ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

Kat’s Blog: Why We Stay

Recently Fox News did an article on Law & Order TV Director Jace Alexander (son of actress Jane Alexander). Mr. Alexander was sentenced in NY to 10 yrs. probation and registration as a” sexual offender”, on child pornography charges.  He had faced up to 7 yrs. Imprisonment.

But this piece isn’t so much about Mr. Alexander as it is about his wife, actress Maddie Corman and his family and the reason they stayed with him and supported him through this ordeal.

Maddie Corman told the Times of London that she stayed with her husband, along with her children, because she didn’t want her children to grow up without a parent. Corman insisted she never worried about Jace hurting any of their 3 children.

According to Corman, she was willing to stay in the relationship if her husband was willing to get help and be the best person he could be. Rehab, on-going therapy, 12-step program, couples therapy and in-depth discussions were essential in keeping the marriage together.

Corman’s decision to “stay” with her husband was met by some opposition, some saw her as crazy or a monster and she admits she “doesn’t like having to defend her choice”.  She has no desire to hear about her husband’s guilt and shame and she knows that in some ways life would be easier if she just came out and said “I got rid of the bum and here I am.” But according to Corman, “that’s not my story, my husband was never going to stop being the father of my 3 kids”.  “I was proud to be married to who I’m married to.  And, I’m still proud to be married to him.  I am” said Corman. The couple remain married.

Corman decided to do a monologue show focusing on her perspective of the trauma she endured during this event.  The play, “Accidently Brave” opened last month at the DRZ Theater in NYC and runs through July 14.  While the play show- cases how she dealt with her husband’s child pornography scandal, its focus is on her own “messy truth” in this whole ordeal.

In the meantime, Jace Alexander is currently producing a documentary about the “destructive forces of pornography”.

How many of us have been questioned by family, friends and acquaintances as to why we would continue having any kind of relationship with a loved one who has been accused of committing  a sexual offense?  They will ask, how could you stay?

We know those looks of disgust or worse yet, pity that we’ve gotten at one time or another when we’ve spoken about having a loved one on the registry. Some feel sorry for us, some quickly drop us as friends and some think there must be something wrong with US.

We’ve all been asked, how can you stay with someone who’s done “THAT”?

They may not even have a clue as to what “THAT” is.

We know that “THAT” can be anything.  The scope of sexual offenses is broad. But just hearing “sexual offense” is enough to turn many people off and they assume there must be something wrong with anyone who stays with a “sex offender”. How quickly we, as well as our loved ones are judged in a negative way.

So why do we stay?

We stay because, like Maddie Corman, once we get past the initial anger, terror, shame and heartache that we suffer, we can see past the offense.  We see the mother, father, sister, brother, husband, wife, son, daughter, friend, that we know and love. We see them at one of the lowest points in their lives, we feel their pain and we are there for them.  Isn’t that the right thing to do, to be there for your loved ones no matter what?

We’re not turning a blind eye to their offense, we are staying to support our loved one because they are more than their offense. They, like Maddie Corman’s husband, are the same person we were proud of, the same person we knew and loved before this terrible thing occurred in their life. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have become a terrible person.  So, we care enough to stay.

We stay and we support and continue to love our loved one.

We open up a dialogue or perform a NYC monologue.  We do what we can to change things, we are no longer running away from the problem.

And so, we stay.

 

