Conference moira::parenting_v3

Geez, y'all must not live anywhere near Texas!!!!!!!   In the last year alone
I have watched (through the media) over 20 cases of children being harmed
while walking to school.  In a few cases it was random drive-by shootings, and
in others it was gang shootings.  In still others the kids were abducted and
harmed, raped, and at least two were killed, but I think even more.  One of the
ones killed was a 14-yr-old girl walking to school alone - the guy who raped
and killed her was out because of a paperwork mistake, and had many other
violent crimes including murder.

And then there are those "snuff movies" (sp?) that I keep seeing in the media,
and people will steal kids and get a good sum for them, for these movies.

Maybe I'm overcautious, but I don't consider it a rathole to be concerned about
strangers abducting children.  While it is *more common* for a parent to
abduct the child, it is not UNCOMMON for strangers to do it.  In fact, it's
probably more common than many of the diseases or abnormalities we often
discuss in this conference!

I don't think I will ever let Kati walk to school, except in a large (4 or more)
group of kids - assuming all other conditions (streets, guards, neighborhood,
weather) were right....

Kristen

    Kristen,
    
    You make me glad I live even further North than most of the noters
    here ... I'm up in Canada ... and maybe ONCE a year we hear of
    the luring car driver ... the kids, schools, police and parents are
    so on top of these things that they might harras a kid once ... the
    next attempt usually fails and the guy is caught!
    
    Stuart
    

    Kristen - (.6) if you can document what you say, please do so.  It
    strikes me, in the meantime, as irresponsible urban myth.  I doubt that
    there have been 20 cases of rape, murder or abduction committed against
    children walking to school in the ENTIRE United States, in the ENTIRE
    last decade.  I would bet kids are at least THOUSANDS of times more
    likely to be injured or killed being driven to school.  The two cases
    in greater Boston recently that I think of involving kids killed on the
    way to school both were caused by their being run over by their school
    bus (not that this is statistically meaningful, either).
    
    I spent some time in the library after reading this entry looking for
    relevant facts in Statistical Abstract of the United States and similar
    sources, and they do not support this concern at all.  There are LOTS
    of cases of "children being harmed," but they are NOT rape, murder, or
    abduction by strangers.  The subtantial majority of child abuse is
    committed by the kids' own white 31.5 year old mothers (and most of the
    rest by their fathers); crimes of the type you suggest are so
    insignificant they are not even tallied.
    
    At the height of the "child abduction" hysteria a few years back, some
    group (I'm afraid I don't remember the name) tried to pin down the
    frequency of stranger abduction.  They first found that none of the
    organizations that had sprung up to combat this "epidemic" had any
    evidence that it existed.  They had to start from scratch, surveying
    state and local police statistics.  They could find almost no examples
    that could fit this category, something under half a dozen in the
    country over several years.  Cases of child snatching aren't completely
    insignificant, statistically, but almost all are committed by estranged
    parents with custody disputes, and are quickly solved.  Of course, the
    very few exceptions tend to get enormous and long lasting publicity, so
    people can get a very false impression.
    
    It is, of course, a tragedy when a child is traumatized or killed by
    any cause, however unlikely, whether kidnapping or choking on food X. 
    But the shock value of a particular incident is usually a poor guide to
    where our children really need our protective attention.
    
    If you have real evidence, please share it.  If I and the studies I
    have consulted are wrong, I very much want to know it, and start
    acting and arguing on the other side.
    
    		- Bruce

    Re: .9
    
    	Can you then explain why there are _SO_ many missing children, I 
    receive dozens of pictures a week and have always thought these were 
    true statics???
    	Not trying to cause trouble just would like some answers. 

    re. .10
    	That should be statistics not statics. Sorry. 

    re: .10
    
    If you look at the fine print on those, you'll find that most of
    them were abducted by a parent.
    
    --bonnie

    .10 > Can you then explain why there are _SO_ many missing children?
    
    How many missing children do you think there are?
    
    I won't try to comment directly, since I don't know what "dozens of
    pictures a week" you receive.  What kind of mail is this?  I fairly
    often receive bulk mail advertisements with a "missing kid" notice on
    one side.  A brand of milk I sometimes get has similar things.  It
    appears to be a quite small number of pictures being circulated over
    and over.  I often notice, for example that a picture of a "missing" 5
    year old is dated from, say, 1984.  They are also very rarely from my
    part of the country.  It is also possible that some (many?) stay in
    circulation long after the kid turns up.
    
    		- Bruce

    Thanks for the information, I do receive the bulk mail advertisements
    and have noticed that the date missing is usually a year or two
    earlier.  I know they don't tell you, the circumstances on why these 
    kids are missing so just assumed they were abducted by strangers, I 
    just finished reading an article on missing children and was surprized 
    by the number that are abducted by parents, but was most surprized by 
    the number abducted by grandparents.  
    

    Bruce has a very good point here.  There is no statistical evidence
    that stranger abduction is on the rise.  There are a few, very visible
    cases.  For example, Joseph Wetterling (the young boy abducted while
    his brother and friend were allowed to go free) and the two people (one
    a young boy and the other an older teenage girl) whos picture was found
    at a roadside gas station/market.  Other than these types of very well
    publicised (sp) situations, stranger abduction is very rare compared to
    family abduction and runaways.
    
