sex offender interpretations

May 6, 2003 5:26 AM

Artist finds pictures of sex offenders on web, comments on them.An example of Internet-enabled art. No high-falutin' concepts here. There must be other people out there doing this sort of thing, Photoshop riffing on convicted criminals is so 21st century.
posted by jeremias (45 comments total)

Wow. What an icredibly irritating and vile human being. We've got empty-headed flipness, half-baked analysis unfunny attempts at humor, moronic jagoffery, and dumbassed condescending social theorizing. Great way to start off the morning. What's the point of this exercise anyway? For this idiot to look down his nose both at the people in the pictures and the people who might have cause to fear them. These folks in the photos are by turns monstrous or pathetic, but to this guy they're entertainment.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 AM on May 6, 2003

Its amazing the shit people find and keep.
posted by Cool Alex at 5:47 AM on May 6, 2003

the use of 'sex offenders' is nothing but a sleazy, pandering attempt to garner some attention. i'm going to do the same thing only with people who have bad credit. they're the REAL LOSERS in society.
posted by quonsar at 6:13 AM on May 6, 2003

I hear the RIAA is going to start doing the same thing with copyright infringers.
posted by anathema at 6:24 AM on May 6, 2003

don't bother me, i'm busy googling 'moronic jagoffery'...
posted by quonsar at 6:57 AM on May 6, 2003

You call that art?
posted by mischief at 7:19 AM on May 6, 2003

I love the google ads on this page. Hooray for content targeting!
posted by rusty at 7:24 AM on May 6, 2003

No Comment
posted by newlydead at 7:27 AM on May 6, 2003

What an icredibly irritating and vile human being. We've got empty-headed flipness, half-baked analysis ...

Someone who pronounces a person "vile" on the basis of a few provocative artworks isn't in a good position to denounce "empty-headed flipness."

If you read these works as an attempt to provide genuine insight on what these people are like, I can see how it would be offensive, but they seem more like a lampoon of how sex offenders are perceived by society.

Some of them are particularly inspired -- six is a funny statement on the idiocy of sodomy laws.
posted by rcade at 7:38 AM on May 6, 2003

We've got empty-headed flipness, half-baked analysis unfunny attempts at humor, moronic jagoffery, and dumbassed condescending social theorizing.

jonmc just described Metafilter.
posted by Hall at 7:43 AM on May 6, 2003

I much, much better usage of these same pictures is Old Man Murray's classic game Aliens Vs. Child Predator... sadly down, but you can read the write up.
posted by malphigian at 8:00 AM on May 6, 2003

Funny, he sounds pretty sympathetic to the sex offenders the way I read it. He doesn't talk about them as though they're entertainment, he talks about them as though he's trying to imagine a connection. The way I read it, he sounds a little bit offended that their sins are being aired out in public this way, and he's trying to justify them with context of some sort. It may not be particularly profound, but I don't think it makes him vile.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 8:01 AM on May 6, 2003

"he sounds a little bit offended that their sins are being aired out in public this way"

I do too. And I will never understood why is it so important to know that you neighbor is a criminal of the sex offender type (a wide ranging definition which includes a 19 year old that has had consensual sex with a 17 year old).

Personally, I am more concerned with my neighbors being thieves, if you know what I mean.
posted by magullo at 8:15 AM on May 6, 2003

You call that art??

(Cue can of worms)

Well, obviously a debate for the ages, but I'd say that I've seen stuff on the internet and elsewhere that called itself art which didn't make me think half as much as this stuff. It disturbed me to see these faces, even if I didn't know they were sex offenders. The fact that they are, adds another level of disturbance. The fact that some guy in Canada can access them in a blink of an eye, adds another level. The fact that they're available at all adds yet another level.

Could it have been done differently? Yeah, sure. Could the commentary be a little more intelligent? Yep. But in many ways, it is original.
posted by jeremias at 8:30 AM on May 6, 2003

My first impulse was similar to jonmc's. Then I looked at the found stuff Cool Alex pointed out and that revised my opinion. The sex offender page made me very sad, and it seemed that the author was projecting a lot of his own demons onto the canvases he found. The found stuff is basically the same schtick, but the author has more compassion there and so I find it more interesting, more accessible. Thanks for the link!
posted by squirrel at 8:40 AM on May 6, 2003

provocative artworks

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
dork photoshopping inane captions on mugshots == FARK.
ergo,
FARK == Provacative Artwork.

they are going to be so proud. hahahahahahaa.
posted by quonsar at 8:40 AM on May 6, 2003

You can be such a rube, quonsar. It's almost endearing.
posted by rcade at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2003

I do too. And I will never understood why is it so important to know that you neighbor is a criminal of the sex offender type (a wide ranging definition which includes a 19 year old that has had consensual sex with a 17 year old).

