Sex Offenders: The Modern Day Leper

3-29-2009 National:

I want to tell you about Scott, a friend of mine who lives in the upstate of South Carolina. After a year and a half of being a modern day leper, he finally agreed to my interview. No, Scott does not have Hansen’s disease. However, he has been shunned and forced to live on the edges of society, similar to the lepers of Biblical times.

It wasn’t always like that for Scott. He attended Clemson University where he received two degrees, and used his knowledge in a State job for over twenty years. Now, he occasionally gets an odd job cleaning someone’s yard or he hauls scrap metal to a recycling plant for a few dollars.

Scott is labeled as a sex offender. He is a modern-day leper. A boogeyman.
Law enforcement officials have called him a scourge on society. But there is much more to the story. Did he get what he deserves or is he a product of a witch hunt?

Scott developed a compulsion for on-line chat and mild pornography. This was not something that over-took his life, but the time he spent chatting with women and looking at pictures increased over the years. The step that led to his legal problems began when he purchased a web cam.

Some of Scott’s on-line acquaintances encouraged him to show his body. Eventually he did and it became a boost to his ego. One day when he was chatting, he clicked on a female name in a yahoo chat room. She indicated that she was thirteen-years old and lived in Spartanburg, SC. Scott admitted to me that he should have turned the machine off at that moment – but he didn’t.

He did, however, tell her that she was too young and said “goodbye.” She pursued him. She told him that she needed to talk to someone about boys but had no one to turn to. She was convincing, almost as if she wasn’t really a thirteen-year old. Scott relented and after a discussion of teenage sexuality, he activated his web cam and showed his body to her. Scott told me this story, smothered in shame and embarrassment. He made it very clear that he never asked her to meet him or spoke of sex with her in any manner.

Scott’s life changed two weeks later when he answered a knock at his door. Six law enforcement agents were in the yard. He was arrested for Criminal Solicitation of a Minor. This law, passed in 2004, is felony in South Carolina and carries up to ten years in prison. Scott’s life would never be the same.

Before his arrest, Scott was a respected member of the community. He was a deacon and Sunday school teacher. Now, he has been made a criminal. I say “made” because the person he was talking to on the computer was a Spartanburg County Sheriff’s detective. He never talked to a minor, yet upon his arrest, the officer said “parents had complained”. Also, the officer stated that if he wrote a confession “things will go much better for you.” This was after his Miranda right “to remain silent” had been read.

Scott’s house was searched and several computers were confiscated. He was told by the arresting officer that he would get them back. That was almost two years ago. The Spartanburg Sheriff’s office still has his computers.

Since Scott was a State employee, the media had a field day. As a matter of fact, before he had arrived at the Spartanburg Detention center the Spartanburg Herald was calling his house and asking for his wife by name. I wonder how they knew about this case before it became public record?

Five months later, Scott entered a guilty plea for Criminal Solicitation of a Minor. He received five years- suspended to three years probation, the sex offender registry for life, and an eighteen month therapy class. The probation cost $100 per month and the therapy $45 per week. Also, the sex offender registry cost $150.00 per year. I was shocked that being a criminal is so expensive.

Scott spends a lot of his time alone. The Southern Baptist Church he attended for 27 years will not allow him to worship with them and the YMCA sent him a letter revoking his membership. The large body of acquaintances and friends has dwindled to a handful. His support groups have disappeared.

The following comments are my opinions and food for thought.

I want to protect children. But do these sting operations actually protect? It seems to me that they simply create criminals. These programs are like casting a net in the sea and hoping a shark might get caught. A lot of good fish are hauled in as well. How many kids hang out in the “South Carolina” chat room of Yahoo.com?

There was one thing that Scott said many times in our interview. “I was wrong for doing what I did”. I agree. Scott was wrong. But does it require a felony and a lifetime membership to the Sex Offenders Registry to punish Scott? It seems to me that when we give a man (or woman) no hope then we are setting up a volatile situation.

Yes, there are predators out there that need to be stopped. Scott is not one of them.

The South Carolina Attorney General’s Internet Crime Against Children task force has “netted” more than one hundred men since the law passed in 2004. When the 100th man was arrested, Henry McMaster and his 37 disciples were shown on the TV news having a toast and patting each other on the back. Has the focus turned from protecting children to promoting a program?

When Scott exposed himself to an undercover cop by way of web cam he broke the law, but why brand him with a scarlet letter for life? At the very least, allow the men who are distinguished as non-predators the ability to have a periodic review before the Probation and Parole board. .

How are we helping children by watering down the Sex Offenders Registry with men who happen to turn on a web cam. Is this the same man that is hiding at the bus stop or lurking around the playground? Of course not! So, basically, when a parent searches the registry for offenders in their neighborhood, it means nothing. How does this protect children? By loading the registry down with created criminals the registry is useless.

So why isn’t something done? Three reasons: First, it is political suicide for a politician to side with a sex offender. Second, law enforcement sends out propaganda stating that Sex offenders have a high rate of re-offending. According to the book “Sex Offenses and the Men Who Commit Them,” 91% of sex offenders never re-offend sexually. Law enforcement pads the numbers by adding any offense to the sex offender’s recidivism rate. So, if a sex offender gets a DUI, it is reported that he re-offended.

Third, it is much safer for an officer to sit behind a computer than to be on the streets of Upstate South Carolina, especially since South Carolina is ranked number three out of the twenty most dangerous States and ranked number one in assaults.

I think protecting children is important. But often our attempts to protect actually set up situations to help true predators go unnoticed. We need to be careful and not fall for any and every program that is placed under the umbrella of “child protection”.

Anything that we accomplish today can only be judged by its impact on future events. This is why we make laws and policies with the ability to change or amend them as our world and society changes. Adaptability is a requirement for survival. The views and laws concerning these people we label as sex offenders needs to be revisited.

Consider this quote:“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Think about it. Oh, by the way, that quote is from Adolph Hitler. ..News Source.. by Silas Goodman