[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Ten Sitler Questions

Sat Jun 30 23:02:30 PDT 2007

Actually, Paul, I hope you DON'T stop "blurting out" your concerns about individual liberty and community safety, not here nor anywhere else.  You make a lot of sense, and I, too, agree that Wayne did a great job on this.keely"And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what they're going through"(With apologies to David Bowie)Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:08:15 -0700From: godshatter at yahoo.comTo: vision2020 at moscow.comSubject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re:  Ten Sitler Questions

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

  _____________________________________________________________
  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
=======================================================

=======================================================
 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
=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Windows Live Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. It’s free.  
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_June07
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/60377d5a/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001
Type: image/png
Size: 84281 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/60377d5a/attachment-0001.png 