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
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!
This article is pure propaganda out of Rochester, NY. RIT located in Upstate NY has problems with retention of students.
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.
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?
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 !!!
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.
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.
All right guys this is pretty basic stuff. When you talk to a court ordered therapist you tell them? NOTHING.
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.
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.
Absolute rubbish. The real stat is probably -2%
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. 🙂
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
And more than 80 % of people that believe this study also believe in the boogie man
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.
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.
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.