Recent developments in child murder case

[Duelist]

I just got up and there is a news conferance on, the body was that of little Somer. I just feel so sad for the little girl to have lost her life so violently. I feel that the mom has to carry some of the blame letting the child run home from the bus stop ALONE as in NO adult presence. That pedifile now turned murderer had tried a week ago (IF that attempted abduction WAS by this same criminal I THINK It was...) In this day and age you absolutely cannot let a 7 year old OUT there alone, my kid is 13 and I never let him go anywhere unsupervised. Granted he's autistic. BUt even so there is a mom here who has a eight year old and a twelve year old and a thirteen year old and she lets all three run around completely unspervised because she's at work or school or something. It's NOT SAFE.

Not trying to rag on the family, it's just that I feel very strongly about this subject because of seeing all the children over the years dying at the hands of sick pedifiles. THey sure aren't OUR kind of crazy, they are sociopathic and need incarcerated since drugs aren't going to bring back a non-existant conscious or the ability to LISTEN to that voice that tells you doing something is wrong and the will power to NOT do it. I just hate this, another child dead that could have been prevented, but the truth be told if it wasn't this child the killer would have found another, it's just that simple.

[larina]

And who is going to supervise the adult that supervises the children? My 2nd husband kidnapped my daughters while I was at college. I didn't know at the time he had been molesting my oldest daughter for months before he kidnapped them. It took almost a year for CPS to get them away from him.

How many teachers have there been that have gotten arrested for having sex with the children they teach?

How many day care workers have been on the news for harming/kidnapping children?

What about the poor mother several years ago that never let her son out of her sight until he was 13. She took him to the mall and let him go to the bathroom alone where he was attacked and had his penis cut off?

We can only try to do our best to protect them.

I do agree that she should have been supervised and not alone and at the same time I have to question why the family lived in a neighbor hood that has 75 registered sex offenders.

[pinkiemarie]

I know this is a totally different situation, but it made me think of this poor little girl Aarone Thompson who went missing when I lived in Colorado. It was so sad. He parents called the police about 6 months after she'd died and told them she had just right then run away from home. The whole city was looking for her, and it turned out the poor girl was dead already That's my two cents about caregivers. They suck just as much as anybody.

[tryp]

umm, could you please put a trigger warning on this? I know some people don't like too many of them, but I think this needed one.

[Duelist]

How Tryp? A mod might have to...I didn't think this was something that needed one but then I was just waking up before having my coffee and genuinely sad about this. I think that was enough? Was it? I don't know how to do a official trigger warning I haven't seen any on the board before to reference the proper way to do one...

[SashaSue]

I really think it takes a special kind of viciousness to blame the mother of a murdered child. I'm sure she was doing the best she could for her daughter with the resources available to her. Knowing next to nothing about it, I'd guess she lived in a neighborhood with lots of sex offenders, for instance, because that was where she could afford to live.

[witchywoman]

This is very sad. From what I read, she wasn't walking alone, she was walking with her older sister and a friend. This friend and her were arguing and the older sister told them to stop. Thats when this little girl ran off ahead of the others. It just takes that one time and that one sick person to be there. My kids have to walk down the street about 3 houses to their bus stop and then back home in the afternoon. I always walk them down and meet them there at the bus after school. I think my neighborhood is pretty safe, but you just never know. I feel for this girls mother and family.

[mika]

umm, could you please put a trigger warning on this? I know some people don't like too many of them, but I think this needed one.

Geez woman, not everything has a trigger warning. You could go on the tv and some news story pops up with a topic like this one. Do they introduce it with, "This late breaking news might trigger you."? Nope. Enough said. No offense but just deal. I never see in your blogs or posts about your SI or abuse, etc. that they have trigger warnings. Jusy wanted to point that out. It's reality.

[bluelikejazz]

Mika that was harsh. Child sexual abuse and cutting are the two things that do usually have . It wasn't an unreasonable request.

[mika]

It wasn't harsh, it was the truth. I fucking hate the word trigger at this point. Just avoid the site if you can't handle topics like this.

