« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why is FrumForum Featuring the Internet’s Foremost Defender of Perverts?

At RedState, we are generally loath to involve ourselves in the various internecine wars that tend to arise among the Rightosphere. After all, there are Democrats afoot who are busy guiding the country into an epic nosedive, and that’s generally more important than picking nits about the blog posts of others.  This is doubly true of any fracas that involves David Frum.  See, Frum used to be a person very much worth responding to, given his prestigious perches at National Review and AEI.  These days, however, Frum has been shunted aside from both positions and relegated to writing for a blog that no one reads.  If there is a marketplace of ideas, Frum’s goods are sitting around gathering mold on the shelf.

Nonetheless, the most recent flareup between NewsRealBlog and FrumForum deserves mention because it appears that NRB has uncovered that FrumForum has been knowingly featuring the writings of the Internet’s foremost defender of criminal perverts.  For the few remaining people who haven’t been turned off by Frum’s uninteresting ideas, pedantic writing, and delusions of persecution, this revelation will hopefully put the long-overdue final nail in Frum’s coffin as a political commentator.  This is important because Frum’s counsel for the GOP is poison, and would lead it back to the days of massive public disenchantment instead of the current days of massive public enthusiasm.

Click below to see how the saga unfolded. Warning: some of the material quoted here is offensive to the sensibilities of… well, anyone not a NAMBLA member in good standing.

Prior to July of this year, David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog (edited by Dave Swindle) occasionally ran articles written by an individual named Alex Knepper.  Things started to go off the rails when Knepper began submitting posts about sexual topics that were absurd, offensive, and repeatedly defended the criminally sexually deviant.  For instance, in one post (since removed from NRB but reproduced here), Knepper wrote a lengthy apologia for the rights of child molesters, the most recidivist criminal population in America. In another, Knepper wrote at length decrying all the troublesome and completely unjustified whining from victims of rape. Apparently, Swindle (who had already extended much more rope to Knepper than almost anyone else would have) then flatly told Knepper that he was not to submit any more posts for publication that talked about sex. Knepper responded by submitting this post (which was never published) about Miley Cyrus which cribbed heavily from the NAMBLA playbook about uncontrollable biological urges men feel to have sex with 12-year-olds. 

As noted by Rob Taylor in an excellent and lengthy blog post covering the fracas at the time:

Knepper’s reaction was this piece of pro-rape agi-prop that should have ended the debate as to whether Knepper hated women once and for all. Read this and weep at what cretins like David Frum and whoever handles Knepper at NewsReal thinks is intellectual debate. Here’s Knepper’s response to arguments that women die at the hands of rapists all the time making the term survivor is legitimate:

Characteristic to plane crashes, car crashes, house fires, cancer, and other things that people die from: people die from them. David’s example, Ted Bundy, illustrates my point: he was not only a rapist, but a murderer. We would say that someone survived Bundy’s brand of aggression because he was a killer. But it is impossible not  to survive a non-lethal act. Women die at the hands of rapists, but the rape is coincidental to the fact that they could have died. Women die at the hands of vegetarians, zookeepers, and Deadheads, too — but when evaluating whether one “survived” an act, we have to look at whether they may not have come out alive. All else being held equal, rape is not that kind of experience: it is simply not looking at death in the eye. It is undoubtedly a horrific experience, of course — but it is a particular kind of horror: one of violation, of total loss of physical and sexual control. It is manifestly different than, say, a house fire, or suffering in a concentration camp.

If it sounds a little to you like there’s a disturbing pattern developing you’re correct. Knepper, who is openly gay, tends to write pieces about women’s sexual victimization which fetishize male dominance over a submissive partner while painting women as hysterical, malicious partners in their own abuse, all too eager to be raped so that they can lord their victimization over others. Rape isn’t a “loss of physical and sexual control,” it is a brutal assault by a sadist whose sexual gratification is achieved through pain, degradation and humiliation. Knepper’s definition of rape is more like a visit to a bondage club in the meat packing district than a crime.

