[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

Sat Jun 30 20:47:03 PDT 2007

In Voltaire's Candide, Voltaire constructs an unforgettable tour de force of irony showing the absurdity of the "This is the best of all possible worlds" assertion.

There are many ugly, horrid, shattering experiences that humankind suffer.

It must be hell for unfortunate individuals like Steven Sitler and all others of his ilk to have destructive compulsive urges which they cannot control, or there is a very high probability that they cannot control, and whose results are the shattering of the lives of their victims, the victims' families, and in many cases, the lives of future friends/spouses of the victims.  I am very sorry that such individuals exist, but their existence is undeniable reality.  It must be hell for the compulsives' parents also.

To the extent that it can be called sympathy, I feel badly for those individuals that suffer these egregiously destructive-of-others compulsions and/or those who have no conscience about the effect of their self-satisfying, destructive actions on others.  I wish they were happily otherwise; unfortunately they are not, and my wishing and other's wishing will not alter their dispositions.

The problem becomes what to do with such individuals -- the ones whose probability of reoffending, once convicted, is high -- how to balance their rights with the public safety.

I cannot offer a comprehensive solution.  But I offer this little part of it for consideration.

First, parents ought to learn about such threats, and how to communicate their nature to their children in such a way that the children can avoid molestation, or if molestation occurs, feel secure and loved enough to report it frankly and without feeling degraded or ashamed.

Second, when an offender is convicted, the sentence ought be harsh enough to send a message of general deterrence -- one that says to all potential offenders "if you defile a child, the penalty you will pay will be very harsh."  There are some compulsives who will offend no matter what the penalty, but I think it is reasonable to believe that some potential offenders will be deterred by the threat of a very harsh penalty, especially if there is a heightened threat of being caught that comes from informed children and parents.

Third, although some victims may not be up to testifying, those that are should be encouraged to do so, so that sweetheart plea agreements are not made as a matter of course.  When victims do not report and/or do not testify, the result is very highly likely there will be many more victims.  Pedophilia is vicious fire that if not controlled will consume many, many innocents.  Without public exposure, censure, punishment, and treatment, pedophiles will continue to craftily prey on victims in large numbers.

Fourth, I am afraid that there are some offenders that will re-offend no matter what, once they are released.  What to do?  There are medical options to reduce the probability of reoffenses, but they are now voluntary.  Some states now keep the most probable to reoffend in civil custody indefinitely once their criminal sentence is served.  Where should the balance be to protect potential victims when weighed against the rights of the offender?  There is no simple answer, but, in my opinion, the balance should be heavily weighed toward protecting innocent children.

Fifth, there needs to be a continual stream of information in the media, in schools, in homes, and in other institutions designed to increases the awareness of all so that the number of unrecognized and unreported incidents of child molestation are continually reduced.  This information ought be used by the public to let their elected and appointed officials know that they are expected to deal with this problem seriously and effectively.  That is one of the reasons I wrote and the Daily News courageously printed today the letter to the editor that appears below my signature.

I am sorry that Paul is uncomfortable with a discussion of Sitler's sexual relapses including voyeuristic masturbation and that he wonders why Sitler should be denied binoculars.  If one reads the letter below from Dr. Lombard carefully and completely, it is clear that Sitler's voyeuristic behavior with binoculars was a precursor to his previous pedophilic actions.  

Without clear, detailed, frank public comment, and given the so far poor judgment, laxity, and credulousness demonstrated by the prosecutor and court in thus matter, Sitler may again be out on the streets again, now or after a short, no hard time incarceration.  This may be OK with some, but I hope not for the majority.  

I hope that public exposure and discussion of Sitler's sexual proclivities and actions are persuasive in helping to insure that he will be placed somewhere where he is no longer a threat to public safety and no longer a threat to himself.  [I also hope that such exposure will enable the electorate to find more diligent officials with better judgment in the next election.]

Further with respect to binoculars, I, for one, would not feel comfortable allowing a convicted pedophile access to tools that inflame his destructive desires, especially where such tools have led in the past to the sexual exploitation of children.  In this respect, allowing Sitler binoculars is no different than allowing Sitler internet access.  I also think that most people, especially parents of young children, would really be creeped out if they knew they could be the potential subjects of a masturbating Peeping Tom with binoculars, especially one who was a convicted pedophile and whose previous binocular aided Peeping Tom voyeurism preceded pedophilic episodes.

In addition to the terse content of the letter to the editor below containing the remarks about the poor judgment of the prosecutor and judge, the Sitler case contains an egregiously misinformed, arrogant, anti-public safety letter to the judge from Cultmaster Douglas Wilson (available at  http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/)

Said letter contains the following:

"I am grateful Steven was caught, and am grateful he has been brought to account for these actions so early in his life. I am grateful that he will be sentenced for his behavior, and that there will be hard consequences for him in real time. At the same time, I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society."

If Christ Church wishes to employ an untrained, unordained pastor, they are certainly free to do so (but not free from public comment on such).

However, when said pastor ventures in to areas such as the psychology of sexual offenders where he is also untrained, obviously grossly and abysmally ignorant in the case of Steven Sitler, and when he use a previous relationship with a public official, in this case the prosecutor, to influence the granting of an egregiously inappropriate plea bargain and sentence/probation, said pastor has rendered a grave, horribly dangerous public disservice which should not go without extensive public comment and censure.

The community needs to wake up and smell the stifling stench of rotten, egomaniacal moral corruption, and of the extreme self interest placed well ahead of community safety that motivates it.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

_____________________________________________________________

Child abusers are unwelcome

Serial child molester Steven Sitler was sentenced to life imprisonment several months ago. He served no hard time. He spent most of his incarceration in the local jail.

His plea agreement says: "the volume and extent of acts by the defendant are greater than the investigator's documentation" and "similar acts occurred in connection with minors now residing in other states." Note the plurals.

A letter in the court file says: "When she was only two years old, Steven offered to take her downstairs and watch her while the adults were talking upstairs. At that time he forced her to perform (omitted: graphic description of an oral sex act)."

Yet after a few months of soft jail time, Sitler was on allowed probation in our community. He has now been re-arrested for violation of that probation.

Recidivism for pedophiles is very high. What is the likelihood of re-offending when the previous offenses are numerous, over a long period of time, over wide areas, and where the offender kept an alleged photographic trophy Web site of some of his victims?

Given the very risky nature of predicting whether re-offenses will occur, the error of assessing risk should be strongly on the side of protecting children and the community - and strongly on the side of promoting general deterrence.

What were Prosecutor Thompson and Judge Stegner thinking? What message does this irresponsible judgment send to the offender's victims and other victims of pedophilia deciding whether to report their defilement or not?

Sitler is a former student at New Saint Andrews College. Jamin Wight, a former ministerial student at the sister Christ Church institution Greyfriars Hall was also recently convicted of a felony injury to a child, following an original charge of sexual abuse of a child.

Both Sitler and Wight committed their offenses against members of the Christ Church families with whom they were boarding.

I hope that Latah County voters will clean house in the next election.

I also hope that NSA and Greyfriars Hall will carefully review and consider amending their boarding policy and their pre-enrollment screening and enrollment policies. The children of our community deserve nothing less.

Wayne A. Fox

Moscow

Daily News, June 30, 2007

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Rumelhart 
To: Vision 2020 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

Ok, time for an unpopular viewpoint.  Are we taking this too far?  Where do we draw the line between protection of the public and this man's rights?  I understand that he lost many rights when he did what he did.  But couldn't we be taking things too far?

Yes, binoculars can enable his voyeurism.  However, he can actually see without them through his eyeballs.  Should we gouge them out as a precaution?

I agree with you on the questions about why he was let out on parole so early, I agree that he's probably at high risk to reoffend.  I think we would be better off if he served more of his original sentence.  I understand that children need to be protected.  But where do we draw the line?   We're posting this man's episodes of masturbation on a public forum.