Then obviously you have never lived in the same neighborhood as one.

A neighborhood that had to find out the hard way that a convicted child molestor lived there.

Finding out when the man was arrested when he was found in his van which had been backed up to the fence around the local elementary school which was in session.

Said man was found with his pants around his knees.

Said man WAS NOT convicted of anything for that incident due to lack of evidence and a very good lawyer.

The definition of Criminal Sex Offender is wide ranging, but a good majority of the people listed on these state sponsored sites have been convicted of a sex crime with a child.
posted by da5id at 9:23 AM on May 6, 2003

If you really have an urge to contextualize the feelings of a pedophile, by the way, you should probably read this.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2003

da5id The "hard" way is a finding a guy with his pants around his ankles inside a van by the school fence? Pardon me if I laugh with the rest of the class ... and remind you that lack of evidence is a very serious detriment to the veracity of any accusation.

If his lawyer was of the variety that does not like sweeping concepts like "the majority of them are there for a reason" (how much constitutes a majority? and how does bundling criminals and non-criminals together make you more secure?), then he or she does sound like a good lawyer.

PS: I hate to defend perverts - but irrational demonizing DOES NOT HELP. Anyone remember the British crowd that drove a doctor out of the neighborhood because "pediatrician" and "pedophile" sounded similar to their ears? That's pretty much what you can expect when lynching mobs take over the job of administering local justice.
posted by magullo at 9:44 AM on May 6, 2003

almost?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:53 AM on May 6, 2003

PS: I hate to defend perverts

No you don't. If you didn't, you wouldn't. Instead, you decided to offer helpful reminders on the evidenciary laws of a country you don't live in to someone who has actually had to deal with those laws. Then you obliquely call him an ignoramus and a vigilante.

Just to clarify.
posted by UncleFes at 9:55 AM on May 6, 2003

UncleFes - I just remembered O.J. Simpson and I can see where you might be coming from. But then the real problem are not the sex offenders, are they?
posted by magullo at 10:23 AM on May 6, 2003

Ultimately all the guy is doing is implying that there is a connection between the way you look in a photograph and whether you are a sex offender.

I don't see the artistic merit, but maybe I'm dense. I wish I had a photo posted on the web so someone could tell me.
posted by Hildago at 10:24 AM on May 6, 2003

how much constitutes a majority?

One more than half.

Or, if there are an odd number, half plus .5.
posted by kindall at 10:37 AM on May 6, 2003

I don't have to irrationally demonize an individual who had already been tried and convicted of sexually molesting a CHILD.

You cannot demonize someone who is already a demon.

It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to figure out what a convicted child molester was doing with his pants around his ankles inside his van which was parked next to the local elementary school.

I never said anything about lynching and misconstruing the word pedophile.

But hey, keep defending the pedophiles. Try and "cure" them. I will pity you when your children, or those related to you become a victim of a pedophile.
posted by da5id at 10:48 AM on May 6, 2003

I liked it in an "it itches a part of my brain" kind of way. Especially this one. -- made me think of Fight Club.

Isn't that art, then? I'll say that its perhaps not exquisitely done as it could be, but the sentience of the thing is palpable. It Makes You Think for a moment, whether happy thoughts or otherwise, and that's what good art should be about.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 11:55 AM on May 6, 2003

The definition of Criminal Sex Offender is wide ranging, but a good majority of the people listed on these state sponsored sites have been convicted of a sex crime with a child.

Not that I've seen. There are an awful lot of people convicted of sexual assault on adults in there too, and while they're presumably not the best neighbors in the world, people don't get THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!! hysterical about them. You'll also find a really large number of people convicted of exposure. Some of them are going to be flashers and others masturbaters; others are going to be men who were pissing on a wall and had the misfortune of having a kid, cop, or both walk by. How are you going to know which is which? Ah, who cares, we'll drive 'em all out of town FOR THE CHILDREN!

If you didn't, you wouldn't. Instead, you decided to offer helpful reminders on the evidenciary laws of a country you don't live in to someone who has actually had to deal with those laws.

Doesn't seem hard to figure out to me. "Lack of evidence" implies that there was a lack of real evidence that the man was actually guilty of what was claimed. Given the hysteria that surrounds them, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find angry local parents making stuff up.

Then you obliquely call him an ignoramus and a vigilante.

