Got this from Loyal Heights Watch.
A convicted child rapist is living on the 7700 block of 17th Ave NW.
Those nearby with children might want to be extra vigilant.
Got this from Loyal Heights Watch.
A convicted child rapist is living on the 7700 block of 17th Ave NW.
Those nearby with children might want to be extra vigilant.
I'm in a mood so...make sure you have all the facts.
The man living on the 7700 block of 17th Ave NW was convicted of 9A.44.073 - Rape of a child in the first degree on 11/01/1996
The man is 29 years old per the link Miss Julie provided.
If convicted back in 1996, he was around 15 yrs old.
The law: RCW 9a.44.073 - Rape of a child in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.
Ok...NOW, does any one have access to the transcripts to the trial? Or can tell me what the circumstances of the charges? How old was the man when he had sex with the person under the age of 12 years old? What was the age difference? Was he preying on a 5 year old? Was the other 11 and he being 13 yrs old? Was the age difference 10 and 14? Something greater? Something smaller?
I would like to know more information before passing judgment and being vigilant.
Yeah...I said I was in a mood....
Interbay, I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention, Mary Kay L. is a level 2 offender, there are all sorts of variations. We had a situation like this on a neighborhood forum I am on. It escalated (omg, sex offender) until finally a law enforcement representative had to tell people to calm down. The person served his time and while it's always good to keep your eyes open and teach your kids how to be safe, nothing is gained by a lynch mob, esp without having any more facts than the above.
Unless he was tried as an adult, juvenile court records are sealed.
This guy lived a few blocks from my former store on 62nd & 15th with another level II for a couple of years.
There were no problems then.
equivocate as you must but even the very best scenario -- the guy was 14 or 15 and he had sexual intercourse with an 11 year old -- is a transgression far beyond ascription to bad judgment. And that's giving all possible credit. Likely the scenario was worse.
14 or 15 is the age at which molesters normally first become active. Overwhelmingly, if not caught early, they continue to molest, averaging a stunning 117 victims in a "career" before capture.
Could it all be a sort of misunderstanding? Very, very unlikely. Could it be that this guy transgressed once and wouldn't have done it again and hadn't done is before? Again supremely unlikely.
Not that it is impossible that sex offenders commit one crime and then are no longer threats, but because it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that they will repeat offend given the opportunity (good behavior in other aspects of life notwithstanding), I say forget the parsing of individual cases and keep a very close eye on all of them.
Or that is to say that I need no more information before being vigilant; if that's the same a passing judgment so be it.
Well, anyone could burn up the Internets, daily, 24-7, with just the hundreds living in this area that fail to report, registered as homeless, etc. It makes me want to know who is camped in some car on the same block as a grade school, middle school, high school.
That is far more troublesome to me than those that comply with the reporting process.
The heads-up is appreciated, none-the-less.
oneder, so true. Not to go too off track from the original subject here but I learned of a guy who has seven campers/trailers that are moved around every three days. He runs a low budget escort and drug service out of them. The police are aware and alerted the local businesses because he tends to use grocery store lots or hides out behind businesses, etc. Several businesses have run him out but sure 'nuff, in the grocery store parking lot just at the other end of the lot, were some of his trailers. Made me think about how many I see on my normal travels and how many aren't just people down on their luck.
1der, agreed that the ones who don't report are probably more of a danger.
If you want to search out who might be living with an address in your neck of the woods, there is a search tool on this page: http://www.sheriffalerts.com/cap_main.php?office=54473
To illustrate 1der's point, from that page there are 952 folk in Seattle alone, and quite a few of them have "non-compliant" marked in red, or have no known address.
As a few folk have stated above, once an offender has served their prescribed jail term even if they are likely to reoffend, as long as they are complying with their release conditions, there is little that we the citizens can legally do.
Sex offender laws in this country are ludicrous: an aging relative of mine, on his own property in the country (140 acres in the middle of a forest, mind you, not any where NEAR public access) was seen AND photographed, by a young woman who was blatantly trespassing, relieving himself against a tree. Complaints were filed and evidence shown and, lo and frickin' behold, he is now a "sex offender."