    RE:  The snuff films..
    
    
    As is has been said in other notesfiles, there is VERY little evidence
    to support the myth of "Snuff Films".  I can't recall the file right
    now (I will find it today and post a pointer), but the gist of it is
    that there have been exhaustive efforts to procure one of these films
    and *No* law enforcment agency has been able to come up with one.
    Until there is veryifiable evidence (i.e. an actual film) I tend to
    believe that these are an myth born out of very small seeds of fact.
    
    Sue

    I can't believe that knowing the things that go on in the World that
    NO snuff films exist.  They may very well be far less common than we 
    are led to believe (at least I hope they are less common) but some 
    must surely exist.
    
    There was a case in the "Midwest" a year or so ago when a boy was
    abducted and his friend and can't remember if his brother was along
    too was taken at gunpoint.  The last I heard they hadn't found the
    boy in spite of an intense hunt for him.  Maybe that was the Joe
    Watterling? case but they name doesn't strike me as the same.  Does
    anyone know if the boy has been found?  I sure hope he has been found
    alive and unharmed.   

    I recently read an article that discussed the numbers of missing
    children - I think it was in The Boston Globe.  I can't remember
    the exact details but the agency responsible for maintaining the
    information feels the method of reporting it is misleading.  If I
    remember correctly, they report the total number of missing
    children which includes: runaways; children who have been kicked
    out of their homes; children who have been abducted by parents and
    other relatives; children abducted by strangers; etc..  The agency
    wants to change the reports to show the categories.
    
    According to the article, a member of the family is aware of the
    child's location in most cases and there are very few cases of
    abductions by strangers.

re: .all

Cut Kristen a little slack here.  During the last school year, there have been
a rash of abductions of school kids here in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.  One man
has been charged with 3 or 4 of the abductions and found innoncent of one of
those.  There also appears to be a man who is going into little girls bedrooms
through unlocked windows and raping them.

On the other hand, Kristen, remember that most abductions are by people whom
the victim or victims family know.  If you recall the case of the Arlington
girl who was about Nicole's age, who was raped and murdered, the criminal was
a friend of the victim's family.

Bob

Bruce,

If you like to research these things, the case that is most prominent in my
mind is the Amy Lynn Thatcher case that was recently tried here (she was
14 and was raped and killed while walking to school - by a stranger).  From
that case a few other similar cases were referred or brought up, so I'm sure
if you find that one, it may lead to others.

Also, on the show Unsolved Mysteries there was the case of the 3-yr-old who
is missing, and some evidence (what?  I don't know) makes them think that a
snuff movie is involved.  Both parents are around, so I doubt it is either of
them.  They have replayed that show a few times so my guess is that she has not
been found.  Also, I have never tried to verify the validity of the stories on
that show, but they always convince *me* that they are true!

In 1983 my very close friend was approached while leaving a President's, by
a stranger.  He wanted her to accompany him to the top floor (which was empty)
and she refused.  He stabbed her several times on the legs, arm, neck, and
through her liver puncturing her lung.  She lived, fortunately.  He was on
parole and had 6 previous violent crimes, most involving children.  This was in
Houston, but I'm not sure how much data you will find because she settled with-
out a trial for 30 years, to avoid the stress of the trial.  He will be released
this year.

I don't clip the newspaper articles but if you are genuinely interested I can
start - it really is not THAT uncommon around here.  And the story Bob mentioned
about the neighborhood in Dallas IS TRUE - I have friends who live in that
neighborhood and it is very prominent.  However, this guy only strikes at
night (usually Sat. night) and has not killed anyone, just fondled little girls.

Happy researching!
Kristen

    Kristen -
    
    A friend of mine and his immediate family were wiped out in a
    commercial plane crash when I was in junior high.  A couple of years
    later another friend's mother was killed by lightening on vacation in
    Colorado.  But fortunately I can still feel comfortable when flying,
    even on the way to Colorado mountains.
    
    The question is not the occurance of tragic events, but their
    prevelance, and the degree to which we should reshape our lives around
    them.  There is also some disagreement about standards of evidence. 
    Unsolved Mysteries makes money by broadcasting nonsense, just as the
    National Enquirer makes money by printing it.  These are entertainment,
    not sources of reliable information about the world.
    
    August being a slow news month, the Boston Globe (a pretty
    straight-laced, serious paper) ran a story itself yesterday about some
    still "unsolved mysteries" in New England over the last decade.  One
    was a reprise on the case of Sarah Pryor, who vanished without trace
    from Wayland, Mass. in 1985.  It was a tragic and striking case, and
    extremely heavily publicised for years, as any similar case would be. 
    But what is also striking is its rarity.  I believe there has been no
    remotely similar case in New England since, nor can I remember any like
    it in the last couple of decades.  To oversimplify, it is the exception
    that proves the rule that kids (at least around here) are not murdered
    or abducted by strangers.
    
    All this being said, possibly even believed, I don't expect everybody or
    anybody to abandon their "irrational fears."  I certainly haven't. 
    But I know no parents, myself included, who don't err on the side of
    being MORE worried about such things than they should be.  Better
    overworried than underworried, but don't encourage us to get even
    worse.
    
    		- Bruce

    Why is it 'always' a guy who grabs kids?  One rarely hears of a woman
    who stalks and drags kids into her car and then 'rapes' them.  Is
    my question academic?  I don't think so because if we are looking for 
    causes/motivation for the individual commiting this type of crime then
    the sex of the offender seems to matter in that it 'always' seems to be
    a man.  "Who cares what the motivation is, just hang them".  If we take
    this attitude we fix the problem AFTER it happens and some kid is
    already hurt or dead.  If we can understand the causes and motivation
    perhaps we can spot individuals who are likely to do this sort of thing
    BEFORE they do it and help them NOT to do it.  Also, being a man I don't
    like being automatically associated (by gender) with people who DO that
    sort of thing.  

    re .21
    
    Interesting observation Jeff ....
    
    I must admit, I'd never noticed it before ... it's probably something
    we have to thank the sexual psychology researchers for, since they
    have reckoned that on average men think far more about sexual things
    than women ... therefore there must be a higher proportion of men
    who are likely to perform sexually driven abductions and other such
    horrors.
    
    On the other hand, have you ever noticed that baby snatchers tend to be
    predominantly women, particularly women who desparately want a baby and
    cannot have one for one reason or another ?
    
    I wonder how much of this is stereotyping and how much is fact ?
    
    Stuart

    I had a similar reaction as Kristen to the base note.  I lived in
    a planned community No. VA (Burke Centre) which felt very safe to
    me.  During one school year a number of girls and boys were
    sexually assaulted walking to elementary school (1988).  Many
    parents in my community began demanding school buses for all
    elementary school children.  Also, not far from there, Rosie (age
    9?) was  stolen off of her bike in broad day light around this
    time last year.  She was found the next day raped and dead.  At
    Christmas time 1989, Melissa Brannen (age 4?) was abducted from a
    Christmas party in No. VA.  The Melissa  Brannen case was shown on
    Unsolved Mysteries or America's Most Wanted  (can't remember which
    show) and the presentation appeared to be factually accurate and not
    sensationalized.  Melissa has not be found and her mother still
    has her Christmas presents wrapped hoping she is returned alive. 
    Northern Virginia is not know for high crime, but these recent
    incidents would make me think real hard before I let a 6-8 year
    old walk to school alone.  Even the older kids aren't safe.  A
    young teen ager was riding his dirt bike in some woods in No. VA a
    couple of months ago and was murdered by a stranger.  It turns out
    that wasn't the first kid this man had murdered.  These problems
    that have occurred in No. VA could be a statistical anomalie, but
    they seem to have affected the community.  
    
    I was a bit reluctant to comment on this issue because of a
    traumatic incident that I went through in 1973 in No. VA.  I came
    very close to being raped by a stranger in a high school parking
    lot during the middle of the day and have been extra cautious ever
    since.  To this day, I carry a referees whistle on my key chain. 
    Part of the reason I chose to live in that Burke (1987) was the safety 
    factor, statistically speaking.

    I don't think any of us are saying that there aren't cases of
    children being kidnapped, raped, or murdered.  And obviously some
    neighborhoods are not as safe as others, and a psychotic serial
    criminal can happen anywhere.  You have to know your own
    neighborhood.  In Burke Center, I would probably be escorting my
    kid to the front door of the school.  
    
    But for every one of these tragic crimes that are extensively
    covered by the media, there are almost a hundred kids abducted by
    friends or family members.  There are several hundred raped and
    abused by friends or family members.  Very few of those cases ever
    make the evening news.  
    
    So yes, we have to take reasonable precautions against the likely
    threats to our children.  But if we're focussing on the fear that
    they might get kidnapped on the way to school (well, yes, they
    might, and I might be in a fatal traffic accident on the way home
    from work tonight, too), and neglecting the other kinds of
    dangers, we're putting our fingers in the dike while the flood is
    pouring over the top.
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s. I'm looking for a copy of the government report that has the
    actual numbers for the last four years; it's only been out for a
    few days and it isn't at the library yet.  I'll post it as soon as
    I find it.
    
    

Well I hope that we can agree to disagree on this matter.

Bruce has a point about other dangers (flying, driving, etc.) - I still take
Kati on airplanes, and drive her in my car, despite some of the statistics.
I also try to reduce the chance of our being one of the statistics by using
a carseat, driving more carefully with her, driving DEFENSIVELY with her,
choosing my air travel, etc.....But there are things I don't do because of my 
own perceived sense of the danger - and I will call it UNNECESSARY DANGER 
(driving and flying are considered necessary to me).

I choose not to keep her away from either of her parents, I happen to know
and trust them both.  I choose to not keep her away from MOST family members
as I also know and trust them - there are some I am cautious of, and will
probably never leave her alone with.  And to reduce the risk of abuse by any
of them I plan to educate her about abuse and never "force" her to hug/kiss/etc.
any of them she is uncomfortable with.

