|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2010 14:41:45 GMT -5
We don't actually know that he is a pedophile. Some child sexual offenders are not, and I've seen varying guesses on the percentage. Say what! Please explain what you mean.... Not all child sex offenders will re-offend. Here's something on it from wikipedia ... Later work (Holmes and Holmes, 2002) expanded on the types of offenders and their psychological profiles. They are divided thus:[103]
* Situational - does not prefer children, but offend under certain conditions. o Regressed - Typically has relationships with adults, but a stressor causes them to seek children as a substitute. o Morally Indiscriminate - All-around sexual deviant, who may commit other sexual offenses unrelated to children. o Naive/Inadequate - Often mentally disabled in some way, finds children less threatening. * Preferential - has true sexual interest in children. o Mysoped - Sadistic and violent, target strangers more often than acquaintances. o Fixated - Little or no activity with own age, described as an "overgrown child."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2010 15:14:45 GMT -5
That is true What. The ones that seem the hardest to 'cure' are those who are adult, but only interested in children. The others are not considered to be 'pedophiles'. However, the damage is the same of course. It just seems there can be more progress with rehab for the other group.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman on Jun 23, 2010 16:10:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure how Darren got included in the article. Maybe from the prosecutor? Or the officer that the report was filed with, as they (the officer) have a list of other names of victims but they aren't able to share any names with us... confidentially. So maybe they are aware of other cases also. He (the reporter) didn't say anything about including Darren in his article to my wife and I.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2010 16:12:12 GMT -5
That is true What. The ones that seem the hardest to 'cure' are those who are adult, but only interested in children. The others are not considered to be 'pedophiles'. However, the damage is the same of course. It just seems there can be more progress with rehab for the other group. Of course, I agree that he should be kept from young children for the rest of his life. But you can't carte blanche say that he can't be cured from it. I've sometimes heard preaching on the difference between forgiving and forgetting. That comes into play here. Possibly you could forgive him, but you can't just forget, that is, ignore what he did.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2010 18:11:17 GMT -5
That is true What. The ones that seem the hardest to 'cure' are those who are adult, but only interested in children. The others are not considered to be 'pedophiles'. However, the damage is the same of course. It just seems there can be more progress with rehab for the other group. Of course, I agree that he should be kept from young children for the rest of his life. But you can't carte blanche say that he can't be cured from it. I've sometimes heard preaching on the difference between forgiving and forgetting. That comes into play here. Possibly you could forgive him, but you can't just forget, that is, ignore what he did. No you can't say anything for sure about anyone, can you. Forgiving is not for the other person. Forgiving is to bring peace and closure to yourself. You don't have to condone what he did to forgive him. jmo
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jun 23, 2010 19:27:24 GMT -5
I would expect any and all who commit CSA have a weakness in that regard. Even if they have repented it would not be a good idea to exploit that weakness, would it? This is true of just about any weakness, e.g. alcoholism, obesity, drug abuse, gambling, etc.
So I would do what I could to help these folks remain committed to their repentance. I believe that falls under the category of being our brother's keeper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2010 19:33:45 GMT -5
ronhall, that is a nice reminder of our ongoing responsibility to one another.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 23, 2010 20:30:26 GMT -5
Of course, I agree that he should be kept from young children for the rest of his life. But you can't carte blanche say that he can't be cured from it. And on what do you base that opinion?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2010 20:43:44 GMT -5
1) Of course, I agree that he should be kept from young children for the rest of his life. 2) But you can't carte blanche say that he can't be cured from it. And on what do you base that opinion? Which of those two opinions? 1) Because the court ordered it, so I yield to their informed judgement. 2) Unless he's been clinically diagnosed as a pedophile.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 24, 2010 7:16:31 GMT -5
And on what do you base that opinion? Which of those two opinions? 1) Because the court ordered it, so I yield to their informed judgement. 2) Unless he's been clinically diagnosed as a pedophile. 4th degree CSC probably doesn't demand a psychological discovery, does it? Is n't that like a slap on the hand and then the persons name appears with everyone else's for the perception he has that tendency?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2010 11:13:30 GMT -5
Which of those two opinions? 1) Because the court ordered it, so I yield to their informed judgement. 2) Unless he's been clinically diagnosed as a pedophile. 4th degree CSC probably doesn't demand a psychological discovery, does it? Is n't that like a slap on the hand and then the persons name appears with everyone else's for the perception he has that tendency? Here is the relevant info from the article: As part of his probation, Mousseau must register as a sex offender and is prohibited from having contact with children, said Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Brian Thiede. Mousseau pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in April. In accordance with a plea agreement, Mecosta County prosecutors dismissed a charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct on Monday. Mousseau was sentenced to 4.5 months in jail, but that jail time will be suspended provided he successfully abides by the terms of his probation.
