Risk Assessment

[PhilNH5]

The post about the internet directories with map links got me to thinking. I have received that info often in email form. A call to arms because people can look up where you live. It tries to instill fear because of the potential evil than can supposedly come from this.

I think our concepts of fear and risk are distorted by the media. For example, I grew up in suburbia and spent hours playing outside and walking to various freinds or to the park or if I was lucky enough to have a quarter - to the candy store. Nowdays I listen to people at work who don't allow their children to play un-supervised in a fenced in back yard. They fear child abduction. How prevelant is that?
I read an article where a med doctor said there were 650,000 head injuries to children while riding a bicycle. Most could be prevented if a helmut had been worn. So we worry about nebulous dangers like child abduction and ignore a much more common one like head injuries.

Why is that? Maybe I shouldn't be thinking so early in the morning. But any thoughts are appeciated.

Phil

 

[slowrev]

It is not only the media building up fear. The Gummit does well at it too so they that we do not squeal too loud when they take our freedoms away in the name of security. Many political campaigns also use fear as a tool to get votes for their candidate. Also the Business that make their money off of fear do not help any. for example the home security industry.

Fear is commonly used in our society as a tool to manipulate the people.

 

[dmccarty]

Phil,

I used to ride around my grandma's house all day long by
myself. She lived one house away from a school and I used to
go over there and play all day. Now the school is fenced in
and unaccessable.... I used to disappear in the woods or fields
whereever we lived.

The media distorts and increases fears... While child abductions
have been going on for years, I really wonder if it is not
increasing. I don't have the numbers to back this up though.

Having said that I do know the following. There are at least
two convicted child rapists living within one mile of my house.
One is within a few hundred yards as the crow flies. Given
some of the conversations that have occured I'm pretty danged
sure that the convicted rapist has an uncharged accomplis that
lives across the street from the known criminal.

I'm supposed to live in a "good" section of town.

There are two men driving around trying to lure boys into a
SUV. The tried to get one get in mid October and another at
the end of that month.

While the odds are pretty good that this crime wont occur if it
happens to your kid who cares about the odds.

My city requires helmets to be worn by kids. My wife makes
our oldest wear a helmet and the child LIKES to wear the
the helmet which is a good thing.

I think the awareness has increase about child abductions. I
remember sitting in elementry school assemblies being told of
the dangers of strangers. I think its taken more seriously these
days. Especially when one can get on the Internet and see that
a neighbor is a convicted child rapist....

We also have family member who do not understand our concerns on this subject. They don't take this seriously. They
no longer take care of our children.

My two cents...
Dan McCarty

 

[Junkman]

Dan......

To know that a neighbor is a child rapist is only one part of the equation. I know of a person that was 19 years old and had an affair with a 15 year old female. He was charged and found guilty of statutory rape. It was consensual, but the parents pushed for the prosecution. That man is now marked for life as a child rapist and that is about as far from the truth as it can be. He is not a danger to society or children. He learned a hard lesson not to believe a 15 year old female that dressed like she was 20 and looked the part. Find out the details of the case and become an informed parent. You might have a well grounded fear, but you will not know for sure until you have all the facts.....

 

[dmccarty]

Junkman,

The details in my local case are not easy to find out. But the
man in question is far older than 19. But the stuff I have
heard... Well, its a long story. Basically he got caught and he
had another person invovled. He took the rap for the crime,
kept his partner out of it but used the partner's parent's house
as bond money and skipped town. Eventually he was caught.
I'm not sure if the parents lost the house or part there of. I
do know they got nailed money wise. There is more but I'll
just leave it there.

The case you describe is very unusual. Most child rapists are
family members. Believe me, I'm well informed on the subject.

Later,
Dan

 

[gsganzer]

You're right. I served on a jury that found a 38 year old guilty of having sex with a 16 year old (consensual). I'm not saying it's acceptable (I don't know why a 38 year old is hanging around with 16 year olds) but there was nothing violent about it. The victim said she was always treated with respect. (He brought her back home, when she tried to run away.) They were both hispanic, so maybe there's a different culture. According to the letter of the law, he was found guilty.

We also were presented with these scenarios:
Lets say you met a girl at a bar. The bar requires patrons to be over 21, so you would likely assume that anyone you meet there is over 21. However, lets say a 16 year old has a fake ID and gets in. You meet her, take her home and knock boots. You can be charged with statutory rape (sexual assault of a minor). An underage victim isn't responsible for misrepresentation.

The same holds true if you went with a prostitute who's underage. Not only would you be charged with solicitation, you'd also be charged with statutory rape (sexual assault of a minor).

On the same note, I'm not sure I agree with sex offenders having to register where they live. The argument that's made, is "that they still pose a threat to our children". My view is that if they still pose a threat, why are they out of jail?

I have a registered sex offender living on the next street from me.

 

[Junkman]

I guess that is why when I am called for jury duty, I don't get picked.... I believe that we should be responsible for our actions and if those actions are misleading, then we should be responsible for the consequences. A 16 year old that lies about her age should be treated like an adult because that is what they are seeking. In another instance, a 16 year old commits a heinous crime, then the prosecutors want to try them as adults. You can't have one standard for one crime and another for a different crime when they are 16 without looking at the intent of the perpetrator. The are either adults or children. It used to be black and white and now there are so many grey areas, one cannot tell how things will turn out. Depends on political ambitions and political climate.... I look at all the circumstances and facts and then apply logic. This unfortunately isn't always done and that is why the jails are filled with so many people and some of them don't belong there, and some don't deserve to get out...

 

[slowrev]

In the bible belt state of Georgia the age of consent is 15 !

 

[gsganzer]

Apparently, there isn't a universally applied standard of age of consent. However, I believe most states are beginning to adopt the 15 year old age limit. Texas does have a stipulation that if the age difference between the victim and offender is less then 3 years (I think), then no foul.

On the case I was on, I would have been more inclined to call the 38 year old a child and the 16 year old the adult. It's funny how some people grow up and mature quicker then others.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( § 21.11. Indecency With a Child



(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person's spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:



(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or



(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:



(A) exposes the person's **** or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or



(B) causes the child to expose the child's **** or any part of the child's genitals.



(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:



(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;



(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and



(3) at the time of the offense:



(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or



(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.



(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:



(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the ****, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or



(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the ****, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person.



(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.
)</font>