I see the makings of a witch-hunt here, and it makes me uncomfortable.

Just my opinion.

Paul

____________________________________

I'm not anti-children. If you believe I am, you're wrong. I don't like 
defending people like this, either, but either our rights that we have 
mean something or they don't. If they can be completely taken away 
because you or others hate this guy, then our rights are a figment of 
our imagination and we don't deserve what little of them we have left. 
The system may be broken, but it's the system we have. We don't have the 
right to punish this guy ourselves.

That's all I'm saying. And I'm done saying it.

Paul

Art Deco wrote: 
  Here is a letter from one of the persons providing sexual offender treatment to Steven Sitler.  This letter is found as part of a Report of Probation Violation filed in the court by Senior Probation Officer Jackye Squires Leonard.

  Dalton Lombard, D.Min, LCPC

  P O Box 1911

  Lewiston, Id. 83501

  June 18, 2007

  Jackie Squires

  Probation and Parole

  Moscow Idaho 83843

  RE. Steven Shier

  Dear Ms. Squires,

  This note is in response lo our Telephone conversation today. During the weekly check in time for the offender group I lead for Valley Treatment Specialties Mr. Sitler reported that he had masturbated on two occasions during the previous week. When asked for more detail about the circumstances and fantasies he experienced during his masturbation he reported that he had been looking in a neighbor's window with his binoculars. As a result he became aroused and later masturbated. He denied viewing anyone at the residence but acknowledged that he was aroused by looking in the window. He stated to the group that voyeurism is one of the behaviors be engaged in prior to and leading up to the offences he was convicted of.

  I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler considering he had been out of jail less than a month at the lime he reported the behavior. In my mind this behavior constitutes a violation of his parole and of his treatment contract with Valley Treatment Specialties.

  Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

  /s/

  Dalton Lombard

  The contents of this letter and other events raise some questions.

  First, with respect to the binoculars:

  1.    When did Sitler acquire the binoculars?

  2.    Did he previously possess them and someone returned them to him, did he lately acquire them, or did someone lately acquire them for him?

  Given his history of voyeurism and its leading up pedophilic incidents:

  3.    What was his motivation for either acquiring or keeping the binoculars?

  4.    Shouldn't the possession of binoculars been a no-no in his probation agreement?

  Second, considering the comment "I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler" from his therapist:

  5.    Why was bail granted at all?

  6.    Is he not a high risk to reoffend?

  7.    Why hasn't a Motion to Revoke Probation been filed by the prosecuting attorney so that an evidentiary hearing can be held and a decision whether to revoke probation or not be made by the court?

  There is a new letter from Dr. Lombard to Judge Stegner now in the file:

  8.    Why has this letter been sealed?

  9.    Aren't the citizens whose children who are now at risk with Sitler out on probation entitled to the information which would allow them to:

         a.    Evaluate the risk?

         b.    Express their opinions to the prosecutor, media, etc.

  Sitler was ordered by the court to vacate his current residence on June 19, 2007.  Today is June 29, 2007.  The screen snapshot just below was taken at 7:30 pm today (06/29/07).

  According to the Idaho Central Sexual Offender Website http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html Sitler is obligated to:

  Within 2 working days of changing the address or location of residence within the county where the sex offender is registered, the offender must complete an address change form in person with the sheriff of that county of the change.

  OR

  Within 5 working days of moving to another state, the registered sex offender must provide written notice of the move to the central sex offender registry. The person must also register in the other State within the time period required by that State, but not to exceed 10 days.

  10.    Has Sitler complied with the above but for administrative ineptitude his State of Idaho sexual offender profile has not yet been updated?

  As of now, a status hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday, July 2nd at 2:00 pm.  Since schedules can change, those interested should call the Clerk of the Court's office early Monday to check for any change (Courthouse:  882-8580).

  Wayne A. Fox
  1009 Karen Lane
  PO Box 9421
  Moscow, ID  83843

  (208) 882-7975
  waf at moscow.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/ddeddf0a/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 84281 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/ddeddf0a/attachment-0001.png 