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    I recently came across a statistic by a national health organization that said last year the PornHub site alone received 30 billion hits. So I thought about the days I was in court. There were probably 30 people in there, the judge, DA, a dozen people waiting their turn before the judge, all the defense attorneys, bailifs, and other court staff. As I stood before the judge for a CP offense, I received a deliberate public humiliation as the DA and judge told me how disgusting my act was, what despicable behavior for a man to be engaged in. I truly wanted to end my life after that experience. But now as I look back after the experience and am aware of how many thousands of people fall into the trap, and how devious the justice department is in baiting people, I can look back more objectively, and with the stats of how many view PornHub I wonder how many people in that court room went home and engaged in their own secret pastime. As the stats show, a whole lot of people are driven by their impulse. I realize CP is illegal because children are exploited, but really, I doubt that 18, 19, and 20 year olds really consciously “choose” a life in the porn industry, it comes about from a series of poor choices and bad influences. So I’m not so sure a lot of legal porn is much better than some of the adolescent porn. // Before my criminal act I had never engaged in any type of significant crime before, I was educated, had a great job, was well like in my community, did service work in various civic areas and donated to numerous non-profit causes. I was admired for the public life I led. So why did all of that good disappear the day I looked at some images that somebody posted on the internet??? Why did so many people choose to not stay with me, people who used to praise me, discounted all the good I did for the one act of poor judgment I made. And the stats say that those people pointing the finger at me and judging me are probably not as pure as they are acting.

  2. Anonymous

    @Eric. You should come see my county forced group clinician. She would tear you the f&@k up for talking like that. Then you would get kicked out and your P.O. will violate you.
    7 years in out of 10 total & It’s happening to me. Good bye Charlie

    • Eric

      Annonymous, yes, it appears all of the counselors are trained and coached with the same current theory, that being shame, brow beating, and irreconcilable blame are the best treatment. I think the theory was developed from the same school that claims for every picture viewed there are 10 hands on victims out there somewhere or something absurd like that. I know people that took a violation rather than endure the weekly “Therapy sessions.” One thing the therapists can’t seem to grasp is that probably all of us have more guilt, shame and regret than they could ever heap on us. Perhaps that is why there are so many violations of a technical, non-offense nature, because the shame gets overwhelming, to sit in a room and be degraded and shamed in front of others is unbearable, that on top of the registry adding more to it is truly a struggle. But I got through it, and am grateful. I did learn a good deal about myself, I just think the outdated method was unfortunate. You are on the home stretch. This too shall pass.

      • Dustin

        The lady that runs the group I’m in keeps pushing the line that those depicted in CP are re-victimized every time the image/video is viewed. Never bought that and never will. For one, if true, that would also apply to LE officials who screen and distribute said media to use in their entrapment stings and all persons in courtrooms (judges and juries included) who would view them during trials. For another, following that reasoning, a person driving a car at 40 or 50 mph who hits a minor would obviously injure or kill that minor, but a cop or agent that does so wouldn’t leave a scratch. Further, everyone I’ve known that got hit with CP possession are some of the most socially awkward people I’ve ever known – actual, in person interaction with anyone is terrifying for them. They simply don’t have the aggression or assertiveness needed to be a sexual abuser.

        Not to mention that 99+ percent of CP viewers have been made so by LE entrapment stings. In nearly all cases that I’ve seen, the accused was searching or viewing adult porn or answering adult personal ads.

        All damage to those depicted in CP is done by those who made the media and those who distributed it, LE included. I’m not excusing or condoning CP possession or saying it shouldn’t be a crime (unless a direct result of entrapment). I’m just disputing the notion that those charged and convicted for it are grave threats to society. While I’m sure there are a few exceptions, those so convicted are normally harmless.

        • wonderin

          “The lady that runs the group I’m in keeps pushing the line that those depicted in CP are re-victimized every time the image/video is viewed.”

          Another intelligent post Dustin!

          I’m not a fan of Opra but one day I heard her draw a vivid picture of young girl being made to do a vulgar thing I have not been able to unsee. I did not ask to see it nor would I ever want to see it.
          I can only hope that the PICTURE she broadcast to thousands didn’t victimize the poor young girl again and again.

        • Will Allen

          It is nonsense to believe that “those depicted in CP are re-victimized every time the image/video is viewed.” If that is the case, then every time anyone views a video of me being physically assaulted is victimizing me and I deserve compensation for it. Looking at a picture doesn’t harm anyone. People who say otherwise should be ignored as idiots.

          But I do think that anything that contributes to the producer of child porn in any way is harming a victim (or victims). Obviously money does that. But I think it also may be as trivial as clicking on a picture and looking at it …. IF the producer, for example, can see how many people have clicked on the picture, and they derive satisfaction from that number going up. Or it could also simply be a single comment saying that you like a picture. People are motivated by such trivial things.