Not even the compelling evidence of the damage she did to the fences by cutting them to allow her horse access or the simple fact that she was trespassing on property posted as 'private' will ever erase this from his record.
Even better, two of my friends, years ago, met in a bar (A BAR, you know, where minors can't go) and they really hit it off. Having drinks in the bar progressed, as these things naturally will, to naked fumbling in the back seat of his car where they were seen by a zealous busybody who reported them to the police. To compound the embarrassment of being caught with their pants down, it turned out she had presented a fake ID at the bar and was in actuality almost 16 years old. There was no arguing that he did what he did and he is now a registered sex offender.
They have been married for 13 years.
I don't know if Washington's laws are quite as stupid, but before we point the finger at someone and say, "OMG a perverted pedophile," let's try to find out what actually happened.
Elemental- the laws here are even more stupid, fwiw.
And thanks for those who mini-hi-jacked to say I could be correct...although, really.
I'd much rather be wrong.
Sex offenders may due their "time" in jail - but I don't care what the offense is - you are less than a piece of dog poop on my shoe. Let's not make excuses for the sex offenders..mmkay?
And Elemental, your story is lacking MANY facts. We are missing pieces of the puzzle. Stories like yours create mass hysteria about how the laws are ineffectual and prejudiced against "innocent" people. (Million dollar verdict for the McDonald's coffee case? Google it and read the REAL facts.)
This shit is public domain. Go to the website and look up all the offenders in the neighborhood. Become aware. What's the friggin' debate about here?
Having seen the effects sexual abuse has on child victims, I too will be one who errs on the side of caution. If that makes me prejudiced and unfair, so be it. If you knew young people that are suicidal because of the pain they carry, or the challenges they face as they try to become whole people, the "unfair" argument might have a different perspective.
Usually I'm the bleeding heart, but in the case of child predators, I have zero trust. Thanks, Miss Julie, for sharing this.
The reason I challenged the original post was because we (that's a general WE, maybe you have some insight the rest of us are not privy too) don't know the FACTS and it was presented to MyBallard with very little information. And if I could go back and edit my post I would clarify that even I don't have all the facts either but supplying additional information to chew on.
Yes, it good to be aware.
But its also good to be armed with additional information and not to jump to conclusions.
For debates sake:
The offender MAY have done had sex with a 5 year old at knife point when he was 13 and was convicted.
The offender MAY have had sex with an 11 year old when he was 13, perhaps experimenting with a consensual schoolmate but its not really consensual because an 11 year old is not able to legally give consent, and was convicted.
Are both scenarios to be equally reprehensible?
I don't think they are equal. I find the first scenario is revolting, disgusting, and a pox on society. I find the second scenario to be two kids doing something stupid because kids do stupid things without thinking of life-altering repercussions.
Exactly what facts or puzzle pieces are you missing Sunflower? Sad fact is that your little darling is much more likely to be molested by sweet old grandpa or Uncle Joe than by a listed sex offender.
Mass hysteria is what causes things like this wretched list that has been shown to do no good whatsoever, and does great harm, AND should be ruled unconstitutional.
Err on the side of caution? Tell that to men who spend years in jail for crimes they did not commit and are later proven innocent. Nope sorry. We have something called a justice system here and often it is imperfect just like those it serves. Bio there are thousands of cases like those Elemental noted. Sorry I don’t believe in ruining one innocent life to save another. The life of a child has no more or less value than that of an adult.
BR and Interbay, well said.
I always thought there should be different terminology or some way to differentiate, especially since a registered "offender" is online for all to see.
I had a social acquaintance who is a registered sex offender. I remember being shocked and horrified (thinking small children and weapons or SOMETHING) and he told me the story. It sounded so trivial, actually. I ended up reading the court case and it was as he told me. He made a very unwise judgment call, VERY unwise, but I would be fine to have him as my neighbor or in my neighborhood. Trust me too, the very last thing he wants is to repeat his experiences.
It's good to be aware and teach your children what to look out for but to automatically condemn someone as one of "those" without knowing all the facts is unfair to them. They did their time...and while the story might be as heinous as you're thinking, it also might be completely non-threatening.