The laws have no other purpose than vigilantism. People don't find out that someone in the neighborhood is a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER!!!! so that they can treat them like humans. The laws exist to facilitate hounding or threatening people out of the area, into some other area.

Unless someone hits on the clever parenting strategy of "Sonny, sure, get into cars with strangers, but not with these strangers.

Yeah, lots of pedophiles are recidivists. So go and agitate for longer sentences, or for adding residency limitations to their sentences. But these "registry" laws are mostly a cheap way to try to add more punishment onto someone who'd done his time, which ain't kosher.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:00 PM on May 6, 2003

You cannot demonize someone who is already a demon.

"Demon" is just a label for our ignorance. Someone does something horrible, and we wonder why. If we knew the answer, perhaps we could do something to prevent it next time. Perhaps we could save not just the future victims, but the future criminal themself. But calling them a "demon" doesn't try to understand why; it just shuts off the entire conversation and says "they do evil things because they are evil, and that's the end of it". That's a completely unhelpful response; it gives us nothing we didn't already know.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:14 PM on May 6, 2003

The most disturbing part of the site was not the commentary -- those observations were the sort of thing that any of us could come up with, faced with pictures of convicted offenders -- but the State of Georgia Dept. of Corrections (with a link to Georgia "Correctional Industries"), where he found the pictures. A huge database, available to the public, full of mugshots of offenders of every stripe, from DUI to something called "Terrorists Acts" (which I think must mean threatening behaviour). The impulse to humiliate and display here seems almost medieval.
posted by jokeefe at 12:16 PM on May 6, 2003

Yeah, lots of pedophiles are recidivists. So go and agitate for longer sentences

You're right. Rape, of adults or children, should be a death penalty crime.
posted by UncleFes at 12:18 PM on May 6, 2003

I quite honestly believe that there are very few (none?) non-pedophiles who are out there defending them. I think people are merely trying to approach the situation logically and say, "what IS the problem and what's the best way to handle it?" In almost any situation, the best way to handle things is not the emotional, reactionary way. Go around and skin alive all the pedophiles you want. Sadly, it doesn't help the children or the families once the damage has been done. Let's create an environment where people who suffer from this problem can seek help BEFORE they create problems and then maybe we won't have to worry about so many young lives and families being ruined. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
posted by PigAlien at 12:21 PM on May 6, 2003

Ultimately all the guy is doing is implying that there is a connection between the way you look in a photograph and whether you are a sex offender.

I think he's mocking that belief. Not to get too grandiose about it, but the photos are an empty vessel he can fill up with all kinds of unfounded suspicions, fear, menace, and ill intent.
posted by rcade at 12:27 PM on May 6, 2003

It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to figure out what a convicted child molester was doing with his pants around his ankles inside his van which was parked next to the local elementary school.

yeah, wanking off to his pathetic, childish little fantasies. i would call bullshit on the entire "roving pedophilic monsters are after your children" myth. most pedophiles i've read about aren't assaultive rapists, they are pathetic, sexually immature individuals, USUALLY RELATED TO OR A FRIEND OF THE CHILD'S FAMILY. they are sexual and emotional children themselves. most convicted child molesters engaged in behavior not unlike that which two children might engage in on thier own. sick, yep. pathetic, yup. horribly abusive and life-ruining-psychological damage? horseshit. the life-ruining-psychological damage is done by horrified adults sending a clear message to victims that they have somehow been irrevokably tarnished, thier innocence permanently 'destroyed'. america's number one greatest fear is NOT public speaking - it's our own genitalia. and our children's.
posted by quonsar at 12:29 PM on May 6, 2003

I think he's mocking that belief. Not to get too grandiose about it, but the photos are an empty vessel he can fill up with all kinds of unfounded suspicions, fear, menace, and ill intent.

I couldn't tell. Sometimes he seems to be mocking how judgmental people are, other times he seems to be actually trying to diagnose people. At the least he's inconsistent.
posted by Hildago at 3:01 PM on May 6, 2003

america's number one greatest fear is NOT public speaking - it's our own genitalia. and our children's.

*WolfDaddy hands back to quonsar the 'truer words have never been spoken' trophy*
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:15 PM on May 6, 2003

Seeing as how I think it's eminently relevant and worth whatever flack I get for doing so, I'm going to again point out this article, and then ask someone to explain to me how this man can simply be called a demon or put to death. Excerpts (some of the tamer parts):

Pedophilia is a condition Derek likens to cancer, a death sentence imposed on him when he was a 10-year-old Cub Scout, like the boys that inhabit his fantasies. "With [pedophilia] you know how you are going to die," he says, making his hand into a pistol and pulling the imaginary trigger at his temple.