[december_brigette]

Hi,

when i saw the title "TRIGGER: recent news" i thought it was about pakistan or iran. for christsakes we could get into a huge argument about titles and trigger warnings.

as for blaming the mother...thats freakin ridiculous. my daughter and i live where we can afford. its not the best and certainly not post-modern (it was built in 1977). my kid being 2, she doesnt leave my sight.

i could go on but i'll let someone else. my anger is being purposely misdirected.

db

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Okay, I'm certainly not one to sanitize everything and coddle people, as many on the boards who think that I'm a dick can attest. But I don't understand why some people here get so pissed off at the mere thought of attempting to be sensitive to traumas.

Does everything remotely violent need a trigger warning? In my opinion, there should be no such obligation. I joined this site because it wasn't a "hugs and flowers" lamefest. But does it hurt anyone to err on the side of caution? Really. Why do people flip out about warnings being issued or requested in a polite fashion?

Seems like there are two camps: some want warnings from 100 miles away, and others want to wave pictures of necrophilia and fetuses around for the hell of it. I vote for the third-party option: let's chill out and use some common sense.

[SashaSue]

You're pulling kind of a Glenn Beck here, IN, creating a nonexistent, extreme opponent to your argument. I'm pretty sure there is approximately zero interest in posting necrophiliac porn on CB, with or without a trigger warning. The constant, arguably excessive, trigger warnings do get tiresome though. As does the expectation that any given poster will consider the histories and issues of every single person who might read a post, and warn them off appropriately.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Well, I'll grant that there's a fine line between hyperbole and creating a straw man--it's just a matter of tone, really. But my main point still stands.

I also have an account on IMDb. I've seen tons of people rant about spoilers on the message boards, and I've repeatedly argued that anyone who doesn't want to read spoilers about a movie shouldn't check out a message board dedicated to said movie. But I've never seen anyone flip out over a spoiler warning actually being issued.

I don't need any kind of warnings because it takes a lot to make me queasy, personally, but you also have to be thin-skinned to get irate over warnings being made. And note that I didn't say that we need to baby-proof everything in case. Just that it's hardly something to go postal over when someone does decide to give a heads' up. People should be free to do so at their own discretion without being bitched out by people on either side of this debate.

[recoverymouse]

the mother responsible? get real.

the trigger issue? legit. theres no manual on what triggers people, people. but it seems perfectly reasonable that victims of child abuse get a warning on a post about child abuse and murder. the point about the news is stupid. some people don't watch the news at all because its triggering. what harm does it do to include a trigger warning anyways, even if you disagree with it?

[december_brigette]

let me remind everyone of the rules:

A lot of other sites place great importance on making sure people are not offended or "triggered." We don't. With reasonable exceptions such as the PTSD board, we don't do a lot of walking on eggshells around here. Everyone is encouraged to say what they need to say and not worry about what effect it may have on others. We do have a trigger warning feature which people are free to use if they so desire, but its use is not required.

db

[Inspired_Neurosis]

let me remind everyone of the rules:

A lot of other sites place great importance on making sure people are not offended or "triggered." We don't. With reasonable exceptions such as the PTSD board, we don't do a lot of walking on eggshells around here. Everyone is encouraged to say what they need to say and not worry about what effect it may have on others. We do have a trigger warning feature which people are free to use if they so desire, but its use is not required.

db

Uh, yeah. For the record, exactly what I was saying.

Nobody should have to dance around anything. But I'm still confused as to why there is a sizable population of people here who froth at the mouth anytime anybody issues a trigger warning under any circumstance. In my opinion, that's far more irrational and obsessive than politely requesting a trigger warning.

[Velvet Elvis]

We generally expect people to be responsible for their own triggers around here. Since everything has the potential to be triggering to somebody, it gets kind of absurd. There are obvious exceptions such as graphic depictions of rape and sexual abuse on the PTSD board. Trigger warnings are appropriate there. Elsewhere, we encourage people to say whatever they need to express without having to worry about the potential to effect others. Anyone can put a trigger warning on whatever post they want but nobody should ever feel obliged to do so.

If a person thinks a post is so out of bounds that people need to be warned away from it, report it. Don't tell the op "this needs a trigger warning." If they thought it needed a trigger warning they would have put one there.

[Velvet Elvis]

let me remind everyone of the rules:

A lot of other sites place great importance on making sure people are not offended or "triggered." We don't. With reasonable exceptions such as the PTSD board, we don't do a lot of walking on eggshells around here. Everyone is encouraged to say what they need to say and not worry about what effect it may have on others. We do have a trigger warning feature which people are free to use if they so desire, but its use is not required.

db

Uh, yeah. For the record, exactly what I was saying.

Nobody should have to dance around anything. But I'm still confused as to why there is a sizable population of people here who froth at the mouth anytime anybody issues a trigger warning under any circumstance. In my opinion, that's far more irrational and obsessive than politely requesting a trigger warning.

Some of us are triggered by the word "trigger."

Really, the problem is that they get overused to the point where they don't mean anything anymore.

[mika]

let me remind everyone of the rules:

A lot of other sites place great importance on making sure people are not offended or "triggered." We don't. With reasonable exceptions such as the PTSD board, we don't do a lot of walking on eggshells around here. Everyone is encouraged to say what they need to say and not worry about what effect it may have on others. We do have a trigger warning feature which people are free to use if they so desire, but its use is not required.

db

Uh, yeah. For the record, exactly what I was saying.

Nobody should have to dance around anything. But I'm still confused as to why there is a sizable population of people here who froth at the mouth anytime anybody issues a trigger warning under any circumstance. In my opinion, that's far more irrational and obsessive than politely requesting a trigger warning.

Some of us are triggered by the word "trigger."

Really, the problem is that they get overused to the point where they don't mean anything anymore.

EXACTLY VE! THANK YOU! Way over-used and it doesn't really have a value anymore because of that. I am even embarrassed to say that word because people use it during the slightest event. It's like a common slang now. annoying.

You got my point across WAY better than I did. I was a little aggravated to say the least.

[tryp]

I don't watch the news AT ALL because it is too triggering.

I think a warning on a post about a murder of a little child falls under reasonable exceptions for people with PTSD.

[SashaSue]

The original title of the post made pretty clear what it was about, though I don't remember the exact wording. If the news is too triggering, then maybe it's a safe bet that posts about the news will be as well?

[tryp]

All it said was "body" - it wasn't clear to me that a child or a murder were involved.

I don't see why people had to bite my head off, anyway - I was perfectly polite.

[Penny Century]

different things trigger different people. you open certain boards, it's likely that there's something triggering in there. I hate the way, for example, on this other forum, to get into the personality disorder board you need a different password, then to get into the SI board (which is, OF COURSE, inside the personality disorder board) you need ANOTHER password. and then you can't say anything the MAY trigger someone. sorry, my life upsets some people. guess i should just hide.

i think putting warning labels around your life like that is... i don't know... hindering of expression.

[december_brigette]

tryp,

this is the news section. i, too, generally avoid the news but i dont expect the news to send me "dead ed" signals forewarning me.

how the hell am i supposed to know what would be a triggering "news" story (should i see or read it) if i posted it on here? what are the rules on the NEWS board? How can i predict what members will read it and who wont? I cant.

honestly, im completely clueless and thats why i posted the CB rules (which, btw, I_N you did not 'say.'). Im sticking to the CB rules on this thread. and you've got VE telling you what to do if you think it should be noted as triggering.

db

[Ophelia]

Mental illness sites are full of sensitive information, especially how we conduct our site here. We are the land of misfit toys. We are supposed to not be afraid to speak out and post. On other sites, posting an article like this would be pulled, here, well, no.

In regards to the trigger thing:

The trigger symbol and warning were being used a lot in the recent past. Honestly, compared to other sites, this whole board is a huge trigger because we don't have fluffy bunnies or hug it out. If we use the trigger warning too much, it means nothing, you know, for those instances with the warning is *truly* necessary.

Sometimes we have to be responsible for ourselves and our own triggers. This site is based a lot on personal responsibility.

[Guest Vapourware]

This has been an interesting discussion for me to read. I think I would lean with VE and mika in that the term "trigger" is overused.

Another danger of constantly demanding the use of "trigger" in posts is that it's forcing a form of censorship onto the poster. If you know a certain subject or area can be potentially sensitive for you, the most commonsense thing to do is to not to visit it. I don't understand why people would visit a certain area that is potentially sensitive for them, then complain.

I think a warning on a post about a murder of a little child falls under reasonable exceptions for people with PTSD.