Not surprisingly, Knepper was ultimately canned from NRB. Swindle has written at least two lengthy posts about Knepper’s termination here and here.  You can judge for yourself whether Knepper should have been given nearly this much rope with which to hang himself; however, the circumstances of his departure from NRB and the heinous opinions he expressed there were a matter of full public record. Note here that Frum specifically responded to Swindle’s post laying out Knepper’s repeated defenses of criminal perverts, and summarily ignored those concerns, focusing instead on bizarre conspiracy theories about Horowitz.

And where is Alex Knepper now? Still posting happily away at FrumForum. As you can see, his articles regularly reach the “front page” of FrumForum (scroll down), so apparently Frum doesn’t see anything wrong with Knepper’s repeated public defenses of criminal perverts.  Not to overstate the obvious, but such a person does not deserve to be taken seriously on any topic by anyone.

David Frum long ago marginalized his own relevance with his writing.  Now at last he has burned it alive and scattered the ashes with his own voluntary associations. So long, and good riddance.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    That’s just weird. Really weird.

    I suppose he also thinks holocaust survivors shouldn’t be called that because they personally were never put into the gas chambers.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      he was angling to be Harry Reid’s pet!

  • fpete13527
    • searic

      Embarrassed to admit I never had heard of this chap before, I did a tad of research and found him repeatedly described as a “neocon.” Ah, ’nuff said!
      Neocons are to Conservative as Liberal is to Conservative. In other words neocons may be neo, but they sure ain’t con! (BTW, I was not surprised to learn that this guy worked for DeBushleaguer II.)

  • merryj1

    As a political pundit, I’ve always viewed Frum as a “mixed bag,” not necessarily consistent with himself (from one appearance to another), and a toss-up in ideological terms – usually not as bad as a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, but no compelling arguments in any direction.

    Still, I wouldn’t have expected him to defend the indefensible; and the smut-peddler’s own “defense” that he was “quoting Epictetus” is beyond bizarre: Of course Epictetus, and most of the well-bred members of the human race from his era until well into the mid-20th Century, would agree with some variation of the opinion that “…fourteen is the age at which a girl begins to be treated like a lady…” as well as the inclusive sentiment that it is approximately the age that a girl is expected to “behave like a lady.”

    That does not mean, imply, or insinuate that a 14-year-old can or should be “treated like a hooker” or a “loose woman” or even as “a woman.” It is merely an age-old admonition to young girls that it is no longer permissible to sprawl on the floor and prop their legs up on the family sofa, or to wrestle around in tickling matches with their older-brother’s chums, or to run outside in a near-natural state, playing “keep away” with a sibling’s treasure.

    And it certainly is not intended to convey the idea that she is fair game for sexual predators.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …hopefully only figuratively speaking.

    Both seem to share the same obsession to prove how much they “love” sex as their trump card in their efforts to pass as “enlightened” Republicans among the D.C. establishment (turning up their noses at those declass

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      That is simply UNcivil….

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
    • aesthete

      With his looks, he’d have to be.

  • Adjoran

    He did basically nothing to draw six figures from AEI, which would make me think twice about donating to them, since they kept him on for years for . . . nothing.

    His one claim to fame was being an early opponent of Harriet Miers, but that was more a personal spat from his days as second assistant coffee-fetcher to the real speechwriters, although he disguised it well and got his revenge.

    I move we let him just fade away.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    Who’s that? Has he written something?

  • RedBeard

    Whether physically through substance abuse, or politically through inane commentary and agenda, I fail to understand the conscious choice of climbing into the toilet and pulling the handle.

    Poor Frum.

  • rdwww

    .. but I read the “sex offender” column, and it’s sane and compelling. The author offers an excellent, conservative demolition of the lynch mob mentality that builds careers for folks like Martha Coakley and other ambitious, unprincipled prosecutors. “Sex offenders” include both people who rape infants AND teenagers sending each other “sexting” messages. Anyone stupid enough to grunt about “getting tough” with both is too stupid to be considered any sort of a conservative. The cranky, simple-minded hit piece above against David Frum shows what happens when we switch off our frontal lobes and use the term “sex offender” the way liberals use “racist.”

