Rep. Smith’s arithmophilia over pedophilia doesn’t add up

By Sandy . . . A recent press release from the office of Congressmen Chris Smith, author of the bill which became International Megan’s Law says, “One year to the date of its enactment, Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) reports that the International Megan’s Law is already having the intended effect of reducing the threat of child sex tourism.”

The proof for this statement is given as, “[Thailand officials] indicated that in Thailand alone, over 160 convicted sex offenders were caught trying to enter the country.”

The dots are not connected. 160 individuals on the sex offender registry sought to travel to Thailand. That is like saying that 160 people with vandalism records, many committed when they were juveniles, were traveling to England with the intent of doing damage to Buckingham Palace. It is an egregious assumption to make in both cases.

The hyperbole continues: “…the sections of the law that have been put into force so far have made an immeasurable difference in the lives of children across the planet…” Apparently with the use of “immeasurable,” Mr. Smith feels no need to offer any supporting evidence; the difference cannot be measured.

One of the most disturbing portions of the press release is this: “Worldwide reports indicate that 1,780 notifications of pedophile travel have been sent by 64 countries…This important legislation allows governments, in the U.S. and around the globe, to know when convicted pedophiles on sex-offender registries are traveling to other countries.”

In America, no one is convicted of pedophilia; it is a medical term, not a legal one. Therefore, the meaning of the statement is clouded in uncertainty. Did all 1,780 individuals have a conviction for child sexual abuse? If not and the term is simply being used as a synonym for a person on the registry, what is the significance of the number? Many are registered for offenses that had nothing to do with children, but, as pointed out in The Scarlet Echo, 2-11-2017, “But Mr. Smith doesn’t want the public to know that, he wants the public to believe they were all pedophiles seeking out children so that he could justify his International Megan’s Law.”

Going with the philosophy that more is better – or more persuasive – the press release repeats this statement that was used, successfully, to garner votes for the passage of IML: “[A]t least 4,500 U.S. passports were issued to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008.” The most important fact, however, is missing. There is no claim that a single one of those 4,500 passport holders was charged, or even suspected, in using his passport to travel in order to sexually molest or traffic a child.

Child sexual abuse and child sex trafficking are real. It is imperative that our country and other countries take measures to combat them. Making scapegoats, once again, of an easily identifiable and despised segment of our society without any evidence that a measurable portion of the problem lies with them will not accomplish this goal.

9 comments for “Rep. Smith’s arithmophilia over pedophilia doesn’t add up

  1. Maestro
    February 15, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Mr Smith should be sued for defamation of character for generalizing everyone on the SOR. Who is he to say they are all pedophiles? What does Mr Smith think of those convicted of college campus drunken rapes? Is that also pedophilia?
    Or how about the teens sexting each other? Are they going to one day try to travel to Thailand to have sex with minors?

    NARSOL has to send a letter to the President ASAP!!

  2. Chris
    February 15, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    I would also add that not all sex crimes against children are committed by “pedophiles.” In fact, studies have shown this to be uncommon. Most people who commit a sex crime against a child are “typical” in terms of their sexual attractions, i.e. near-same age persons of the opposite sex. The offender has a close relationship with a child, or develops one, and modifies the close relationship into a sexual one. That doesn’t mean he/she prefers children or is even attracted to them sexually.

    Using terms like “pedophile” and “predator” allows people like Smith and former NC legislator Buck Newton to manipulate the masses and use sex offenders as political hockey pucks. What’s hilariously ironic is that the NC House in 2015 passed a resolution to “uphold the Bill of Rights in its entirety” out of one side of their mouths while passing clearly unconstitutional laws against sex offenders for the last 20 years out of the other. Anxiously awaiting the outcome of Packingham and NCROSL’s federal suit.

  3. Erika
    February 15, 2017 at 12:23 am

    GLITTERING GENERALITIES: Has anyone ever wondered how these laws in congress even get passed on a bipartisan basis? What they (congress people) will do is site the same bite of text used to pass the AWA or SORNA to pass other little laws that deny some type of benefit or public assistance. You have all these laws e.g. a sex offender is ineligible to receive an FIDC loan or receive food stamps ect.

    The more specific and unchecked quote from the bite of text used to foster bipartisan support is “…previously convicted sex offenders are 3 times more to commit another sex crime…” but that only applies to a very tiny number of individuals that hold the 95% accountable for retroactive civil sanctioning and albeit to punish which is not rationally related to protecting children or the public at large.

    Remember this GLITTERING GENERALITIES are a political tool to deceive the readers perceptions of any issue for the bipartisan bandwagon of deception.

  4. T
    February 14, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    I believe the real problem with the IML is the notification process to the point where the feds notify the INTERPOL and when the INTERPOL is informed they send alert notices out about a traveling registrant with a record as if he’s going out to commit a future crime, which is unlikely going to happen, but our government thanks to Chris Smith and his minions are claiming this (angel watch) will prevent future crimes from happening like child sex trafficking and sex tourism. Studies show that recidivism rate is low, and that most sex offense are committed by someone they know, and have never been caught while registrants are being scrutinized.

  5. Erika
    February 14, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    This law although well intentioned in no way shape or form prevents it’s quoted intent other than an in cases of extremely rare instances and random event; because it targets the wrong group of people said to be committing a certain and specific type of crime, when the actual group of people to which it should apply to that are actually committing these types of specific crimes; it has no effect in any way shape or form?

    They (the above quoted congressman) used stats out of context and inconsistent with purpose of this bill made into law and lacks a any kind of credible cross validated efficacy which was to prevent or hinder “sex tourism of children” and “sex trafficking.”

    The triangulation being conceded here is based solely on the concept that because X did this, so X must be responsible for what Y is doing.

    It is like collectively blaming one group of people for any sex crime ever inherently committed in the United States and abroad internationally that had nothing to do with the specified intent of this law and applying that as a universal concept that did nothing to prevent its featured (factoid) intent.

    • T
      February 15, 2017 at 6:42 am

      It seems Chris Smith and his minions practically felt the need to be hysterical to the Congress about how bad “child sex trafficking, and sex tourism” is so they can get the IML to pass, and playing clever with the system of using the IML not only against all registrants, but mainly those registrants who have a record of crime against minors. Why is he so concerned about children being in danger of sex crimes that when he got the IML passed, that it only wants to targets all registrants whose records were “crime against minors”?

  6. B.WAT
    February 14, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    I can’t stand to even look at a picture of Chris Smith, if I had a dog that looked like Chris Smith, I’d shave his ass, and teach him to walk backwards!

  7. Dave D
    February 13, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Was there evidence they were traveling to break sex laws in Thailand. I think they were just trying to escape the hell on earth that is USA for a ex-sex offenders. The law that is supposedly so successful is supposed to stop crimes from occurring not stop people from traveling freely or it is unconstitutional and against equal protections. If these a$$holes messed up my vacation with their paranoid law I would sue the crap out of them. I say they must prove that there was evidence these people were going to do wrong in Thailand if not then the people must be compensated for their losses. This BS has to be stopped or this will be everyone someday! Come on folks we got to let them know this is wrong and point out the law was to stop sex crime not travel so no this was not a success of this law unless they wanted to stop ex-offenders from travel which is unconstitutional. This makes me so mad i’m tiered of putting up with these idiots!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *