Best Sex Writing 2009

by Rachel Kramer Bussel

  One part of the statement is true—more than two-thirds of victims of rape and sexual assault are under eighteen. But the rest of the information isn’t accurate. A number of studies, including two by the Department of Justice (one released in 1997, another in 2003), have found that sex offenders have a much lower recidivism rate than any other type of criminal. According to the 1997 DOJ report, for which researchers tracked 272,111 parolees for three years, only 5.3 percent of the 9,691 sex offenders in the group were rearrested for another sex crime. As for the non-sex-offender cohort, 68 percent were rearrested. Other studies have found higher rates of recidivism among sex offenders—14 percent, on average, and as high as 26 percent—but still lower than for other criminals.

  Parole’s Kubicek said his own experience confirms what the studies have found. “It’s very low for us for a new sex offense,” he said.

  As the state’s Sex Offender Management Board put it, in its 219-page analysis of California’s sex-offender laws, released in January, “Statements that sex offenders cannot be ‘cured’—a concept generally accepted by experts in this field—have often been misinterpreted to mean that they will inevitably re-offend. In fact, the majority of sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time.”

  Ultimately, though, debates about recidivism mean little when it comes to the population most affected by sexual assault. As Phyllis Shess, the deputy district attorney who heads the DA’s sex-offender unit, pointed out,“You have to ask, is 1 percent [recidivism] acceptable? Is 10 percent acceptable? When you’re talking about these kinds of issues, no, it isn’t.”

  So what’s the answer? Jessica’s Law mandated that all “high-risk” felony sex offenders must wear a GPS device for life, so that their movement can be monitored by law enforcement. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation began outfitting all newly paroled sex offenders—regardless of risk level—with some form of GPS device beginning last July.

  In December, California was spending $21,000 a day on GPS monitoring, which comes out to $20 million a year. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that within ten years, the cost for GPS monitoring could grow to $100 million annually and continue to increase. Right now local governments are expected to pick up the cost after a person completes parole, an idea that no municipality has yet embraced.

  While some studies have found that GPS-monitored offenders have lower recidivism rates, pilot programs in San Diego and Tennessee found no significant difference between GPS-monitored sex offenders and those not on GPS. It’s not necessarily going to stop someone who’s dead-set on re-offending.“It’s GPS, it’s not real-time; you’re not going to get the information until the following day.”

  If anything, it stops an offender from absconding, though the device can just as easily be cut off. The Tennessee Department of Corrections warned that GPS devices are a resource drain when used too broadly and shouldn’t be used for lifelong monitoring. Successful rehabilitation requires that an offender be given a goal to work toward, the study found.

  At a community forum on San Diego’s Child Protection ordinance, Al Killen-Harvey, supervisor in the trauma counseling program at Rady Children’s Hospital, questioned whether GPS devices were the best use of limited resources:

  “We only have so much money, and that money’s now gone to looking at these kinds of tracking devices. We’ve wiped out early prevention and education programs that we used to have fifteen and twenty years ago where we taught kids about healthy touch and bad touch and how to report it. We’ve wiped out funding for mental-health services for families that are economically distressed, which is a factor that may lead someone to cross a boundary that they wouldn’t have crossed before.

  “In the macro sense, yeah, we’ve missed the mark here, and we’re allocating way too much money in an area where the bang for the buck is minimal compared to where the real risk level is,” Killen-Harvey said.

  His point on prevention is an important one. Eighty-seven percent of sex crimes committed each year are first-time offenses by people who aren’t already known to the police. It’s a statistic that turns public policy on its head—why put all the attention on the guys we already know about?

  “There are agencies out there that have demonstrated that if you do a good public health, public awareness campaign, including a [hotline for] people who are afraid they might hurt a child…you can actually reduce the incidence of sexual assault in your community,” said Marian Gaston, the public defender. “Why wouldn’t we spend money on that? And instead, we’re busy spending how many millions of dollars on GPS for people who are in their sixties and who are statistically just not going to do it again.”

  Then there’s the issue of treatment. The public’s perception is that treatment doesn’t work—a sex offender is a sex offender for life. But not everyone who molests a child fits the clinical definition of a pedophile, for one thing—sometimes other self-destructive factors drive behavior, like drug addiction. Recent studies have shown that, for repeat offenders, therapy does, in fact, lead to lower recidivism rates. California, however, is one of the few states that don’t offer in-custody treatment; only once a person’s released from custody is treatment mandated. It’s puzzling, given that Jessica’s Law is putting people behind bars longer.

  The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has plans to build a new locked treatment facility for sex offenders, but, as the state’s Sex Offender Management Board pointed out in its January report, nothing’s moved beyond the planning stage. Anyone who falls into the category of “sexually violent predator,” based on a prerelease assessment, is turned over to one of two state mental hospitals, rather than paroled, where the individual goes through a multiphase treatment program, is reassessed and then, if he’s found by a judge to be stable enough, released back into the community.

  Once someone’s off probation or parole, treatment ends and it’s rare that those who need it will seek it voluntarily, said Shess, the deputy district attorney.