    • Ann_W

      Or his piece saying that Miley Cyrus should be fair game? People who are compelled to keep making these arguments aren’t just libertarians out on a mind exercise.

      Oh, and sex offenders are a real enough threat, they are the most recidivist criminals. We personally were able to stop a CSO from stalking and doing increasingly aggressive things to the young women in our congregation because of some of the resources from Megan’s law.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
        • RedBeard

          But not for long. Good call on sending this doofuss to the cornfield.

      • flush

        Just because you personally have had a run-in with a CSO, doesn’t change the fact that they are NOT the most recidivist criminals. The research doesn’t bear out your faulty assertion.

        • Ann_W

          I’m pretty sure every bank robbery is reported.

        • Ann_W

          The creep that moved in close to a friend of mine and her kids illustrates another problem with this issue. He committed multiple serious offenses; Yet, the prosecutors allowed him to plead down to less serious offenses “to save resources”. So you don’t even get the full picture with Megan’s law.

          Now he’s served his time in a ridiculously short period of time and he stands by his house leering at people. He waved to my then young daughter and I’ve seen his car slow down as he went by houses of families with children.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    lexington_concord wrote:

    For instance, in one post (since removed from NRB but reproduced here), Knepper wrote a lengthy apologia for the rights of child molesters, the most recidivist criminal population in America.

    That article makes a completely valid point — that sex offenders are entitled to the full and equal protection of the law, just like everybody else. The Supreme Court’s decision to permit indefinite holding of sex offenders past the end of their statutorily-limited and court-assigned sentences was a massive violation of due process. Even if it were true that sexual deviancy never changes (it’s not, they recover at roughly the same rate as drug addicts) the correct response would be to pass laws through the legislature regarding the holding of such prisoners, not remove their civil liberties by judicial fiat.

    It’s enough that we can ignore David Frum because he’s the purveyor of bad advice. We don’t need to demonize him over matters that are, frankly, anti-libertarian.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      convicted sex offenders can live to a school bus stop force them all to live in the woods! I do think the SCOTUS went too far in its application of Commitment laws to those that have served their sentences.

      One of the main problems in this area could be solved, inmho, by only applying draconian sentences to those that cause physical harm and.or commit rape by penetration. One reason for the reluctance to make sentences longer is due to the very real possibility that innocent touching could lead to bad verdicts.

      • Ann_W

        I don’t know where you’d find the statistics, but most that I remember go from less serious to more serious sex crimes.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          the reporting and residency and other requirements usually apply no matter whether penetration or seriously bodily injury occur.

          The difficulty in this area are those molesters, usually family, that repeatedly molest via touching over long periods. Its hard to classify harsh punishment for those and exclude those that could be falsely accused.

          Another problem in this area, in my opinion after two decades of representing defendants and children, is that too many parents and social workers keep telling the child how serious the damage is and how they are “permanently” scarred. I think that is a crock in most cases, esp if the parents et al reinforce positive moving on. I think a comparison to permanent physical injury is instructive. Would you rather lose an arm or have been fondled? Not close. And criminal penalties should reflect same and if they did, you would be better positioned to put the truly serious cases away for good.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            is because of the ease of allegations and hence, the high risk of putting away an innocent man for many years.

          • Ann_W

            I meant that lots of more serious sex crimes start with less serious ones. For example the neighbor in CA who just had a kiddie porn addiction that ended up kidnapping and killing his neighbor– remember the guy with the RV. Or in the Reader’s Digest years ago a guy who worked up from peeping tom to rape and murder of a little girl on a dairy farm.

            I get your point about not severely punishing someone in a case w/ little physical evidence; but accuse me twice of molestation, shame on me. Once even those have come up three times it’s def time to get serious and we should be able to see the less serious crimes so our kid doesn’t have to be the one he escalates on.

            What you typically see now is crimes pleaded way down. And you are starting to see special interests lots of times funded by universities that have an agenda to decriminalize a lot of this.

