Multiple sex offender to be released from prison given access to sex workers in an attempt to rehabilitate

[Grimbles]

This is... I'm just lost for words to be honest...

That being said, I also think many people, most people, have at one time another done something that is either a crime, or that they themselves consider to be immoral and wrong. Maybe when they were young, or under weird circumstances. And I think given the right circumstances a lot of people who would never dream about it will commit even quite serious crimes.

agreed

So I would not put as much distance between control and lack of control. I think we are mostly a lot closer to the latter than we think.

agreed

stress, sleepless nights and all kinds of factors can turn people into unrecognisable versions of themselves

There are people who really struggle with control and crime in general. People with impulse control, people with serious executive function skills, people with low IQ or other problems in understanding, and of course people with serious addiction issues. It can manifest in different ways, but the extent to which they understand and can conform to social rules is more limited than the rest of us. Prisons are full of these people, they go in and out their whole lives.

It doesn't mean they aren't legally culpable, and it doesn't necessarily mean they have no moral culpability either. But I really dislike this tendency to see people like this as just evil people who absolutely could do what they should but choose no to out of malice.

Unfortunately, when you are talking about repeat sexual offenders, people like Epstein, Savile, Raniere, and the like or just violent sexual offenders generally they are extremely dangerous and the treatment options for such people are extremely limited.

It is not a matter of calling them evil, the issue is how to protect society from their crimes.

Using sex workers as a human shield is a disgusting suggestion.

I'm more than a bit dubious about the sex workers strategy, but surely the idea is less about using them as human shields and more about giving him a means of release that doesn't involve unwilling participants?

hoodathnkit

I see the point you are making as coming down to a few questions, which I don't think you and I have the answers to.

One is whether, in fact, having sex occasionally is likely to actually be helpful to this person. I don't really know the answer to that, obviously as most people have experienced, sexual desire can be very powerful and can lead to bad decision making.
And then the second is what kind of risk he is. I know the article said he had a higher risk profile, but it doesn't really tell us why, and there are different kinds of risk. There are people who are simply sexual predators, they are seeking out victims, they are fully aware of what they are doing and they don't care. My impression from the article was that this was not what is going on with this offender, but it doesn't say much else. My feeling was that he might be someone who suffers from a fairly significant developmental disability and essentially needs supervision like a child would. But that is a guess.

If it's true, I don't really think that people in that position are well served by a society that is generally pretty libertarian about sex. So, there is that. But I don't know that such a person would be a danger in a sexual encounter with a prostitute that was known about by their supervisors. It would depend on a lot of other factors.

surely the idea is less about using them as human shields and more about giving him a means of release that doesn't involve unwilling participants?

given that WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick said "while Latimer remained a serious danger to the community, the risk could be managed in the community."

I think that the idea of "giving him a means of release" via sex workers = using the sex worker as a human shield

Epstein, Savile, Raniere,

I don't think this sounds like that kind of scenario at all. I agree those people are probably not treatable, their main problem really may not be their sexual drive, but they seem to have no moral sense at all. So they are willing to do anything to serve their sexual desires.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d238331e4b04c4814183c26?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL0RmcDNjMFdITTA&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF4qPVi7UPbIVC1gUvulThjAhQq6Ebzw-G_KVJyE5c7UvWFhxm2b8w4dmO5UBHgvo2_JJcFswMlf9-wUKZjhiFMS82Ctw6W_BHWm8IBnypXGQuRWFRb3wF4L9iVs-X2IAqtmCJwiNrNZa0z1sLzJWfY1fMD2q7TpqCArB6rXF1Xa

Ignore the weird link. It's an article in HuffPo.

I’m An Ethical Pimp. Here’s What A Typical Day Is Like For Me And The Women I Employ

Apparently The Bach [her brothel] is not the glamorous sex palace you might imagine

No sweetie- I didn't imagine that for 1 minute.

Anthony Derrick seems not to appreciate that non-consensual sex is this perpetrator's thing.

He is a dangerous, violent sex offender.

Anthony Derrick needs to understand that violent sex offenders often target sex workers. Not because they want release / relief but because sex workers are usually easier to access, less protected and easier to violate and hurt than non sex workers.

Sex workers can and do decline to have sex with clients. Just being a sex worker does not mean a woman (or man) consents to have sex with anyone and everyone.

Sometimes sex workers are not in a position to decline clients, if, for example they are desperate for drugs or to avoid violence from pimps and traffickers. Sex workers in this category are even more vulnerable to violence and violations than other sex workers.

No matter how I look at this it is appalling

I don't think this sounds like that kind of scenario at all. I agree those people are probably not treatable, their main problem really may not be their sexual drive, but they seem to have no moral sense at all. So they are willing to do anything to serve their sexual desires.

He is not like the predators I described because he is not an influential billionaire / multimillionaire.

What he has in common with them is that he is a dangerous sexual predator

I see the point you are making as coming down to a few questions, which I don't think you and I have the answers to.
One is whether, in fact, having sex occasionally is likely to actually be helpful to this person. I don't really know the answer to that, obviously as most people have experienced, sexual desire can be very powerful and can lead to bad decision making.

I believe you are making the mistake of thinking that violent rape occurs because of overwhelming sexual urges.

My understanding is that violent rape and stranger rape have nothing to do with overwhelming sexual urges and everything to do with a compulsion to violate and hurt another human being, reducing them to an object. The underlying affect is of hatred and very often of vengeance against someone other than the victim

And then the second is what kind of risk he is. I know the article said he had a higher risk profile, but it doesn't really tell us why,

oh but it does, it tells us this

"Edward William Latimer, 61, has a criminal record dating back to his teenage years and has spent most of his adult life in prison for offences including sexual assaults and wilful exposure."

also

"In 2005, Latimer was sentenced to almost three years in prison for trying to rape a drunk man who had fallen asleep in a park."

and

"Latimer was placed under a continuing detention order the following year until he was finally released in 2014 on a five-year supervision order.

The next year, a judge found Latimer twice breached a condition of the order by sexually propositioning women he did not know, so he was again placed under a continuing detention order until now."

This appears to be a man who, for whatever reason struggles to contain his predatory urges.

My feeling was that he might be someone who suffers from a fairly significant developmental disability and essentially needs supervision like a child would. But that is a guess.

I have no idea whether or not he has a learning disability or some other condition.

Clearly having raped a sleeping man he would pose a danger to men in prison.

He would appear to be an extremely dangerous person who the state struggles to know how to deal with.

If he does have a learning disability or some condition that disinhibits him and makes him dangerous then possibly he should be contained somewhere safe where he can be looked after and does not pose a danger to others.

How is official affirmation of a rapist's 'right' to sex on demand in anyone's best interest?

Every woman knows dozens of men, is often married to one, the daughter of one, the granddaughter of them, the sister of them, the mother of them, the friend of them - who would never dream of behaving in this way.

But if you know dozens of men, there's every chance one of them is a rapist. Quite a high proportion of men are. It's a horrible thought so we don't like to think it, but it's true.

Last statistic I read was.1 in 52 women. Is this still considered correct?

My understanding is that violent rape and stranger rape have nothing to do with overwhelming sexual urges and everything to do with a compulsion to violate and hurt another human being, reducing them to an object. The underlying affect is of hatred and very often of vengeance against someone other than the victim

Some people believe that. It's not the kind of thing you can say is known, but it's disputed by other people who study sexual offences.

I think it's a rather reductive way to look at assault. There are some people for whom violence and domination are a large factor in their actions, I don't think that means its separate from a sexual urge. I have heard of people who used rape, without any real sexual interest, in that way, but I don't think that's by any means the norm in those cases.

Even so though, that doesn't tell us that all cases of stranger rape come from that sort of thinking.

To say being rich is the difference between someone like Epstein and this guy is again, I think reductive. Those men were not just very rich and influential, they understood the legality of what they were doing, they understood societies view of it, and they planned and controlled their own behaviour in order to find vulnerable victims, evade social condemnation, and take advantage of institutions, stereotypes, and other social factors that would allow them to do what they wanted. That is a lot different than a man who stumbles upon a drunken man in a park and tries to have sex with him, and suggests a whole different level and type of risk, and quite possibly a different origin for his problem.

It's well enough to say he should be locked up forever, or have direct supervision, but it isn't always easy to make those things happen - people finish their sentence, and getting someone declared incompetent is difficult. It sounds like they are trying to set limits on him now so he clearly is still under supervision. There can be disadvantages to keeping people in for their whole sentence as then they have to be released without the same kind of supervision.

Some people believe that. It's not the kind of thing you can say is known, but it's disputed by other people who study sexual offences.

The field of people who study sexual offences contains some extremely dubious people

e.g.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-charity-criticised-after-calling-13422072

However, while causal factors for offending may be complex, one thing that almost all professionals in the field agree on is that recalcitrant / repeat serious sexual offenders who target strangers are extremely dangerous and are likely to offend again. Even the professional quoted in the original article states that this offender is a risk to the public.

To say being rich is the difference between someone like Epstein and this guy is again, I think reductive.

Agree 100% and I was writing in haste and feeling very distressed by some recent events in the news regarding these issues.

One thing that Epstein and Raniere have in common (not Savile to my knowledge) is that they promoted, indulged in and created a pseudo-academic educational system in which underage girls and vulnerable young women were trained in how to sexually please their male oppressor.

All aspects of the victims' life were controlled and they were effectively brainwashed. In both instances they were also groomed into becoming recruiters for their oppressors.

Unfortunately Epstein and Raniere are just the tip of the iceberg in respect to this MO, which, while it may start with a sexually obsessed pervert, soon morphs into an opaque organisation geared towards the collection of compromat for the purposes of political subversion and other serious and sensitive issues.

Also not much has been written about Epstein's links to yoga (cults?) and to his claims to be able to educate people on spiritual matters. I look forward to reading more about these issues in the press, where currently they are only touched upon.

In the music industry, while R Kelly has gotten away with atrocious abuses against vulnerable women and girls, the musician who most fits the bill in terms of the fetishisation and promotion of a pseudo-academic / pseudo-educational strategy to vulnerable victims is the jailed paedophile Ian Watkins, who attempted to enlist the help of adoring young female fans into getting pregnant by him and training the resulting baby as a "fuck toy".

The paedophile who groomed and manipulated Vanessa George into sexually abusing infants and toddlers was also manipulating a young mother into abusing her own child. Quite what the set up would have morphed into had it not been stopped when it did does not bear thinking about.

There are countless disgusting, dangerous pseudo-shamanic /neo-tantric / pseudo-therapeutic / pseudo-spiritual schools and universities online that are doing pretty much what Epstein and Raniere did.

They all use females as recruiters and this seems to be a difficult thing for some feminists to comprehend. Many of the females recruiting for these scary entities claim to be teaching "sacred women's ways" "secrets of the red tent" and the like but are actually endangering women.

Don't even get me started on life coaches.