Thursday, June 28, 2012

I am NOT a Victim

I recently read a story where the lady claimed rape lasts a lifetime and between it and all the other stuff I hear when it comes to sexual abuse I had enough and needed to post things very personal to me on my facebook. Here is what I wrote ...

I was date raped at 15 by a guy I had a crush on. I am NOT a victim of rape; I am a survivor and CHOOSE to not allow that negative to control & run MY life. So NO rape does not last a lifetime. You know what does last a lifetime? the murder of your young nephews! They got a life sentence. Yes, sex abuse is bad; yes, sex abuse can be damaging, but it does not kill the soul of a child, it does not ruin their lives - death does those things! If you allow a child or adult to dwell on the negative they will be victims for life, however if they are helped to push the negative away they will be survivors & live happy, well-adjusted lives. The choice is up to the individual & their support system. Choose to allow the person to have a good, happy life instead of a hatred-filled, depressing life.

Thursday, December 29, 2011


Found this posted elsewhere
Evansville (Ill.) COURRIER PRESS January 5, 2009 OPINION

Past sins listed, not explained, in sex registries

I pastor a church in the cozy town of Omaha, Ill. A friend here recently confided in me that a number of people are concerned that a "child molester" has been attending my church. He asked if that is really true. Then he said, "This has been a big dark cloud hanging over your entire operation there."

Well, the guy was no "child molester." (And even if he had been, it would be irrelevant.) Over 15 years ago, as a stupid 20-year-old, he flashed a couple of minors, and he paid dearly. He admits he was wrong. But he now has a wife, a son, a good job and is one of the finest Christian men I know. I have five children, and I trust him with them. Unfortunately, a person can get labeled as a "sex offender" whether he urinated in public, physically assaulted someone or did something in between. But when the state requires a person to register, everyone assumes the worst. I never heard anyone say, "A sex offender moved into town. I hope he doesn't pee outside!"

I do understand the desire to have an online registry. While I have known the guy for years, I don't know those other guys.

Perhaps we should even expand the Internet registry. Then we could be even better protected. Before letting customers in your store, check the thief registry to ensure they never shoplifted as teenagers. Consult the marijuana registry to guarantee your baby sitter never smoked dope 20 years ago.

Are some sins worse than others? Display everyone's sins online and let readers decide for themselves.

It could expand even further. Screen potential dates through an online adultery database. Screen potential employees and friends through an online liar registry and gossip database.

If we create Internet registries to expose everyone with skeletons in their closets, those registries will contain everyone in your phone book. Everyone has the potential to hurt us.

If someone commits a heinous crime and is a danger to society, we have options such as execution and life in prison.

But it is nonsense to tell a person he is "free" to live normally in society, while broadcasting his past sins on the Internet.

If we must have registries, we need to include everyone's sins, not just a select few.

Repentance and forgiveness are what Christianity is all about. So after my friend informed me about the "big dark cloud" that has been hanging over my church, I responded something like this: "If you know any repentant murderers, adulterers, child-molesters, drunks, wife-beaters, liars, thieves or gossips who need Jesus, you send them to me. I'll gladly give them a warm welcome!"

Paul was a murderer, Peter denied Christ, King David was an adulterer and a murderer, and Solomon had lust issues. Yet God worked wonders through them, wouldn't you agree?

How many of your past sins do you want others to see online?

How much grace and forgiveness do you yourself wish to receive?

Contact Joseph Gleason at

Friday, December 9, 2011

Recent News Articles and a Quote

☆ Six Misconceptions About Pedophiles -

★ Scandals Reveal Sex Offender Laws' Limits -

☆ Private Prisons Spend Millions On Lobbying To Put More People In Jail -

★ Love this & had to share it :) *she is speaking on the topic of 'Sex Offenders'* ...

"I WAS a victim years ago, then I grew up and realized that EVERYONE is human, to be human is to make mistakes and learn from them, not have to be beaten over the head with our mistakes for the rest of our lives!!! It is not the crime that destroys your life, it is the hate and anger and other negative emotions that cause the destruction. To forgive is to heal." ~ Lila Folster

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

They Are Not All Monsters – Dr. Nancy Irwin’s Weblog

[W]hile many are still reeling from the recent painful Penn State scandal, I fervently hope that this will be a tremendous learning lesson for our society.  As a treatment professional of sex offenders as well as victims, I would like to address some dynamics of perpetrators and witnesses that the public in general is perhaps unaware of.

What do child molesters look like?  Your grandfather, your brother, your aunt, your employee, and yes, brilliant college football coaches.  No one is all good or all bad; and sex offenders are no exception. They may be extremely talented, intelligent, successful, good-looking, blessed with beautiful families and “normal” sexual outlets. They cover all walks of life: early 20’s through 70’s, all ethnicities, races, religions, IQ levels, education, sexual orientations, and all socioeconomic strata. They don’t all look like “perverts.” There is no typical profile.

In psychology, there is a basic belief that “What is beautiful is good.”  Therefore, if someone who is beautiful (or does beautiful things) does something bad, it creates cognitive dissonance, a confused state of being that can block comprehension and appropriate action.  It is fairly easy for us to believe that an unattractive, low-achiever could commit sex crimes against children, and we then vilify the “pervert,” even after he/she admits it works to control it.

Many child molesters and pedophiles actually hate themselves for what they consider uncontrollable urges and would get help if they knew where to turn.  Sadly, the global belief is that they cannot be helped, and most reoffend.  Fortunately, this is completely false.  With treatment, the recidivism rate is between 5%-13%, much lower than for non-sex crimes (US Dept of Justice; Bureau of Statistics). While there is no cure for an attraction to children, it can be managed much like substance addictions.  Again, therapy and support are crucial to success.

Adults fail to intervene and report abuse for a variety of reasons, one of the most salient being denial or minimization of the offense.  This is enabling, and enablers are more culpable than offenders, who can be “crippled” by their  disorder. Enablers do not want the offense to be a reality, and keenly hope that it will just “go away,” particularly if it involves a celebrity or someone we really admire. The American culture all but deifies sports figures.  We want heroes, and athletes and coaches bespeak health, fitness, confidence, winning, and an all- American wholesomeness that blinds some of us to their blemishes or weaknesses. While not excusing their response to the recent accusations at Penn State, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, Spanier, et al, I believe, were caught in this immobilizing, enabling position. While it appears that they put football before the wellbeing of children, potentially what was occurring was their inability to comprehend the severity of the crime and respond appropriately. Their actions may have been completely different and appropriate if the perpetrator were a stranger and not part of the success machine of Penn State Football.

They Are Not All Monsters (article at Dr. Nancy Irwin’s Weblog)

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Why it's Illegal

The following was written by: Rudy Johnson @ Justice Freedom Speech
I am going to talk about Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857. This decision
ripped open America and gave imputes to the civil war.

Why was it so controversial? What was so wrong about the decision?

Supreme Court Justice Taney wrote the opinion. In essence, from what I
read, directly from the case, is that the founding fathers, as smart
and educated they were, knew clearly what they were doing when putting
together the Declaration of Independence. They were excluding Blacks
completely. Everyone knew it. Everyone understood that. The plain
meaning of, "All Men" did not apply because it was not INTENDED to

So why would there be any controversy? The laws in the U.S. and
pre-United States were very clear, Black (or Negro s as the opinion
states) were denied every aspect of citizenship because they were
merely property.

Now, we are almost 100 years away from Independence. Some states are
outlawing slavery. Others see it as an economic and social
institution. Some States and territories are in heated debate about
whether they will be "free" or not.

You have a decision based upon, clearly the U.S. Constitution, and
taking into consideration of the history of the U.S., Dred Scot could
never be a citizen.

But something was happening in America. It was IDEAS! It was the idea,
that just because the Law didn't recognize a Black person in any legal
sense of protection, that it was still self-evident that ALL MEN ARE

The plain meaning of the words was a too big of contradiction between
the laws set up. In other words, it was self-evident that the laws
were unjust and incompatible with liberty.

Taney was right in his decision based upon the Constitution and the
meaning of the founders. They just forgot that society was changing.
Blacks weren't just property. In a nation of free ideas, the most
obvious of things were becoming blatant contradictions.

The 2 cases the U.S. Supreme Court decided about registered sex
offenders ignored some basic facts about WHY there are limitations on
the State's ability to pass laws against those already convicted. The
limitations were put there because the founding fathers KNEW that just
because a person did criminal acts, did not inherently make him a
criminal. The idea was he was to serve his sentence and then be
welcomed back into society.

The idea that criminals had rights was radical in its day. But it
spoke a truth about the role of government and the limits of
government to take liberty from their citizens. The founding fathers
were well aware of the mischief that can take place around the
population classed as, criminal. They saw the limitations as the
protection of liberty.

But today, we see no limitations. A criminal is always a criminal.
They will always be dangerous. They can't be helped. They must be
under the thumb of the government. AND the legislature is the only
people capable of protecting the citizens from the criminal. In this
case, the criminal is the sex offender.

Can a person be said to be, FREE, and still have to register? If the
registration requirement was implemented by a legislature, would that
not be a clear violation of the separation of powers?

Everyone seems to agree a person on a registry is not really free. He
is bound to a plethora of laws that are evolving. Yet, the
Constitution guarantees his freedom.

There is a contradiction here. A contradiction that cannot stand.

To support my position I use two quotes from the founding fathers.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the
obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the
social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The
sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has
directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and
indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in
cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of
enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the
more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." - James
Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and
violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the
government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to
themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification,
disfranchisement and banishment by acts of legislature. The dangerous
consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can
disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general
descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of
partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may
banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render
obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when
he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of
liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common
sense." - Alexander Hamilton.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

SO Info by Others

I do not claim to have written any of the below, but I agree with the things written so am posting them ....

"They say Americans are lazy; & parenting falls right into that category. The only generation to have a Sex Offender Registry is the generation of TODAY! The ONLY person possible to protect their child is THEIR PARENTS! Hasn't anyone figured out that all these laws are NOT protecting ANY child? - I was always told I was an over-protective parent. I never allowed my children to run around at a ball park to play or ride their bike alone, take a walk alone, or ANY activity alone! No, they were not allowed to look at toys without me! I don't care if it WAS an isle over, if I couldn't see them, reach out & touch them, then they were too far away from me; too far away from safety!"

"Maybe if more parents were more aware of where their children are & what their children are doing, then the hysteria of needing the goverment to protect your children would end! You, as the parent, are the one responible for protecting your children, not the goverment! I see groups out about banning sex offenders from facebook, really? how about instead parents keep their 12 & under kids off facebook (read the terms, they aren't suppose to be on here anyway!) and then how about the parents [of the] 13 & up kids actually watch what their kids are doing! what's that, you can't watch your kid 24/7? oh well, that's your job, a job you choose to take on when you gave birth - it is NOT the goverment's job. And while we're on it, how about you stop being so damn igornant and actually read facts instead of allowing fears to ditact your emotions! Facts from the US goverment are out there - off the top of my head sex offenders reoffending rate is 3.5% that's right three point five percent! Fact, 95% of sexual abuse on a child is done by someone the child knows - family, family friend - not a stranger ; fact 90% of all sex offenses commited are by first time offenders ; fact not all child molestation/rape is done by a predator ; fact not all persons who commit a sex crime on a child is sick in the brain & unlikely to benefit from treatment - sometimes, other factors play a role and sometimes that one act was the first and last act to be done by that person. fact not all sex offenders are child rapist ; fact, not all"

"Facts Documented from the American Psychological Association, the US Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Center for Sex Offender Management:
The recidivism rate for sex offenders is among the lowest for all classes of crime.
  • 95% of all sex offenses are committed by a First Time Offender, not a person on a Registry.
  • 90% of all sex offenses are committed by a person known to and trusted by the victim, not by a stranger.
  • 80% of all sex crimes against a child are committed in the home by a family member, close relative, or family friend, not by a person on a Registry.
The majority of persons on the Sex Offender Registry are NOT classified as dangerous or predatory and many had no victim or no victim contact.
The bloated, ineffective SO Registry costs taxpayers millions of dollars. In-depth research from the Colorado Criminal Justice division, as well as longitudinal studies of sex offender legislation in New Jersey, New York, and many other states state conclusively that current Registry restrictions do not reduce sex offenses, and may even be counterproductive. "

"We believe many aspects of the current approach to sex offenders seriously undermine justice and make our society less compatible with the welfare of young people. We support carefully limited laws that target harmful acts, not whole classes of people, and which rehabilitate rather than vindictively punish and shame offenders. We assert that only by supporting justice for all people can we maintain a safe society.

Understandably, those convicted under ludicrous and antiquated laws, especially those states with insufficient or non existent "Romeo and Juliet" clauses are the biggest group of non-threatening and non-violent offenders which the unjust registry laws affect the most---However, there are others. The Rapist who will never rape again, who lives in their own private hell of guilt, shame, and remorse. The Child Molester, who grew up knowing nothing of true love or affection, enduring countless abuses themselves, and who would willing die before emotionally scarring another child. These are learned behaviors, and they can be unlearned through targeted therapy and support, of course, for the rest of their lives. Rehabilitation can and does work for those who accept it and embrace it. Those offenders who lack empathy, show no remorse, refuse treatment, and continually show signs of violence by aggressively acting out or those who openly admit they would re-offend if given the opportunity should be the ones the Registry should scrutinize to the highest degree. Each case needs to be judged individually and risk of recidivism carefully assigned. "

"To all the people that think they are perfect and thinks that anyone who made a mistake in their past must pay for it the rest of their lives. The truth is, and i know the ones out there who will deny it, (you know who you are) MOST people are sex offenders. FACT - Most people have performed oral sex while laws on the books at the time prohibited it. Because you were not caught, or prosecuted, does not change the fact the you broke a sex crime law. It does not matter if you disagreed with the law. It does not matter if the law has been changed since then. It does not matter if it was consensual. Why don't you turn yourself in, and get on the registry? You are a deviant, untrustworthy, sick person who should be in prison for the rest of your life."

"Also the children are punished by proxy as other parents that are already in a panic based on myths that children are not safe learn that someone's children have a "Registered Sex Offender" anywhere near the picture flip out and then the children are ostracized and punished as well."

"If you are childless or your kids are grown and actually take the time to look past the fear myth's and outright lies and listen to someone's Unique story you will find thousands of salvageable people who pose no danger to anyone."
Remember as much as you might not want to admit it, they are human beings that allowed urges to overcome intelligence.

Monday, September 26, 2011

To all my haters

A Fellow "Prison Wife" made this comment:

'That's her there! her hubby's inside!'
'How can she stand by him?' a neighbor cried!
'I'd throw away the lock and key!'
'That husbandof hers should never be free!'

'That woman can do so much better than him!'
'I'd throw all his letters away in the bin!'
'Just what can he offer now he's locked away?'
'A complete waste of space!' she shouted that day.

'That's the one there! her boyfriend's inside!
'He's scum of the earth!' a neighbors implied!
'If I was her, well I'd meet someone else!
'Not wasting my life to be left on the shelf!

'That woman's been left to cope with the shame'
'It was all over the papers! and gave out his name'
'He's useless! A criminal! Bring back the rope!'
'He'll do it again! for him there's no hope!'

That man you condemn has a child and a wife
A Mum and a Dad who has given him life!
What would you do if this happened to yours?
Deny all your love and close all the doors?

Do you honestly think I'd sink to a level
And just turn my back and deem him a devil?
Yes! He's done wrong and is serving his time
And No! I do not agree with his crime.

'That woman' you point at, yes it is me
I was born with a name, as I'm human you see!
I'm innocent! just in case you've forgot
And love him whether you like it or not!

I've had the abuse, the comments and more
It's nothing I haven't heard all before
I mean no offense when I say this to you
I'm a victim as well- A forgotten one too.