TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda;

Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda
Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda

The Latest Trend In Child Sexual Exploitation By JOANNE MARINER

Mariner: The Latest Trend In Child Sexual Exploitation


Rehabilitation, as a criminal justice ideal, has gone so far out of style in the United States that many Americans are apparently quite willing to relegate even young offenders to the ranks of the irredeemable. The passage last year of California's Proposition 21, which expanded the number of children who will be tried as adults and sent to adult prisons, was just the latest blow to the traditional distinction between juvenile delinquents and adult criminals.

Mesmerized by visions of the rampaging "youthful predator," legislators at both the federal and state levels have enthusiastically promoted these legal changes. Indeed, over the past several years, nearly every state has revised its juvenile justice laws to facilitate prosecuting minors as adults.

At present, more juveniles than ever before are incarcerated in adult prisons and jails in the United States. And, given the proven link between youth and vulnerability to prisoner-on-prisoner rape, these juveniles are also at much greater risk of violent sexual assault.

It is ironic, to say the least, that our society — so concerned with preventing child pornography, and protecting children themselves from material with sexual content — sets the scene for children to be sexually exploited in prison.

Youthful Offenders' Vulnerability to Prison Rape

I gained a personal awareness of this problem when, as part of Human Rights Watch's research into prison rape, I began receiving the occasional letter or collect call from a sixteen-year-old held in an adult prison in Arkansas. I had contacted him after a woman whose young son had been raped in prison told me that his even younger friend, whom I'll call Tom, had also been raped there.

Tom's letters, written in a truly childish scrawl, gave me a sense of what it is like to be a boy in a prison for men. They described the older inmates' continuing harassment and the correctional staff's indifference. One letter complained of an inmate that "wouldn't leave me alone when I was asleep," and said: "The [housing unit] I'm in now had 2 people come to me and put an ink pen to my neck and tell me that if I didn't let them jack off on me they were going to rape me. I told the officers but they didn't do any thing about it."

A Nebraska inmate, writing to me about juveniles like Tom, described their situation even more bluntly: "The kids I know of here are kept in the hospital part of the prison until they turn 16. Then they are placed in general population. At age 16, they are just thrown to the wolves, so to speak, in population. I have not heard of one making it more than a week in population without being 'laid.'"

Federal Efforts to Blur the Distinction between Juvenile and Adult Offenders

The 106th Congress, which ended in 2000, saw the introduction of several bills designed to subject juveniles to the same criminal procedures and penalties as adults. In a grim irony, some of the same co-sponsors of these bills also sponsored legislation to encourage states to incarcerate persons convicted of "child molestation," among other serious crimes. Apparently, to these legislators, child molestation is no longer a crime if it happens to occur in prison.

These bills' titles are crowded with code words like "accountability," meant to resonate with a public tormented by the belief that criminals have been getting off easy. Prominent among federal legislators enlisted in this crusade was then-Senator John Ashcroft, now in the spotlight as President Bush's choice for attorney general.

The "Protect Children From Violence Act," a cruelly misnamed bill introduced by Ashcroft in 1999, aimed to use federal block grants to encourage states to move juveniles into the adult system of criminal justice. As noted above, for many children such changes would be more likely to subject them to violence — in particular, to violent rape — than to protect them from it.

Why the Ashcroft Bill and Others Like It Are Wrong to Treat Children as Adults

The Ashcroft bill scapegoated the juvenile justice system, implying that its separation from the adult system was itself a cause of violent youth crime.

In fact, juvenile violent crime statistics have fallen in recent years, just as adult crime statistics have. Moreover, there is no evidence that treating children as adults reduces crime. A study comparing Connecticut, whose juvenile-to-adult transfer rate was the highest in the United States, with Colorado, which had the lowest rate of such transfers, found that the juvenile crime rate was the same in each state. Similarly, studies of violent juvenile crime in Idaho, Florida, and New York have found that making it easier to try youths as adults does not prevent violent juvenile crime.

Laws Treating Juvenile Offenders like Adults Should Be Repealed.