@tryp: Why, though? I think you have to be careful about making sweeping generalisations and trying to be a spokesperson for everyone with PTSD because it's just as likely that someone else with PTSD does not find it triggering. That statement above sounds too presumptuous for my liking. I know that you certainly aren't speaking for me on this topic because I didn't find this news item triggering in the least.

[SashaSue]

This has been an interesting discussion for me to read. I think I would lean with VE and mika in that the term "trigger" is overused.

Another danger of constantly demanding the use of "trigger" in posts is that it's forcing a form of censorship onto the poster. If you know a certain subject or area can be potentially sensitive for you, the most commonsense thing to do is to not to visit it. I don't understand why people would visit a certain area that is potentially sensitive for them, then complain.

I think a warning on a post about a murder of a little child falls under reasonable exceptions for people with PTSD.

@tryp: Why, though? I think you have to be careful about making sweeping generalisations and trying to be a spokesperson for everyone with PTSD because it's just as likely that someone else with PTSD does not find it triggering. That statement above sounds too presumptuous for my liking. I know that you certainly aren't speaking for me on this topic because I didn't find this news item triggering in the least.

There's also something bothersome about the apparent expectation that, all over the site, no matter what or where someone's posting, he or she's supposed to be essentially walking on eggshells for the sake of the PTSD people.

[larina]

WOW talk about getting off of a topic! As for the issue of trigger being used I have no opinion. I don't know what will "trigger" my PTSD or even the "startle" seizures so I'll keep my mouth shut in an effort to avoid foot in mouth syndrome.

Back to the topic...

I at least wasn't trying to blame the mother. If Somer were in fact in a group that would be acceptable. But Somer ran ahead of the group and some evil child predator snatched her. What's really scary is finding out that there are more than 80 child predators in a five mile radious of where Somer disapeared and that this is "normal" for a neighbor hood of that size. It's also scary that a child can be ahead of a group and disapear so quickly. This truly is a sick sad world!

[NailFlower]

Sometimes we have to be responsible for ourselves and our own triggers. This site is based a lot on personal responsibility.

I agree

on the topic:

I also think blaming the mother is vicious. it's cruel. The person who should be blamed is the person who killed that child.

blaming the mother is like...blaming someone driving along who gets hit by a drunk driver. Everyone who drives, everyone who is just OUT walking around is at risk of getting hit by an irresponsible person like this. just because you are out in the world trying to live your life does not mean you are at fault when a drunk driver hits you. just because this child was out in the world IN A GROUP does not mean her mother was at fault because some predator got a hold of her and killed her. Every child is at risk of this, of being snatched by some beast. unfortunately it's part of the world we live in. Have you heard of Elizabeth smart? she was snatched right out of her home.

so quick to condemn the mother, and her child is dead. Really? seriously?

I am deeply shocked by this response.

[celestia]

There's also something bothersome about the apparent expectation that, all over the site, no matter what or where someone's posting, he or she's supposed to be essentially walking on eggshells for the sake of the PTSD people.

This is a fairly new phenomena, like in the last year or so. Or that would be my observation both as a member and a member with PTSD. Any board, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PTSD BOARD, is pretty much left to the user alone to take care of their OWN feelings about subject matter unless someone is "being a bigger dick" than the wizards behind the curtain, which as we all know leaves a lot of fucking latitude for freedom of expression. If it's too hard core, there is a big internet out there--find nicer people. Or get some big girl pants. Gender optional.

The 10 page long debates about the same nonsense is getting old too. If the news triggers you on TV, REASONABLE expectation: it's going to trigger you in a News Forum on a mental health website.

[tryp]

What I meant was that I thought that I, as a person with PTSD, had the right to ask (not demand, but ask) that a trigger warning be posted on something which I did not realize would be as triggering as it was and which really threw me when I accidentally read it.

Because I don't read the news, I wasn't familiar with the story in question, and I genuinely was unaware that it would involve murder OR children from the title.

Honestly, I was half awake and not feeling good in general at the time, and I guess maybe I should have exercised better judgment. It was a knee-jerk reaction to suddenly getting an unexpected trigger-punch in the stomach when I was already feeling vulnerable. Sorry for any offense.

[SashaSue]

I think the whole trigger thing gets so overused, at least in part, because triggering has become synonymous with upsetting, and the two just aren't the same. Learning to tolerate a certain amount of emotional distress is part of life, crazy or not.

[beetle]

It was a different time when some of us used to walk around back and forth from school or the bus. You have to honestly admit that. Things are different now. There are a lot more sickos and a lot more of this sort of abuse of children happening. It used to be safe to walk home from school or from a bus stop. But if I had a young child, I would NOT let them walk. Just wouldn't. I'd also know, as most places have online access now, that I was surrounded by sex offenders. I'm not blaming the mother. Just saying where I stand.

In a neighborhood I used to live in a group of young, maybe 8, 9, 10 year olds walked home from school together. Well, they were all picking on this one girl right in front of my house, I heard them yelling at her and her crying. This was kid stuff but she was like standing in my front yard crying so I went out to see what was up.

She told me they were being mean to her but she was supposed to stay with them walking home. I said hey look, I live right here (one street over from her's), I know you're supposed to not trust strangers but I will walk you home if you want. She looked really torn. She hesitated to trust me but couldn't walk with the group that was being mean to her. She decided to let me walk her home. I just made sure she made it in the door and walked home.

A bit later her mom came over and thanked me. She felt really bad for her daughter and explained that she thought it would be safe as long as they were walking as a group but since they were being mean to her like that then she would have to make arrangements to pick her up from school.

Then the mother told me something that floored me. She said there was a registered sex offender in the neighborhood. Turns out it was a teen boy that had been charged as an adult for doing something to a little girl. And supposedly most of the neighborhood knew about this. Yet they let their kids walk anyway?

And ever since I learned that about the sex offender teen it would make me sick to see him drive around the neighborhood without a care in the world. He should have been so ashamed but he wasn't.

Ah well, the point of my post... I guess is just that it's a different time than when a lot of us grew up. It WAS safer back then.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Not more of that "good old days" nonsense. Violent crime rates have gone down significantly and consistently since the 80's, anecdotal evidence and sensationalized reporting notwithstanding. http://www.ojp.usdoj...lance/viort.htm

As a former latchkey kid, I wouldn't be too worried about a simple walk to school or the bus stop. Kids die sometimes, no matter what measures are enacted. Doesn't make this any less sad, but it's true.

[beetle]

Not more of that "good old days" nonsense. Violent crime rates have gone down significantly and consistently since the 80's.

Mr. cynical didn't waste no time with that. I was honestly waiting for it. Thanks.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

*Takes bow*

[mudpuppy]

Actually, that's not true IN.

Violent DEATHS have gone down.

Largely because of better medical treatment.

Remove murder from the formula, and that chart looks VERY different.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

I read On Killing too, friend. And while his commentary on the desensitization process in the military was extremely interesting and logically sound(easily justifying the time and money to read it), Grossman had no idea what he was talking about when he tried to apply his theories to broader society.

From the link I quoted: "Note: The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide."

A more detailed breakdown specifically showing assault rates: http://www.ojp.usdoj.../viortrdtab.htm

[beetle]

*Takes bow*

Contrarian is the word I should have used. Surprised you didn't catch that. You must be slipping.

[beetle]

Actually, that's not true IN.

Violent DEATHS have gone down.

Largely because of better medical treatment.

Remove murder from the formula, and that chart looks VERY different.

I would like to see data specifically for crimes against children.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Contrarian is the word I should have used. Surprised you didn't catch that. You must be slipping.

Meh. I'll embrace the label of "cynic" or "contrarian," "iconoclast" or "polemicist"(one poster went with "self-absorbed, narcissistic jackass"). Yes, I'm incredibly pedantic, but I won't correct anyone when the word they use makes sense in context.

I would like to see data specifically for crimes against children.

Unfortunately, most exhaustive statistics regarding "crimes against children" refer to the 12 to 17 demographic. But violent crime is simply down across the board, and given changing societal attitudes(i.e. signs of abuse being taken seriously by school staff, etc), I'd find it unlikely that kids today have it any worse in that department unless someone showed me evidence otherwise.

[mudpuppy]

And those numbers are based on what?

Estimates are from data collected using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an ongoing survey of households that interviews about 134,000 persons in 77,200 households annually. Violent crimes included in the report are rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault (from the NCVS),

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm

Simple assault, by Federal definition means me saying to you, "I want to kick your ass".

[Inspired_Neurosis]

And those numbers are based on what?

Estimates are from data collected using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an ongoing survey of households that interviews about 134,000 persons in 77,200 households annually. Violent crimes included in the report are rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault (from the NCVS),

http://www.ojp.usdoj...stract/cv05.htm

Simple assault, by Federal definition means me saying to you, "I want to kick your ass".

I love it when you're in a feisty mood. There are few willing to tolerate these exchanges with me. But one of the links I posted differentiates between aggravated and simple assault. Are you questioning the terms(which I agree with you about) or the methodology?

[celestia]

I love it when you're in a feisty mood. There are few willing to tolerate these exchanges with me.

don't flatter yourself. Seriously. Tolerance is the glue that holds this family together skippy.

[mudpuppy]

Really look at the numbers.

The largest drop is in the Simple Assault realm.

While there are slight decreases in the other crimes, they are not dramatic. The really dramatic drop is in assault.

Because of the method used to gather the data, ie, asking people if, in their OPINION, they ahve been a victim of violent crime, is flawed, because it hinges on no legal defintion, but the PRECEPTIONS of the person being asked, and the knowledge that our culture as a whole has been desensitized to violence via mass media...

You can't really depend on the statistics to be accurate.

After all, statistics simply say what we want them to.

Why not base it on actual reported crime, instead of surveys?

ALL crimes reported to Law Enforcement in the United States get entered into NCIC.

It would actually be EASIER, and more COST EFFECTIVE to use those numbers to gauge the amount of violent crime.

Why don't they?

Because it would show that violent crime is on the rise. Not the decline.

Instead, they use surveys.

And who picks the survey base?

Is the survey base picked to reflect an intentional bias [ie, a population that statistically experiences less violent crime as a whole?]

[and more interestingly, they excluse Sexual Assault from their violent crimes. hmm...]

[bluelikejazz]

I misunderstood the trigger warnings (ie only for really graphic descriptions) so thanks for explaining it. I've seen sites that overuse them and I'm glad CB doesn't.

It's a sad story but overall children are more likely to be harmed by somebody they know. I feel so protective of the children in my extended family and I can't imagine how much parents must worry.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Really look at the numbers.

The largest drop is in the Simple Assault realm.

While there are slight decreases in the other crimes, they are not dramatic. The really dramatic drop is in assault.

Because of the method used to gather the data, ie, asking people if, in their OPINION, they ahve been a victim of violent crime, is flawed, because it hinges on no legal defintion, but the PRECEPTIONS of the person being asked, and the knowledge that our culture as a whole has been desensitized to violence via mass media...

You can't really depend on the statistics to be accurate.

After all, statistics simply say what we want them to.

Why not base it on actual reported crime, instead of surveys?

ALL crimes reported to Law Enforcement in the United States get entered into NCIC.

It would actually be EASIER, and more COST EFFECTIVE to use those numbers to gauge the amount of violent crime.

Why don't they?

Because it would show that violent crime is on the rise. Not the decline.

Instead, they use surveys.

And who picks the survey base?

Is the survey base picked to reflect an intentional bias [ie, a population that statistically experiences less violent crime as a whole?]

[and more interestingly, they excluse Sexual Assault from their violent crimes. hmm...]

The link suggests that aggravated assault is down hugely. A quarter of what it was at peak in the 80's, actually. I'd call that dramatic.

Regarding the way the statistics were compiled: not all crimes are reported. They'd presumably use a survey instead of reports for this very reason. There is less reason to conceal something from a statistical surveyor than from law enforcement officials. For example, there is no legal liability(if you got assaulted in the course of doing something stupid) and much less time consumption(after realizing how pointless it was, I've stopped calling the police after attempted robberies against me for that reason). Surveys would also be more consistent, because willingness to admit to victimization in that context would be more constant than attitudes towards cooperating with law enforcement at any given time. Subjectivity about what constitutes a crime is an issue affecting actual reporting as well. And to touch upon two things you mentioned at once, I imagine that sexual abuse in particular is omitted because chronic underreporting to surveyors and law enforcement alike would make the results highly suspect in any case(just speculation on my part, though).

If you want to attack the methodology, please be more specific. Because the fact is that these statistics are more extensive than anything else available, and they align with all other available stats with the exception of what I read in On Killing. I understand that they are an estimate and not a 100% factual representation of all crimes, but if we're going to have this discussion, we have to deal with the data available. If you have a better analysis that shows the opposite, I'd be happy to take a look at it. In the meantime, we can't make claims about the numbers without some kind of reference to back things up.

It is good that you consider all of these things when faced with statistics, at any rate. You've raised some legitimate issues, and it's fair to say that no single source can be viewed as the gold standard.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

I love it when you're in a feisty mood. There are few willing to tolerate these exchanges with me.

don't flatter yourself. Seriously. Tolerance is the glue that holds this family together skippy.

I don't have to justify myself to you. I'm merely making an observation. Most people shy away from political, philosophical, or theological discussions. Most people don't have the education or depth of conviction. MP has balls, pun intended.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

I don't know if it's really more dangerous for kids now than it was, say, 20-30 years ago.

I think we hear about a lot more crime because of the media. Media has gotten much more sensationalistic in the last 20 years and we're much more saturated with it.

I think a lot more crimes against children are reported.

The registered sex offender list is relatively new.

I do think it's problematic that people don't know their neighbors and their neighborhoods anymore, which does make things more dangerous, or at least feel that way.

I'm just not convinced that the world is significantly more unsafe for the average kid in the US than it was 30 years ago. I've never read any study that seems to address the confounding issues.

Good points regarding the reporting. It should be mentioned that most abuse against children is perpetrated by people that their family knows and trusts(when not family members themselves) though. I totally agree that it still does play into perceptions. So does the fact that in addition to the changes in news reporting, people watch CSI and Dexter instead of Leave it to Beaver and Happy Days.

BTW, I like the depth of field on your avatar. Cool.

[mudpuppy]

Sadly, I'd lose my security clearance if I posted the military statistics re: crime.

But they go the exact opposite direction.

[AnneMarie]

I misunderstood the trigger warnings (ie only for really graphic descriptions) so thanks for explaining it. I've seen sites that overuse them and I'm glad CB doesn't.

It's a sad story but overall children are more likely to be harmed by somebody they know. I feel so protective of the children in my extended family and I can't imagine how much parents must worry.

How many kids are kidnapped a year? How many kids in your country? This is a media phenomenon not a pandemic.

The sad, sad thing is that the public awareness that should be made in a huge way is that kids are harmed by those they know, family or family friends, many, many times more often than by strangers. The hype media does on missing kids strikes me every time as saying how wrong it is for strangers to hurt your kids, but it's okay if you or aunt Sue or uncle Joe do.

In a decent neighborhood, I'd encourage my kid to start walking to school in grade school. All this focus on the shadow bad guy creates a bunch of neurotic kids that grow up to be neurotic, fearful adults. So sad. So wasteful, too.

[recoverymouse]

In a decent neighborhood, I'd encourage my kid to start walking to school in grade school. All this focus on the shadow bad guy creates a bunch of neurotic kids that grow up to be neurotic, fearful adults. So sad. So wasteful, too.

agreed

[bluelikejazz]

Also, if parents are very concerned about safety they may not allow their children to play outside alone which contributes to rising levels of childhood obesity. The risk of serious health problems is much higher than them being murdered by a stranger.

[Duelist]

I wasn't trying to hold the mom responsible, I was just saying that in my neighborhood we've got a family that the mom IS not responsible for them and it bothers me. One of the kids, the 12 year old has asperger's. *sigh*

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to cause so much debate, so next time just word it better and it's fine? I'll try to do that next time.

[olga]

I don't know if it's really more dangerous for kids now than it was, say, 20-30 years ago.

I think we hear about a lot more crime because of the media. Media has gotten much more sensationalistic in the last 20 years and we're much more saturated with it.

I think a lot more crimes against children are reported.

The registered sex offender list is relatively new.

I do think it's problematic that people don't know their neighbors and their neighborhoods anymore, which does make things more dangerous, or at least feel that way.

I'm just not convinced that the world is significantly more unsafe for the average kid in the US than it was 30 years ago. I've never read any study that seems to address the confounding issues.

Dianthus, I read a statistic recently that there are about 100 to 150 abductions of children in this country each year. 150 out of MILLIONS of kids. I agree that the publicity is overblown and the danger is overstated.