Pedophilia, he points out, is a disorder he did not choose. The sexual abuse of a child is a crime he chooses not to commit. Child molesters and pedophiles are not necessarily one and the same. He is not a criminal, he says, and wishes he weren't treated like one preemptively.

[His mother] says she is proud of her son for not hurting anyone, and is confident that one day he will be cured. But her anger at what she has lost consumes her. "I think they should kill child molesters and burn their bodies," she spits. "I know that's a horrible thing to say, but it's how I feel."

In December 1991, another psychiatrist wrote: "He said he has made what is, in effect, an anatomically correct dummy as a substitute for the boys that he can't have. He has remodeled it several times, and now it has assumed the role of a real person. He named it Matt after the son of a hockey coach he found attractive. He has bought clothes for this dummy and has quite a wardrobe. He sleeps with it, hugs it, comforts it and has it hug him. Occasionally he does 'stuff' to it."

It's difficult to pity this man. It's impossible not to. There but for the grace, and all. Maintaining simplistic dichotomies helps no one. Pedophilia is a contagious pathology. Considering that many of the children victimized by adults will grow to become pedophiles themselves, at exactly what point does victim become demon?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 7:25 PM on May 6, 2003

I have written and erased four comments to this, some lengthy, some abrupt. In the end, it comes to this: I am a father. I cannot pity this man, because of what he can do to my son, what he desperately desires to do to my son. I can only hate him, and fear him. I do not like fear, so like most men when I fear something, it enrages me. That rage translates into further hate, further fear. Just as this man does, I know in my heart what I am capable of. I think on this man raping my son and I think of black plastic tarp and duct tape and hatchets and deep holes in the woods.

That is the legacy of this man's urges. It is a tribute, surely, to the peaceableness and lawfullness of men that fathers do not hang pedophile heads on pikes. For that is what I would dream of doing, and far, far worse, if one of these were to take my son.

It is not about what this man feels. It is about the damage he causes to the rest of us, what he would make us do, my son and I, in service to his desire and in the aftermath of it.
posted by UncleFes at 11:00 PM on May 6, 2003

q,

Any chance the horrified adults were raised from childhood with these attitudes? If they come by it honestly, how do you square it against those who come by these urges honestly by dint of a childhood experience? I know that kids have near-infinite mental flexibility and can adapt to damn near anything; I'm not asking you to defend something you clearly don't support. I just wonder how ideas passed down from elder to younger differ from pathological behaviors passed down from elder to younger. Except for the obvious bits. Just askin' is all.
posted by trondant at 12:09 AM on May 7, 2003

You bandwidth eating monsters are costing me too much damn money. Go away until I can figure out some method of bilking you out of your moolah.

Oh well, there goes that link. Mefi'ed again.
posted by litlnemo at 6:15 AM on May 7, 2003

q -

I pity Derek Derek
.

I really do. However, in my eyes, he is not yet a Demon. He hasn't acted upon his impulses. To me, that seperates him immediately from the rest of the pedophiles in the pack.

I can't try and convict a person for what they think. The day that happens is the day this country starts its downward spiral to a modern version of "1984."

Derek is a victim. He isn't a pedophile. Once he acts upon his impulses, then he no longer is a victim. Then he crosses the line.

I read the article when you first posted it, and it really moved me. People like Derek really need help.

The way I see it, Derek says he didn't chose to be the way he is, and I would agree. It was forced upon him, and now he needs help which is sorely lacking from society.

Society needs to differentiate between the people who have strong desires and impulses of pedophilia, but don't act upon them, and those that just outright act on every impulse they have.

People like Derek deserve all the help they require. Jail will not help him. Nor does he deserve jail.
posted by da5id at 7:26 AM on May 7, 2003

OK, UncleFes, reading what you actually wrote, can you see how simple hatred only perpetuates the cycle of victimization and destruction? Let me try to make it clear for you:

He is a pedophile. He cannot pity you, because of what you can do to him, what you desperately desire to do to him. He can only hate you, and fear you. Just as you do, this man knows in his heart what he is capable of. He thinks of black plastic tarp and duct tape and hatchets and deep holes in the woods and he thinks of raping your son.

That is the legacy of your urges. It is a tribute, surely, to the peaceableness and lawfulness of this man that he has not acted upon his.

He has no help, and society, too caught up in the catharsis of unfiltered hatred for the man, is unwilling to stretch its empathy even so far as to provide that help.