          I don’t really agree with the “that would also apply to LE officials who screen and distribute said media to use in their entrapment stings and all persons in courtrooms”. Some amount of viewing of the pictures/video has to be done in order to administer justice. Just can’t be avoided and I think it is important that jurors see the actual problem (and not just a description of it, for example). Also, surely LE does not use the media of any child in their entrapment strings unless the child is now grown and agrees with its use (or perhaps the person has died and his/her estate agrees with it). It seems insanely immoral if anyone would use actual illegal pictures/media for entrapment unless the person in the pictures/media agreed with it.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          “Also, surely LE does not use the media of any child in their entrapment strings unless the child is now grown and agrees with its use (or perhaps the person has died and his/her estate agrees with it). It seems insanely immoral if anyone would use actual illegal pictures/media for entrapment unless the person in the pictures/media agreed with it.”
          —–
          Are you unaware of the CP servers the FBI raided and then continued to run in order to get more people? I seriously doubt every image on there was of a now-adult, let alone that each one gave consent…especially since so few have ever been identified. In fact, to my knowledge those who HAVE been ID’d do not give consent–they just want it all to go away. In which case, LE is indeed re-victimizing this handful of people. LE just uses it with abandon. As far as immoral…yep, that’s modern-day LE.

        • Will Allen

          @AJ:

          I have heard they have taken over CP sites and continued to operate them. If that is true, then they probably would continue to operate them just as they were. If for no other reason than just because switching all of the pictures/videos/etc. to “approved” entrapment media would be a huge hint the CP site had been taken over.

          I can see some morality in sacrificing a few for the good of many. But I think this case is quite too far. In fact, I think anyone who is shown on such a site and the government continues to run it, ought to be able to sue the government for millions. And put the people responsible in prison. I don’t see any reason why not.

        • Dustin

          @ Will:

          Regarding your statement –

          “I don’t really agree with the ‘that would also apply to LE officials who screen and distribute said media to use in their entrapment stings and all persons in courtrooms’. Some amount of viewing of the pictures/video has to be done in order to administer justice.”

          I was referring to the supposed damage done to the individual, not the necessity of courtroom proceedings. Going back to the car example I used, that LE was answering a call, coming off shift, or heading to a sale at Dunkin Donuts when they hit a teenager going 40 or 50 mph doesn’t change that the teenager is injured or dead.

          Fully agree that its morally reprehensible that LE does absolutely nothing to prevent the PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION of CP, moreso that they have become one of (if not the) largest CP distributors in the world.

  3. Eric Knight

    Of course the biggest victims, other than the children who underwent the trauma of being photographed or filmed in for the rancid images, are her two children. But when he gets out of prison in 9 or so years (or less if it was a state charge), then they will have to face the ignominy of the registry. THAT’S when their whole family becomes targeted. Hopefully ACSOL can send out an encouragement letter to Ms Corman and let her know there are organizations that support her and her family, and her husband once he’s released.

    • Bill

      I believe most of the bogus things about amount of victims stems from forced incarceration journals on private lives and laws that prevent doctor .. psychology or any clinician etc as well as religion blocking i.e. your own priest etc confidentiality and of course the law outlawing any help or protection i.e. housing offenders, also any real involvement or SUPPORT banned unless through gov…state … authories etc . And we know blocking from po’s and courts being allowed to railroad any sec crimes…and I think you can add much more !!!

  4. texas

    eric
    i believe he received 10 years probation, not prison
    i do not believe she would have stayed if he got 10 years prison.
    i also believe there is a big difference with the offense being in the past than it happening during the relationship
    will he be able to stay with his children during probation?

  5. pearlskipper

    Why does any spouse/partner stay with a spouse/partner convicted of a crime? 65 million Americans (1 out of 4 adults) have a criminal record. Why are their spouses not questioned how they can stomach living with a monster? Why only some offenses? Why this guy?

