Kerry Article in the BHerald: Fix laws on Child Sex Offenders

[TayTay]

Kerry slams perv coddling: Questions prisons’ leniency
By Kevin Rothstein
Sunday, April 16, 2006

Sen. John Kerry blasted the federal prisons for continuing to treat a hard-core child molester for his sexual deviancy even though he is effectively serving a life sentence for his twisted crimes.

“I want to ensure Matthew Mancuso’s prison counseling will never serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Kerry said. “A judge and jury sentenced Mancuso to more than 50 years in prison and he should never see the light of day.”

Mancuso is the Pittsburgh millionaire who adopted a 5-year-old girl from a Russian orphanage so she could be his prepubescent bride. She suffered five years of abuse along with enduring a “wedding ceremony” with her adoptive father until 2003, when the FBI found pornographic pictures of her he was posting on the Internet.

Masha Allen, 13, now living in Georgia with a new mom, asked a Bay State adoption lobbyist assisting her case, Maureen Flatley, why the federal government was paying money to treat her abuser instead of helping her.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=135302&format=text

[sandnsea]

1. I don't like this

I don't care whether the guy is ever going to get out of prison, I would hope that it would be a norm that child sex offenders didn't get out. At the same time, treating them and creating an environment where they could do something useful doesn't seem like such a horror. I wish we didn't have such a vindictive streak in this country.

The question isn't why is Mancuso getting treatment and Allen isn't, it's just why isn't Allen, period. There are plenty of victim's assistance counseling and programs and money, maybe Georgia just hasn't put up enough of the state share to put enough programs in place. There isn't anything the federal prison system can do about that.

[globalvillage]

2. I think Sen Kerry's concerns are valid

If he receives counseling and is considered rehabilitated, is there a chance he will be released? This sick f-er needs to rot in jail forever. I don't care if he gets counseling, although I think it's a waste of time and money in this case, as long as it doesn't lead to his release.

Meanwhile, what's up with this? The Senate needs to get moving on Masha's Law.

S.2155 : A bill to provide meaningful civil remedies for victims of the sexual exploitation of children.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 12/20/2005) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 12/20/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Neither Masha or this bill seem to be getting the attention that this twisted bastard is receiving. Pisses me off, too.

[sandnsea]

6. One has nothing to do with the other

Taking care of victims doesn't mean we stop treating offenders.

I personally don't think offenders should be released either, particularly 2nd offenders. I don't think most of them can be rehabilitated. If we're going to keep them locked up forever, we better figure out how to do it so it isn't "cruel and unusual". I think that means appropriate treatment, respect and usefulness of some sort. The reason we started letting people out of prison was because lifetime imprisonment was deemed cruel, by liberals I might add.

In any event, it's completely separate from victim's assistance. There are programs and money available to victims of sex offenses. As I said, perhaps the reason Masha isn't getting help is because the tax cut lovin' southerners didn't want to spend the state money to access federal matching dollars. The money's there, the programs are there, he helped write some of them in the various Domestic Violence and Rape laws. There may need to be more laws, but it shouldn't be a question of one or the other. I just don't think that's a smart road to go down unless you want to end up with even more people in prison and no treatment for anybody at all.

[globalvillage]

7. I am not advocating that we stop treating offenders.

But our priorities are pretty messed up if this 'person' is getting help and the victim is not. I see your point, really I do. And I agree that the issues have to be separate to some extent, but in the big picture, it's still fucked up, and I can't believe there is justice here if he is receiving treatment and she is not getting everything she needs to help her achieve some sort of normal life. There should never be a case where the rights of the abuser supercede the needs of the victim, and I can't, in all good conscience, find a way to separate the two.
My main objection is to the possibility that if it's thought that this monster is rehabilitated, that he might be released, and I don't believe that should ever happen. I don't happen to agree that life in prison is too severe a punishment for a crime of this nature.
I am not advocating cruelty. Actually, I'd prefer that he's treated to the point that he recognizes what he's done and suffers with the memory of it, in prison, for the rest of his miserable life. When he gets to that point, I say let him deal with the anguish. Is that cruel? Oh, well.
I believe in compassion. I have buckets of it for Masha. If that's not liberal enough, then maybe that's where I have to part company with liberal thought. If it seems vindictive, so be it. If it's not 'smart', then it's a good thing I'm just someone posting my thoughts on a message board and not writing laws to deal with these issues.
It's what I think, and that's why I posted it.

