ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

RIT study: More than half of child pornography probationers had sexual contact with kids

More than half of the men on federal probation in western New York for child pornography possession had instances of “sexual contact with children that were previously unknown to legal authorities,” according to a local study.

Though completed early in 2018, the study conducted by researchers at the Rochester Institute of Technology, or RIT, is now beginning to make ripples in federal court. One federal prosecutor recently included the study in a court filing as evidence that a large percentage of individuals who are attracted to child pornography are a threat to children. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Robert Curtis

    Lets look closer at that assessment/study for a moment. How many people or what percentage of people had their first sexual experience under the age of 18 with someone also under the age of 18? Considering that probably half of the population had their first encounter below the age of 18 with someone also below the age of 18 so yes it would stand to reason that many of those sited in the study as having sex with a child did in fact have sex with a non-adult as had much of society. Perspective, context and definition should be considered!

  2. Tim

    This article is pure propaganda out of Rochester, NY. RIT located in Upstate NY has problems with retention of students.

  3. My say

    A few things seem off to me about this “study”. The single most glaring to me though is that it would seem that they are trying to use what someone “might have done” (and basing that on what others have done) to increase punishment, or defend harsh punishments, already in place. When a man gets a speeding ticket he is not also punished for domestic violence just because another guy that was speeding also hit his wife/girlfriend. End of the day they are, once again, using fear/emotion to increase punishments.

  4. Bo

    Does anyone have a link to this study? Does anyone know If it’s been peer-reviewed?

    Like the burner study, there is always significant issues with using incarcerated people for studies given the results can easily be skewed by the proposal of removal of good time.

    I haven’t ever heard of a person on federal probation, not required to take polygraphs even though the article mentions “sometimes, they take polygraphs”

    Lastly in terms of civil rights, are there any laws privacy protects or being able to choose not to participate/ be given the choice to participate in such programs? With polygraphs being essentially forced, along with the signing of any forms including a release of liability for the poligrapher, how does one no participate in such studies? Is there any recourse for those not given the chance to opt out?

  5. Minor american

    All the forced coercion by authorities making men, prisoners give detailed journal accounts both fiction and/ or non fiction of their sexuality…..is ILLEGAL! !!…further more, as long as the system is unjust, biased the amount of skewed evidence, statistics etc…. will always be in limbo And very questionable! we must tilt the justice system back in favor of all parties involved, so in the authorities eyes they may see a more accurate and honest picture of what happened in the crime…..we must go back and address the basic/fundamental practices /procedures of 1. Proper defense 2. The rights to trial or alter stop, change current / past wide use/ practice,….over use/ abuse of plea deals/agreements 3. Stricter defense lawyer accountability ! 4. Establish new laws for accused and/or guilty to prevent abuse/deaths within the legal system and prisons 5. Form new or more effective social, psychiatric and mental heath avenues 6. Bring grants and other civil alternatives to alleviate return to prison or crime….caused by a ignorant judgemental society and a corrupt judicial system!
    Thank you for your time, understanding, love and action !!!

  6. AJ

    I poked around on RIT’s site and couldn’t find it. I’ve written the journalist for help and will update when I know more.

    • AJ

      Here’s the RIT doc, courtesy of the journalist: https://ufile.io/gj0cx

      Disclaimer: I have not virus-scanned nor previewed the file in any manner. I haven’t even opened it as of this posting. This document went from my email to being posted online at the above URL.

  7. kat

    We need to repudiate every one of these types of studies with our own studies indicating the opposite.
    If left unchallenged, these are the studies that the courts will continue to use to prove that all registrants are A) Bad people and B) All Equally Culpable.
    The therapist’s comment that “those arrested on federal crimes have a more serious problem, with more intense viewing” is incorrect. Any CP that is viewed online and crosses state boundaries becomes a federal crime, even if it’s done one time.
    This RIT study was based on 260 probationers. Registrants are 920,000 and counting. A very small percentage. A very inaccurate study.
    Again, we need to get our own studies out there to repudiate these falsehoods.