I guess my position is that I will try to reduce the risks that are
unavoidable.  For those risks that I consider too great, or unnecessary, I
plan to eliminate them (like not letting her walk to school - it just isn't
necessary and I consider the risk too high.  I'm not comparing to abduction in
any other case - family, friends, etc. - I just look at abduction in THIS case
and see too many.).  As keeps coming out in this conference, you have to do
what YOU think is right as a parent, and take responsibility for your decisions
and their consequences.

Kristen

    What a sad state of affairs this world is in.  I just read this morning
    about innocent children of shooting who happen to be in the wrong place
    at the wrong time.  One 3 year old was in his bed sleeping when a stray
    bullet hit him and killed him.  If this is the price of progress I'd
    rather push a plow.  
    
    Mike

>                       -< Even one is a sad commentary >-
>    at the wrong time.  One 3 year old was in his bed sleeping when a stray
>    bullet hit him and killed him.  ....

And people get up tight at the thought of gun controls ?  This is the major
reason, that in spite of many excellent opportunities I've had and got to
move to the US I will not.  Guns do kill people ... this is a prime example.

Stuart

	Please, Please, Please, let's not get into Gun control here.  That is
definately not a parenting issue.  

	If you wish to discuss this, please take it to the Soapbox.

Tracey 
Parenting Co-mod.

    re:.20
    
    I agree...sometimes the cost of progress seems much too high. I'm sure 
    many of you can recall, as I can, the times when as kids we would hop
    on our bikes for 5 or 10 mile jaunts to other towns, parks, ponds,
    etc., and think nothing of being gone from early morning to early
    evening. Or how about during good weather, going back out after dinner 
    for a 2 or 3 hour game of street hockey, or chase, or kick-the-can,
    etc...I remember my mother's biggest concern was traffic, and not 
    whether some stranger was lurking for us...Nowadays, I know many
    parents who restrict their kids to their own street, or even to their 
    fenced-in back yards, or wouldn't even consider letting those kids go
    out to play after dinner. The sight of that has always saddened me,
    yet I could understand the reasons for their action.
     
    We now have a 10 mo.old son, and I don't know how we'll deal with the
    situation when he's old enough to be outside playing by himself or with 
    friends. It's an issue that will require a lot of thought in the 
    meantime. My wife and I are from opposite end of the spectrum: I'm from
    an area just outside Boston, and am relatively street-smart, while my
    wife was raised in a rural-suburban area, and is more open & trusting
    (almost naive...). I'm sure our reactions will fall somewhere in the
    middle, but probably closer to my end...:^(
    
    Freddie
    

    Tracey - (.22)
    
       I normally manage without difficulty to restrain myself from
    addressing gun control.  But I stoutly protest your assertion
    that it is definitely not a parenting issue.  I would bet a substantial
    sum that the number of children injured or killed by guns owned by
    parents exceeds by at least a factor of 100 the number injured or
    killed by stranger abduction and peanut butter choking combined. 
    Probably a factor of 1000.  And gun tragedies are so much more easily
    prevented!
    
    		- Bruce

    
    I have opinions about gun control in association with kids, but
    the base note wasn't meant for that so *I* won't go down a rat-hole!
    
    It would be interesting, however, to see how many of us (DECies)
    have been touched in some way by someone being murdered, raped,
    etc., that we KNOW.
    
    When I was in high school, a classmate was abducted and killed.
    Her body was found, however to date, there has been nobody prosecuted
    and it's still unsolved.
    
    
    						jean

    re: .25
    
    It would be a bit long to recount here.  Life is more violent when
    you grow up in an economically distressed area in economically
    distressed times.  
    
    It's nice to live in a safe clean middle-class community where
    there are only occasional incidents like this.  
    
    --bonnie

    By way of comparison, having grown up in Canada and England, in
    essentially comfortable "lower to middle class" (I hate the terms but
    it's an understandable concept) neighbourhoods, I know of only two
    people who died as a result of violence ... both doing VSO (voluntary
    service overseas) ... one in a questionable circumstance "car accident"
    and one while hitch-hiking ... circumstances unknown.  One in Africa,
    one in Haiti.
    
    No rapes ... no other violent crimes ... no child abductions.  This in 
    almost 40 years.
    
    Do I lead a sheltered life ?  Or have I just lived in the right places?
    
    Stuart
    
    

	You'll note that I did not squash the note on gun classes for kids.  
That indeed is a parenting issue.  I would not squash a note on whether or 
not parents should have guns in a house with children.  I would not squash a
notes on how to make guns in a home with children safer (although I would 
caution restraint in all these notes).  

	Gun control per se I consider an inappropriate issue to discuss in 
this file.  

	If anyone would like to appeal this moderator ruling, SEND /MODERATORS
If there is an appeal, I will bow to the majority of the other moderators.

	Tracey
	Parenting co-mod.

    To make it easier:
    
    PEAR::SOAPBOX has two notes discussing gun control:  26 and 113.
    