Society, Berlin says, would sooner banish pedophiles from our midst than address the root of what he calls a serious public health problem. "There's a whole part of this story that we as a society haven't stopped to think about because of all the passion and angst about children being harmed." [...] Berlin's success rate is impressive. In a five-year study conducted on 600 sex offenders treated at his clinic, the recidivism rate was less than 8 percent. But before things can change, a sympathetic human face will have to be put on the vilified disorder.

Did you read the quote where the man's mother says that anyone who molests a child should be immolated? Do you realize she's talking about her own son, a year after the meds run out and therapy's too expensive? Can you imagine saying what you said about this man, black tarp, duct tape, hatchets and all, about your own son?

Of course it's not as simple as that. Not everyone who is molested as a child will become a pedophile. However, over 30% of those who have molested young boys were sexually abused themselves as children. Being molested as a child does not ascertain the eventuality that one will become a pedophile, but it substantially increases the chances.

The problem, as I see it, is that all of the cases of pedophilia we have to study are those in which the cycle of abuse has already been perpetuated. We can only work with those who have committed the act of child molestation. We should be working to prevent that act from ever happening, encouraging these men to admit their desires before they succumb to them, because the help we can offer at that stage may be more effective than that which we can offer after the vampire has drawn his first taste of blood. Instead of attempting to defuse these desires before they are satisfied, we drive them to flourish in private through our preemptive hatred, fear, and rage.

Da5id, the distinction you make is faulty. Derek is a victim, yes, and he is a pedophile. He is not a child molester. But congratulations, you have gotten to the point where you can feel pity for a pedophile. And yes, this is a good thing, because your mind is open enough to recognize that he needs help now, before it's too late.

Society needs to differentiate between the people who have strong desires and impulses of pedophilia, but don't act upon them, and those that just outright act on every impulse they have.

Wrong. Society needs to recognize with compassion the people who have strong desires and impulses of pedophilia, before they are weakened enough to act on those impulses.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:10 AM on May 7, 2003

trondant, that's an excellent point. perhaps there is no practical difference between the pathology and the attitude. in the end, they both function in lockstep. i have no answers. and i suspect the problem is even more complex than we know - are there fundamental motivational differences, differing 'cause and effect' dynamics amongst molesters of boys as opposed to those who prefer girls, violent, assaultive molesters, those 'funny uncles' who 'look, touch and kiss', male molesters vs. female? and where ARE all the adult female molesters? while there seems to be a correlation between molested boys growing up to be boy molesters, why dont molested girls grow up to be molesters themselves? or do they? it's a can of worms.
posted by quonsar at 11:02 AM on May 7, 2003

grrarrgh00: Your example is faulty. I do not construct pedophile dummies and murder them. But he constructs boy-dummies and rapes them. He's escalating. Who do you suppose, grrarrgh00, is most likely to act on his impulses first? Reversing the words does not a counter-argument make. It's simplistic, condescending and inaccurate.

I'm done here.
posted by UncleFes at 11:10 AM on May 7, 2003

I'm done here.

I'm sorry to hear that; it sounds like you just rearranged your prejudices a little bit instead of hearing what I actually said.

Your example is faulty. I do not construct pedophile dummies and murder them. But he constructs boy-dummies and rapes them. He's escalating. Who do you suppose, grrarrgh00, is most likely to act on his impulses first? Reversing the words does not a counter-argument make. It's simplistic, condescending and inaccurate.

First of all, it wasn't a counter-argument, it was a counter-point, in response to your point that this man apparently deserves no pity, that this is "not about what he feels." A point that simplistic and wrongheaded deserves an equally simplistic response. I merely pointed out that his feelings and desires are the mirror image of your own; it very much is about what he feels, because that's all wrapped up in what you feel. I further take exception to the assertion that my words were inaccurate; I think my presentation of his thoughts mirroring your own is absolutely fair, if a bit dramatic.

Secondly, to nit-pick, no, he is not escalating. Read the article more carefully and you'll notice that he no longer has his "pedophile dummy," and that he feels he is making progress. However, all the progress is threatened by his inability to keep up financially with his treatments, an obstacle imposed on that progress because society unfortunately seems to think the same way about this as you do.

As for who I suppose is most likely to act on his impulses first, UncleFes, I don't know. If you and your son were both in a room with Derek, considering the inordinate amount of self-control he's testified to and the meager amount of sympathy you've expressed, I'd say you. After all, to me you are both (to use a term coined by Opus Dark) cyber-avatars, personalities made up of words on a page. His words seem to belie more capacity and will for self-control than yours.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 4:10 PM on May 7, 2003