    • James

      I also note that 15 of the self reporting respondents had 10 or more victims…and one had 75 child victims.

      This seems extraordinary to me, and sufficiently so as to raise alarms that the data is bad, or, the definition of victim was bad. Touching? Sideways looks, what?

      My main complain on all of this, every study, every law is this definition of minor as being under 18, and the strict liability that assigns no agency to the female (or victim) at all. Further, a child is pre-pubertal, 12~13 and above year old participant should change the equation.

      It is just crazy otherwise!

      And yes, I’ve been chaffing at the bit and finally say it….The victim in probably 75% of the cases are active and consenting, if not perusing, participants.

      I don’t consider this blaming the victim, this is just telling the truth.

      James

  8. Jack

    All right guys this is pretty basic stuff. When you talk to a court ordered therapist you tell them? NOTHING.

    • Registered notoffender

      In my state when you admit additional victims they raise your level and post the number on the megans law site

  9. Jack

    What’s beyond me is some people’s level of openeness here. It might just be caused by the highly emotional nature of the charges but this is just the whole point of miranda rights I’m talking about.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Jack, I think we’re talking about prisoners in treatment here in which case they are in a really tough spot, Miranda-wise. I would agree that one should never say anything to the cops or, for that matter, “therapists” doing the cops’ bidding but, for prisoners, “confessionals” may sometimes be the only way to “advance” through their obstacle course to freedom. Mind you, I wouldn’t do it, regardless (or so I say sitting comfortably alone [no psycho-cellies!] in my house) but for many, it’s a horrendous situation with no apparent choices. Thankfully, I was never placed in that position, either. For me, now thirty years ago, there was no therapy in prison (thank heavens, or I’d still be in there!) and, when compelled to attend therapy once I got out on parole, I was able to openly challenge the “therapists” without any real consequences (they just pulled me out of group because I was seen as a contaminant) leaving me with just the one-on-one sessions with an assembly-line psychologist from one of the government-money-sustained chain schools offering up “Ph.D’s” in “forensic psychology” (Like Alliant University) where I was no-less restrained in my opinions. They were so glad to see the back of me after three years.

      • Gralphr

        That’s one thing I’ll never understand. They want people to do said meetings, yet want it to be in a group setting. I volunteered to go to a couple of sessions and there was one guy saying he would mess with animals from when he was a kid until he grew up and committed his crimes against children.

        There were guys in there snickering and elbowing each other and giving the man disgusted looks. In no way was that helpful for him to disclose that information in a group setting. He quickly became closed in and didnt say much after that. After going a few times, I stopped going since I was never ordered to go. (I was curious about how said events went).

        My conclusion is a person would be better served 1 on 1 with someone they can put trust in. Isnt it funny there aren’t many crimes that put you in the spotlight of others like this one!?

  10. Eric

    A totally manufactured study for some political purpose of the federal injustice system. This is in direct conflict with every study I was made aware of from my case manager in prison, my so therapist on pre-trial who is one of the most recognized people in the field in this area, and my SO counselor while on probation. All said every study shows that there is only slight overlap in the offenses. Many as in my case had never any crossover, as my polygraph verified.

  11. Facts should matter

    Absolute rubbish. The real stat is probably -2%

  12. AJ

    I received this quick follow-up email this morning from the journalist:

    “Looks like Federal PD will be filing a response about the weaknesses with the study. I’ll be writing about that also.”

    Here is my reply:
    *****
    “Thanks for the doc and the updates. I’m not surprised the PD is going to attack this paper. What credibility it had as a study was completely squandered with the comments and opinions from probation officers. Its results remind me of the debunked paper SCOTUS relied upon for its now famous ‘frightening and high’ comment.
    “I wonder if the paper has been used beyond its original purpose and RIT’s understanding. As a doc for internal use with probation, okay. As an exhibit in court, not so much.
    “I look forward to your follow-up piece.”
    *****

    I tossed out the “F&H” comment purely as an attention-getter. I figure if he knows about it and its having been debunked, all’s good. If he knows about it but doesn’t get the tie or doesn’t know about it, I am quite ready to help him out with a reference to the Ellmans. 🙂

    • James

      Dear AJ:

      Thanks, you are a real brick in these matters, (meaning, solid, real, helpful).