    Dick

    I guess the question which gets asked over and over in my head about
    these issues: abduction, rape, abuse, murder, etc is what the hell is
    wrong with these people and why do we make life so comfortable for
    them when the victims have no (or a miniscule amount of) rights at all.  
    I guess this is another topic as well, but I think it is relevant to 
    parental concerns as we are all concerned what the future holds for our 
    kids and grandkids.  I think swift and just punishment is the answer to
    the crimes.  I think we spend too much time saying this person is a
    victim of circumstance.  We say this when there are thousands of people
    around who come from similar circumstances.
    
    I'm with you Kristen.  I may be over protective of my kids, but I'd
    rather be safe then sorry in such uncertain times.  It's allright to
    say that it probably won't happen to you, until it does happen to you.
    
    Mike  

    .30  Dave,  I would like to see more emphacis on prevention of the
    crimes in the first place.  If we can prevent it we can save two
    people.  Both the child and the potential criminal.  The child will
    not have had the experience and the potential offender may be able to
    be helped away from that sort of behavior.  As the parent of a three
    year old I am as frightend of the possibility of my child being a
    victim as any parent.  I catch myself thinking how much better it
    would be to stop the crime before it happens than concentrating my
    energy on revenge after it happens.  I hear other parents saying 
    basically 'lets get these people if they do that to our children'.
    Fine, but I don't ALSO hear lets try and figure out (as a society)
    what conditions set individual up to develop into abusers etc.
    I can't help wondering why this type of crime is increasing so much.
    Simply saying 'hang em all' DOESN'T solve the basic problem which is
    that these people are developing into abusers. I am not suggesting that
    abusers are let off from their responsibility.  I am suggesting that
    the social conditions in the U.S. (emphacis on violence in movies, TV)
    probably contributes to the development of abusers and as a society we
    should realize that the general social environment is making 
    conditions ripe for people like this to develop. When we live in a
    society which (AS A WHOLE) virtually worships violence and has
    devaluated close knit communities, extended families, the value of the
    individual, an emphacis on commercialism rather than a fullfilling well
    rounded environment, and trains boys to become unfeeling unforgiving
    rambos' we wonder why some men turn out to be criminals.  I think the
    wonder of it is that more don't become criminals.
    
    I am not saying that the individual is not responsible for his/her
    actions.  Ten years ago our emphacis was on criminal rights, now
    the emphacis seems to be on hang em high while we ignore the conditions
    which contribute to people developing this way.  I think that we should
    do all three. Hold people responsible for their actions, decrease the
    emphacis on violence and lack of respect for people while we try and
    eliminate the social conditions which increae the likilihood of abusers
    developing (there has been a little progress on that) and as parents
    keep our guard up.
    
    I may be perceived as a bleeding heart in my note here but I think we
    must look further than the end of the nearest rope as THE "solution"
    to child abuse and crime against children.  Until we address both
    sides of the issue in real and meaningful ways the U.S. is going to
    continue to produce these people and we parents are going to be in a
    never ending battle to save our children.
    
    Ok, have at me for taking a position other than solely 'hang em high'.

    Jeff, I agree with you about 110%.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Stuart,
    
    I must also have led a very sheltered life, but not in Canada or in
    England.  I grew up in Boston .. Dorchester to be exact ... but moved
    out 25 years ago, long before all the violence there now became
    prevalent.  Then we moved to a 'lower-to-middle-class' suburb of
    Boston ...
    
    ... and having lived my 40 years in eastern Mass, I don't personally 
    know of anyone who was murdered, raped or abducted either (by a stranger, 
    that is).  And no one I know does either (unless they've never mentioned 
    it).  All I know is what I read in the paper.  I live in Milford MA now, 
    and we just had an abduction that made national news.  A five-year-old 
    girl was abducted by a friend of the family.  She was located in
    Florida by the TV show 'America's Most Wanted'.  But it was not a stranger
    who abducted her ... it was a friend of the family (actually, it's 
    suspected that the man who took her may be her biological father).
    
    But I do agree that we have to protect our children as much as we can,
    regardless of their ages.  I have a daughter who will be entering
    college next year, and I eliminated (unfortunately, because they are
    great schools) both Northeastern and Boston University because of the
    potential for violence in and around Boston. I wasn't worried about
    abduction or even rape as much as a random drive-by shooting.
    
    And I agree with previous notes that we have to punish offenders while
    we try to solve the social problems which lead to their behavior, and
    at the same time minimize the risk of danger to our children while not
    making them paranoid to live.  Pretty tricky to accomplish all of these. 
    Maybe someday ... ;-)
    
    	- Kathy

    
    Jeff,
    
    (BTW it's Mike)  I don't think there's time to wait for figuring out
    why these people do what they do.  Sure we need to find out why, but in
    the meantime we have to put the offenders away so there are no more
    innocent victims.  2-3 years ago a man cut off a little boys penis and
    the rescue workers couldn't find it to have it reattached.  The thing
    about this instance, is that the bastard who did it was out on parole. 
    He's been a habitual offender.  
    
    Yes, we need to find out why if we can, but I feel that something needs
    to be done in the meantime.  Not saying my solution is the best answer,
    but it's the best one I can think of at this time.  
    
