 Dear nebbentesy
Readers — A few of you sent this sad notice in yesterday. It came from USA FAIRÂ — “Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry” — a group trying to reform our sex offender laws that are too encompassing to be fair or effective. (You can get on the sex offender registry for peeing in public, going to a prostitute, even having consensual sex with a teen your exact same age — none of which pose a threat to children.) I once interviewed Rev. Hess for an article on sex offender restrictions on Halloween. Wish I’d spoken with him more. Â – L.Â
It is with great sadness that we mourn the loss of Rev. C David Hess, a co-founder of USA FAIR. David was the founder of the SO Hopeful NY support group website for former offenders in New York and was known as “The Parson.” A Baptist Minister in West Henrietta, NY, David extended his ministry beyond his church to reach out to give comfort and support to law abiding former offenders and their families who have struggled with the collateral damage of the sex offender registry.
David was a key figure in the launching of USA FAIR and we will miss him enormously. The best tribute for David comes from his own words and deeds. An advocate for reform up to the end of his life, David sent the following letter to his New York State Senator just days before he passed on March 7th. We reprint it here in tribute to David. May we continue the struggle for justice with his grace. – USA FAIR
Senator Gallivan,
I don’t mean this to be a downer, but I am presently receiving palliative care in Strong Hospital in Rochester. I was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer two weeks ago.
I have met on two occasions with your staff with other members of USA FAIR (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry). I felt the need to tell you more of my personal story in what is likely to be my final communication with you.
I am the pastor of the West Henrietta Baptist Church and a respected leader in the community. I also am a Level 1 registered sex offender. In November of 1996, a computer technician found obscene images of teens on my computer, which I had downloaded from the Internet. It would be a very long story for me to go into all the details, but suffice it to say that I pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted possession of an obscene sexual performance by a child. I paid a fine and served a year on probation. I resigned from the church which I was serving at the time. (First Baptist Church of Hamilton, NY, the mother church of Colgate University).
I underwent two extensive psychological evaluations, which found that I posed “no meaningful threat†to anyone. After evaluating all the circumstances of my crime and psychological evaluations, the mainline denomination of which I am a member was supportive of my continuing in pastoral ministry. I have been serving my present church since April of 1998. I informed the entire congregation of my criminal conviction during my initial interview. My church is thrilled to have me as their pastor, and believe me; I am thrilled to be serving them. Considering all the hysteria that there is around this issue, I have been blessed to be surrounded by many people with a sense of rationality and grace. Of course, I have experienced the irrational and hysterical as well.
Of course, since quite a lot of new people have joined our church during my tenure, I am sure that quite a few present members do not know of my past.
I write all of this to say, when you are enacting sex offender legislation in the future, please keep me in mind. Many (actually most) former offenders can live safely in the community, never re-offend, and become productive members of society, if given a chance.
I always say that I am not an advocate for sex offenders, I am an advocate for evidence based sex offender laws and policies. Ultimately the policies and laws that are best for former offenders make for safer communities.
Myth based laws that lead to unemployment, homelessness, and isolation increase the risk of recidivism and make for less safe communities.
I know that you know all this.
I am finding my last days to be quite rich and meaningful. It even has had its funny side. When your times comes (I hope long in the future) that it will be as good for you as it has been for me.
At least my death will get me off the registry. 🙂 I had hoped for a different exit.
All the best,
Rev. Dr. C. David Hess
Pastor, West Henrietta Baptist Church
David Hess
Well, this was wonderful! I’m so sick of these all-are-equal sex offender laws.
I think our sex offender registry is horrible, and no, I do not have either family or friends (that I know of) on it. But my observation of what I see leaves me with only the conclusion that it is, as best, counter-productive, and at worst, horrible. Once a punishment is decided on for any specific crime, real or imagined, it should be over with and the the “offender” real, or imagined, should be allowed to get on with his life. I also think, with the culture so obsessed with sex as it is, that it (the registry)is the height of hypocrisy. Thank you for having compassion on him.
Could you imagine the howling if anyone who used sexual themes in music or advertising aimed at youngsters ended up on a sexual offenders’ list?
“Myth based laws that lead to unemployment, homelessness, and isolation increase the risk of recidivism and make for less safe communities.”
Thought that deserved a highlight too.
Does the USA have a pedophile helpline?
What really galls me is that most Americans would show much more hate and disdain for this Pastor just for looking at pictures than they would for a terrorist or a person convicted of beating up and robbing old ladies!
A few years back, when Mylie Cyrus (spelling?) was 15, there was a picture of her floating around the internet that featured her wearing I think an evening gown or haltered top that covered her breasts but left her bare back showing (eegads!!). What added to that controversy was that she had a somewhat “provocative” smile on her face for the photo.
Well, of course, the pedophile patrol went ballistic. “She’s just a child and this is abuse”!!!! was their battle-cry. They even calculated that the photo got something like three million hits so people were calling on the cyber police to run a trace on the views in order to “have those perverts arrested”! Even Judge Napalatono (spelling?) of Fox News weighed in and determined that “yes” even though all private parts were covered, that picture will be deemed child pornography and all viewers of it can be arrested for the possession and distribution of child pornography.
I’m thinking you’ve got to be kidding me? We have thousands upon thousands of pictures floating around the internet (just google it) that feature adult women (or men), in bondage, tied up and gagged with a masked man sticking pins in them but yet people are more upset with a picture of Mylie Cyrus in a haltered top smiling for the camera? Most people would agree that yes, bondage pics somewhat sick, but the attitude conveyed by most Americans would be that at least they’re consenting adults. What a load of crap! If anyone tells me that the person who derives comfort from seeing a beautiful and clothed picture of Mylie Cyrus is more dangerous than the guy who has hundreds of pictures in his computer cache file featuring adult women being tortured, is completely devoid of common sense which apparently includes our legal system!!!
I’m certainly not implying that the photos found on this Pastor’s computer were that mild, they probably weren’t but of course I didn’t see them so I don’t know. But the Mylie Cyrus flap just shows you how hysterical and over reactive we Americans can get when it comes to pictures of children on the internet.
I can get behind the idea that sex offender registries need to be reviewed but this man was found in possession of child pornography and I have zero issue with his placement on the registry. In their very creation, sexual images of children involve a crime and possession of those images indicates not only that he was indifferent to the crimes committed against the children in the images, but that he was willing to seek sexual satisfaction from the suffering and ill treatment of others. His minimisation of what he did suggests to me that he has not really acknowledged the harm he is responsible for.
I certainly do not think that pedophiles lurk behind every corner, and I absolutely agree that the fear is not at all in line with the facts but sexual abuse of children and women is still a very serious issue which suffers from indifference and minimisation in our culture. We need to be careful that in our desire not to fear the boogeyman, we don’t minimise the experience of those who actually suffer abuse.
I can get behind the idea that sex offender registries need to be reviewed but this man was found in possession of child pornography and I have zero issue with his placement on the registry. In their very creation, sexual images of children involve a crime and possession of those images indicates not only that he was indifferent to the crimes committed against the children in the images, but that he was willing to seek sexual satisfaction from the suffering and ill treatment of others. His minimisation of what he did suggests to me that he has not really acknowledged the harm he is responsible for.
His crime was simply having the images in his possession. The law doesn’t care if he looked at them or not. There ARE people in prison for having UNOPENED images on their computer that were downloaded through peer-to-peer software.
The law doesn’t care if he enjoyed the images or viewed them with dismay or disgust.
Child porn covers a wide range of images which includes the horrific images of small children that everyone thinks of when they hear “child porn”. It also includes images that were not coerced or forced in any way. Did you know that even computer-generated sexual images of children are considered child porn even though no actual children were involved AT ALL?
You think you know something about this man. You don’t. You assume he was indifferent. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, but that is not an element of the crime. You assume that he got sexual satisfaction. Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t, but that is not an element of the crime.
He had images in his possession. That’s all he did.
Teenagers are not children.
“Did you know that even computer-generated sexual images of children are considered child porn even though no actual children were involved AT ALL?”
Where are we on that – do we think those should be legal?
Papiio, the objection to CP usually has to do with the suffering of the victim pictured in the images. Sansha articulated this argument when he/she said, “…he was willing to seek sexual satisfaction from the suffering and ill treatment of others.” If the image is completely computer generated, there is no suffering and ill treatment, yet those images are still illegal.
As for ‘where am I’ on that issue, I don’t think anyone should be looking at small children and having sexual thoughts. Thoughts, on the other hand, should not be illegal. Looking at teenagers and having sexual thoughts seems normal. Perhaps ill-advised and dangerous to act on but normal.
By the way, those looking at small children and having sexual thoughts would include those who cannot see a child without imagining someone else thinking sexual thoughts about the child.
Erm, it sounds like he downloaded them on purpose… this wasn’t a harmless act.
Marie, if he had downloaded them for some noble purpose like helping the FBI track them, I’m sure he would have said so.
I’m glad he was rehabilitated and all, but he directly led to the exploitation of kids. And yes, under 18s are considered kids.
Nicole, my point is that even if he had a noble purpose, it is still a crime. The law makes no distinction between those who intend to commit a crime and those who don’t know it’s a crime or don’t even know the images are there.
“I don’t think anyone should be looking at small children and having sexual thoughts. Thoughts, on the other hand, should not be illegal.”
But we all know there are people who look at prepubescent children and have sexual thoughts. They don’t ask for that, they just have them.
I wonder if pedophiles who have the possibility to watch porn (computer generated, so no harm was done to actual children) are less inclined to act on their needs by harming a real child, because the porn satisfies those needs to a sufficient degree that they can control themselves.
I admit it was a bit irrelevant leap of my mind.
“And yes, under 18s are considered kids.”
Good thing then that a 17yo looks completely different from an 18yo, so it’s always exactly clear what age the young ladies in the pictures are…
Not irrelevant at all, Papilio. Research shows a connection, just as you guessed. More pictures = less touching. If I can find a link later, I will post it.
Yes, there are pedophiles and the vast majority of them behave just as the rest of us do: they manage to resist any impulse to commit illegal acts. Also, molesting a child (or looking at CP) does not automatically mean pedophilia.