  “We did an experiment through the [county’s] Sexual Offender Management Council, offering resources to people who felt like stresses—whatever it was in their life that might be putting them in a situation where they might re-offend—and no one took advantage of it. The counseling wasn’t free, but it would have been low cost,” Shess said. And, even then, the county would have made arrangements for someone who couldn’t afford to pay. “We didn’t even get that far. Nobody called to say, ‘Hey I’m a prior offender, I’m feeling like I might need help’—no one.”

  Around 90 percent of sex offenders aren’t under state or county supervision, Kubicek noted.“The 10 percent that are on parole are receiving the best supervision available,” he said. “My concern is, how do we enforce the 90 percent who are receiving no supervision, who are just registering?”

  One might assume that when a sex offender goes in to register with the police each year (or, each month if he’s a transient), there might be a brief talk with a counselor or some other kind of assessment that happens. But, aside from an initial assessment when an individual first registers, there’s not much follow-up.The city of San Diego has only five officers dedicated to the sexual-assault unit (which includes sex-offender management): one sergeant (Mark Sullivan), two detectives and two code-compliance officers who staff the office where more than one hundred people go to register each week.

  What if, rather than putting restrictions on where a sex offender can live and move about town—strategies whose effectiveness isn’t supported by evidence—the City Council pledged to fund a risk-assessment counselor for the police department? Sure, money’s short, but it’s hard to argue when it comes to protecting kids. Hire an intake counselor or set up a hotline that someone like my mom could call to find out how to respond when her kid says the babysitter’s asking her to do things she doesn’t understand.

  Another thing to think about: it’s difficult to turn in a friend or relative when you know that, unlike an
y other crime, this is one that will follow the person around for the rest of his life.Would my mom have turned the guy over to police if it meant a lifetime of public scrutiny and, in essence, banishment?

  Probably not.

  War Games: No WMDs but Military Police Find “Dangerous” Dildos in Iraq

  Tom Johansmeyer

  In the middle of the night on July 5, 2007, U.S. Air Force Military Police cleared the 402nd Field Support Brigade’s barracks. When the dust settled, the MPs had walked away with armfuls of contraband taken from the soldiers and civilian contractors stationed at Camp Anaconda in Iraq. The illicit fare removed from the facility included liquor, adult videos, and novelty items—all prohibited under U.S.Army Central Command’s (CENTCOM’s) General Order 1a (GO-1a).

  For civilian contractors, the punishment for possession of contraband is the immediate loss of employment; military personnel can be prosecuted either judicially or nonjudicially under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

  Through the course of the search, MPs discovered dildos owned by two civilian contractors and confiscated them under the assumption that they were contraband. Immediately, the women feared that they would lose their jobs, but the MPs later were advised by legal authorities that dildos are not considered pornography—and that the women should be permitted to keep their jobs.

  GO-1a explicitly forbids the possession of pornographic materials in Iraq, but it does not define clearly what is prohibited, making anything but the most monastic lifestyle a daily risk of unemployment or other penalties.The ambiguity inherent in GO-1a makes attempts at enforcement perfectly comical to all except those personally affected.

  The Military’s Rules on Porn

  GO-1a, issued by General Tommy Franks on December 19, 2000, explicitly prohibits the possession or use of privately owned firearms and explosives, entry into a mosque except as directed by military authorities, making or consuming alcohol, drugs, and drug paraphernalia, gambling, currency exchange, and “proselytizing.”

  The rationale for GO-1a, according to the order itself, is to “preserv[e] U.S./host nation relations and combined operations of U.S. and friendly forces.” This need arises from the fact that “[c]urrent operations and deployments place United States Armed Forces into…countries where local laws and customs prohibit or restrict certain activities which are generally permissible in western societies.”

  Fifth on the list of prohibited activities is the “[i]ntroduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation, or display of any pornographic or sexually explicit photograph, videotapes, movie, drawing, book, magazine, or similar representations.” GO-1a continues, “The prohibitions contained in this paragraph shall not apply to AFRTS [Armed Forces Radio and Television Services] broadcasts and commercial videotapes distributed and/or displayed through AAFES [Army and Air Force Exchange Services] or MWR [Military Welfare and Recreation] outlets located within CENTCOM AOR [Area of Responsibility].”

  What does this clumsily worded regulation mean? Anybody under the responsibility of CENTCOM, including both military and civilian personnel, cannot have any sexually explicit material unless it is delivered via military-approved broadcast or retail outlets. A magazine with bare breasts is not contraband if it is sold by AAFES (which manages the PX and BX stores on military installations), and a film with sexual themes is not obscene if it is screened for troops in a MWR center. Computers in MWR centers even allow the use of social networking websites such as MySpace, though this (and other social networking websites) is not permitted outside the MWR context.