            If any of my children were victimized I would act just like you say, “That sucks, but you still have a great life. Keep making it great.” But I care too much about kids to ignore the open season on kids groups that are starting to grow up around the fringes.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            So many folks understandably get too emotional to see the complications to a sweeping draconian approach. I have always been somewhat perplexed at how people seem to be so much more exorcised about this crime and not more serious one, but suspect it is because of the innate physical and other differences between men and women and cultural attitudes and taboos that prevent total honesty.

            Yes, good point re recidivism, but I don’t think it impacts the underlying problem of the vast range in seriousness of cases that end up getting classified similarly.

            I am going to be blunt. There is huge difference between sexual crimes and most any other crime, i.e.The evidence of the crime ranges wildly with the evidence of most sexual crimes also being evidence of consensual sex or natural “irritation” etc.

            In murder, you have a dead body. In theft you have missing items.

            But with rape, except for the obvious serious physical injury cases, what you have is “redness”. Get my point?

            Hence the inherent risk of revenge allegations in divorce and/or by savvy kids.

            I made my career defending a falsely accused politician against the wife he had just won custody of their girl from and then went on to get lots of these cases over 14 yrs in criminal defense and civil trial years, so I know whereof I speak.

            With assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, there are obvious injuries. I have always wondered why there isn’t more of a movement to have redneck bar fighters and spouse beaters have to live out in the woods or sanctuary cities, rather than child molesters.

            It reminds of how the law treats premeditated murder more seriously than crimes of passion even though those that premeditate usually only want one person killed and are relatively speaking less of a threat going forward, whereas…do we really want people with bad violent tempers wandering around on parole just because they only maim people and not kill them?

            more later and great discussion

          • aesthete

            I used to favor somewhat draconian penalties against sex crimes, but you’ve genuinely convinced me otherwise. You should make this into a column. Another point that I thought of is that, due to the emotions that get tied up in this sort of thing, some draconian punishments might actually have perverse incentives. Rape, child molestation, etc are often (and I think most commonly) perpetrated by authority figures who know their victims. If it is difficult for those victims to come out and talk about what happened to them as is, I imagine that it would be much harder for them to admit it/testify in court if they knew that they were sentencing the perp to death. Convincing the victim to testify and prosecute therefore becomes that much harder, and the chance that we can try and convict the perp does, as well.

            That flurry of thoughts put in a haphazard structure that vaguely resembles a paragraph aside, is there any legal way to assign draconian (some would say appropriate) sentences in cases that are clearly nothing other rape/child molestation, and to have less steep sentencing in more ambiguous cases?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            incentives to testify, and finally, I think that the only practical way to effectively separate cases for draconian sentencing is the “serious physical injury” and “clear penetration” cases, but even in the latter, their remains ambiguity for older children (mainly girls of course).

            In all the other cases, there will inherently remain ambiguous physical evidence and the fear of convicting innocent men. Of course, many of these same issues obtain in other types of cases, but those other cases usually have other factors that make more of a difference. More later when I write the column.

            I have had these views for years, but it was only when the residency restrictions here in GA and then the post-sentence completion “commitments” became in vogue that I have felt the need to get into this issue publicly.

            thx guy

  • radicalamericanpatriot

    I have blogged on numerous Ning and WordPress sites and, have seen despicable, dishonest and abusive words.

    Now, while I support free speech, any obscene, despicable and/or otherwiste offensive writing does NOT have an automatic right to be on MY (Newsreal Blog, or any site someone ‘owns’) site. They can set up their own site, COMPETE in the marketplace of ideas. Censorship of any kind of speech by private citizens is perfectly permissible! NRB should have canned him long before this April piece of filth by Knepper.

    Of course, I would expect nothing of any intellectual decency out of David “Frum(py) old man”!

  • flush

    I am a BIG fan of RedState and the vast majority of time, you guys do your homework and are right-on. However, in this posting, you have got a MAJOR error that needs to be addressed:

    “…child molesters, the most recidivist criminal population in America.”