    Mike

    
    
    Regarding my earlier reply ... I'm not really superstitious but ...
    'Knock on wood' ;-) ...    Kathy

    re .34  Mike, I did not say sit back and wait while we figure things
    out.  I notice that the predominent attitude is punish the offender,
    period. The problem I have is that it seems to END there. If you will
    read my earlier note titled "Hang em high" you will see my suggestions
    that we need a balance.  
    
    Somehow we are forgetting the dear child we just saved from abuse may
    someday turn into an abuser himself.  At that point the SAME person
    gets tossed into jail and subjected to the horrors that prison offers.
    Eventually most get paroled and released into society.  Having been
    turned into even greater MONSTERS by the other prisoners the person
    performs even greater horrors on more innocent people.  My point is
    not with the right or wrongness of this behavior.  OF COURSE its wrong.
    Wrong is wrong.  What causes these originally dear little children
    (most were when they were young) into these HORRORS we read about in
    the paper?  I went into that a bit in my earlier note.  If you mistreat
    someone long enough eventually many will mistreat others.  Whether
    society is right in locking them up or not is not the point in the 
    contest of which I am speaking.
    
    I think we have reached a sad point because we have to lock many of our
    fellows up to keep them from hurting others more, and BASICALLY WE
    DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO CONTROL THEM except maybe to execute them.
    We have reached the default point I think. If you can't fix it then
    throw it away... and we are talking about throwing people away.  Do
    I have 'the' answer, of course I don't.  But I do think that when
    the U.S. produces so many people who hurt children that we had better
    look at our basic values and what we are teaching our kids, because
    some of those kids are becoming the abusers. The adult abusers didn't
    just pop out of the ground as adults who hurt kids. They were kids too,
    what happened to them to make them that way?  I did NOT say don't hold
    them responsible, I DID say lets spend a bit more effort working at the
    conditions which make an environment conducive to people developing
    this way instead of just locking them up, thowing away the key, and
    then wondering why MORE come out of the woodwork.   Jeff

    RE:Jeff-agreed, there's got to be a way to find the key.  I'd venture a
    guess at what a solution would be, but I might be accused of being an
    extremist (it has to do with religion)
    
    Mike

    Mike, as in most complex issues there is no ONE answer.  The answers
    lie in a variety of steps.  Among them are:

    1. Hold the abuser responsible.
    2. Educate parents and kids.
    3. Reduce the worship of violence our society seems to thrive on.
    4. Teach (boys especially) that being a man does not involve being a
    Rambo, but being a compassionate, caring person who stands up for human
    rights does count.
    5. Research the conditions likely to create an abuser, and attempt to
    reduce/eliminate those conditions.
    6. Offer STRICT but fair programs to rehabilitate abuses who were in-
    volved in child abuse.
    7. For repeat offenders who pretended to be rehabilitated but weren't
    make life imprisonment mandatory. 

    It is interesting/reassuring to note that most abductions seem not to
    be stranger abductions.  This means that a person who is not a stranger
    would be easier to track and find.

    I do find the random violent cases particularly alarming because they
    suggest a lack of normal thinking in that they seem to be done out of
    pure hate.  The example you cited with the little boy who had his penis
    cut off is a prime example.  Only a person who hated with more
    intensity than I can imagine could do something like that.

    I do think there is a difference between a case where a child is killed
    and molested vs. an acquaintance who molests one child once.  I  suspect
    the motivation is quite different.  In the papers I see both types of cases
    lumped together in the reporting methods.  In this example we are
    comparing abuse with murder and, I think that the two CAN be quite
    different.  How many kids are molested and killed vs. molested?  I
    think one will find that relative to the total number of cases few are
    killed. 

    Whats my point?  That the entire issue is extremely complex. If we hope
    to understand and head off cases like these we should try and pay more
    attention to the details of motivation because there are differences
    and the answers lie within understanding those differences and treating
    them appropriately.  When we lump the person who mutilates and kills
    kids in with the incest case we are overgeneralizing.  As a result 
    our understanding of the motivation decreases.  As our understanding
    goes down, our passions go up and that helps nobody. 

    There is a saying: That the way to judge a Society is to examine the way
    the lowest classes/criminals are treated. If these people are treated
    fairly then it speaks well for the Society.

    I think that among the steps necessary to help get the U.S. on the
    path to reducing violence is for Society itself to set standards that
    reduce violence.... such as getting the violence off TV and out of the
    movies.  We send a dual message. 

    As an aside: Look at the jails/prisons.  They are full to the bursting
    point, right?  Is crime/violence going down?  No, not as far as I can
    tell. If anything, the ex-cons seem to wear their records as a badge of
    achievement!

    Things are fundamentally wrong.  Many of the answers lie in ourselves...
    not JUST the criminals.

    Mankind seems to have the attitude that revenge is paramount. Until we
    stop thinking that way we are doomed to keep the vicious circle going. 

    
    Well, I will venture to offer a reason and  probably get eaten alive.
    Here goes.. I think that the whole "wanting to abuse" syndrome stems
    from the abuser seeing themselves as abused. That is if he is not
    genuinely crazy.. He sees the U.S.A as a place where there is great
    wealth and somehow he is not getting any of it, and has no hop of
    ever getting any.
    I think that this country is one of the few places where you can
    find 2 extremes living within walking distance somtimes. The very,
    very RICH and the very very POOR. Put that in a society where money
    and material things are of great importance, and people will feel
    abused. In a society where you are encouraged to SPEND (with credit
    cards) even though you have no cash, and then when it is time to pay
    if you cannot pay, then your credit is messed up, you cannot even
    rent an apartment..Well, people will feel abused.
    If you are denied an ability to earn a living, by not getting a good
    job because of religion, sex, race etc., then you will feel abused.
    
    Maybe we should try to fix those things first, then if people do not
    feel abused, they will not want to abuse.
    
    But, I think that just in case, as a deterrent, we SHOULD have stricter
    penalties. I was at home and watching CNN. A reporter told the
    Iraqi ambassoador that she had heard of rapings by Iraqi soldiers.
    
    He said," How many"
    SHe:  " about 3"
    HE: "If they are caught, they are shot DEAD without  a trial. IF a
    person is caught raping someone here,  there is a 50% chance that he
    goes free, and if he doesn't he is put in jail with a TV and everything
    and ina couple of years he goes free. What is your point?"
    DEAD SILENCE..
    Next question.
    
    Nuff said.
    
    Desryn
    

    
    When I was a boy I was verbally/emotionally abused for years. It made
    my life hell and it has taken me years to recover.  My father was a
    sick man.  As much as I hated the abuse I never wanted him in jail.
    He needed emotional help.
    
    I have never felt the urge to pass my maltreatment along to others.
    Apparently others do feel that urge.
    But there are many types and causes of abuse and I see
    oversimplifications and overgeneralizations again and again without
    the person having any interest in anything other than vengence.
    
    Desryn, there is one thing which seems to be assumed, and I question
    its validity in some cases: The assumption is that the abuser is a
    calculating person whos' prime aim is to beat the system, or if they
    are caught to get a slap on the wrist to abuse again.  I suspect that
    many of the abusers are sick people who don't really think about the
    consequences because they are so caught up in the progression of
    thoughts that lead to the abuse. If this assumption is correct then the
    punishment/imprisonment 'cure' fixes the problem by taking them off the
    streets, fine.  But the deterrence logic doesn't hold in THAT
    example.  Its similiar to the frame of mind a person attacking another
    in a rage might be in. The deterence would figure in where the person
    had time to calculate the events out and their possible consequences. 
    I am sure SOME are people who are cold calculating individuals who are
    trying to get  away with satisfying their urges.  Others I suspect are
    caught up in an emotional illness which is compulsive in nature.  If my
    assumption is correct, that some are compulsively caught up, deterrence
    is a moot point.  
    
    I have a mother-in-law who WILL NOT go out of her house. Logic is a
    wasted effort.  She CANNOT emotionally go out.  She would freak out
    if forced out. If it was illegal to stay in, all the laws in World
    or threats would not get her out.  THAT is the type of situation some
    are caught up in.... in as far as ability to control their lives is
    concerned.  Mental institution,? Yes, in some cases.  
    
    My main point in my series of notes in this string is to point out
    that in my opinion that child abusers are driven by a variety of
    emotions/compulsions/and urges.  If we hope to sort out how to reduce
    and stop the various types of child abuse BEFORE they happen we must
    increase our understanding of the different reasons people do it, AND
    treat those people appropriately.  This is in contrast to simply
    hanging all child abusers after they do it.  If we take that approach
    we will continue closing the gate after the horse is out indefinately,
    and personally endorsing violence.  We cannot afford the luxury of
    passing along violence and revenge as ends in themselves any longer. 
    Look at the condition our Society is in.  
    
    
    
    Personally, I will get far more satisfaction out of preventing child
    abuse rather than seeing another beaten/raped child with somebody
    hanging in the background. 
    
    Your point about wealth and all is well taken and I am sure figures in
    how some abuse cases develop, but I think the fundamental problem lies
    in the values our society places on violence, revenge and the way ALL
    people are treated. (I did not say the abuser is not responsible).
    
    The point some people raise about some people having been abused
    themselves going on to abuse still others points out part of what I am
    trying to say. 
    
    
    I see overgeneralizations on this subject which if applied in a less
    emotional context would have people jumping all over them for stating
    opinions as facts etc. THATS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IN THIS STRING.
    

    It seems to me that a society that enforces extremely strict
    penalties with no support or prevention at all is a little like
    parents who throw their child out of the house because they can't
    cope with the child's behavior after having not bothered to teach
    the child discipline, self-respect, self-management, and love.  
    
    While I was still in the hospital with my last baby, I got up in
    the middle of the night and walked down to the nursery to watch
    him sleeping there with all the other sweet cuddly little babies. 
    They were so new, so fresh, so peaceful.
    
