From a featured article:
"On March 14, 2008, ABC's 20/20, a Disney owned company, aired a show challenging age of consent laws. To the dismay and shock of child advocates and Anti-pedophile bloggers and writers (a term coined for those who expose online sex offenders, predators and pedophiles), it was disproportionately favorable to the plight of sex offenders. The show featured a segment called "Vigilante Justice" in which they interviewed a child advocate who goes by the name "Petra Luna". The child advocate was clearly shown to be the antagonist as opposed to the sex offender(s), who were presented as the protagonists and victims.
Credible child advocates (as opposed to registered sex offenders claiming to be child advocates, whose offenses range from molesting preschoolers to teenagers) are gravely disappointed in the position ABC's 20/20 decided to take. Even more disappointing is the fact that ABC is owned by Disney. Parents might be caught off guard and falsely assume that Disney would take a more child centered position on sexual abuse.
While many reasonable people might support the pretense of 20/20's questioning Romeo and Juliet laws, which are "offenses" that often refer to younger teens "hooking up" with older teens or offenses with minimal age gaps, the show was surprisingly sympathetic to the sex offender, especially in their "Vigilante Justice" segment. Speaking on behalf of many child advocates and parents, we believe 20/20 mislead viewers by portraying the United States National Sex Offender Registry as made up of a significant amount of Romeo and Juliet affairs by conjecture only."
Watch for yourself:
I will post commentary to this segment of the show soon.
"On March 14, 2008, ABC's 20/20, a Disney owned company, aired a show challenging age of consent laws. To the dismay and shock of child advocates and Anti-pedophile bloggers and writers (a term coined for those who expose online sex offenders, predators and pedophiles), it was disproportionately favorable to the plight of sex offenders. The show featured a segment called "Vigilante Justice" in which they interviewed a child advocate who goes by the name "Petra Luna". The child advocate was clearly shown to be the antagonist as opposed to the sex offender(s), who were presented as the protagonists and victims.
Credible child advocates (as opposed to registered sex offenders claiming to be child advocates, whose offenses range from molesting preschoolers to teenagers) are gravely disappointed in the position ABC's 20/20 decided to take. Even more disappointing is the fact that ABC is owned by Disney. Parents might be caught off guard and falsely assume that Disney would take a more child centered position on sexual abuse.
While many reasonable people might support the pretense of 20/20's questioning Romeo and Juliet laws, which are "offenses" that often refer to younger teens "hooking up" with older teens or offenses with minimal age gaps, the show was surprisingly sympathetic to the sex offender, especially in their "Vigilante Justice" segment. Speaking on behalf of many child advocates and parents, we believe 20/20 mislead viewers by portraying the United States National Sex Offender Registry as made up of a significant amount of Romeo and Juliet affairs by conjecture only."
Watch for yourself:
I will post commentary to this segment of the show soon.
love, jessieh
10 comments:
I saw the show and I believe 20/20 was merely attempting to point out that sexual acts between a willing minor and a young adult should be differentiated from more violent, predatory acts against younger children. I tend to agree that these offenses should not be lumped in the same category.
Actually, 20/0 did a great job. They only proved what scientific studies have been saying all along. Truth is truth whether one likes it or not
Thanks for posting this article,
I tend to agree that these offenses should not be lumped in the same category.
There are very few cases of consenting teenagers being put on the sex offender registry. The fact is, is that the majority of juveniles that are on the registry are on there for committing serious sexual crimes.
20/20 was being intentionally misleading about the people which make up the sex offender registry. This is why many pro-sex offender groups, groups whose members crimes look nothing like consenting teenagers, are roaming around saying ridiculous things like:
Actually, 20/0 did a great job. They only proved what scientific studies have been saying all along. Truth is truth whether one likes it or not
I agree with the first anonymous poster. Don't paint it as though 20/20 were advocating otherwise. There's absolutely no reason why teenagers who've had consensual sex with a partner should be on those lists and you know it. Don't make it seem like anything else was the intent of the show.