    That statement is simply NOT TRUE. A simple search will yield a plethora of articles and data such as this:

    http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/patkin%20article.pdf

    The facts are that sex offenders have the LOWEST recidivism rate of any other class of criminal, but this false statement has been used over and over again to fuel fear and get draconian sex offender laws passed across the board.

    While I don’t agree with Knepper on a lot of issues, he is absolutely correct when pointing out that the sex offender has been raised to an almost mythical “boogeyman” and targeted disproportionately. The facts are that a child has a MUCH greater chance of being struck by lightning than by being abducted by a child molester in this country.

    Penn & Teller did a very well thought-out episode on this issue entitled, “Stranger Danger” in season 6, Episode 8 of their “BullSh**” program. Check it out…

    So please, RedState continue to live up to your standard of excellence in fact checking before posting a major blog like this.

    Thanks.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Anyone who rapes a child under 12 ought to be shot anyway, but only because cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

      • mom2oneson

        nt

        • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

          ..

    • Jack_Savage

      You say:
      “The facts are that sex offenders have the LOWEST recidivism rate of any other class of criminal, but this false statement has been used over and over again to fuel fear and get draconian sex offender laws passed across the board.”

      Wrong. They DO NOT have the lowest recidivism rate. All you have to do to find that out is to read the study you cite, particularly page 18, paragraph two.

      The rambling, barely coherent text says many things, but comes to only three vague conclusions:

      1) Studies and methodologies vary when it comes to analysis of sex offenders.
      2) Sex offenders re-offend at a higher rate than other criminals, but…
      3) …it’s not as high as people would have you believe.

      Hardly the refutation that you advertise.

      • flush

        Apparently, you are someone who doesn’t like to do their own research, because I also mentioned in my original post about doing a simple search… Anyway…

        Try this link:

        http://www.corrections.com/articles/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders

        I challenge you to find ANY credible study showing that SOs have the highest recidivism rate of any criminal type. It is a myth and repeated lock-step by those who wish to fuel hysteria and personal agendas.

        • Uma Richie

          and follow-ups shorter than 10 years. What happens when you add in the in the molesters who don’t get caught?

          Also, your point that sex offenders are not the gold medalists of recidivism does little to ease my mind. The slogan, “Perverts — We Just Can’t Compete with Those Frauds” won’t win any public relations points.

        • Jack_Savage

          You were the one who said that sex offenders had the LOWEST recidivism rate, which your own citation disputed as I so helpfully pointed out (better delete than one off your “Favorites” list). All you can seem to come up with is “you are someone who doesn’t like to do their own research”. But let’s play this game for a bit with the second citation:

          “Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris published a 2004 report on 4,724 sex offenders in 10 Canadian and American samples ranging from 191 to 1,138 subjects. The average follow-up period was seven years after release. The overall sexual recidivism rates were 14 percent after five years, 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years. Incest offenders had corresponding rates of 6, 9 and 13 percent. Recidivism was defined as a new sex crime arrest or a new conviction. Counting only new convictions, the recidivism rates were generally half as high.”

          This suggests strongly that sex crimes are under reported, particularly incest, and that as time goes on more sex crimes are being committed and that the law of averages finally catches up to the offenders. But heck, they’re just stats – right? Not like they are real people we’re talking about here.

          I just deleted a paragraph which explained in detail what would happen should one of my daughters be the victim of a sex crime. Suffice to say that the perpetrator would be recorded in one of your studies as having a recidivism rate of 0%.

    • Ann_W

      Broken out by offense over 25 years child molesters 52% commit sex crimes– a pretty high recidivism rate; and that doesn’t even include another fact from your cited study that the average child molester has molested 117 children. Do you think they were sentenced for each of these? If these crimes (reported by the criminals, I think the study said) had been prosecuted, mathematically it would have to be astronomically higher than the 52% recidivism for child molesters.

      When you work backward from the percentage of adults who report being sexually abused as children (15 to 25% of female children and 5 to 15% of male children) you also see that there must be a very high recidivism rate.

      It’s mostly the children who need looking out for. The sex offenders are so lucky to have people like you defending their good names.

      • mom2oneson

        Maybe Lammo will post, I think he wrote that he worked in that area before.