BR, what do you think the percentage is of innocent men and women going to prison for a crime they did not commit? Quite low, I can guarantee you.
And sex offenders need to be listed because they are predatory and dangerous and are likely to commit again. So Poor Johnnie mad a BAD judgment call and made it on the sex offender list, but what he didn't really wasn't so bad...we should all forgive and forget....that kind of logic can really suck it. What exactly was trivial about your friend's story Teigyr? Do tell. Let us make the judgment call.
I think there is a lot of solipsistic broad-brushing going on here
Of course it is true your kid is most likely to be molested by someone you know and trust (and in my case would probably really regret beating to death with one of their own limbs).
And yes, there are degrees of badness in sex crimes, and occasionally innocence people get labelled.
But how does this make it hysteria to say well, I acknowledge the above and will still keep my eye on registered sex offenders in the hood, and hope others do likewise? Has anybody pulled out a pitchfork or a threat? No, we've simply and calmly said that in our estimation some people should be trusted even less than others because we know they've put their penises into children, and nearly always people who do that suffer not from bad-judgment but compulsion.
The percentage of kids who are molested is absolutely shocking and disgraceful, and as Bio notes the effects are horrendous. If my awareness and vigilance and that of others might help reduce the occurrence of molestation then good.
BR has an interesting point about who is mostly likely to molest. I've heard it said before. Is it true?
and we aren't talking about a 20yo sleeping with a 17yo, so let's stop proposing that as an injustice that somehow has bearing on this particular case. I actually feel some sympathy for those guys getting lumped in with child rapists and public masturbators, though they should have complied with the law. We know the victim in this case was at the oldest 11 years old, a prepubescent child. C'mon.
I'm pretty sure that if I said the sky is blue, someone here would say it's green and that I'm an idiot for stating what I believe is fact. This particular debate does not inspire me to engage in the intellectual exercise.
*True* sex offenders are very hard to rehabilitate, almost always re-offend, and impact *hundreds* of lives by their behavior. I have no intention of giving anyone the benefit of doubt given a mark on their record. In the world of fairness, people would not be accused and be innocent, and children would not be molested. It is what it is, and bad things happen to undeserving people.
That said, I inflexibly stand by my values: the well-being of a child takes precedence over possible prejudice over an adult. This is not "undeserved" prejudice, like ethnicity, gender, blah blah blah. Someone committed a crime, but wants people to be trusting the next time the situation arises? Without being disrespectful to people here I appreciate, in the case of a sex offender, only the very naive or the stupid would extend their trust.
I'm interested to know if anyone here who thinks distrust of registered sex offenders is unjust, knows any victims of sexual abuse personally?
yes it is true -- a function of access
some statistics: http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html
BR is correct on who is most likely to molest a child: people that are close to the family. That said, hundreds of kids are also sexually attacked by strangers. Every day.
From the King County Sheriff's site regarding Sex Offender classification:
"Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk of re-offending. They generally have more than one victim and the abuse may be long term. These offenders usually groom their victims and may use threats to commit their crimes. These crimes may be predatory with the offender using a position of trust to commit their crimes. Typically these individuals do not appreciate the damage they have done to their victims."
That's good enough for me, regardless of age.
Yes bio I do know a fair number. I have also known knew murder victims and victims of other crimes. That is not a reason for me to step on the rights of people. I guess it is for you.
Oh how nice, an advocate for the sexual predators and their "rights". Cute.
<blockquote?>The life of a child has no more or less value than that of an adult.
I guess by your standards, BR, I do "step on the rights of people". In this case, I won't be losing any sleep over it. I'm not quite buying that you do know a fair number of abuse victims. If true, you lack empathy for their suffering. Lucky you for not knowing what that suffering feels like.
Thanks all, I suspected that it was true that most sexual predation was from folk already known to the victim. I share biophile's distrust of the offenders because the risk is not zero. The system is grossly imperfect.
But, here's something that will probably bring out the flame-throwers. If a sexual offender has done the time, and complies with registration/restrictions isn't that person less likely to reoffend than one whose address is not known because of non-compliance? Is it better to have a known than an unknown sex offender living in the hood? Some landlords won't rent to offenders (pretty sure I wouldn't if I were in the position to be a landlord), so that might make more offenders homeless. This problem is way more complex than I can imagine.