We are raising a generation of fat kids who can't even walk 5 blocks to school or 7 blocks to their friend's house. And I think helicopter parents cripple their children for life. There are parents who are talking on the phone to their college students EVERY DAY! Give me a break--let that child grow up. If this doesn't stop, parents will still be buying cars and paying bills for 30-year-olds.

Rant over.

Sorry, but this is one of my buttons. Let the kids experience the world a bit. If you live in a suburb or in the country, there is an extremely slim chance of anything bad happening.

And as others have said, your child has a far greater chance of being abducted or molested by someone he or she knows.

olga

[celestia]

And as others have said, your child has a far greater chance of being abducted or molested by someone he or she knows.

olga

Boy that is sad but true I'm sure. My kids were not allowed the freedoms we were but I gave them the best of what I had. Like when the big kid got old enough to play outside I realized I lived in a city where that just wasnt an option. So I moved us back to Podunk. I don't know if it's safer or not. I know the perception of safety is alluring. I don't know if we were safer or not. We were allowed to range...far and wide when I was little. Out in the morning and back when the street lights come on. My Mom denies this, but she used to lock us out of the house because we got on her nerves. I don't blame her, but I do certainly remember standing there pleading to open the door so I could go to the bathroom. We roamed in packs too. I don't think our kids get that anymore. I grew up around a bunch of cousins, siblings and other riff raff from the neighborhood.

I am glad I have boys and big boys at that. I think they are less vulnerable in the world.

[Maddy]

I don't know about anywhere else, but in my state you can become a registered sex offender for something as benign as flashing your tits at a concert, mooning someone on the highway and other stupid teenage pranks. So just because someone is a registered sex offender doesn't necessarily mean they are a pedophile or rapist. Sometimes they pissed outside and got busted for indecent exposure.

Doesn't happen /all/ that often, but it does pay to look at what the person was charged with if at all possible before /assuming/ they're a pedophile or rapist.

[beetle]

So, the world is a safe warm fuzzy happy place, 20 or 30 years ago the news wouldn't have bothered to report on a missing child found dead in a garbage truck and sex offenders are good people, they're just misunderstood. Yay!

[withing]

I don't know about anywhere else, but in my state you can become a registered sex offender for something as benign as flashing your tits at a concert, mooning someone on the highway and other stupid teenage pranks. So just because someone is a registered sex offender doesn't necessarily mean they are a pedophile or rapist. Sometimes they pissed outside and got busted for indecent exposure.

Doesn't happen /all/ that often, but it does pay to look at what the person was charged with if at all possible before /assuming/ they're a pedophile or rapist.

Yeah, I was gonna say that too, but you beat me to it.

[AnneMarie]

I don't know about anywhere else, but in my state you can become a registered sex offender for something as benign as flashing your tits at a concert, mooning someone on the highway and other stupid teenage pranks. So just because someone is a registered sex offender doesn't necessarily mean they are a pedophile or rapist. Sometimes they pissed outside and got busted for indecent exposure.

Doesn't happen /all/ that often, but it does pay to look at what the person was charged with if at all possible before /assuming/ they're a pedophile or rapist.

Yeah, I was gonna say that too, but you beat me to it.

Same in my state.

Also, statutory rape makes the list and you know some number of those "rapists" are 18 y/o's consensually sleeping with their 17.5 y/o girlfriends of a couple years only it took a while to get caught and daddy got real mad.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Also, statutory rape makes the list and you know some number of those "rapists" are 18 y/o's consensually sleeping with their 17.5 y/o girlfriends of a couple years only it took a while to get caught and daddy got real mad.

Almost every single state, if not all of them(I'm not 100% positive), makes exceptions when the age difference isn't significant.

[mudpuppy]

Nope.

They don't go looking for it, but if it's reported, it's prosecuted.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Nope.

They don't go looking for it, but if it's reported, it's prosecuted.

Again, it depends on the state, but close in age exemptions do exist. A cursory glance suggests that I slightly overestimated the amount of states with those laws on the books, but many of them have clarified this point.

Here's the case for Washington, in particular:

• RCW 9A.44.079 "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim. Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony."
• RCW 9A.44.076 "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the second degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim. Rape of a child in the second degree is a class A felony."
• RCW 9A.44.073 "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. Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony."

At any rate, I think we can all agree that the logic behind these exceptions is pretty self-evident.