        • Ann_W
  • red_baron

    Having been familiar with Alex’s writing for a few years now, although not recently at all, and having read all of the citations here, I have to say this entire post is overblown and ridiculous.

    Knepper is correct about the rights of ex cons. I would prefer castration for molesters and rapists but with the laws and constitution we have sexual deviants should have the same rights as other convicts who have served their lawful time in prison. They shouldn’t just be left in limbo land. Knepper was not “repeatedly defend[ing] the criminally sexually deviant.” He is criticizing how these deviants have been denied due process. Perhaps you are incapable of discerning the difference.

    The other articles you listed are also rather tame. Do I agree with Alex in most areas? Not at all. He is naive, socially liberal, favors gay marriage, is obviously anti-religion, and libertarian albeit with hawkish views. I haven’t read much of his stuff (except what I dug up after seeing this) since his days as poster for race42008 but the stuff I see here is mostly well thought out. And I repeat “mostly” because I do have several points of contention.

    The Miley Cyrus piece you demonized seemed “mostly” reasonable as well. I find her sexually attractive. I think the only picture I’ve seen of her in the last 6 months at least was the one in the article you linked. Does that make me a pervert? Pretty sure no. And I’m pretty sure that is all Alex is saying there. Your characterization that the post was “about Miley Cyrus which cribbed heavily from the NAMBLA playbook about uncontrollable biological urges men feel to have sex with 12-year-olds” is quite obviously insane.

    There is plenty to disagree about in Alex’s posts but there is no need to be just as dishonest about him as NRB claims he is being about them..

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
      • red_baron

        Since this is my first post on anything related to girls, perverts, sexual deviants, morality, etc, I think the only way you came up with that retort is to see I’ve disagreed with other people in the past and said so. I am pro-life, pro traditional marriage, pro Mike Lee, pro Nikki Haley, anti Palin, pro Tea Party, anti Castle (RINO), anti O’Donnell (poor candidate), anti Angle (poor candidate), etc.

        That said it would be more constructive dealing with the topic presented here.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Your little flipout at Erick over Colorado was a tell.

    • flush

      Very well stated!

      • Ann_W
    • powertothepeople

      I could put aside all the they are or they are not the worst repeat offenders in the criminal world, and my opinion would not change at all.

      I could care less if every sex offender in this country once imprisoned, never sees the light of day again. I could care less if their recidivism rates are zero, lock them up for good. In fact, as Neil put it, place a .45 bullet strategically behind their left ear and into their brain, These scumbags have no place in our society and we treat them too well, even under current laws.

      Out of all the crimes you could commit, rape and molestation is the absolute worst hands down. It is a crime perpetrated by a weak and sick POS on the weaker of our society. It is the one crime that robs the victim of their personal choice, their innocence, and their feelings of security. Many of the victims spend years upon years, if not a lifetime, living with depression, self loathing, self blame, and fear. It causes, many times, future relationships to fail, destroys their personality, causes personal sexual issues, etc.

      While there are many other horrible crimes such as murder or assault, hands down, rape/molestation and incest causes a lifetime of hurt and issues. You can drive to your nearest strip bar to find out how badly these crimes affect its victim. Many of the women who work in this business and other similar type businesses are victims of these crimes. Some suffered these types of crimes for years. Their entire outlook on life was altered and the way they see themselves was damaged greatly.

      Once convicted, they deserve no rights. They deserve only our contempt and disdain. I once heard that capitol punishment may not stop others from doing the same thing, but it sure stops that person from ever doing it again. Time to put that theory to the test and lets see if we kill the sickest in our culture can they do it again. My bet would be no.

  • robtaylor

    Of all the studies. Most deal with re-arrest rates and many count multiple offenses against one victim as one offense. But even in studies where sex offenders KNOW THEY ARE BEING WATCHED they re-offend at at least 25%

    As Dr. Karl Hansen said:

    “On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we

  • flush

    Check out the info presented here:

    http://ccoso.org/

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Yeah. That’s really all I have to say.

      • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport