Offender Outtake: The Women's Movement and Sex Offender Laws

I have a feature in this week's Stranger about the life and crimes of Jefferson County's only Level 3 sex offender. It's a long piece, but that doesn't mean I could fit in everything I found fascinating about the debate over how best to punish and rehabilitate sexual criminals. Here's one thing that didn't make it into my story:

When I asked Alisa Klein, spokeswoman for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, why punishments for sex offenders have grown increasingly harsh over the last few decades, she pointed to a force that I hadn't considered: The women's movement.

Speaking for herself, and not for her organization, she told me:

We have seen, pretty much consistently since the 60s, a pendulum swing toward a lot of attention to this issue, and increasingly, every decade since the 60s, a lot of punitive and sort of knee-jerk attention to this issue.

This is due in part, she believes, to the women's movement:

What the women's movement did, because they wanted to get people to pay attention, and take this seriously, is, in my opinion, they threw their lot in with the criminal justice system to be the main system for responding to sexual violence.

Klein believes that violent sexual predators, and other sexual criminals, should be punished. But she also believes many of them can be treated, and should received better treatment than they do. Further, she believes that that the current public focus on extending sentences for sex offenders, and on restricting their movements after they are released back into society, can create a false sense of security.

Most rapes of adult women are committed by someone known to the victim. Most sexual assaults committed against children are perpetrated by someone known to the child (in about half the cases, by a family member). But the current push for harsher and harsher sex offender punishments grows out of public concern over "stranger danger," which itself grows out of highly-publicized cases of children being abducted by strangers—a horrifying, but relatively rare, occurrence. (Read more about this phenomenon of televised child abduction stories driving policy in my piece.)

Klein believes that the current focus on "stranger danger" can confuse the public on where the most common danger really lies—with friends, acquaintances, and family members. "It ends up becoming a kind of deterrent to our society's ability to respond before the fact," she told me.

Back to the question of how all of this intersects with the women's movement, here's a letter to the editor of The Stranger about my piece:

I enjoyed Eli Sander's piece on Erik Mart. I'm sorry that the system has so mishandled Mart's case, punishment and treatment. I'm also sorry that he was apparently molested by his father and that society never addressed it.

But I feel even more sorry for the two women he assaulted. I can imagine the absolute terror they must have felt and, later, the furious anger at the audacity of their assailant.

I think this country has severe punishments because we have such severe crimes. But, if we're going to "rate" sexual crimes on a scale, obviously the more violent or repeat offenders should get a higher rating. But how is raping a child more wrong than raping a 30-yr-old woman or a 70-year-old retiree? And this is where the problem of sexual assault runs head long into the issue of feminism and the institutionalized objectification and dehumanizing of females. Until just a few decades ago, sexually assault was considered okay in certain situations.

Today, outside of the U.S. rape is the norm, not the exception, in dozens of countries. Women and children are bought and sold as sex slaves in Russia and other eastern European countries. In South Africa, Egypt and Mexico the incident of sexual assault -- including child molestation and incest -- is calculated in minutes, not annually.

If our judicial system is taking a hamfisted approach to the treatment of sexual predators, it's still better than what most foreign governments do -- which is nothing, partly thanks to misogyny...

-- M. Murphy

Busy, Busy, Busy

I figured it was worth a call to the White House to check on this eyebrow-raising claim by Pastor Ken Hutcherson, the famous anti-gay Evangelical whose exploits I've been chronicling here on this blog and in my "Notes From the Prayer Warrior" series over on Slog.

As it turned out, the White House doesn't agree with Hutcherson's claim that he is the newly-minted White House Special Envoy to Latvia, and now I'm in the middle of reporting a very interesting story. For the fallout (so far), see here, here, here, here, and here. And here. And here.

Garrison Keillor Responds...

...to all the fury over his recent column.

And Savage responds to his response.

How to Get a Politician to Say the Right Thing About the Gays

There's an interesting sub-plot to the recent blogosphere controversy over whether or not gays are immoral and (actually worthy of serious thought) what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should say about such things.

You have to be following intra-gay politics very closely to have been up on this, but over the last few weeks there's been a notable dust-up pitting some prominent gay bloggers (led, it seems, by Andrew Sullivan and Michael Petrelis) against what is probably the country's best-known gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign.

For the overview, see here.

In sum, some gay rights activists and bloggers feel that the Human Rights Campaign has become a bloated, ineffectual organization that inflates its membership numbers, acts as a Democratic party mouthpiece rather than representing the full spectrum of gay political leanings, and vilifies its gay critics.

How does this connect to the Clinton/Obama controversy? Well, part of the argument from HRC's critics (that is, critics of the Human Rights Campaign, not critics of Hillary Rodham Clinton) is that HRC is so focused on working behind the scenes and playing by the rules of Washington, D.C., that it doesn't actually get anything done.

In some ways, this is a continuation of a very old debate in the gay community, a debate about tactics. And, really, it's a debate you could probably find among members of any minority group that is fighting to gain full equality under the law in a culture that has historically been hostile toward the idea of extending such rights. Speaking very broadly here, it's a debate over whose rules to play by.

