ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

Prosecution Is Not the Way to Save a 10-Year-Old Child

When children under 12 engage in exploitative sexual behavior, it is often a result of abuse or exposure to sex acts that they themselves have experienced. These children need mental health treatment and family interventions, not probation and blacklists.

Why then is the U.S. government prosecuting a young boy in federal court for behavior he engaged in when he was just 10 years old? The child, one of the youngest defendants ever pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice, is accused of engaging in sex acts with other young boys on a U.S. Army base in Arizona. Clearly, there are several children here who have been greatly harmed. But involving the criminal justice system in this sad story is likely to do much more harm than good. This is prosecutorial overreach, plain and simple. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. David Kennerly

    “When children under 12 engage in exploitative sexual behavior, it is often a result of abuse or exposure to sex acts that they themselves have experienced. These children need mental health treatment and family interventions, not probation and blacklists.”

    That this unsupported nonsense is what passes as enlightened liberality, coming from no less than the ACLU, shows just how far removed from reality is society’s understanding of child and adolescent sexuality.

    That these views appear benign when compared to the even more savage views of the criminal justice system points to the scale of ignorance, and the daunting challenges, we face.

    • td777

      Not everyone wants top see children sexualized like you apparently do. It is NOT appropriate behavior for children to be doing these things. I agree that prosecution is the last thing that should happen, but if we don’t want to be seen as the monsters the media portrays us to be, posts defending children being sexualized need to stop!

      • td777

        For those who continue to thumbs down every time I say children should not be sexualized or exposed to pornography, here’s a little lesson for you. This site, to the best of my understanding, is about seeing laws changed, but only the laws concerning registration, not laws as to whether it is legal for children to be sexualized. When you say things here that makes it clear you do not adhere to the public norm that children should not be sexualized, then foster the public perception that you are a danger to their children, thus you hurt the cause championed by CA RSOL. When you thumbs down a comment on here that children should not be sexualized, you essentially are saying you believe it is acceptable that children be sexualized, in spite of the fact that a vast majority in this country do not. If you have these views about children and sexuality that are not accepted by most, please do not express them here, because when you do, your views hurt our cause. I’m not asking you to change your views, though I very much wish you would, I am simply asking you to stop expressing views here that foster the public perception that we are all wanting to do things that the public considers harmful to children.

        • David Kennerly

          I have never said, nor would I ever say, that children should be “sexualized” if, for no other reason, than they simply ARE sexual beings. This is not a controversial view amongst those knowledgeable in the subject nor even amongst most of us with a clear recollection of our own childhoods. It is only controversial within the greater hysteria movement of which, I fear, you are clearly a part. The idea that children are acting out sexually because they have either: a) been sexually abused previously or b) been subjected to the contaminating effects of a “sexualized-child” culture, are without foundation. Instead, they are convenient mythologies to continue propagating for those who would impose their own pathological obsessions upon kids themselves and society, as a whole. As for “monsters”, you need to realize that there exist those of us who find your obsessions and distorted views to be “monstrous” in their own right. You have a minority perspective within the religious fundamentalist community, possibly because you have been ensnared within the bowels of our terrible legal system yourself and wish to carve out a clear path to redemption for others like you, a kind of ‘special pleading’, if you will, but one in which you leave unquestioned essential principles of the victimist culture while reconciling it to what you see as a more humane, and less draconian, response. Of course, I anticipate your objection that mine is at least as ‘minority’ an opinion. I’m not denying that. But I would say that, while still unpopular, it is in its ascendancy quite unlike world views informed substantially through the literal interpretation of books seen by their adherents as authored by God. You seem to be under the impression that your views stand a better chance of gaining traction within a particularly virulent culture than do ones which recognize the biological realities of human beings. Perhaps you’re right. But if you think my views here degrade the potential of this movement for reform then I suggest you have an exaggerated sense of the currency of your obviously religiously derived views in an increasingly secular society. But let’s say that your view was not a religious one but of the gender-feminist sex-offender dehumanizing variety which now predominate in society. You would also find that your views are starting to lose momentum amongst the educated and the secular while appealing more narrowly to the uneducated and the illiberal. That is because of, well, lots of things, including and probably especially, the Internet, but the main point is that increasing portions of society are starting to look with jaded eyes upon the proponents of hysteria, whether they be female supremacists/victimists or religious fundamentalists. And it is within that context that we have an opportunity to appeal to those most receptive to reason. That means that voices not previously considered should be seen as offering perspectives effective in persuasion with, at least a portion of, society. So you go on with your own campaign, appealing to the most base, ignorant, and illiberal and I’ll go mine, offering a perspective to thoughtful people increasingly frightened at the extent to which society has been corroded and liberties degraded by superstition, intolerance and pseudo-science, which is to say, the unholy alliance of feminism and religious zealots who have fundamentally reengineered society and the horrifying results of which we see today all around us.

        • td777

          If you took offense at what I said, then so be it. Here’s a very telling comment about the interactions we’ve had on here: while I have blatantly disagreed with your view and opinions on here, I have never once launched a personal attack against you nor have I said things to tear you down or been blatantly insulting. You, however, have constantly done so towards me. If you want to see yourself as being better than me, more intelligent than me, more forward thinking than me, etc., perhaps you should ask yourself why you choose to attack me personally when I have not once attacked you personally, but instead suggested you use the intelligence you say you have and think some things through before posting something on here that those who believe the registry and its implications are warranted can use to justify their campaign.

  2. Larry

    “When children under 12 engage in exploitative sexual behavior, it is often a result of abuse or exposure to sex acts that they themselves have experienced. These children need mental health treatment and family interventions, not probation and blacklists.”

    Total trash journalism.

    • td777

      Agreed, it is trash journalism, but maybe we should look at the big picture. I don’t agree with most of what this article stated, but rather than focusing on the negative, I am also noticing the positive, which is that someone is advocating for children not being prosecuted in this situation. While it may not affect me personally, removing the threat of prosecuting minors,especially ones this young is still a step forward.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.