“The sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, being that he’ll be under supervision,” xxxxxx said. “That’s really my main goal; to keep society safer.” It's not clear if the prohibition on contact with children is for the probation term or for life. The probation term is long, 5 years, and I suspect it was made that long to keep him from children for 5 years. After that, who knows; it would depend on how he behaved while on probation.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 24, 2010 13:45:51 GMT -5
4th degree CSC probably doesn't demand a psychological discovery, does it? Is n't that like a slap on the hand and then the persons name appears with everyone else's for the perception he has that tendency? Here is the relevant info from the article: As part of his probation, Mousseau must register as a sex offender and is prohibited from having contact with children, said Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Brian Thiede. Mousseau pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in April. In accordance with a plea agreement, Mecosta County prosecutors dismissed a charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct on Monday. Mousseau was sentenced to 4.5 months in jail, but that jail time will be suspended provided he successfully abides by the terms of his probation.
“The sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, being that he’ll be under supervision,” xxxxxx said. “That’s really my main goal; to keep society safer.” It's not clear if the prohibition on contact with children is for the probation term or for life. The probation term is long, 5 years, and I suspect it was made that long to keep him from children for 5 years. After that, who knows; it would depend on how he behaved while on probation. Didn't someone mention that the MI law was the registration as a sex offender is 25 years? If so, that that means he is not to have contact with children for that length of time, IMO I think the probation time of 5 yrs. simply means that IF he becomes a suspect that's convicted of another similar or worse incident that he will have to pay the ultimate penalty for the first offense PLUS the ultimate for the second, subsequent offenses.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jun 24, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
I think the courts probably have this all figured out without our help.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2010 15:38:33 GMT -5
Here is the relevant info from the article: As part of his probation, Mousseau must register as a sex offender and is prohibited from having contact with children, said Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Brian Thiede. Mousseau pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in April. In accordance with a plea agreement, Mecosta County prosecutors dismissed a charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct on Monday. Mousseau was sentenced to 4.5 months in jail, but that jail time will be suspended provided he successfully abides by the terms of his probation.
“The sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, being that he’ll be under supervision,” xxxxxx said. “That’s really my main goal; to keep society safer.” It's not clear if the prohibition on contact with children is for the probation term or for life. The probation term is long, 5 years, and I suspect it was made that long to keep him from children for 5 years. After that, who knows; it would depend on how he behaved while on probation. Didn't someone mention that the MI law was the registration as a sex offender is 25 years? If so, that that means he is not to have contact with children for that length of time, IMO I think the probation time of 5 yrs. simply means that IF he becomes a suspect that's convicted of another similar or worse incident that he will have to pay the ultimate penalty for the first offense PLUS the ultimate for the second, subsequent offenses. If it's 25 years, even better.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2010 15:39:25 GMT -5
I think the courts probably have this all figured out without our help. I'm sure they do.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2010 17:15:24 GMT -5
Didn't someone mention that the MI law was the registration as a sex offender is 25 years? If so, that that means he is not to have contact with children for that length of time, IMO Does registration mean anything other than the person is registered? What is the ultimate penalty?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2010 17:20:25 GMT -5
If it's 25 years, even better. Since we are not sure of PM's, if it turns out to be that he is capable of being cured, why would 25 years be better?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2010 17:27:59 GMT -5
Somehow, when someone says "the ultimate penalty" that always sounds like the death penalty. I assume this means the longest sentence for a particular crime?
