by Justin Robertson
If you live in Massachusetts, chances are you’ve heard of the controversial new “Transgender Bathroom and Locker Room Law.” In a nutshell, the law says if someone genuinely believes they are the opposite gender, then they are legally able to use that gender’s bathrooms and locker rooms in public places.
The law also imposes a possible year of jail time and up to a $1000 penalty if someone “infringes on that right.” In other words, if a mother is upset that a grown man is in the bathroom with her daughter, she has no legal recourse. To the contrary, she faces an arrest and possible jail time if someone files a complaint against her for her negative reaction.
Of course, laws such as this can have many unintended consequences. During the June 1st House floor debate on the issue, an amendment was introduced to exempt sex offenders from the law.
Rep. Paul Heroux of Attleboro spoke in opposition to the amendment, saying: “The fact of the matter is sex offenders – and I’m not going to defend them – but they have an extremely low rate of recidivism.”
He then went on to cite (http://tinyurl.com/z8ojbgb) a fact that “…out of the five crime categories, they have a very low rate of recidivism.”
Now presumably, these “five crime categories” refer to different types of violent crimes. However, the report that he is apparently citing says differently. For many purposes, the report (http://tinyurl.com/k9u3nc9) he seems to reference divides violent crime into homicide, kidnapping, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, assault, and “other.”
Discounting the “other” category, that still leaves six! Guess which one Heroux forgot? That’s right, he forgot “other sexual assault.”
According to the same report, 2.5% of released rapists from the year 1994 were re-arrested for another rape within three years. And Heroux says as much in this Huffington Post story (http://tinyurl.com/c7rdlax) he wrote.
But Heroux doesn’t tell the whole story. Forty six percent of them were re-arrested for other crimes, including 8.7% for non-sexual assault.
Additionally, the odds of a released rapist committing a new rape is 3.2 times greater than a non-sex offender being re-arrested for the same crime. That alone shows a propensity for “specialization,” or those who commit the same crime repeatedly.
Heroux also doesn’t account for those who were arrested for “other sexual assault” in the first place. As mentioned above, that for many purposes this report treats rapes and sexual assaults as separate crimes; however, it also does not for other purposes.
Some of the analyses on this report consider “sexual assaults” to be part of the “violent crimes” but not “rapes.” Taking into account that many violent criminals were guilty of some sort of sexual assault and looking at their recidivism rates tells another story, albeit a partially incomplete one.
For instance, 27.5% (61,107) of those violent criminals who were released were re-arrested for another violent crime, including sexual assault. Additionally, 18.6% of those criminals were re-arrested for rape.
What does all this say?
Well, first of all, it says Rep. Paul Heroux is guilty of the same manipulation of the facts he accuses his opponents of engaging in. Looking at the facts, not only does he ignore the majority of sex offenders in his statement and article, but also it seems that many of them are in fact being re-arrested for crimes of a sexual nature. Yet, he completely leaves that out of his advocacy.
Second of all, it says the Democrat machine on Beacon Hill is severely out of touch on yet another issue. Democrat lawmakers were willing to say whatever it took in order to pass the controversial law, including defending sex offenders.
Their blind need to appease the radical left and the transgender lobby is yet another example of the Massachusetts Legislature ignoring the facts to force their agenda onto the people of Massachusetts.
To the contrary, there have been many cases (http://tinyurl.com/zynwjn9) proving the destructive nature of a law that allows men to use the women’s room. But to the left, those who exhibit common sense are “fear mongering.”
Whether or not you agree with the law, it’s difficult to argue with the fact that sex offenders pose a serious threat to our children and to the population in general. Protecting our children and ourselves from predators seems like common sense, doesn’t it?
Unless, of course, your name is Rep. Paul Heroux.
But this shouldn’t really come as a surprise, coming from a representative who has taken every chance he’s had to defend sex offenders, should it? ♦
by Justin Robertson