[sandnsea]

8. I believe in lifetime imprisonment

This has absolutely nothing to do with compassion. It has to do with common sense and fostering a healthier society. It's like the death penalty. I don't oppose it because I particularly care what happens to people like Ted Bundy, I oppose it because of what I believe it does to the rest of us. I think it fosters vindictiveness and hate, vigilante justice, yeeha foreign policy.

I support life in prison for rapists, child molestors, certain violent offenders and murderers. We need a system that is able to identify the most dangerous people among us and keep them separated. I agree with that completely.

I suspect that after we did that, we'd come up with 3 basic categories of "criminals". Seriously mentally ill pscyopaths; petty thieves; and alcohol/drug addicts. They each need a different kind of facility, separate from each other. Schweitzer has actually started to move Montana on that path.

Once all addicts go to treatment, and petty thieves either go to house arrest or the county jail, we've got our mentally ill hard core violent psycopaths. They have to go away permanently, no question. Does it serve any greater social purpose to treat them badly than to treat them humanely, can treating them humanely actually create a more human society that creates less of these people in the first place.

This is a completely separate question than whether Masha receives help. A humane society would have made sure of that years ago. Why haven't we? Is it because we're so obsessed with the idea that punishment brings closure that we've missed the real healing victims need?

[globalvillage]

13. How?

You wrote:
"Does it serve any greater social purpose to treat them badly than to treat them humanely, can treating them humanely actually create a more human society that creates less of these people in the first place."
I don't recommend mistreating prisoners, physically, mentally or emotionally, but how will providing therapy for this child abuser create a more humane society? By showing other child abusers that they will be well treated once they are imprisoned for life? That may sound snide, but it's not intended. If this is not compassion for the prisoner, what purpose does it serve? I'm serious. I don't understand how this would help society. I don't think choosing not to provide therapy to the worst criminals in our prisons fosters hate. There is only so much money for healthcare. Do we spend it on therapy for sociopaths and at whose expense? And if we provide therapy and 'cure' the offender, does that mean we should release him back into society? What does it say about us if we don't?
What do we do with the guy who just killed the ten year old so he could eat her? Does he get therapy, too? Because I think he should get the same as Masha's abuser. Enough help to acknowledge the horror of his actions, if that's even possible, then a cell and three squares until it's time for him to spend eternity in whatever hell there is for the worst kind of evil.
OK. Maybe it's not very empathetic. Maybe it's uncharitable, and maybe I'm completely off base, but I know what I feel, and I feel that the mental well being of the criminal is not the priority. Your vision for the benefits of therapy may be more global. Mine, admittedly, is based more on passion than on any possible long term effect.
If there is a purpose in therapy, I think it probably is compassion, and nothing else. Unless the point is to assuage our guilt for the failures in society that lead to some of these unthinkable acts. I do believe in the need to focus more on treatment for the mentally ill, but before, not after they've committed a heinous crime against an innocent child.
And I still can not separate the victim from this. Doesn't matter how many times you say they're not connected, in my mind, there is still the issue of justice, and this is not it.
BTW, sandy, we don't have to agree on this, you know. I completely acknowledge and understand your point of view. I just don't share it.

[sandnsea]

16. No, I don't think that's justice

He's been sentenced to prison for life. That's justice.

Did it heal Masha? No. Because nothing we ever do to the offender will completely heal the victim. That kind of thinking is exactly why we haven't done anything for the victims, we convinced ourselves all victims needed was vengeance. It's just not true. Vengeance doesn't help society at all.

Treating each other with dignity and respect, making sure those who have been hurt get real help, that creates a better society. Masha deserves help for that reason alone. Does she deserve help more than the child who was molested by a schoolteacher or scout master? If we're going to start rationing help, maybe boys deserve the help more because they're more likely to grow up and become offenders. Personally, I'd much rather just start at the premise that all people who have been victimized deserve help.

Which leads us right back to the predators because guess what, most of them were horribly abused in their childhoods and didn't get help. So where does our responsibility end??? How can we create a society that stops creating these offenders? It just seems to me by creating an environment of dignity and respect for all, including mental health assistance. We can certainly afford it, especially if we had a different health care system.

We're certainly way way past the point where we should have acknowledged that we can't cure some people and that they're too dangerous to live among us. I just think we might be more willing to acknowledge that if we just put them in a moderately decent facility without all the hate and vengeance attached. Hate the sin, not the sinner sort of thing. Just too sick to live out here, sorry, here's your home. And here's your counselor, if you want one.

