[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Ten Sitler Questions
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 30 22:08:15 PDT 2007
Wayne,
You make many good points. I just want us all to keep in mind that he
still has some rights that shouldn't be violated, same as everybody
else. I'm not saying that you are doing this, just that the direction
this is all going worries me. Personally, I don't think that you would
go too far, you are much too level-headed for that. Your post just
happened to make me worry about whether or not this community might one
day go too far, so I just unthinkingly blurted my worries about it all
onto a public forum. Based on the reaction I got from that, you can be
sure that it won't happen again any time soon. Certainly not about this
topic.
Paul
Art Deco wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *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 <mailto: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
> =======================================================
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> 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/b011a771/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/b011a771/attachment-0001.png
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list