    And then I thought that some of those babies were going to go home
    to parents who didn't care about them, or didn't want them.  Some
    of them were going to be beaten and mistreated by parents or
    relatives, and some of them were going to be humiliated in school
    and branded as stupid because they'd never had a good meal in
    their lives.  Quite possibly some of them would never get a good
    education because their families didn't value book-learning.  Some
    of them were going to wind up dealing drugs because the only
    people they saw with money in the land of opportunity are the
    dealers, and some of them were going to wind up using drugs to try
    to dull the pain of figuring out "What did I do wrong to make my
    parents hate me so they abuse me like this?"
    
    But you couldn't tell that by looking at them.  There isn't a test
    you could have given those babies that would say which ones would
    go on to live happy and productive lives and which ones would wind
    up being written off as societal trash.  
    
    But if you looked outside, you could make a better guess.  The
    ones who have loving families who care enough to give attention
    and teach the child how to make his or her own decisions and be
    responsible for the consequences -- no matter what their religion,
    economic situation, or political beliefs, no matter whether that
    discipline is "permissive" or "strict", no matter whether that
    family structure is traditional or unconventional -- will mostly
    grow up to be healthy well-adjusted adults.  The ones who go home
    to abuse, belittlement, neglect, and mockery -- no matter how
    religious or rich the family -- will for the most part grow up to
    be angry, bitter, resentful, crippled adults who may take their
    inner pain out in drinking, abusing others, getting what they can
    any way they can, and destroying those who appear to have what
    they don't.  They'll tend to think people are only for using, and
    there won't be much moral difference in whether they express that
    behavior in the streets or in the board rooms of major companies
    where they negotiate leveraged buyouts whose only purpose is to
    make them richer. 
    
    Maybe some criminals are born.  But most of them are made.  Most
    of them are taught to be what they are by the people who should
    have loved them.  And when they don't turn out acceptable, we toss
    them on the trash for having learned their lessons too well.  
    
    I'm not sure how one goes about healing a significant portion of
    the population.  I don't have answers.  But a bit more compassion
    and a bit less revenge is definitely in order, because until we do
    something about not teaching people to hate, we're going to
    continue to breed more and more criminals who have to be locked up
    or executed for what they've done.
    
    --bonnie

    re:.41
    Bonnie, 
    	Thanks, IMO you hit the nail straight on the head!!

Article in today's Dallas Morning News about a 4-yr-old girl found dead in
the swimming pool at her apartments.  Her friends playing with her said a
few men got out of a car and lured her into it, then they saw her screaming
and banging on the windows of the car as it drove away.  They killed her
(did not say whether anything was done before that) and dumped her into the
swimming pool, where she was found by her mother.

A reminder to those of you who wondered if you are sheltered because you
do not know of anyone who was raped, murdered, etc.

Rape is much like child sexual abuse in that many people blame the victim.
Therefore, it is rare that a woman or a man will share that s/he has been
raped or molested.  

Have you been sheltered?  Yes, but probably not because of where you live,
but rather the victims/survivors have "sheltered" you by not sharing their own
pain with you. 

The latest stats that I have heard are that 1 of 3 girls and 1 of 7 boys
will have been raped and/or molested by the age of (15/18?).

            Carol

.43> Article in today's Dallas Morning News about a 4-yr-old girl found dead in
.43> the swimming pool at her apartments.  Her friends playing with her said a
.43> few men got out of a car and lured her into it, then they saw her screaming
.43> and banging on the windows of the car as it drove away.  They killed her
.43> (did not say whether anything was done before that) and dumped her into the
.43> swimming pool, where she was found by her mother.
    
    I'm sorry, Kristen, but I don't believe this.  These "few men" would
    not drive off to a remote location, kill the girl, then drive back to
    the apartment house to dump her in the pool.  It's a hoax.  The girl
    must have died in a swimming pool accident, and perhaps the other kids
    got hysterical and made this up to cover their sense of guilt.

In re: <<< Note 259.44 by CSC32::DUBOIS "The early bird gets worms" >>>
               -< Rape, Child Sexual Abuse == Often Kept Secret >-

    I have seen similar reports, Carol, but you may give a mistaken
    impression to people.  The "latest stats" are not necessarily accurate,
    and are, by definition (since we're talking about an under-reported
    problem) guesses.  I have seen detailed and credible studies with
    alarming findings, but they CONFIRMED that sexual abuse of children by
    strangers is virtually non-existent.  The vast majority of the "abuse"
    identified was unwanted sexual attention to teenagers and above from
    people they knew.  Date rape may be a serious problem, but it is not
    the same as childhood sexual abuse.
    
    		- Bruce

<              <<< Note 259.46 by RDVAX::COLLIER "Bruce Collier" >>>

<    I have seen detailed and credible studies with
<    alarming findings, but they CONFIRMED that sexual abuse of children by
<    strangers is virtually non-existent.  

I agree.

<    The vast majority of the "abuse"
<    identified was unwanted sexual attention to teenagers and above from
<    people they knew.  

I don't agree on the age.  Although there is still much child abuse (I'm not
talking about date rape either) of children in their teens, there is a
LOT of abuse of babies, toddlers, young children, and preteens.
    
        Carol