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 24, 2010 18:17:47 GMT -5
PM and Darren had the same lawyer. Maybe that is how the two got mentioned in the article. Maybe it is because the state has had it with this conduct within the church. It would be interesting to see what the state thinks of the group. It is great that the young lady had courage to testify and it is sad that the others didn't. I'm still wondering why it took all those years to finally get the courage. It should have been reported by the parents of this young girl when she was eleven. Those parents failed that child immensely.The healing could have begun years ago.I would bet the only rehab that PM has is that it is thank goodness no one else had the courage to come forward, because he surely did need some jail time to ponder his actions. Who tries rehab, after all of these yrs. and a easy way out?? And can you rehab someone that had a problem, and didn't seek help, but just sought young girls?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman on Jun 24, 2010 20:04:42 GMT -5
jhjmr the reason it took all these years is because the little girl was in her words " protecting her parents, I didn't want them to have to carry the burden." Remember we are talking about an 11 year old, not an adult who has a better understanding of things. Also the only person at fault here is PM. Her parents didn't know until after she was married. And in speaking with the prosecutor and the officer who took the report they both stated that the reason the statue of limitations is so long for cases like this is the victims usually don't tell anyone. And like i mentioned before unless you have been a victim you can never understand it. Trust me if her parents would have known they would have reported it! You've never met a closer family.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 24, 2010 20:10:36 GMT -5
jhjmr the reason it took all these years is because the little girl was in her words " protecting her parents, I didn't want them to have to carry the burden." Remember we are talking about an 11 year old, not an adult who has a better understanding of things. Also the only person at fault here is PM. Her parents didn't know until after she was married. And in speaking with the prosecutor and the officer who took the report they both stated that the reason the statue of limitations is so long for cases like this is the victims usually don't tell anyone. And like i mentioned before unless you have been a victim you can never understand it. Trust me if her parents would have known they would have reported it! You've never met a closer family. this bearing all the burden by the child seems to be pretty much normal in these cases for they feel guilty for something they have NO guilt in and as you've stated the child is not mature enough to understand that they are not guilty PLUS the perpatrator often reinforces the guilty the child is apt to feel...some are even cruel enough to tell the child that IT IS their fault! This is one of the reasons that the children are so psychologically damaged over it and that's because of the way it is interpreted in their immature minds and often that IS reinforced by the perpatrator.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 24, 2010 20:36:15 GMT -5
I'm very happy to know that the parents were not aware of the incident. I know the family is close and I would think this would make everyone even closer. Yes, we know it is PM's fault. I would definitely be looking into a civil suit after all the memories that will be with the innocent forever. It was known for a long time about girls that experienced the crime against them from PM and it was talked about even among the workers to friends. There will be healing from coming forward and doing the right thing and I'm sure a great relief. God loves honesty.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 24, 2010 21:31:31 GMT -5
When someone knows of a crime that took place and just allows it. would not God show his wrath on that person? How can someone that says God is in their life and would allow an innocent victim to be victimized? I do not think God is dealing with that person at all. God is honorable, honest and loving. When a crime is covered, that person is disrespectful to God's creation and very dishonest. So, how do you think God looks upon someone that covers a crime for any reason? Sure isn't hard to come to that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2010 21:36:40 GMT -5
jhjmr the reason it took all these years is because the little girl was in her words " protecting her parents, I didn't want them to have to carry the burden." Remember we are talking about an 11 year old, not an adult who has a better understanding of things. Also the only person at fault here is PM. Her parents didn't know until after she was married. And in speaking with the prosecutor and the officer who took the report they both stated that the reason the statue of limitations is so long for cases like this is the victims usually don't tell anyone. And like i mentioned before unless you have been a victim you can never understand it. Trust me if her parents would have known they would have reported it! You've never met a closer family. this bearing all the burden by the child seems to be pretty much normal in these cases for they feel guilty for something they have NO guilt in and as you've stated the child is not mature enough to understand that they are not guilty PLUS the perpatrator often reinforces the guilty the child is apt to feel...some are even cruel enough to tell the child that IT IS their fault! This is one of the reasons that the children are so psychologically damaged over it and that's because of the way it is interpreted in their immature minds and often that IS reinforced by the perpatrator. It is very normal. As a 17 year old I never told my parents. They never did find out about it. I felt I could not burden them as they would be so hurt. I understand her reasoning completely. She had a lot of courage to come forward like she did. It is the hardest thing a survivor of sexual assault can ever do.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 24, 2010 21:37:27 GMT -5
When someone knows of a crime that took place and just allows it. would not God show his wrath on that person? How can someone that says God is in their life and would allow an innocent victim to be victimized? I do not think God is dealing with that person at all. God is honorable, honest and loving. When a crime is covered, that person is disrespectful to God's creation and very dishonest. So, how do you think God looks upon someone that covers a crime for any reason? Sure isn't hard to come to that conclusion. Are you suggesting that God will punish all the people who knew and didn't report? Did you know? Will they be forgiven if they are remorseful and repent before God?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2010 21:39:31 GMT -5
If it's 25 years, even better. Since we are not sure of PM's, if it turns out to be that he is capable of being cured, why would 25 years be better? Judgement call. I would err on the side of safety for the children. I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2010 21:43:48 GMT -5
When someone knows of a crime that took place and just allows it. would not God show his wrath on that person? How can someone that says God is in their life and would allow an innocent victim to be victimized? I do not think God is dealing with that person at all. God is honorable, honest and loving. When a crime is covered, that person is disrespectful to God's creation and very dishonest. So, how do you think God looks upon someone that covers a crime for any reason? Sure isn't hard to come to that conclusion. At that moment, God is not in that offender's life. But God will forgive any sin, and work with any person. A new day, and new life.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2010 21:52:29 GMT -5
When someone knows of a crime that took place and just allows it. would not God show his wrath on that person? Good question. A better one is why would god allow the woman to be abused in the first place? How can god allow an innocent victim to be victimized? Not protecting the small children? Allowing children to be sexually abused is which of those? Who knows? How do people look on an all knowing all powerful god that allows small children to be abused. Nope. But people will go to great lengths to come up with explanations.
|
|