Regrettably, Ashcroft has had ample company in his misguided quest to roll juvenile justice norms back to those of a century ago. No doubt the 107th Congress, even without Ashcroft's participation, will persevere in such efforts — and Ashcroft, if he is attorney general, will harshly enforce the laws that are passed — unless the public finally begins to question the wisdom of these anti-rehabilitative policies.

One can only wonder when this will happen. In the minds of many Americans, child pornography and child sexual abuse represent perhaps the ultimate evil. Nothing triggers hysteria, or prompts special legislative remedies (such as Megan's Law), the way crimes against children do.

Child sexual abuse outside of prison ruins lives, as society has often recognized. But we seem to be blind to the fact that inside prison, it does the same — making rehabilitation all the more difficult for a young person who still has, but can lose, the capacity to change. Trying and incarcerating youthful offenders as if they were hardened adult criminals may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Joanne Mariner, a FindLaw columnist, is deputy director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch. She is also the author of Human Rights Watch's upcoming report on prisoner-on-prisoner rape in the United States.

Labeling Theory and Deviance by Kate Monson

 Labeling Theory and Deviance

Deviance is behavior (how people act), ideas (how people think), or attributes (how people appear) that some people in society—though not necessarily all people—find offensive, wrong, immoral, sinful, evil, strange, or disgusting" (Newman 242). Deviant acts in our society can range from smoking in a public place, getting into fights, and cheating on a significant other, to murder, child abuse, rape and drug dealing. The last three labels clearly have more severe implications and, in most cases, will result in greater punishments. A person who is labeled a "deviant" not only suffers from the initial penalties of doing something others consider to be wrong, but from the stigma that may follow. Committing an act that is considered deviant can drastically impact the reputation of a person, and these reputations can be extremely difficult the shed depending on the severity of the offense. 

The labeling theory in sociology characterizes a deviant person as someone to whom the label "deviant" has been successfully applied (Newman 252). When a person is singled out and defined as deviant, it changes the way that others view and act towards them as human beings and can also change the way the so called deviant views him or herself. Labels inevitably bring along with them stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and can be very misleading. Once labeled a "deviant," you are often automatically assumed to possess the undesirable characteristics attached to that label even though those characteristics may not be accurate. As a result, others in that society may start to treat the deviant with fear, disrespect, distrust, and suspicion forcing them to become outcasts of that society. The labeling effect can cause major harm to people, and also act as a self fulfilling prophecy, causing the deviants to take on the roles of their label. 

Reading this chapter made me think of the Mankato State football coach, Todd Hoffner. In August of 2012, Hoffner was accused of one of the most heinous crimes considerable after one of his colleagues found naked videos of his children on his work cell phone. The videos were interpreted to be sexual and inappropriate, and caused immediate concern. After the videos were brought to the attention of authorities, Hoffner was escorted off of the football field during practice and taken into custody under the suspicion of using underage people in a sexual performance and possessing child pornography (publicly shamed). Hoffner and his wife objected to these charges and called the felony child porn charges a "rush to judgement," saying the clips found on her husband's cell phone are just "normal, typical family videos" of their kids "in all their craziness." The coach was on paid leave throughout the investigation and trial, as he awaited the possibility of being sent to prison. A search of his home computer found no evidence of child porn, and social workers found no evidence that the couple's children had been abused. He eventually was cleared of these charges in late December after the judged ruled the videos as children simply acting silly after their baths.

These allegations will, most likely, haunt Hoffner and his family for many years to come. One innocent mistake has changed the way people view him as a person. Labels like "child molester" "child abuser", and "child predator" cause deep hatred within our society. Todd Hoffner has been publicly shamed and humiliated for his actions. He will probably be considered a deviant in the eyes of many for the remainder of his life even though his intentions may have never been what they were interpreted as. 

This case clearly shows how societal norms can be blurred, disagreed upon, and misinterpreted. While the Hoffners viewed the naked videos of their children as "normal, typical, family videos," others interpreted them as the disgusting sexualization of minors and charged him with the monstrous crime of child pornography. Even though his name has been cleared by authorities, his name will forever be tainted by the misinterpretation of an innocent family video gone awry. As stated in Newman's book, "All ex-offenders experience the stickiness of labels to some degree, despite the legislative efforts to help them" (Newman 253).