  Riddled with exceptions in the way it was crafted and enforced, GO-1a lacks a straightforward definition of “pornographic or sexually explicit.” While oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, for example, usually signal pornography, anything else relies on Justice Potter Stewart’s 1964 standard: “I know it when I see it.” Unfortunately, General Tommy Franks was not available to supervise every inspection in Iraq personally. An unusually stringent or lax commander can create a different culture under GO-1a, with different standards for “sexually explicit.”

  At a commander’s discretion, the term “sexually explicit” could be used to outlaw full or partial nudity, clothed models in suggestive poses, or mainstream books that contain nude sketches. As written, GO-1a would apply only to adult novelty items that resemble (i.e., are “similar representations” of) banned body parts that would violate GO-1a. A smooth, plain plastic vibrator thus would probably pass the test while a textured item resembling a penis would not.

  GO-1a characterizes online adult entertainment material as obscene and therefore prohibited, and military and civilian contractor Internet use is carefully controlled. Soldiers and civilians serving in Iraq are not permitted to visit websites that could be construed as having offensive material, including the benign photography enthusiast website Photo.net. Since Photo.net has a section about photographing art nudes, the military has deemed it off limits.

  Photography and porn devotees can sidestep government Internet filters, but it is expensive, according to Brian Sayler. Sayler spent nearly two years in Iraq as a civilian contractor with KBR and ITT before losing his job for possessing adult films that were found during the July 5th inspection. Sayler explains that individuals can secure personal Internet connections for their rooms using satellite equipment that can cost up to three thousand dollars. After installation, the service requires an ongoing fee that can reach one hundred and fifty dollars a month.

  With this personal Internet service, one can access anything on the Web, as military filters are not applied, but GO-1a still governs the use of these Internet connections.The military simply lacks the means to physically restrict access, but the policy remains in effect. The semblance of privacy afforded by private Internet connections can dissipate when computer problems need to be resolved (e.g., from viruses).

  “The IT [information technology] guys have to repair computers loaded with porn all the time,” he explains. “They even get computers from Lieutenant Colonels that are full of porn. Usually, they just delete it or tell the guy not to go to porn sites anymore,” taking no further action. Rank, it seems, has its privileges.The context in which porn is discovered and one’s standing in the military hierarchy can mean the difference between a polite request not to violate GO-1a and the decimation of a career.

  The absence of clear guidance as to what constitutes contraband coupled with a sometimes permissive attitude and ungoverned Internet access contributed to the debacle with the 402nd Field Support Brigade, but the mistake was avoidable. Had Command Sergeant Major Vela, who personally initiated the inspection by contacting the MPs and issuing the order, simply documented the scope and nature of the inspection, the likelihood of error—and subsequent embarrassment—would have been reduced substantially.

  Health and Welfare Inspections—A Time-Honored Tradition

  The military thrives on order and accountability. The absence of discipline degrades the capabilities of the fighting force. If a military commander devises or implements any policy for the purposes of maintaining discipline, it is generally for a reason. In regard to contraband, the primary means of maintaining such discipline is the “health and welfare inspection.”

  An invasive process, these inspections occur unannounced in the middle of the night. Surprise prevents those being inspected from concealing or disposing of contraband. The housing facility being examined is cleared of all inhabitants, and each resident is escorted back into the barracks as his or her room is being inspected, a measure intended to ensure that those conducting the inspection do not steal or damage an individual’s permissible property. Soldiers and civilian contractors must wait outside until their turns arise, then watch as bags, bureaus, and wall lockers are ransacked and prohibited personal belongings removed.

  The health and welfare inspection that CSM Vela ordered for July 5, 2007 generally followed this pattern, though the administrative aspects of his inspection differed substantially from the norm.
<
br />   Contrary to the manner in which the 402nd Field Support Brigade conducted its health and welfare inspection, the process is not a blank check for search and seizure. In most cases, a memorandum for record is written in advance, specifying the scope of the search.This measure, suggested by the army’s Judge Advocate General Corp (JAG), intended to prove that an inspection is not a subterfuge for illegal search.

  JAG suggests that the memorandum state the date and time of the inspection, locations to be inspected (e.g. rooms or facilities), and areas within rooms to be searched. CSM Vela did not write a memorandum for record to support the July 5, 2007 health and welfare inspection at Camp Anaconda. Instead, he simply called the MPs and initiated the inspection.

  During most health and welfare inspections, the searches of individual rooms are conducted in the presence of the room’s resident(s); the MPs following CSM Vela’s direction did not observe this standard. Instead, those inspected had to wait outside the building, unable to ensure that personal property was not damaged or confiscated unnecessarily. As a result, the dildo affair could have been avoided, as well as the confiscation of a laptop computer (belonging to Sayler).

  Though his laptop was returned prior to his removal from Camp Anaconda, Sayler lost a number of videos in the search that were autographed and given to him by adult film performer Cassidey. Her gesture, she made clear to him at a public appearance in April 2007, was a show of support for those serving in Iraq.When told of the July 5th inspection, she wrote, I am upset that such things can be a reason for [a civilian contractor’s] getting fired.We send our boys off to fight in a war that is not even ours, and [they] get fired…for that shit?

  And then there is the issue of the dildos.