I know two people who have suffered at the hands of someone. You could not pay me enough money to live in their heads even for a second.
However you feel about people that are unjustly imprisoned (but that's a whole different thread), this person is graded as a Level 2 Sex Offender. If you look at the guidelines that KC use to grade these people, I'm thinking that if he lived next door to you when your kid was much younger, you might be uncomfortable with it.
Where I see the problem is the HUGE category of Sex Offender and then only three levels. I don't think you can group something that encompasses everything from kiddie porn to a stupid 22 yr old believing that 15 yr old was 18 to the evil pedophile that lurks near schools. For the people preying on children? No excuse and yes, people should know. I've actually known one of those and was shocked when it came out. Pure evil really...and I don't think he should be around children nor can he be rehabilitated. For the Mary Kay T type level 2's, I don't see her as going after kids anymore. At least I'd hope not.
I don't deny that there are those who should be 100% tracked and whose whereabouts are kept known. I also think, however, that the sex offender category is too vastly used in the capacity that we define it, if that makes sense. I think there can be "offenders" who are at no risk to any of us. And if someone truly IS rehabilitated and is abiding by the conditions of their release, should we be circling around with burning torches?
It seems like there are mostly extremes on this subject but the subject itself doesn't have a 100% right answer.
And sunflower, the story behind the person I knew isn't mine to tell. I also think that no matter what I say, you will still look at it with the same outlook instead of maybe trying to see behind some stories that don't fit into your category of "sex offender". I'm not so sure we can have a productive conversation about this, actually.
You are right that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. I did a little search on my favorite search engine (pubmed). Looky what I found:
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2010 Nov 30. [Epub ahead of print]
The Impact of Community Notification on Sex Offender Reintegration: A Quantitative Review of the Research Literature.
Lasher MP, McGrath RJ.
Vermont Department of Corrections.
The purpose of this review was to better understand the impact of community notification, known as "Megan's Law," on sex offenders' reintegration into the community. Eight quantitative studies that examined the social and psychological impact of community notification on adult sex offenders (N = 1,503) were reviewed. The pattern of results across studies showed considerable similarities despite marked variability in the populations examined, survey methods used, and response rates obtained. Sex offenders rarely reported being the target of vigilante attacks. Substantial minorities reported exclusion from residence and job loss as social consequences of being publicly identified as sex offenders in their communities. The majority of offenders reported negative psychological consequences of notification but also identified benefits of knowing that others were monitoring their behavior. More intrusive notification strategies were associated with higher rates of socially destabilizing consequences. Results are discussed in terms of their policy and research implications.
i downloaded it in case anyone wants to read the whole thing.
I'm not defending him, but this guy has not re-offended in 15 years. How likely is it that he will backslide after 15 years? Is there ever an update on an offender's Level status?
Who gave him his Level II status originally? What are their credentials? If the same person re-assessed this offender now, would his status still be Level II?
I think they probably apply those Classifications taking into account the person's age. If he got a Grade 2 at his age, and his victim was under age also, then it can't have been consensual, and just a couple of kids messing around.
In going through pubmed, I learned that registered offenders are subject to harassment, job discrimination, and vigilateism (when did that become a word?). I don't think that's ok.
I think people have a right to know for the safety of their family. People don't have the right to abuse others that have been released by the court. If criteria needs to be changed, then advocates can work towards that. I will remain distrustful. No one is going to tell a story about themselves in an unflattering light, much less a story that is socially repugnant. So the "it wasn't as bad as it sounds" line is not credible to me.
Many sex offenders are the victims of abuse themselves, and that's tragically sad. I guess sometimes the pain is eased if you pass it on to someone else. The net effect is that lives are damaged. Certainly there needs to be a more quantitatively reliable way of rehabilitating offenders. Barring chemical castration or other invasive strategies, there is no guarantee. This is not like robbing a bank and then maybe robbing another bank after you get out of the tank. This can be as destructive as murder. Would you be relaxed around a murderer who "hasn't done it in 15 years?"