And no, we don't have to agree. Most people don't feel like I do on this subject, I realize that.

[wisteria]

3. I don't see what good most of these rehabilitation programs would do

in the case of child sex offenders. It comes down to controlling their own behavior and many can not or will not do it. I think federal money is wasted on these offenders.Federal funds would be put to better use helping the unfortunate victims. These perpetrators not only abuse their victims physically they attack their self esteem and leave scares that may last a lifetime, affecting all parts of their lives from just enjoying life to employment to personal relationships. I agree with Senator Kerry on this one.

[TayTay]

4. I think Kerry was pissed about the Devens program

from the get-go. This was a 'secret prison' program that was put in 'his' state without anyone in the state being notified of it's existence. That means that other states are sending these serious offenders to Massachusetts and the state has no control over the program, who is in it or what controls are in place to make sure these people don't get out again. Ahm, that is nasty work. I wonder who could have possibly figured that Massachusetts should just shut up and take the sex offenders. Gee, who would be that vindictive to not even notify the State's Congressional delegation that a maximum security operation was taking place in the State?

Rehab for sexual offenders is very controversial. The research I heard was that an orientation toward kids is just that, a sexual orientation that might not be amenable to treatment. (Ahm, you can't make someone not hetero, they are born that way. It might be the same of child sex offenders and they can't be rehabbed at all. Then the question becomes, what the hell do you do with them within a system of laws and civil rights?)

[sandnsea]

5. Well, a secret program in Mass

Yes, I can see where that would make any politician from Mass very angry. I can see the politics in that decision from away out here.

I also don't think sex offenders can be rehabilitated. However, I'd also like to see a sea change in the way we view incarcerated people. If we're going to admit sex offenders can't be helped, then we're in a real pickle if we're going to just lock them up forever. Are we seriously going to take a 25 year old and have him spend 60 years in a hell-hole? For what purpose? Seems to me permanent separation from society within a system that treats mentally ill people with respect, and yes treatment, is a whole lot more likely to be supported than what we've got now.

There's two very separate questions here.

One is what are we going to do with the permanently mentally ill who commit crimes.

The other is why are we not caring for our victims, and what is it about this country that took it so long for us to even ask that question of ourselves. I think the answer to that comes from the same place that thinks all we have to do is punish people to affect a change. Which is why I'd like our society to stop thinking along those lines.

[beachmom]

9. There's a child molestor living in my neighborhood

He should be in jail instead of down the street from me. I am 100% with Kerry on this. Pedophilia has no cure. I say put them all together in the same prison apart from other prisoners, because they are often killed in prison. That's where my compassion ends. NO WAY should they ever go back on the street, and treatment is a WASTE of time.

My bleeding liberal heart has its limits, and when they live down the street from you when you're trying to keep your children safe -- well, THAT'S my limit.

[sandnsea]

10. It's baffling to me

Since when did safety, clean surroundings, productive activity and mental health treatment become above and beyond extra-ordinary compassion? It's basic human living to me. I don't find any need to treat anybody worse than that, no matter what they've done. Especially if you're knowingly locking someone away for the rest of their life.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Masha getting the treatment she deserves, one has nothing to do with the other.

[karynnj]

12. I agree on satiety and clean surroundings,

Mental health treatment should focus on what's needed to allow him to function in prison as that's where he will be. In this area, psychology has not yet developed successful techniques. I doubt the individual, if he genuinely accepts he is in jail for life , would even want the counseling.

[sandnsea]

14. And that would be fine too

If someone was absolutely never going to get out and opted out of all treatment.

Here's what I think. If a person were in jail and had counseling and really and truly "got well", then they would actually understand why they were in their for life and would agree that they shouldn't be let out. Wouldn't you think that if you were in prison for murder or rape or child molestation??? A sane person wouldn't think they should get out.

Still, treating a prisoner with basic humanity shouldn't have anything at all to do with whether a victim gets ALL the treatment and assitance they need to put their life back together. I think it's one of those slippery slopes that take us back to no help for anybody and people getting out of prison worse than when they went in.

[globalvillage]

15. I can't imagine being in prison for anything

But let's say murder. If I were 'cured' of whatever mental illness caused me to be imprisoned, hell yeah I'd try to get out. After all, I was mentally ill when I did it, and now I'm not.
No one in their right mind would want to stay in prison if they could be released.