I think it is very important to recognize the affects labeling deviance can have on people and society. We live in a world where labeling is automatic and of second nature. Labeling is quick, easy, and holds a great power that is used to keep societies in order by upholding and reinforcing social norms. Although the labeling of deviance can be beneficial to society, we must also be sure to recognized the negative outcomes that can occur when powerful labels are falsely applied in order to avoid cases like the one above. 

Works Cited:
Newman, David (2012). Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life: 9th Edition. SAGE Publications.

Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate
One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings. Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research. After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.

Disclaimer: The issue here is repression of research and denial of the truth. One still may defend the laws as they are, but should not repress free research that could challenge one’s personal political opinions.

Another clash between highly charged political rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerned Associate Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld. It began with a 1998 paper in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Temple University’s Bruce Rind and two colleagues had conducted a review of quantitative literature, finding a weak link between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology. Radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger blasted the article as an effort to normalize pedophilia. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning it, and finally, the chief executive of the APA wrote that the findings “should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.”

Lilienfeld submitted an article to another APA-sponsored journal, American Psychologist, criticizing the apa’s capitulation to political pressure. The protests and their impact, he argued, detract from scientists’ ability to report their findings without undue interference, undermining all research on controversial topics.

Lilienfeld’s article, titled “When Worlds Collide,” was reviewed and accepted for publication following revisions to “tone it down.” It was slated to appear in the June 2001 issue. On May 10, however, Lilienfeld received a letter from the journal’s editor. “My article had now been unaccepted for publication,” Lilienfeld says. “He asked me to write an entirely new article removing all material dealing with the Rind et al. article and its aftermath, which amounts to about 60 percent of my article.”

Facing strong protests from the psychology community and some negative press, American Psychologist agreed to publish the article in a special section, along with several commentaries, in the December 2001 issue, at the earliest. “The APA never acknowledged that something was seriously amiss, even though it was clear that this action was politically motivated,” Lilienfeld says.

See also the excellent article by Wikipedia on Bruce Rind controversy

The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.[1]

Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and denied that their findings implied current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.[1] Numerous pro-pedophile advocacy organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5] Wikipedia on Bruce Rind

Share with your friend, if you like it, or if you hate it.

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles We are not pedophiles.

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles We are not pedophiles.
The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles We are not pedophiles.

Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children by Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children by Human-Stupidy (Admin)
Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children by Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Scare Tactics - Sexual Abuse by Joy Sters

Scare Tactics - Sexual Abuse by Joy Sters
Society has been using “scare tactics” to attempt to change things or to stop things from happening, and yet the only thing it seems to change is our ability to heal and forgive from an open welcoming door (non-fear) to a shut one (fear).

What has been done to sexual offenders is one topic where you can see that using scare tactics doesn’t work. The propaganda to prevent sexual abuse by making the abuser an outcast and leper of society has not stopped sexual abuse, nor has long-term prison sentences, nor castration. The media and propaganda has turned these men and women into monsters that are in a sense, unforgiveable. Even in prison, if you are convicted of sexual abuse, you are considered the worst of the offenders. However, sex offenders are human beings, they were once children just like our own, many of which have had sexual abuse in their own lives.

“There is support for the sexually abused-sexual abuser hypothesis, in that sex offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than non-sex offenders, but not more likely to have been physically abused. We discuss potential mechanisms for the relationship between sexual abuse history and sexual offending, including the possibility that a third factor might account for the relationship.” (Ncbi)

Where does one begin to undo the damage? If there is only blaming and ridicule and guilt surrounding this situation, it doesn’t instigate true healing and change. Families are broken up and literally destroyed; the abuser and the abused are branded “dirty” or “untouchable” for being touched. Sex is the strongest drive in our society (just second to hunger) and yet we sweep just about everything to do with sex under the carpet until the carpet is bulging and the door no longer opens.

Children that are abused are told it wasn’t their fault and yet the family is ripped apart and everyone is saying that what has happened is bad. What happens to many sexually abused children is that they are told that what felt “good” is bad. This temporarily (hopefully only temporarily) destroys their ability for healthy sexual relationships and the cycles of dysfunction continues.

This is not to say that sexual abuse is good or that there is anything ok in regards to abusing another human being. However, the scare tactics used against sexual abusers, are abuse in them selves. How do we help stop the cycle, if we keep making men and woman into monsters and outcasts of society? There has to be an open and honest healing within families. To just hate the abuser and to not see that they were once a child, that they have serious issues to resolve and they need help. You can shove them under the carpet but the bulge is still there. 

Maybe it is the one that has been abused that is the answer to that call for help. If you have been abused and you have created a monster out of your abuser, then you are holding both of you prisoner in a camp called “hell.” If we can begin to embrace what we fear in a light slightly less critical, slightly more willing to see that there is always much more to a situation than what meets the eye; then true healing may begin for all. 

You can lock a monster in the closet, however he/she will haunt your home (you) forever, or you can begin to talk through the door and see if there is any compassion or understanding, any light where one can see that no one is a complete monster, no matter who you are. In that, giving and receiving are the same.

WC: 615

Works Cited

"Sexual Abuse History among Adult Sex Offenders and Non-sex Offenders: A Meta-analysis." Sexual Abuse History among Adult Sex Offenders and Non-sex Offenders: A Meta-analysis. N.p., Mar. 2009. Web. 17 June 2014. <>.

Now you see them now you don’t? The battle to block online child sexual abuse images; by Siobhan Weare (@SiobhanWeare) and Professor Suzanne Ost (@SuzanneOst3737)

Now you see them now you don’t? The battle to block online child sexual abuse images; by Siobhan Weare (@SiobhanWeare) and Professor Suzanne Ost (@SuzanneOst3737)
Now you see them now you don’t? The battle to block online child sexual abuse images; by Siobhan Weare (@SiobhanWeare) and Professor Suzanne Ost (@SuzanneOst3737)

R v Ian Watkins and B and P – Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: no longer a hidden crime? by Siobhan Weare

R v Ian Watkins and B and P – Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: no longer a hidden crime?
by Siobhan Weare

Comments on the recent child sexual abuse case involving Lost Prophets singer Ian Watkins and two female co-perpetrators. She suggests that the importance of the case lies in the fact that two women were involved in carrying out the sexual abuse alongside Watkins. Such a high profile case involving female perpetrators of child sexual abuse provides an opportunity to focus public and academic attention on the hidden crime of female perpetrated sexual abuse, with the potential to (re)ignite the debates surrounding the legal response to such abuse, the invocation of gender discourse within sentencing remarks, and the culpability of these female perpetrators.

The recent child sexual abuse case involving Lost Prophets singer Ian Watkins has provoked public outrage and a slew of media coverage. Watkins and two female co-defendants were convicted of several sexual offences involving the young children of the two women. The details of the abuse carried out, as Mr Justice Royce sentencing described, ‘plumbed [to] new depths of depravity’ (sentencing remarks, p. 1). Media coverage on the case almost exclusively focused on the involvement of celebrity Watkins, a world-wide rock star from the Welsh Valleys turned child sexual abuser. However, one key aspect of the case, which has received less attention, is that it involved two female co-defendants. The women cannot be named for legal reasons and are referred to as B and P in the sentencing remarks. However, their involvement in the case has been comparatively underreported in the media, in favour of focussing on Watkins’ fall from celebrity grace.

Reported cases involving female co-perpetrators of child sexual abuse are few and far between, and such a case provides an opportunity to highlight the fact that women can, and indeed do, sexually abuse children more frequently than perhaps is initially thought. Child sexual abuse perpetrated by women is considered to be a hidden crime (See M. Elliott (ed), Female Sexual Abuse of Children: The Ultimate Taboo, Longman Group UK, London, 1993) due to the presumption that women are passive, gentle, caring, the nurturers of children, sexually passive and non-violent (See S. Weare, ‘“The Mad”, “The Bad”, “The Victim”: Gendered Constructions of Women Who Kill Within The Criminal Justice System’ Laws 2, 3, 337-361). However, statistics suggest that a significant number of children have been sexually abused by a woman. Indeed, in 2008/09 Childline reported that 17%, 2,142, of the children who called their helpline to report sexual abuse said that their sexual abusers were female. Similarly to this case, mothers are the main female perpetrators, with 1,311 children disclosing sexual abuse by their mother to Childline in the same period. Despite the existence of such figures, cases involving female perpetrators are rarely reported to the police and even more rarely, result in a successful prosecution. One key reason for this is the fear of the child that if they disclose being abused by a woman, they will not be believed (Deborah Boroughs, “Female Sexual Abusers of Children” Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 2004, 481-487, p484).

The rarity of such a highly publicised case involving female co-perpetrators provides an opportunity to explore the legal response to these women, and the discourses surrounding their perpetration of sexual abuse. The seriousness of their crimes and the active nature of their involvement in the sexual abuse of their children alongside Watkins has resulted in these women receiving severe and lengthy sentences; with B being sentenced to 14 years imprisonment and P receiving a sentence of 17 years. What is particularly interesting is that despite both female defendants receiving substantially shorter sentences than Watkins, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison, the judge in sentencing arguably used far more emotive and disparaging language to describe their actions; ‘Could there be a greater betrayal?’ (sentencing remarks, p. 3). The judge also, perhaps unsurprisingly, invoked gender discourse and stereotypes in his sentencing remarks to the female defendants. In particular he utilised imagery of motherhood saying in reference to B; ‘A mother naturally loves, protects, shields, nurtures and cherishes. Your infant would have trusted you implicitly. You totally betrayed that trust’ (sentencing remarks, p. 3). The invocation of such emotive language, which reflects gender discourse, arguably resonates with and provides some explanation for the fears that victims have in not being believed when they disclose such abuse.

There is also a suggestion within the sentencing remarks that these women are somehow less culpable for their behaviour than Watkins is for both his own and theirs, with several references being made to the influence that Watkins had on their sexual offending; ‘That you were manipulated by Watkins may be obvious’ (sentencing remarks, p. 3) and ‘You B and you P will hopefully mature and on your eventual release will steer clear of the corrupting influence of the likes of Watkins’ (sentencing remarks, p. 9). The influence of Watkins on these women’s perpetration of the abuse is reflected in the fact that they were both judged as falling short ‘of the threshold necessary for dangerousness’ (sentencing remarks, p. 9), with P specifically being assessed as having a relatively low risk of reoffending in a similar manner in the future (sentencing remarks, p. 8). However, the fact that the judge also acknowledges that both women were actively engaged in, and got enjoyment from, the sexual abuse being inflicted on their children is contradictory to the imposition of their lesser culpability and their perceived dangerousness. Similarly, the remarks made in sentencing regarding motherhood, and the implied responsibility within gender discourse that all women have both towards, and for, their children, implies that there should have been a more significant degree of culpability attached to their actions.

It is clear then that the case of Ian Watkins and B and P is an important one, but not because it involves a celebrity convicted of child sexual abuse. It is an important case because it highlights that female perpetrated child sexual abuse does occur, thus allowing an opportunity to explore the legal response to such abuse. The issue of female criminal culpability is one which has been the subject of much debate by academics, and a case like this provides an opportunity for further future academic discussion on the culpability of women specifically involved in child sexual abuse. There is also the potential to ignite a debate on the underreported issue of female perpetrated child sexual abuse more generally, outside the context of this specific case involving celebrity. Such debates and the increased awareness which follows have the potential to encourage others to come forward to disclose such abuse, as well as protecting potential future victims from abuse perpetrated by those who are stereotyped as the care-givers and nurturers within society; women.

Siobhan Weare (@SiobhanWeare) is a Lecturer in the Law School at Lancaster University. Her research interests are focused in the areas of criminal law and criminal justice. She has recently published a paper on the socio-legal responses to and constructions of women who kill. She is also researching in the area of child sexual abuse and exploitation, with a particular focus on non-ideal perpetrators of such abuse, for example women and children.

You can find out more about Siobhan’s research at