I am tempted to delete some of these comments, however-I am going to keep my mind open and read them all, and leave them here to be read. The anonymous voice- All three of the anonymous voices, I believe to be the same. A person, male or female that doesn't have enough courage to use a real name that would probably connect them to some type of sex offender registry. A 22 year old having sex with a 15 year old is NOT okay. The second anonymous comment has to be dismissed as ignorant. My only question is: to which scientific study are you making reference?
The intent of the show was to lessen the impact of sex crimes on their victims and imply that teenagers are capable of making their own sexual decisions. This does reflect well on ABC/Disney because they are a "family-oriented" company. As much hope as I have in my generation, people both under and above the age of consent do not make great choices regarding sex and anyone who ignores this fact, anyone who takes advantage of someone's youth and exploits them, anyone who rapes a minor should be on the registry regardless of how 'violent' or 're-offending' they may or may not be.
"There are very few cases of consenting teenagers being put on the sex offender registry."
This would come as a surprise to the young couple profiled in the March 7 segment of 20/20 and the hundreds of others in Texas in the same situation. I made the first comment here but not any of the others. I am not a sex offender, just the grandmother of three precious children. I want the laws to focus on those who would prey on my grandchildren. To waste the same resources on people like the young man in that first 20/20 segment who is married to his "victim" as are used on more dangerous, predatory offenders does not protect our children. That is the point 20/20 was attempting to make. You have voiced intent in their words that were never made.
Dear Grandmother of three,
I must say that I still disagree with you. Regardless of the outcome of a statutory rape situation, it is statutory rape. If the victim chooses to marry her/his rapist-it does not negate the emotional damage that could quite possibly be done. I agree with you, there should be more efforts put into protecting children from predators. However, saying that one sex offense is less than another because of the nearness to age of consent does not help to protect. I also believe there should be clearer descriptions of these crimes posted on the registry (as far as laws of privacy would allow). People have a right to know whether the 18 year old that lives down the street from them engaged in an illegal sex act with his ex-girlfriend who just turned 16 or if he engaged in an illegal sex act with his six year old cousin he was supposed to be looking after. Perhaps changes should be made but to remove the name from the list would not hold violators accountable. I am glad that you have a goal to protect your three precious grandchildren, and precious they are. Perhaps 20/20 should run an episode or two about the predators that do not even appear on the registries. Perhaps they should run an hour long feature discussing how rare it is for sexual offenders to be placed on the registry and provide tips and helpful advice on how to protect from predators whose names are not known, who live down the street, who work at their schools, at their churches, the ones who live inside the homes of many many innocent children. This would be a move in the right direction but a show highlighting reasons why some sex offenders are "lesser of a threat" than others is not a move toward protecting children.
"This would come as a surprise to the young couple profiled in the March 7 segment of 20/20 and the hundreds of others in Texas in the same situation."
Actually that's a little bit of a twist. "the young couple" is just that. THE young couple. There are not large numbers of people this has happened to, it is extremely rare for statutory rapists to even appear on the SOR.
In fact, less than 10% of all sex offenders were teens when they were convicted. And although there are lots of people on the registry for statutory rape, their crimes were not statutory rape OR peeing behind a bush like sex offender activists want people to believe. They took plea bargains, they plead DOWN in other words.
If this were merely about changing laws regarding SAME AGE or close in age teenagers, that would be one thing. But it is not. It is about sex offenders who are exploiting teenagers to try to get laws changed for themselves. They, whose crimes were molesting a prepubescent child when they were 30, or possession of child pornography.
Example Jim Freeman the co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful, an organization that tries to get laws changed for sex offenders. Where is he now? Awaiting trial after getting busted as the leader of an international pedophile ring in possession of greater than 400,000 images and videos of children being drugged and sexually abused. He was a spokesperson for people like granny here. And Cheryl Griffith the COO of SOSEN tried to cover it up for him. What do you think about that?
Stitches, thank you for what you are doing.
Your welcome and thank YOU.
We are in the right. And we will not back down. These people visiting here from one of the sex offender groups think it's cool to visit a survivor site and tell you that you don't know anything about sexual abuse. They want to "educate" you.
I, on the other hand, want to educate everyone about who these people are, what they represent and the truth behind their rhetoric.
THEY fight for sex offenders, WE fight for their innocent victims.
Post a Comment