Here's an easy way to see the divide in the gay community. These are the rules the newly-energized ACT-UP played by in response to Gen. Peter Pace's statement that homosexuality is "immoral":



And what did HRC do in reponse? The usual: It put out statements and called on its members to write letters, make phone calls, and generally complain through proper channels.

Because, as a rule, HRC does not talk like this guy:



(That's Larry Kramer, for the non-gay-politics-obsessed.)

And it certainly doesn't talk like this guy (who this week had to be calmed down by, of all people, Kramer).

Personally, I don't see why anyone would view the two approaches as mutually exclusive, rather than complimentary. The less-politic activism from the non-HRC quarters of the gay community gives the HRC a way to say to its Washington insiders friends: "Look, we're feeling pressure from our base to push you on this. We know it's a tricky issue, but we're being pushed in an impolite way and now we're going to push you in a more polite way."

But the question of the moment is whether HRC actually does end up getting things done with its thoughtful statements, well-placed donations, and private behind-the-scenes phone calls. Well, at least in the case of Obama and Clinton, it appears it did.

You'll remember that at first Obama and Clinton both failed to defend the morality of homosexuality. But after this, from HRC, the other HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, put out a statement saying this:

I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don't ask, don't tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.

And Obama put out a statement saying this:

I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.

Both of those statements could have been written by the Human Rights Campaign, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

Re: Clinton and Obama (and The Gays)

Dan is feeling miffed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for failing to come out swinging in favor of the morality of gayness. So, apparently, is the Human Rights Campaign. To recap:

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced this week that he believes homosexuality is "immoral," after which reporters began asking the presidential candidates what they thought of Pace's statement. And because Democratic candidates are always in more of a political bind on gay issues, most of the media attention has focused on what the Democratic big three — Clinton, Obama, and Edwards — said in response. (Or, in the case of Clinton and Obama, what they didn't say.)

Clinton, asked by ABC News whether homosexuality is immoral, responded:

Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.

Obama gave three non-answers to the question, posed by Newsday:

Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

Edwards, taking a notably different tack, was more straightforward with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy.

First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view.

Afterward, both Clinton and Obama used spokespeople to suggest that they disagree with Pace. But the Human Rights Campaign reportedly isn't satisfied and wants them to do more.

If all this feels like a replay of the 2004 presidential election, in which the issue of gay rights vexed Kerry and helped Bush win, it's because it largely is. And who benefits politically when Democrats are forced to either side with the gays or the gay-haters? The answer is pretty clear: Republicans.

Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to say publicly what most of them probably already believe in private—based on the gays they employ, the gays they take money from, and, in more than a few cases, the gays they secretly sleep with—which is that being gay is hardly immoral.

Of course it's ugly and unpleasant to watch people pander to prejudice.

But this is politics.

And the lesson of the last presidential election is that the gay issue creates a Hobson's choice for Democrats. There is no good answer, no politically-smart way for them to be absolutist about supporting gays and full gay equality without creating a media frenzy that would distract from other issues and alienate a good part of the electorate. Which is why I find my self agreeing with Kerri Harrop (for a change).

By appearing uncomfortable in answering the question about gays and morality, and eventually approaching a muffled correct answer (through their spokespeople), Clinton and Obama are telegraphing to the average American that they are more like him or her than not.

Poll after poll shows that while support for gays and gay rights is increasing in this country, it's far from a settled issue.

So, while appearing to be unsettled by questions about gays and gay rights might make certain Democrats seem craven and spineless to certain parts of the Democratic base, it no doubt plays well with the average American — if he or she is even following this episode.

And Edwards is not above trying to thread the needle by showing both comfort and discomfort with gay issues at the same time. His answer on gay marriage? "I'm just not there yet." Translation: I'm with you, America. I'm uncomfortable about this.

It may be unpleasant for the liberal base to watch Democrats playing to the average American in order to win. But show me the Democrat who unequivocally supports full civil equality for gays and lesbians and I will show you... Dennis Kucinich.

Juicy

The Boston Phoenix gets a bunch of current and former alt-weekly writers to go on record about the fallout from the New Times-Village Voice Media merger. And at the Seattle Weekly, it seems the change in management led to a testy debate over massage parlors and hand-jobs.

The Ballet

Speaking of the brilliance of Corianton Hale, he turned me on to this album the other day:



Which I now love. I don't know if you can buy it here in Seattle. The group ("4 homos, 3 chords, 100 melodies") is New York-based and their CDs are very DIY and apparently almost all sold out. The album is cheap on ITunes, though.



Be forewarned, they sound like another homo band trying to do Stephen Merritt. But in my opinion there's not enough Stephen Merritt in this world and, anyway, these guys get a little more raw with the sweet pop/gritty lyrics disjunction. The first song on the album, "Personal," is all violins and lolli-pop and it begins "I saw you on gaydar..." Then it goes on:

I met you on a Saturday / You sent me an instant message / You wanted to meet right away / Under the Manhattan Bridge / I guess I didn't understand / When you said, 'Are you top or bottom?' / I said, 'Your wish is my command / whatever side you want I got em.'

I won't tell you how the songs ends, but it's... sweet.