[sandnsea]

17. Sorry to say, then you wouldn't be well

Let's say I were Andrea Yates and at some point my mind was working again. I'd look at what I did and completely understand that the laws and mores of our society dictate that I never get out. Surely you don't think Andrea Yates should ever be released from a psychiatric facility. But at the same time, I just don't have enough animosity towards her to want to deny her psychiatric care. She should get it, Masha should get it, it isn't an either/or thing.

I gotta get dinner on the table, be back later!

[globalvillage]

21. How did I plead?

Depending on the plea, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill, I could be either released (with mental health supervision) or, in the case of GBMI, incarcerated. If I pleaded insanity, was treated and cured, I would be released once determined I was no longer ill. At least, that's my understanding.
If they released me, I don't think I'd argue to stay in prison.

How did Yates plead?

[sandnsea]

22. Not anymore

A lot of states are moving to an insanity plea that doesn't let people out of jail just on the say so of a psychiatrist. Andrea Yates would have gone to a secure psychiatric facility and not been released unless a judge ordered it. Her plea was to try and save her from being put to death, not just the difference between prison and a pscyhiatric unit.

Nobody should think they can commit some horrific crime, say "oops I was crazy", and go back into society. That's why I think our approach should be that people who commit certain crimes are just too dangerous to risk releasing; but we'll provide basic humane conditions for the rest of your life. I don't see why that wouldn't include mental health care.

Keeping mental health care from prisoners wouldn't do a thing to ensure victims got care. Victim's care is its own issue.

[karynnj]

19. I disagree

There are some people who if they were treated would then have the ability to "compartmentalize" their disorder. They would go so far as to say the "mental illness" did that and it was really not them and they are now listening "to their healthy voice" which is the real them. In answer to GV, you mention Andrea Yates. She actually has a better case to claim that she would not be a threat to society if she were released - as long as she never had a child again. She had post-partum psyhcosis.

I can't imagine being in prison for murder, rape or child molestation.

[sandnsea]

23. And those people wouldn't be well

As for Andrea Yates, she was still not well when she was sent to prison and that was almost a year later. I think she might have had more wrong with her than post-partum pscyhosis. In any event, even if she had been sent to a mental facility, a judge would have had to release her, she wouldn't just get out on the say so of a psychiatrist.

[karynnj]

11. I can see Kerry's point

It is not punishment to not provide psychological therapy. The therapy is both costly and from much that has been written nothing has been too successful in helping pedophiles.He is a millionaire and as such likely to have the ability to hire lawyers who would make a case that he was mentally ill, it has been addressed, he is cured and has spent years in pris ion. The idea that the therapy could become a card in such a bid is not that far fetched.

If he had a sentence where release were likely, it would be in society's interest to treat him. Even then, as he has substantial assets, why shouldn't he have to pay for it. There really is something wrong when the victims are denied help and a rich felon, who will be in jail for life, gets free psychological services. Didn't Kerry start one of the first victim's services departments as well as one of the first rape counseling services? His position here is likely very very close to where he was as a young prosecutor who was willing to put very bad people in jail for life and cared deeply for the victims.

This is a case where Mancuso carefully thought out and planned this entire thing. Who could be more defenseless than a small child who knows absolutely no one, is totally dependent on him and at least initially couldn't even ask for help? He really is a monster. From the earlier video, she seems very intelligent and seems to have some very nice people around her. It's good Kerry is still speaking out on this, because it likely makes Mancuso too high profile to get out in a few years and also the young girl sees a very prominent American saying very very clearly that this man should never be allowed to leave jail.

I can also see why he is livid about Massachusetts secretly getting such a large facility that no one would want. As it can't be the cheapest place to put it or the most centrally located - this had to be done to punish Massachusetts. Did they tell the governor before they did this? (or did he suggest it.)

[ProSense]

18. Kerry seems to be adamant

that this offender (or type of offender) not be released based the notion of rehabilitation. I completely agree. In this situation, therapy, it's effectiveness, extent of use and purpose can be discussed. Kerry's point has nothing to do with basic humane treatment (food, drink, shelter and a clean and sanitary environment), which is separate from therapy. The right to humane treatment should never be debated. JMO.

[beachmom]

20. Agree with everything ProSense says

I wasn't saying put them in concentration camp like conditions. They should be treated humanely, and not only that, given the history of child molestors being murdered by other inmates, I think they should be separated from the general population with other pedophiles so that they are safe from that kind of violence. But therapy for something known to have no cure? No way. And on our dime? Hell no. There are LOTS of people in need of psychotherapy and don't get it, but someone who isn't going to get better and who has harmed society and will CONTINUE to harm society if they get out should not be receiving therapy to "cure" them of something that won't be cured. If you want to look at bleeding hearts for child molestors, look no further than the Catholic hierarchy, who were sure they could "cure" the priests committing unspeakable crimes. It'll never work.

This is different from Yates. Maybe her nueorosis is curable. Pedophilia is NOT curable.

[sandnsea]

24. How does that help Masha??

How does ending every sexual offender program in the country ensure that victims will have one?? It doesn't. It just guarantees that sex offenders get out of prison without any treatment at all, which guarantees new offenses. Have you seen the sentences first time rapists and child molestors get?? 2-7 years?? If we're not going to provide any treatment to anybody, then we need to change the laws so no sex offender ever gets out of jail. Not one, not ever. Are you prepared for that?

Meantime, Masha still has no victim's program. So what's been solved?

[ProSense]

25. The two are separate.

Punishment isn't intended to help the victim. It's about justice. And punishing someone for a committing a crime isn't being vindictive.

The only correlation is tax payer dollars, allocating money for therapy for a person locked away for life who cannot be cured (I don't believe therapy can cure pedophilia) versus victim therapy.

The point being made is that this offender (and other like him) should not be released. I don't think Kerry is advocating no treatment for anybody.

[sandnsea]

26. I agree with that

Here's where I disagree, from the article, "why the federal government was paying money to treat her abuser instead of helping her." I don't think you have to stop doing one in order to start doing the other. I would hope Senator Kerry doesn't think so either.

Treatment shouldn't be used to get people out of jail, some offenders, primarily molestors, should never get out. But if they're going to be in prison forever, mental health treatment needs to be part of that, seems to me. It's just the decent thing to do, seems to me. For us, as people, as part of a civilized society; it's what decent people do.

[ProSense]

28. I think he

was highlighting the irony in this situation. It's specifically about the spending on non-productive versus productive treatment, respectively therapy for a sex offender who will never get out when therapy is seen as rehabilitative (for what? And also when most do not see it as valid track for this type of offender) versus treatment for a victim who must go on with her life.





edited for grammar.

[karynnj]

27. No one is saying that someone who is to be released

shouldn't be treated - they should.this was a guy with sentences long enough that he will never get out.

The point is the money spent on rehabilitation of people with life sentences could be used for victim's programs.

[beachmom]

29. I think it's a guarantee they'll commit a crime with or without treatment

Here in Virginia, the RW Republicans are doing one thing right. A bill is going through the assembly that sex offenders get 25 years (I would prefer forever, but one step at a time). I'm for that. They're predators, and we can't afford to have them put back on the street. Luckily there is a sex offender registration in my state, which is why I at least know he's here. In fact, check if your state has one; you'll be shocked to see how many there are living near you. I know I'm taking a hard line here, and you may not agree with me, but these people do monstruous things, and it's proven that they'll do it over and over again even when they get treatment. Because treatment doesn't work. Now if you want to talk about doing treatment as part of a study so that we can learn more about this incurable disease, perhaps you can pursuade me that it's worth it for the sake of science. But people have even agreed to surgery, and they STILL have the urges to prey on kids. They can't be out in society. Kerry was a prosecutor so I think we're seeing this side of him here.

[globalvillage]

30. Is that a minimum for any sex offense?

That concerns me, actually. There are varying degrees of sex offenses. I agree with 25+ (actually forever) for most, but there's always the case of two kids, one barely legal and the other not quite. I don't know how often an arrest might occur in a case like that, but I'm sure it happens.
Wonder if there are provisions for this type of circumstance? I can imagine, under this law, a teenager being locked up for 25 years because his year-younger girlfriend's parents filed charges. There are always exceptions.
Do you know the details? There has to be some exemption for the age of the offender and the type of crime.

[beachmom]

31. Good point. I'll look into that.

I know when I checked the sex offender list, there are distinctions made of this kind. When I first saw that guy in my neighborhood, I thought: well, maybe it was just a girl under 18. But the charge against him was quite clear that it involved someone under 12.