Last weekend, I was sitting out with my neighbor, Haylie, as she held a garage sale and we both watched our kids play together. I got up to use her restroom and when I came back, I saw her fiance, Tim, yelling angrily at a man in a pick-up that had paused in front of their driveway. On the back of the man's pick-up was a sign that said "I haul junk: scrap metal, recyclable, etc." Haylie had a surprised look on her face as she said to Tim, "Be nice!" As the man drove away, Tim turned to us and explained that the man was listed on the sex offender registry.
"He came here because he saw the kids," Tim yelled as waved his arm toward our combined children playing on the lawn: three girls and two boys, all under 8-years-old. "Imagine if our daughter had been out here alone!" Haylie joined in with how the neighborhood just wasn't safe any more. When Tim turned to me, expecting some enthusiastic agreement . . . I just shrugged.
Honestly, I wasn't scared for my kids. There was a time when I was "normal" that I would have been creeped out to the max. My fear has shifted now. I'm not scared of Junk Joe who lives under the SO banner. It was the man under my own roof who I should have feared years ago. Now it's my kids' teachers and their friends' parents that I worry about. Tim himself is just barely gaining my trust, although I'm sure he's unaware that I ever doubted him.
So very far from fear, I actually felt sorry for the junk guy. All of us on here know that he didn't choose junk collection as a career because he has a passion for it. He chose it because he can't get a job. He probably can't rent an apartment either. All of us who have had any real connection with a sex offender can feel sympathy for the situation they are put in for decades possibly, even after they have served their time.
I've never checked the registry and I'm not sure I want to. Maybe I should. At the very least I could check on those people that I'm entrusting my children with. But for the most part I really doubt that checking it will increase my kids' safety. If anything, I think it gives us a false sense of comfort thinking that the dangerous people are already labeled, while in truth the most dangerous people are flying under the radar, quietly committing their crimes at home.
Janet and I were recently discussing WAR (Women Against the Registry). They are a group we have an obvious connection to, being women connected to sex offenders, but their agenda is not something that I completely agree with (I'll let Janet speak for herself on this). As you can tell by their catchy acronym, they want to do away with the SO registry - I can see why, as I've mentioned above. They want reform for the system that processes and rehabilitates sex offenders - I would agree that it could do with some reform, especially the lack of services and support offered to the families of the SO. They want SOs to be allowed to go back home and back to a normal after time served . . . This is where I develop a little cold sweat.
WAR believes that "once the registrant has been adjudicated,
paid their debt to society and is living a law-abiding life they have earned the
right to live without fear of harm to themselves or their family." It sounds so rational, until I apply it to Jake. My greatest fear is the day that he comes back into my kids' lives. After all, by Colorado law he retains some of his parental rights, which he can slowly recover if he gets through sex offender treatment. As much as I hope that he develops empathy and overcomes his addictive sexual behavior, I am also certain that even if he doesn't he will still convince everyone that he has. He is smart, charming, and very adaptable. He will jump through every hoop they put in front of him, whether it changes his essential character or not. I am terrified of the day someone contacts me to arrange for him to visit with our kids again. If he works the system well, he could be back in the same room with them by the time Elise is 8 and Sabrina is 6. If WAR got its way, he might also have partial custody . . . my precious children alone in his care. My God, that is my worst nightmare!
I am jumping to extremes, I know. And yet, WAR's own words do nothing to soothe my anxieties. In a recent letter to Illinois legislators, WAR uses the following to persuade them that the public is not in danger of released sex offenders:
"The myth of
“stranger danger” persists despite that most sexual perpetrators are well known
to their victims. According to the Department of Justice, “Most child sexual
abuse victims are molested by family members (34%) or close acquaintances
(59%).” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). About 40% of sex crimes take place
in a victim’s own home, and 20% take place in the home of a friend or relative
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997)."
Those are exactly the reasons why I'm not scared of Junk Joe. But those are also the reasons that I am scared of Jake. As the mother of an SOs kids, this is how I read that statement: The public should have no fear of sex offenders because if they re-offend it will probably be with their own kids. Sure, with that kind of logic the public is much safer if you let the sex offenders go home, but what about those kids at home?!
Ugh. There have to be some better answers out there! There has to be a middle ground where an ex-SO can get a job and a place to live AND where all children (his own and others) are kept safe.
Until WAR addresses the concerns of moms like me, I won't be joining their forces. However, I very much understand if any of you decide to take part in their movement. For the sake of sanity, I have to believe that many SOs are mostly decent if they can get past that huge error, misjudgment, or maybe correct some faulty logic . . . If you are standing by your man, then I hope that is the case for him and he returns home someday to justify all your faith in him. For you and your man, I will voice my doubt in the way our system treats him. Just do me a favor, when you speak up against restrictions on sex offenders, please remember my kids and the danger they might be in from their own father. Let's find that middle ground, okay?
For now, while we as a society are sooo very ignorant as to what makes "Registrants" tick, so ignorant as to who might and might not be "over" their particular sexual obsession, I would propose that the National Sex Offender registry be available only to search by law enforcement. Or Failing that, only list level 3 offenders openly on the Registry.
ReplyDeleteLaw enforcement should continue to monitor all offenders but openly profile only those we know are most likely remain dangerous. (this would require that researched facts, not increased federal "law enforcement" grant monies and "claw-back laws") be the basis of choosing level 3's to place on the open Registry.
In the mean time as far as the argument about getting entirely rid of the Registry because it causes "collateral" damage to families ..because your own home address is listed because the "Registrant" lives with you, (and therefore outsider prejudice is aimed at and causing "collateral" damage to your whole family)
When the family's address IS the sex offender's address then maybe the sex offender could/should/ expect to live elsewhere? It won't keep him safer but it would certainly add to the safety of the family. Wouldn't a "recovered" offender, a compassionate person offer to live at some other address? If he were actually "recovered" not simply "programming" to please a therapist? Or trying to fool someone into giving him access? Wouldn't he want to protect his family from "Collateral Damage?"
And "Collateral Damage" can be horribly real. Skin Heads have been known to Google/troll the Registry. They really have shown up and really have killed not only the "offender" but family members living at the same address with "their" Offender. (I published a blog on "Profiling" on Wind Harp Tree today, 5/3/14 that lists deaths resulting from "Trolling" the Registry.) The Registry does do real harm.
For what it is worth I am AGAINST what seems to be the National Sport of "Profiling " Anyone. I am against nationally approved "Collateral Damage."
But, as the ex-wife of a sex offender,as a person who was herself molested as a child, I am even more in FAVOR of finding ways to ensure the safety of children from all "Offenders" whether they committed incest at home with their own children or went abroad to troll for victims..
Until we figure this out, I remain sex-offender negative in the sense that Children Come First. And as mothers and grandmothers we can't un-do the past but we can certainly do our level best to sensibly protect children going forward.
And we can expect "Recovered" sex offenders, "Now-Compassionate" men to understand. Even if as wives and mothers we are forced tell "our" "recovered" offender to live elsewhere. Even if we must vigorously oppose "Parental visits." For the moment "living elsewhere" is the only real way to avoid "Collateral Damage"
Until we as a nation realize our national "sex panic" Sex Offenders of every inclination whether recovered or not will have to endure supervision, fair or unfair. ,
Until we as a nation take a realistic Second Look at "the Problem." even the "non-solution" of a National Registry will have to be endured as the best "solution" we have at present. I just hope we all take a realistic Second look soon because what we are doing now is not working. And there are still children in need of protection.
I'm a member of a closed Facebook group. The other day av woman came on squaking about how a man she knows who just finished serving six months for child porn was hired back by his company. She did not know my husband who I am divorcing is currently serving three months.
ReplyDeleteHe never touched a child and never tried to. He got addicted to porn and it went untreated. It escalated. He is not sexually attracted to children. Some things are complicated.
As she and some other concerned mummies were collectively losing their shit over the prospect of this man supporting his family, I calmly asked if he was given a job working with children. As they were all too busy losing their shit, it was hard to get an answer. I finally ascertained that he had a computer job.
Given the last year of my life, I find it very difficult not to hate everybody.
Yes, I know you love your kids. Guess what? I love mine. And they have lost their dad and have gone through hell.
I find it difficult not to want to scream at my mom when she asks: Well how would you have felt a year ago? (Regarding the registry)
It's difficult to be one of very few level headed individuals in a swarm of villagers with flaming pitchforks.
A few months ago, in attempts to deal with the villagers, I turned to cutting. One day my daughter saw as my shirt sleeve had slipped up. So I had to give it up after that but I miss it.
You and my mom might want me to have some understanding for the villagers because they mean well and they don't understand. My response to that is that I don't have to.
Things I have to do:
Wake up every day. Work at entry level wages. Come home after ten hours. Spend a few hours with my kids. Try not to want to die. Do it without child support.
Things I don't have to do: Seek to understand people who wish for my family never to heal. Seek to understand people who wish my children more pain. More poverty. Alienation.
If nothing else, we need to clean up the registry. But that might actually require thinking outside the box and turning to professionals who have actually spent years learning about treatment and recidivism andv who don't glean their information by watching all 13 episodes of SVU.
Don't conclude from this that I still want to be with my husband. Right now I hate him very much. But I also hate people who have taken away any chance for healing because they think it's necessary to use a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.
My life is one ball of hate right now.
All 13 seasons of Law & Order SVU.
ReplyDeleteJanet, you speak of a "recovered" offender being willing to live elsewhere as a sign of good faith that he has recovered.
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you how a man whose earning potential has been cut in half (if not more) by the registry is supposed to pay for continued court mandated therapy and pay for his own residence and support his children? You see, all these things cost money.
Even if he is willing to live away from his children, one might argue that if he were REALLY recovered he wouldn't heap stress upon his next door neighbors either. He should just find somewhere else to live. Always somewhere else. Always somewhere else. But where?
It's a wonder to me that more of these fathers and husbands and sons don't just end it all. I really believe that's what these laws are set up to have them do.
You talk of protecting children, Janet. I don't know how I will ever begin to pay for enough therapy to help my children get over and understand what has been done to their family.
I guess I didn't say that right.. I meant living elsewhere as a way to protect his family from the "Collateral Damage" that accrues because if his address on the registry is the family address then there is danger that the family will be targeted right along with the "offender" by some "villager with flaming pitch fork" (and I have no magic solution if the "offender" is your young son. And the nature of the "offense" does matter)
ReplyDeleteThe "rules" can vary state to state (and some parole officers are a lot smarter and a lot less officious and offensive than others when they come and poke around your house) but a lot of places he won't even have a choice to live at home because the rules require that he live in a downtown residence hotel (or under a bridge away from children and schools and libraries and everywhere humans congregate) In this state if he has "no fixed address" because he can't afford a place to live, they expect him to register and pay fees more often which means he can't save enough for a place to live..) I agree that the rules are often viscous and meant NOT to help but to prevent "recovery." For example, charges for a released offender's therapy are exorbitant and attendance is required regardless of income AND if they fail to attend they probably will get revoked and sent back to prison. But at least there is help "available" to them. .LOL)
On the other hand if you go to someone and pay to tell them you are cutting (or some other kind of stress related "stuff" like screaming at your kids, wishing you were dead, Insomnia Depression Or letting your "offender" sleep at your house, unofficially ) you are likely to have to explain to some judge why you should still be allowed to keep your kids.
And the kids of course need help to get through this so your needs get lost in the shuffle. Still, if you can't somehow take better care of yourself then your kids will also really be in trouble because who else will be there for them?
What irritates me is that as women some of us keep on focusing on what HE needs. On how unfair all this is to HIM etc. That is absolutely true. But it's unfair to everyone. Life itself is unfair. That does not mean we have time to sit around moaning about how unfair our life is...and It is UNFAIR.period. (AND no matter what I say, I am not "over "it"... I get pissed off and stuck on "unfair")
However with extremely limited resources realistically available (emotionally, and financially) there is simply not enough energy to spare.And while we are STILL feeling like @#$% I think we ALSO must resolve to put women and children first in the few available life boats. Fair or unfair, as mothers we have to locate the life boats and take care of ourselves ( first) because our children only really have us for now. (Who else is going to row this !@#$ boat to the other side?) We are the best mother our kids will ever have because we ARE their mother. We are here and we sacrifice and keep on keeping on rowing no matter what. We love them.We are making the necessary sacrifices every day.
And yes,(just like us) the "recovered" offender may have to make sacrifices for his kids. May have to expect we will NOT focus our energy on saving him from the unfairness of the registry. Wouldn't a compassionate father expect us to do that? And we might even love him for it.
By the way, I am so glad to see so many women responding so honestly to these blogs. Please keep the conversation going. We NEED to hear that even our responses that we think are so "unbecoming" are probably just normal for women going through hell in a row boat. It's miraculous to see that we are in good company and that the world is not filled only with "villagers with pitchforks." As the wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at least we have found each other on Evie's blog. And we have our kids. And someday...maybe