I'm rambling...this has given me much food for thought. I don't think discrimination is ok, and, although I don't feel generous right this moment, I am a strong advocate of human rights. But what is the criteria when the person entitled to human rights takes the rights of another away? In the meantime, I'm happy to know who is living in my 'hood.
At one point in my life I worked alongside a fellow who had recently been released from Walla Walla after 15 years for murder.
Nervous? At first. Later? Nah. Sometimes the correctional system does have an effect.
biophile, you rock.
I know I might get some grief for this but the person I knew who did Very Bad things was, I think, very tortured. He basically gave up everything for his addiction. I'm still astounded and blown away by it all and he did the most evil things of anyone I've ever heard of. I imagine he will never be out of prison nor should he be, I guess. I know it's probably wrong of me but I felt a bit sorry for him though I am in no way detracting from what he did. I can't even really comprehend what he did either and I don't know of anyone who has kept in contact with him after it all came out.
And as more food for thought, does chemical castration work? It's my understanding, at least with rape, is that the urges aren't especially sexual.
I don't know if chemical castration works, exactly because the motive is often not sexual. I'm certainly no expert. I guess lobotomization would work...but that's like taking someone's soul away.
Dehumanizing perpetrators only makes them more isolated. I don't know where the line is drawn.
No, castration does not remove the ability to torture, subjugate, control, terrorize.
I wouldn't want these individuals around a pet, let alone anyone's children.
As much as I'd like to believe in reform, second chances, etc. I've yet to see that a reality in a sex offender.
Just tonight, news breaking about a pastor and music teacher, already convicted of rape of a twelve year old child, charged in the rape of a fifteen year old, and again another charge of multiple rapes of another fifteen year old.
Oh, and a DOC volunteer to boot.
People have to take this crap a lot more seriously than they are. Like, how is a known registered sex offender able to run a church, a youth program with private music lessons?
Yeah, I blame parents, maybe a lack of community awareness, and this state, which has serious issues with tracking these people.
And thanks miss julie, for inadvertently helping some of us to take this crap more seriously.
I'd like to thank everyone for sharing their different perspectives.
My intention in sharing this information was simply to do just that, share information. I have no plans of starting a lynch mob.
I did, however, show my children the picture of the individual, go over our "stranger danger" strategy, and talk about what to do if an unknown man approaches them on the playground. We also had a refresher on "good touch/bad touch."
I think that's reasonable caution without being alarmist or further persecuting somebody who has, as noted, already done their time.
My thinking was that somebody nearby that location with young children might be inclined to do the same if they were made aware.
Thanks to all for the civilized and thoughtful debate.
Thanks miss julie for bringing this up. I think we have to use the tools that are available and be as knowledgeable as we can about our neighbors who might be registered sex offenders. But I think we need to be on the lookout for the inside threats too.
It makes me absolutely sick to see what the victims have to live through. Pennygirl's characterisation rings very true: "You could not pay me enough money to live in their heads even for a second." Well spoken. I had a childhood friend who was sexually abused and even though he made it to a safe foster situation, later enlisted in the army, earned a Purple Heart for service in Nam, went to school on GI Bill, married, had 3 kids, and a good job, he took his own life. His wife later told me he was completely unable to deal with the sexual abuse, which kept digging a deeper and deeper hole in his psyche, tearing the man she knew into shreds until he no longer resembled the man she knew. The abuser was his father.
I used that lookup tool and I thought the dot was on my house! Turns out it's the guy across the street for kidnapping. My assumption is that it's a custody issue with his child since they seem to be unmarried but still...
I think what's WORSE is there is a sex offender living a block within ADAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WTF is up with that?
Don't know anything about the offender mentioned in this thread, but my girlfriend & I had consensual sex when we were both 15. I believe that would qualify me, the male in the situation, as a sex offender. Not sure, but consensual sex between teenagers has been classified this way in certain cases. Yet again, do not know anything about the person referenced above.
Nope -- you are not qualified MidWest. You were within two years of age. Maybe not legal but not a sex crime. Sorry to have to break it to you ...
That's good to know. Teenagers most definitely have sex, and that's part of growing up as we knew it. Some earlier than others, but we all were in favor of mutually consensual experimentation, to sex outright. Condoms were worn, and fun was had.
Midwest, I'm not one in favor leaving MB for facebook, but if ever a post deserved a "like this" button... :)
I've ranted before on here about my feelings about labeling juveniles as sex offenders, esp when they were also under the age of consent themselves, and I'm esp bothered by how the legal system ignores the reality that most of these teenage 'offenders' were the victims in cases 5 years before.... and haven't had any MEANINGFUL help since then... so I'll basically shut up. But... I live w/in 250 yds or so of this guy, w/3 small kids - and he's NOT the person I'm worried about. My kids are in far more dangers from their friends' dads, my sisters' husbands, etc, etc. It's usually the people you trust completely who are able to get close enough to do damage... of the many messed up adults I know, only one was raped by a stranger...
Sex offender registries give just enough info to freak people out while also giving them a false sense of security...
Samkin, well said and thanks.
Kyle, at best, incomplete. I'm sure there is a population that "worsens" their experience as they process, as this is observed in some people. However, to generalize this on to even a *significant* population of sexual abuse victims is simply bad scientific method. There are definitive physiological effects that happen in childhood at the time of abuse. It literally rewires neurons, changes brain chemistry, and has long term effects such as increased susceptibility to certain illnesses, and *shortened lifespan* (not by suicide). Below is an example of hundreds of other studies. Salon is a great place to start, but damaging when the layman takes a blurb at face value. Please forgive the patronizing tone. I don't mean it in a lofty way, but society is done a great disservice sometimes by this sort of thing when not investigated thoroughly, and the actual current research is not known or understood.
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Feb;6(1):15-22.
Neurobiological effects of childhood abuse: implications for the pathophysiology of depression and anxiety.
Penza KM, Heim C, Nemeroff CB.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Mood and anxiety disorders are highly prevalent psychiatric disorders, especially in women, and they are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A considerable literature indicates that vulnerability to depression and anxiety disorders is markedly increased by childhood abuse, e.g., physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, as well as adulthood stressors, e.g., death of a spouse. Little is known about the developmental neurobiological mechanisms by which childhood abuse increases the susceptibility of women to the development of depression and anxiety disorders in adulthood. Recent research on the effects of adverse early life experiences on central nervous system (CNS) stress systems has provided a greater understanding of the link between childhood abuse and susceptibility to mood and anxiety disorders. Specifically, early life traumatic events, occurring during a period of neuronal plasticity, appear to permanently render neuroendocrine stress response systems supersensitive. These physiological maladaptations likely represent long-term risk factors for the development of psychopathology after exposure to additional stress.
biophile - thank you.
I read that Salon article and had to go back to bed for a while. It should have had a *trigger alert* or something.
The last three sentences of bio's post is the current definition of fibromyalgia.
I too found the article unsettling.
and... I'd best leave it at that.
Oh yeah, Salon is not the first place I would start at all... it's just the first place I found an interview with her. I posted that because it was another scientific perspective, and she is not the only researcher who has it, especially as it relates to public funding of research. I don't agree or disagree with her. I hope folks read it all the way through. She does not dispute that there are consequences as one grows older - in fact, in the opening paragraph she describes an adult man who was depressed from it. She does make it plain that it's a terrible crime against kids. It's a mistake to universalize the experience of some to the experience of all; that is probably her main point, but from what I can tell she is not trying to rob anyone of their own experience. These are contentious propositions - the reality or myth of trauma and of repression - and there are even more than the 2 viewpoints on it... that's what I find fascinating.
I wonder if an aspect of the topic is that people think those who were abused sexually suffer more than those who were physically and emotionally abused. I can only speak to the latter...
Never sexually abused myself, but what I did experiance firsthand makes this woman seem like a self absorbed idiot.
Harvard should embrace such, the fact they didn't is kind of surprising.
ah, and there, I've said too much.
interesting followup here, from a victim of such abuse:
Well, sheep can't very well associate what's happening either.
This push to grey, in an area that is truly black and white is disturbing.
...all PHD'ism aside, frankly.
You must log in to post.