    I mean, I can own watch video of children being killed all day long. Not only is it perfectly legal, my spouse staying with me or not would be the furthest thing from the public’s interest. I can beat a child black and blue and my spouse staying with me or not would be the furthest thing from the public’s interest. I can kill a child and my spouse staying with me or not would be the furthest thing from the public’s interest. What makes this kind of offense – looking at photos of illegal conduct – so star spangled different?

    • Chris f

      Well, for starters the reason people think you should end the relationship and keep his kids away from him is due to the misconception that a pedophile (or any sexual deviant or offender) will either try something with their own kids or exploit them in order to create something to use in trade. They don’t realize how uncommon and improbable that is. The parental instincts and normal aversion to incest exist across the board no matter what deviant behavior may have been acted on.

      Then, there is also the misconception about high recidivism rates that have been trumpeted by media, politicians, and even our own SCOTUS in spite of the fact they each have 3 or 4 employees to fact check for them.

      You dont see any similar misconceptions for drug users, drunks or thieves. They are seen as reformable and just making a mistake based on bad life experiences. A sex offender is seen as born that way, relentlessly compulsive, evil, and incurable.

      • pearlskipper

        If you think the reason that people think this woman should dump this guy like yesterday is out of concern for his / other children’s safety and well-being in any way shape or form, then you are giving the public more credit than me. Good for you.

        I contend this is not a safety issue whatsoever – this is purely a moral issue. I mean – you can run down a child with a car while drunk, no problem, but look at a photo of a nude teenager while getting a stiffie and you are a monster not worthy of any compassion whatsoever.

        This has really nothing to do with the minor victim, it is all about the state of mind of the perpetrator. Sex = Bad. The Puritans have always said so.

        • NY won’t let go

          I was going to quote The Mysterious Stranger to compliment this post, but I would have to put basically the whole book.

          It’s a good read that is basically timeless because people/humans as a whole are pretty horrible 😂😂

    • Will Allen

      I don’t personally understand the special interest in $EX but I think people can just more easily imagine themselves punching a child in the face rather than having some sort of $EX with them. And people are just hung up on $EX in general. That is the only way I can make “sense” of this insensibility.

      Personally, I think it is insane that any person can think that say, oral $EX, would be more harmful to a child than would smashing the child’s head with a shovel. One of those acts is obviously violent and the other is not. That is just one example of surely thousands. Makes no sense to me. But I have to add, for the logic impaired, I’m not stating anything at all about whether or not oral $EX should be allowed. Or shovel beating, for that matter.

      It’s kind of a tangent – but I really think we should exclude drug-related “crimes” from that 65 million number. If America were actually a free country, using drugs would not be a crime. I can’t understand why people think it is their business to tell a neighbor what he/she can put into his/her own body. Seems crazy to me. If we can, I don’t get why I can’t tell my neighbor to stop killing himself with potato chips.

      Big government’s “war on drugs” is a ridiculous failure. I feel the main point of it is to give millions of people jobs and make people feel like they need government. Just like with the $EX Offender Registries, instead of waging war on the people who pay to employ them, they should maybe try to improve the country.

      • pearlskipper

        “If America were actually a free country, using drugs would not be a crime. ”
        Couldn’t disagree more. The purchase of anything illegal, however minor, directly fuels the production and distribution system of that item. Just take a look at what the drug trade has done to our urban centers, to our border regions and whole countries that are large players in the production of these substances.
        Want to eliminate that problem, legalize drugs – like alcohol. That, of course, comes with its own set of problems. But the premise that most drug users are just private consumers is bs. As long as it is illegal it is so much more than what a person puts into their own body. Every one of them, including the stoner smoking the occasional joint, directly contributes to unprecedented death and destruction.
        Ironically, most CP is not sold for money or traded for something valuable in return.

        • Will Allen

          Guess I should have been more clear.

          If America was a free country, no drug would be illegal. People would not be purchasing anything illegal because none of it would be. There would not be illegal producers.

          I think that is morally correct. But I also think it would help millions more people and make our country a lot better off overall.

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 *

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

.