might also be cured if the 8 year old was "asking" for it, and they just did what the child wanted. How about they can be cured because their sexual persuasion is only for members of the same sex, so obviously children would not be their cup of tea.

Temptation, temptation. They just can't resist!

No way. Vary rarely, one of what the FBI used to refer to as a "situational offender" with no prior or subsequent sexual quirks or fetishes -- but not the kind of person who would raise a gravity or provocative four year old defense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJC:
No way. Vary rarely, one of what the FBI used to refer to as a "situational offender" with no prior or subsequent sexual quirks or fetishes -- but not the kind of person who would raise a gravity or provocative four year old defense.

---

So I guess you would have to rely on self-reporting to reach this conclusion?

Kind of like asking a jury pool - "are you of sound mind and good moral character?"

And Bob, I certainly feel "cure" is too strong of a word, but having to listen to defense experts, who are generally sexual treatment providers with a vested interest oftentimes imho since they might be selected to treat this defendant if given probation, the line between rehabilitation and teaching them to "develop" filters blurs with the aura of "cure".

Those hours in trials spent listening to the blah blah blah of these self-righteous "isolated event" theorists are hours I'll never get back.

I'll always remember the testimony of one such incredible shrink, discussing his client known amongst law enforcement as "panty hose suit man" with prosecutor AAG Angela Goodwin. Panty Hose suit man was a traveler who, under his street clothes, was wearing a body suit constructed of panty hose.

I mean, how freakin' weird is that? You don't see that every day in the prosecution of these types of cases.

He violated his probation by hanging around spots where kids congregate and by having porn on his computer. But to listen to his defense shrink (and sexual treatment provider) testify, he was "no risk" to anyone because he was just a "fetishist".

I guess it didn't hurt that panty hose suit man had wealthy parents able to pay for lots and lots of therapy.

But Angela's cross of him was perhaps the best deconstruction of a so-called expert in this field that I have ever heard.

The defendant I just prosecuted was addicted to porn, and according to a childhood friend, had been since an early age. I think it's a defense attorney fallacy that adult porn is harmless. In my case, it was clear the defendant thought of women and his child victim as just sexual objects to service his own desires.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Most studies show that adult porn IS harmless for someone who is mentally balanced. Women are no more objectified than men in most adult porn. Contra, however, some of the "hard core" porn, which runs the gamut of filth and violence.

Does seeing the porn cause the obsession, or does the prior obesseion lead to a person becoming addicted to the porn to try and satisfy their urges?

I have prosecuted both types - those addicted to porn and those who never looked at it, and everything in between. Never have I run into someone who liked kiddie porn that wasn't already twisted. But the adult porn? I don't know, but I think the mental twist is there before the porn comes in.

Any good recent studies out there?

[This message was edited by MDK on 10-28-08 at .]