      Best Wises, James

      • AJ

        @James:
        Thank you, kind sir. But aren’t bricks also kind of useless on their own and full of holes? 🙁 Sorry, I couldn’t resist lobbing that mortar (pun intended).

    • JM of Wi.

      Thanks AJ
      Appreciate all your constructive work and diligence. Another step forward.

  13. TS

    For those that are interested, there is an interesting op-ed on this study over at the National RSOL website and what it appears to be like from a previous attempt of a similar study. It appears to me RIT is wanting more funding and thus puts this out to garner it, JM2C worth.

  14. Dustin

    Wow. A study commissioned by prosecutors and probation offices comes up with results that favor them. Hoodathunkit? Bet they’ll get RIT to study the accuracy of polygraphs next…

  15. Eric

    To really be meaningful, the study would have had to include a baseline from the general population: give random men in the population a polygraph and see how many of them admit to a sexual contact with someone under 18.

  16. mike r

    Here we go, academia, self reporting. I say inadmissible in my opinion. It is hearsay plain and simple however they want to spin it. There are a veriety of reasons these people mjght say that and a veriety of fallible or questionable methodologies used in the studies. I am serious too. If objected to, these hearsay proxy studies are not even admissible under the evidence rules. These are not verifiable facts, and can never be, as that is the very nature of proxy interviews and self reporting. This is the definition of hearsay.
    Under reporting and make believe crimes, give me a break. These people need to come back to the table with some verifiable facts if they want to play with the big boys.

    Among the study’s findings are:

    • Of the 260 probationers in the study, “more than half of the subjects, many without any prior criminal history, reported having sexual contact with children that were previously unknown to authorities.”

    • Almost 40 percent of those who revealed any sexual contact admitted to harming two or more children.

  17. mike r

    I just do not understand and am once again dumbfounded on how lawyers let this crap slide. Or how courts just enable these lawyers to do this without calling them out. I believe court rooms are for facts, the media or politicians or the water fountain at work are for hearsay.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I couldn’t find the document for my life in the case on PACER, so I suspect it’s been presented at sentencing. I still throw the BS flag on its use, but there’s lots more leeway at that phase versus trial (or, in this case, plea agreement).

  18. Solitary existence

    And more than 80 % of people that believe this study also believe in the boogie man

  19. George

    At the very end of the study they talk about their discussion with supervision officers. In it they say “Despite the debate over the scientific validity of polygraphs, they are considered indispensable as it helps clients achieve sex offender treatment goals, assists with the development of individualized supervision strategies and allows officers to monitor compliance with supervision conditions. ”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought polygraphs were ONLY to be used for treatment purposes. Obviously this is not the case, but what recourse do people have.

    In fact it works so well… “Officers uniformly believe that polygraph examinations should be implemented for all probationers. Monitoring computer and other electronic devices connected to the Internet were also considered essential conditions of supervision.” They want to track everything for everyone on supervision sex offender or not.

  20. mike r

    These academic studies are useless hearsay now days as anyone can find all kinds of studies that totally contradict each other just with a click of a mouse. Academic studies should have no place in a court room if there is actual adjudicative facts that are available and they should be very limited in scope if there are no adjudicative facts available. Bottom line. Methodologies skew studies and there is almost always some type of monetary element that benefits those that are doing the study.

  21. Bob

    While reading some prison legal news articles I came across this case https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/aug/24/notice-sex-offense-admission-requirement-not-required-find-florida-probationer-violated-treatment/

    Which held that if people on probation dont admit whatever their treatment provider requires per their program or their innocence then they can be held and have their probation revoked.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey