creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
13 Sep 2014
The NFL Just Doesn't Get It

The statistics are easy to find. One in every 3 women in the United States will experience domestic violence … Read More.

6 Sep 2014
Contempt of Congress ... And They Earned It

Labor Day is in the rearview mirror, and the summer season has been officially declared as over, even though … Read More.

30 Aug 2014
A Challenge for Civil Rights Leaders

A notion struck me as I studied the continuing stream of news about the police shooting of 18-year-old … Read More.

Time to Adjust Our Thinking About Sex Abusers

Comment

We're pretty good at punishing people who are caught and convicted of sexual abuse. We're not so good at stopping the abuse in the first place, especially when children are involved. After all these years of open discussion about this scourge, why is it still so prevalent?

Because we keep attacking the problem the same old way.

A new project from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, funded by the Ms. (magazine) Foundation, concludes it is time for us to adjust our collective thinking about sex offenders.

Perhaps the ATSA's most important conclusion is that media coverage of abuse "monsters" has warped our sense of who they really are. Television news, movies and books mainly focus on the most extreme "stranger danger" cases — those in which a child is kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered.

In reality, the sexual abuse of kids doesn't usually come from outside their circle, and murder is extremely rare. Most often the perpetrator is a relative, a family friend or a trusted authority figure. But if a parent is intent on looking for a "monster," it's easy for them to overlook warning signs from those closest to the family.

Another important conclusion? Too often we lump all abusers into one category and label them "sex offenders" or "sexual predators." Not good and not smart.

A serial pedophile is quite different from a teenage boy caught with his underage girlfriend and reported to police by angry parents. Some jurisdictions view an errant nude sunbather or a drunk who exposes himself to urinate in the street as a sex offender. And then there is the category of children with deeply rooted sexual behavior problems. All have to be handled differently.

It doesn't keep the community safe when we brand all of these diverse types with the same scarlet letter and make them all become registrants of an official, ever-growing and very public National Sex Registry. Too often that's exactly what happens.

The just released project paper from the ATSA calculates that in 2007 and 2008 alone, "More than 1,500 sex offender related bills were proposed in state legislatures ... over 275 new laws were enacted." Generally, they did two things: increased incarceration time and put in place intricate (and costly) monitoring systems and restrictions on where the released offender is allowed to work, live and interact within a community once back into society.

After the convict does his or her time and returns to life on the outside, it's as if the deck is forever stacked against them. What chance do they have to succeed if the stigma of being a registered sex offender keeps them from getting a well paying job or finding a place to live that is the mandated distance away from a school or public park? Even trying to join a church is tricky for them. If there is a Sunday school for youngsters on the property, many states do not allow the convict to attend services there.

Everything they do for the rest of their lives will be viewed through the lens of their label: Sex Offender.

But, wait a minute, you say: "Once a sex offender always a sex offender, right? Not necessarily.

Don't mistake what I write here as being soft on sexual criminals. I am not. In fact, I believe there are career pedophiles that should never — ever — get out of prison. But the latest Department of Justice statistics peg the likelihood of a child molester repeating their crime after they've done their time at just 5.3 percent. And the DOJ study concludes that of the 5.3 percent who do re-offend 40 percent commit another sex crime within a year or less. In other words, that first year back on the outside is a crucial time for them — they either assimilate or they don't.

The way these offenders are treated — their isolation and loneliness — often causes their closest family members to retreat in shame, as well. It has been well documented that relatives of the abusers often struggle with the disgrace and stress that comes with having someone close to them convicted as a sex offender. It's too bad that our societal Scarlet Letter brands them as well because family could be our first line of support to help keep the ex-con from re-offending.

I propose we all take a deep breath and stop adding new laws until we can figure out a better way to attack the problem.

First, forget the one-size-fits all category of "sex offender." Let's identify all the varieties of offenders and determine what their range of punishments should be. And as for our National Sex Offenders Registry? Let's not make the teenage Romeo carry the stigma around for the rest of his life, and let's give those who have gone on to live law-abiding lives for a set number of years the hope — the goal — of getting their names expunged.

We need to start thinking differently about how we define and tackle this problem. We're smart. We can do better.

Diane Dimond's book, "Cirque Du Salahi — Be Careful Who You Trust," can be ordered at Amazon.com. Visit Diane Dimond's official website at www.dianedimond.com for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM



Comments

35 Comments | Post Comment
After reading Diane Dimond's piece called 'Time to adjust our thinking about sex abusers', what I am about to say is, firstly, yes, she can do better, especially when it comes to Michael Jackson, about whom she seems to concentrate on anything negative, which I shall try to refute here. How about getting his name 'expunged'?
When he died in 2009, I wasn't even a fan, just vaguely aware of him in a busy life, but, after seeing his top videos, an unexplained compulsion propelled me to research his life. I was absolutely astounded and completely overwhelmed at what I discovered.
By the way, I want to tell you that I am a 68 year-old retired newspaper reporter and university graduate, so not likely to be a 'crazy fan', yet I feel strongly that an exceptional wonderful man has been unjustly victimised. I never believed in a thousand years that he was guilty of those unspeakable crimes which he was falsely accused of. A 300-page FBI report after a ten-year investigation supports that he was innocent, the Los Angeles Families' and Children's Dept. likewise; no boy was ever found in the whole world to say anything had 'happened'; the two boys involved themselves said the same and that it was their money-grabbing resentful jealous parents out to extort money from Michael Jackson, and, of course, there were the 14 'Not Guilty' verdicts in the 2005 'fair trial', which should never have taken place, a modern-day 'witch hunt'. 'Innocent until proved guilty', she said it herself?
Then, the Press out for profit and gain by printing bad lies and not the good truth to sell papers ruined his life and reputation after he had worked so hard and given happiness to millions for 35 years.
Furthermore, I agree that Michael Jackson held such power, influence and wealth and certain powerful people were afraid of his threatening the global status quo and set out to destroy him, the most famous man on the planet.
Nelson Mandela said that all those 27 years in a South African jail, the one person that kept him going was Michael Jackson, and he has just recorded a CD about music being the universal language. Who else said that?
He had such a beautiful smile and gentle, loving soul, wrote heartfelt poetry and songs with messages to change the world, how could it be possible, and how could Diane Dimond write her book 'Be Careful Who You Love.....' ?
His music and existence has penetrated social culture and consciousness on a permanent global scale. A top Los Angeles legal analyst, MJ advocate and reporter, who is to comment on the trial of Conrad Murray, said Michael Jackson has left an indelible mark on the world. So Diane Dimond's inexplicable negative hatred defies normal reason and mentality and seems very bizarre. Perhaps she works for one of those 'scared' media corporations.
I suppose, like all tabloid journalists, she will say anything for money.
To conclude: Michael Jackson is emerging as a huge historical figure, a musical genius, songwriter and poet, apart from tremendous humanitarian, giving over $300 million dollars to 39 charities over his lifetime, to mention a tiny fraction of his generosity, which saved countless lives.
Comment: #1
Posted by:
Fri May 13, 2011 2:57 PM
After reading Diane Dimond's piece called 'Time to adjust our thinking about sex abusers', what I am about to say is, firstly, yes, she can do better, especially when it comes to Michael Jackson, about whom she seems to concentrate on anything negative, which I shall try to refute here. How about getting his name 'expunged'?
When he died in 2009, I wasn't even a fan, just vaguely aware of him in a busy life, but, after seeing his top videos, an unexplained compulsion propelled me to research his life. I was absolutely astounded and completely overwhelmed at what I discovered.
By the way, I want to tell you that I am a 68 year-old retired newspaper reporter and university graduate, so not likely to be a 'crazy fan', yet I feel strongly that an exceptional wonderful man has been unjustly victimised. I never believed in a thousand years that he was guilty of those unspeakable crimes which he was falsely accused of. A 300-page FBI report after a ten-year investigation supports that he was innocent, the Los Angeles Families' and Children's Dept. likewise; no boy was ever found in the whole world to say anything had 'happened'; the two boys involved themselves said the same and that it was their money-grabbing resentful jealous parents out to extort money from Michael Jackson, and, of course, there were the 14 'Not Guilty' verdicts in the 2005 'fair trial', which should never have taken place, a modern-day 'witch hunt'. 'Innocent until proved guilty', she said it herself?
Then, the Press out for profit and gain by printing bad lies and not the good truth to sell papers ruined his life and reputation after he had worked so hard and given happiness to millions for 35 years.
Furthermore, I agree that Michael Jackson held such power, influence and wealth and certain powerful people were afraid of his threatening the global status quo and set out to destroy him, the most famous man on the planet.
Nelson Mandela said that all those 27 years in a South African jail, the one person that kept him going was Michael Jackson, and he has just recorded a CD about music being the universal language. Who else said that?
He had such a beautiful smile and gentle, loving soul, wrote heartfelt poetry and songs with messages to change the world, how could it be possible, and how could Diane Dimond write her book 'Be Careful Who You Love.....' ?
His music and existence has penetrated social culture and consciousness on a permanent global scale. A top Los Angeles legal analyst, MJ advocate and reporter, who is to comment on the trial of Conrad Murray, said Michael Jackson has left an indelible mark on the world. So Diane Dimond's inexplicable negative hatred defies normal reason and mentality and seems very bizarre. Perhaps she works for one of those 'scared' media corporations.
I suppose, like all tabloid journalists, she will say anything for money.
To conclude: Michael Jackson is emerging as a huge historical figure, a musical genius, songwriter and poet, apart from tremendous humanitarian, giving over $300 million dollars to 39 charities over his lifetime, to mention a tiny fraction of his generosity, which saved countless lives.
Comment: #2
Posted by:
Fri May 13, 2011 3:00 PM
What I gleam from this article is this: When someone convicted of a sexual offense leads a good life, or has basically committed a relatively minor sexual offense, they should have their record expunged for the purpose of helping them assimilate back into society.
I believe that what Nina is referring to when she mentions Michael Jackson, is how this tabloid reporter has managed to brand this man a sex offender when he was obviously innocent. In other words, she feels that Ms. Dimond has spent decades unethically and irresponsibly attempting to brand Mr. Jackson as a sexual offender to further her career. I believe she is wondering when Ms. Dimond's vial smear campaign will be expunged from Michael Jackson's legacy and reputation. After all, this reporter is advocating for giving a break to those who are actually guilty.
Obviously, Nina has noticed the hypocrisy of Ms. Dimond's article as compared to the way she unscrupulously labeled and condemned Mr. Jackson with her tabloid pen. Like Nina, I wonder how Ms. Dimond is allowed to write for this respected site when her commentary continually reeks of this woman's self-serving hypocrisy.
Comment: #3
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Sun May 15, 2011 12:44 AM
Here's a thought - what about those falsely accused of sexual abuse? What category do they fit into when they are unable to shake off the stigma of being wrongly labelled as a sexual predator? Even when not convicted or placed on any offender's register, their lives are blighted by the insinuation there there's no smoke without fire.

These people are as much victims as those who have been abused. What help can be offered to them?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Pen Dragon
Sun May 15, 2011 6:26 AM
Here's a thought - what about those falsely accused of sexual abuse? What category do they fit into when they are unable to shake off the stigma of being wrongly labelled as a sexual predator? Even when not convicted or placed on any offender's register, their lives are blighted by the insinuation there there's no smoke without fire.

These people are as much victims as those who have been abused. What help can be offered to them?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Pen Dragon
Sun May 15, 2011 6:26 AM
I find it astounding that, in this piece, Ms.Dimond offers her sympathy and understanding to those rightfully convicted of a crime, yet she failed to extend such feelings towards Mr.Jackson-an innocent man. Instead, she chose to partake in the slanderous, profit driven media machine, which painted him as perpetually guilty and, in so doing, contributed to one of the grossest and most unjust character assassinations of the modern age. Ms.Dimond's use of the phrase "forget the one-size-fits all category," is indicative of an ability to consider detail and the concepts and motivations behind certain circumstances. How tragic that she failed to extend such conscientious study to her coverage of Mr.Jackson's 2005 trial in which her reporting served more as a mouthpiece for the prosecution rather than an accurate and fair portrayal of what actually took place within the courtroom. Ms. Dimond's suggestion that the public should not be bound by the "one size fits all," rationale, belies her own damning actions. For, despite obvious evidence to the contrary and decades of stifled truths, she continued to push Mr.Jackson, an innocent man, into her own crudely fashioned, caricatured category, thus aiding the conditioning of the public mind against a man who lived almost entirely to serve others and asked in return only that he be treated like a thinking, feeling person.-As open to assaults on the heart and character as any that live in this world.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Tori Tompkins
Sun May 15, 2011 8:01 AM
First of all, let me say, thank you so much for writing this article. In a world where laws and the need to punish and keep on punishing it is so refreshing to see someone brave enough to challenge the validity of these laws and speak out with the truth! So many are suffering and being punished to the extreme for non-violent crimes and placed on the registry as a sex offender for life. My son had never been in trouble a day in his life, he was a police officer and volunteer fire fighter who was arrested for viewing pornography. He was sentenced to 20 YEARS in prison and labeled a sex offender for LIFE. Even after he serves this horrible sentence he will be on the registry for LIFE so he has no chance to ever have a normal life again. I shudder to think what his life will be like even though he never touched anyone. He could have murdered someone and been out in less time and be allowed to resume his life and be a productive member of society. How in anyones mind is this fair??
Again, thank you so much for writing this article. It gives me hope that maybe by the time my son is released in 2025, these laws may be changed.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Laurie727
Sun May 15, 2011 11:41 AM
While I agree with much of what is in Ms. Dimond's article above, there is a missing aspect to this piece. What about the individuals who are falsely accused of sexual abuse but after investigation and/or a trial are found innocent of this charge? An accuasation of this crime is associated with the individual for life. There is an individual in my community that was falsely accused of this crime about 5 years ago and after investigation by Child Protective Services was found to have done nothing inappropriate. Even today, when searching the internet for our high school wrestling team, this person's name comes up and is associated with the media stories concerning the accuasations. How sad for this man, who worked with kids for years giving of his time and talent, to have this happen to him. Many times child sexual abuse is used in a tug of war between two parents fighting for child custody. The majority of cases investigated by child protective services, upwards of 80%, are unfounded.
As several people have already commented, this is exactly what happened in the case of Michael Jackson. Child protective services found no wrong doing on the part of Mr. Jackson, but a vindictive and nasty DA decided to ignore their report. The DA's witch hunt ended in a trial that found Mr. Jackson innocent on all 14 counts against him. But, the media chose to ignore the clear evidence of extortion and greed but instead chose to report what they hoped would happen not the reality. The trial transcripts clearly show how grossly wrong the media's coverage of this case was. Even now the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge their gross error. Diane Dimond was a leader in this disasterous coverage so writing a piece about child sexual abuse is quite disingenuous of her. Will the media ever learn?
Comment: #8
Posted by: ChrisB
Sun May 15, 2011 12:26 PM
The label “Sex Offender” is a life-shattering death warrant for a person on the registry for the reasons you gave. It is because of the consequences of being put on the registry that the 1995 New Jersey Supreme court decided that it was mandatory that a person's risk be evaluated before he or she is put on the registry.
“[The] Plaintiff contends that the Registration and Notification Laws implicate liberty interests in privacy and reputation. Specifically, he argues that dissemination of information under the Notification Law impinges on the interest in nondisclosure, and that classification under the Notification Law, with its attendant disclosure, not only identifies him as a sex offender but effectively brands him as potentially currently dangerous, thereby infringing his interest in reputation. We find that both interests constitute protectible liberty interests, and therefore that procedural protection is due. We hold that such additional procedures in the form of a hearing are due, that they must, on application, be provided before notification and that they are constitutionally required.”
25 States followed suit by the use of risk assessment tools to differienate between dangerous and non-dangerous offenders. (Some with appeals) In most of these states, pictures and information of low risk sex offenders are NOT put on a public registry. (Not sure of percentages)
However, there are states that do not use risk assessments like here in New Mexico where everyone is lumped in with high-risk sex offenders. I am one who was put on probation and the registry for the rest of my life for five pictures of teenagers I had on my computer along with adult pornography.
I have often asked myself if the label “sex offender” should even be used for those other one-time, hands-off, non-dangerous, consensual offenses. (70% of SO registrants) My conclusion is that it should not, but only be used for those dangerous predators (5.3%)
Comment: #9
Posted by: Tusau
Sun May 15, 2011 1:03 PM
Oh my God! Diane Diamond actually said something I agree with! Miracles never cease, do they?

Think about all the bills passed against "sex offenders" in recent years-- residency restrictions, GPS, the registry, community notification, random compliance checks, civil commitment, extended sentencing, scarlet letter laws like putting "sex offender" in red letters on drivers licenses, and the like, coupled with the fact these requirements change on a whim, it is a wonder why recidivism rates are not higher. Don't fool yourself into actually believing the laws have reduced sex crimes; studies have consistently shown these laws have no impact on recidivism.

Rehabilitation and reintegration of those who have completed their sentences is not sexy to society, but it is effective. The tough on crime stance has backfired. We now have more people on the registry than the population of cities like Boston, Baltimore, Denver, Las Vegas, or Miami. One in 99 people in the US are in prison, and 1 in 33 have a criminal record that leads to struggles with housing, employment, and social support, which in turn leads to more crime.
Comment: #10
Posted by: O'Really
Sun May 15, 2011 1:36 PM
To Laurie 727, you forgot to mention that your son was incarcerated for viewing not just pornography but CHILD pornography--that is, scenes of CHILDREN in sexually explicit situations. And you think this was a non-violent activity? How so?

In any event, 20 years is too long for viewing CHILD pornography; however, adult males should be severely punished for helping to create a market for materials depicting the stolen innocence of the most vulnerable in our society.
Comment: #11
Posted by: LibelFreeZone
Sun May 15, 2011 5:43 PM
Whether some people feel that child pornography is or is not "violent activity" towards a child, the fact of the matter is, "viewing" these images are not harming children. The person making, disseminating and controlling the sites are the individuals that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. A lot of these sites are owned and controlled by lawmakers and government agencies! To "catch" viewers! If they weren't on the web, they couldn't be viewed! It's as simple as that!
In regards to sexually violent predators, only 5% re-offend another sex crime. This is a lot lower recidivism rate than ANY other crime. Why? Because the majority of sexual offenses used to be considered normal behaviors. Like for instance, teen age sexuality, accidentally "brushing" against someone in a store, men "adjusting" themselves, married couples "parking", walking past a window in your own home in underclothes. Elvis, Woody Allen, Patrick Swayze and even one of our Supreme Court Justices would, in this day and age, be considered child molesters. They all married young ladies under the age of 16!
The problem is, we have over zealous prosecutors that want to gain votes by being "tough on crime" and the public believes them! We need to stop, listen and learn! Wake up!
Comment: #12
Posted by: rwsmom
Sun May 15, 2011 6:30 PM
Pen Dragon has made an excellent point, particularly in regards to this author. As a society riddled with ills, sex abuse is certainly high on the agenda, where improvements may be made. But, what of slanted journalism for profit? It seems likely that Ms. Dimond has conveniently overlooked her own "monster" within, while busily misinforming the public about Mr. Jackson. A self-proclaimed 'expert' on the man, she has dogged him through time with nary a backward glance at the harm left in her wake. He was, after all, acquitted. The 1993 allegation is so well documented, that her refusal to beg forgiveness for her sins is noteworthy.
Branding with a scarlet letter is, indeed, something Ms. Dimond should be all too familiar with, given her continued reluctance to allow Jackson a reprieve from her manufactured deception of the public. Yet, she speaks of convicted sex offenders, having done their time, forever being penalized for their deeds? Is this akin to sympathy? Interestingly, she has shown none toward Jackson or his surviving family, instead persisting in her endeavors to continue the damning myths she has perpetrated for so long.
"Everything they do for the rest of their lives will be viewed through the lens of their label...", states Ms. Dimond. She should know. Sadly, this also applies to those egregious cases maliciously brought against the innocent. She is rather myopic in her observation, particularly concerning a public figure, for the legacy of such blind damnation lives far beyond the grave. While she reaped the benefits of using her pen like a machete in a slasher film on Mr. Jackson, I doubt she concerned herself with the debris of her handy-work living on long after his death. I suggest that therein lies the true "monster".
43
Comment: #13
Posted by: patjobu
Sun May 15, 2011 8:35 PM
This article aptly addresses some of the many reasons why the current approach to dealing with people convicted of sex offenses is ineffective against prevnting future sex offenses. But it does not explore the important question asked at the beginning: why is it still so prevalent? Preventing sexual abuse of children is certainly much harder to do than persecuting former offenders. It will require a major shift in our collective attitude about how children develop sexually--because today's pedophile is yesterday's sexually damaged adolescent. It will require eliminating the association many adults artifically place between sex and shame, as if sex was inherently dirty and evil. It will require accepting men, women, boys and girls who suffer from the psychological disorder labeled 'pedophilia' as fellow human beings who are neither 'monsters' nor 'perverts', and recognizing that anyone in their social circle could potentially suffer from this disorder, no matter how nice they are. By the way, your phrase 'serial pedophile' makes no sense. A 'pedophile' is someone who suffers from pedophilia, a permanent sexual attraction toward preadolescents. Such a person might never become a child molester, especially if he/she receives early intervention and treatment from trained professionals (unlikely in our culture of shame and incarceration). And many others stop molesting children and learn through treatment how to live offense-free lives, despite their psychological disorder and all the persection resulting from the sex offender registry.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Michael
Sun May 15, 2011 11:53 PM
rwsmom, Swayze was married to Lisa Niemi from June 12, 1975, until his death. The couple first met in 1970 when Swayze was 18 years old. Niemi was 14 years old at the time but she was an adult when they married.
Anyway, how could I have overlooked the author of this article--the infamous Diane Dimond of Michael Jackson's world. The self-professed "modern day journalist" who viciously dogged Jackson for the last half of his life. Who not only dogged him, but lied about him every chance she got--for nothing more than money. Who took every opportunity to regale her viewing audience with unfounded salacious details of what turned out to be extortion (1993) and malicious prosecution (2003-2005). Who was the over-zealous District Attorney's "inside gal" assigned to spread damaging gossip and hideous innuendo to an unwitting audience of news consumers. Whose "work" was responsible for Jackson NEVER being able to recover from the burden of accusation in his lifetime. If this debate was broached by ANYONE other than Dimond, it would be a discussion worth having. However, Dimond's presence in the conversation completely nullifies any illumination of what appears to be an insidious problem of possibly the punishment not fitting the crime.
Comment: #15
Posted by: LibelFreeZone
Mon May 16, 2011 1:14 AM
I am a 63 yo FORMER victim of abuse. I am married to an innocent man on the registry. I am a teacher who has observed a Romeo/Juliet situation ruin a promising young man's life. I have earned the right to speak as few have. Accused means guilty until proven innocent!

The registry is a JOKE. More than 90% of new sex offenses are NOT committed by anyone on the registry. The “stranger/danger” exists only in about 3% of ALL assaults. The most likely person to offend is one who was also victimized and not treated as a child AND goes by the name “Uncle Jack”. Tremendous amounts of research show that the first time/family offender NEVER commits another offense if s/ he is given intensive mental health treatment. Research reports rehabilitation of those who possess child pornography is about 98% effective.

When I was a victim, and I still observe this to be true more often than not, it was extremely difficult to find a therapist who knew anything about sexual abuse and the victim is somehow shamed by the system. Instead of spending needless tens of millions of dollars to keep this registry, the money would be better spent working toward healing for victims and offenders. In Texas alone, estimates as high as 5 million dollars could become recovered revenue if a tier system was used. Instead of funneling that funding into intensive EFFECTIVE therapy for all concerned, we keep throwing it down a black hole that doesn't change anything or make anyone safer.

Let's stop making monsters where there are none! Let's use that precious money to build systems for healing and recovery. Will I live long enough to see the healing begin?
Comment: #16
Posted by: cara jones
Mon May 16, 2011 4:44 AM
I agreed with these good points and facts in Diane's writing. I agreed even more that uncles or cousins are the bigger problem than many realized because I encountered a few myself! They were off the hook, didn't they? So, I would say, yes, we're sidetracked by the wrong focus and emphasize, and have created false security for our children. Not Wise!
Yes, I am quite familiar with the statistics of the said issue.
I want to express also, someone out there are creating the hype in making something for themselves! I pray true justice and righteousness will prevail in many of these cases. Laws are made to correct the person(s) and not to declare death sentences to those willing to repent and changed. For those carrying the shame/label for the rest of their lives from a one-time stupid mistake are dead inside because of hopelessness. It's the fact! Even for a truly repented person, their lives are in the wrong hands...that you and I may have a part of it by agreeing with the law and our politicians out of fear, our good intention or misleading.
Thank you Diane and those who are willing to see and expose the roots of this problem.

MAC
May 16, 2011
Comment: #17
Posted by: MAC
Mon May 16, 2011 7:07 AM
Dimond, you flabbergast me with your gaul to even speak on this subject.
So, I ask you what of stopping the spreading of false accusations of sex abuse instead of pursuing false accusations as if they're true ?

Ms. Dimond, why did you ignore the DFCS report which clears Michael Jackson and accompany Thomas Sneddon to Neverland in continuing attempts to find something on MJ and when you found nothing, why did you continue to slander him and make it appear as though he was guilty of harming children ? Sympathy for sex offenders you dare speak of ? It is obvious that your climb in journalism has been a fraud by continually using the name of Michael Jackson in a defamatory manner. Instead; have totally ignored showing any humility for your disgraceful conduct over Mr. Jackson and failed to ever come clean in following up your slander of him by speaking to the fact that these were cases of extortion.

You have cared more about capitalizing off of lies over a famous person.; a sex scandal which you yourself helped to promote by supporting the perverse sensationalism of media rather than truth that emerged in Supreme Court ? What about sympathy for a man who felt the need to take his children into exile due to the slander over him, much of which was caused by you ?

The root of all problems has to do with bare truth and prevention of such problems. More often than not, offenders lacked love in their life. Dimond, why don't you listen & learn form Michael Jackson's speeches such as his speech at Oxford University from 2001 and/or any of his other speeches which speak of how children need love.
Love is the answer Ms. Dimond, not self-serving hype as a hypocrite.
Comment: #18
Posted by: cawobeth
Mon May 16, 2011 11:41 AM
LibelFreeZone - bloody well said. Such critical discourse on sex offenders brought by the notorious Diane Dimond is completely astonishing, not to mention nullity. Reliable journalists and much of the public are well versed on her malevolent antics in her self-anointed field of expertise, namely Michael Jackson. She refuses to repent. Dimond, amongst others, has no apparent semblance of ethical boundaries, and that is certainly worthy of scrutiny for those intent on ethics in journalism.
No matter how she sells herself, she will never be anything more than a gutter-minded tabloid 'journalist', yellow to the core, and willing to sell someone else's pound of flesh for a shilling. She gouges Jackson supporters by stealing a line from his famous song 'Billie Jean': "Be Careful Who You [....]" to peddle her biased wares. Dimond sits atop a lofty perch defending her 'work', admiring the scattered remains of a life she covertly ravaged under the guise of truth.
Sex offenders and our current justice system are worthy of further insight. Sadly, we exist in a society which considers even an accidental invasion of one's personal air-space to be an assault. The human touch is now suspect on most levels. At some point we will have to stop being human altogether, averting our eyes, containing our body language, measuring every word uttered, and never ever physically touching each other for fear of retribution. We are well on our way, if we haven't already arrived. To Ms. Dimond, I would say "Be Careful Who You Malign." It will come back to haunt you.
Comment: #19
Posted by: patjobu
Mon May 16, 2011 1:35 PM
Re: Pen Dragon I agree. I know someone who was falsely accused and because he was with other adults and never alone with the "victim" they all thought once the police investigated that would be the end of it. Only the police arrested WITHOUT ever asking a single question. OK they thought, we will tell the Grand Jury and that will be the end of it...and just to be sure, did a polygraph (which can be shown to a Grand Jury) and the poly showed emphatically he was innocent...But the DA went to the Grand Jury without telling the defense so they never heard from anyone there at the time and never saw the polygraph results. If they went to trial the odds of conviction ranged from 70% to 100% and the sentence was life in prison for a 17 year old boy who has never even done so much as Jaywalked in his life. He took a plea bargan and is on the sex offender registry for the next 15 years. This is justice? Is this what you intended for the Registry to be for? This is Texas and Gov Perry vows to veto any legislation that would prevent this from happening. If so moved, call or write him or your gov. office. This must stop.
Comment: #20
Posted by: anonymous
Mon May 16, 2011 3:24 PM
In quoting you directly Ms. Dimond
"After the convict does his or her time and returns to life on the outside, it's as if the deck is forever stacked against them. What chance do they have to succeed if the stigma of being a registered sex offender keeps them from getting a well paying job or finding a place to live that is the mandated distance away from a school or public park? Even trying to join a church is tricky for them. If there is a Sunday school for youngsters on the property, many states do not allow the convict to attend services there. Everything they do for the rest of their lives will be viewed through the lens of their label: Sex Offender. "

... how much more hypocritical can an individual get? You made it your life goal to attach the stigma of "sexual pedophile" on an individual who was NEVER CONVICTED OF ANY SEXUAL CRIMES. Remember Michael Jackson? if not then let me refresh your memory. He was the one whom you purposely and with a vengence continued to label pedophile, even after he was acquitted of ALL CHARGES IN 2005. So to hear you trying to push this commentary as one that is close to your heart is in my eyes, smoke and mirrors. You are the last person on earth, give or take one or two, who could ever convince me that you hold this cause dear to your heart. Your history is etched in stone and in the tabloid junk you have made a career of reporting over the years.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe you simply had a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Since he is gone now, it's apparent that you don't have much else to keep you busy. Take my advice, try something more believable. This just doesn't suit you.
Cassie
Comment: #21
Posted by: Cassie Mathis
Tue May 17, 2011 5:50 AM
Any organization or cause that you attach yourself to definately hurts the cause. You have no credibility anywhere in the world. Please detach yourself from any organization that involves the sexual abuse of children and let decent people do their best to help these victims. Hang your head in shame for the loser you are. Apologize to Michael Jackson and his family. Penny
Comment: #22
Posted by: Penny Yeomans
Tue May 17, 2011 10:53 AM
Re: Pen Dragon
You make an excellent point here! In our society, the mere suggestion or accusation that a person may have committed a sexual act with a minor brands them for life whether they are guilty or not.
I am a teacher so this is a serious issue in public education. It is always possible that a student might accuse their teacher of something inappropriate because they are angry with them, or are seeking some type of attention. Once you have had the accusation thrown at you, whether or not it is true, parents will trip over themselves to yank their child out of your classroom. Your reputation is forever tarnished giving way to snickers and stares as you try to proceed on with your career. You almost have to start over in another town or school district.
Mr. Jackson is just one example, although high profile, of someone accused and branded even though he was proven to be innocent. Just because one leads an unorthodox lifestyle or has childlike qualities, it was assumed that they must be a pedophile and how, indeed, could there be any other explanation?
This type of accusation is a very serious matter because it can lead to the ruination of the lives of anyone wrongly accused of this horrendous crime.
Comment: #23
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Tue May 17, 2011 10:54 AM
Re: patjobu

Exactly!
Comment: #24
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Tue May 17, 2011 11:03 AM
Re: LibelFreeZone

You make an excellent point. Ms. Dimond's reputation of being a tabloid reporter and not a respected journalist taints the credibility of her articles in general. Creator's Syndicate should not include her in their respected and distinguished pool of writers.
Comment: #25
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Tue May 17, 2011 11:08 AM
You are a disgusting women and you DO NOT speak for victims.. you need to stop flapin your jaws, you make me sick!
You have no idea what your talking about.You are a hateful women, how do you look at yourself in the mirror?
Comment: #26
Posted by: Bebe
Tue May 17, 2011 11:49 AM
Ms. Dimond, where I come from, your article could be referred to as the pot calling the kettle black. How can you justify such hypocrisy?? Your career was spent trying to twist the public's opinion of an innocent Michael Jackson to fit neatly into your pedophile mold, and all for the love of money. He actually wrote a song about Money (and greed), are you familiar with it? You should read YOUR words through OUR eyes and see just how pathetic they sound. You have no credibility, or conscience. I agree with the other comments - you owe Michael Jackson, his family, and his fans an apology, and then, get over yourself!
Comment: #27
Posted by: Vanessa
Tue May 17, 2011 7:44 PM
are you kidding me????? A tabloid (can't even say journalist) scam artist has no business discussing on any level a subject that became your own personal vendetta against a man that was clearly targeted and abused by the business that pays your mortgage every month. You have NO credibility to speak out for "the victims" or to do ANYTHING on their behalf. If this is a sick attempt to try and redeem your good standing as "a caring journalist after the truth"....YOU FAILED. Why don't you try to explain what the real truth is about what you tried to do to Michael Jackson and see where that gets you. Wait......you might not have to. The truth may still come out.....then we'll see who's sitting pretty. You are a hypocrite and don't deserve any more of my time.
Comment: #28
Posted by: bee
Tue May 17, 2011 8:45 PM
I don't know if I shall laugh or cry.
I mean I do not have a problem with what is written in this article, cause I think that it is correct. But I really do have a problem with the author of this article.
Ms. Dimond are you kidding us?
In the past years your purpose in life was to convict and ridicule Michael Jackson. You showed fantasy evidence to show the world that he was a child molester, you paid witnesses to come up with untrue stories, yeah you even wrote a book about him and now you speak up for other sex offenders? You had no problem to slander Michael Jackson a man proofen innocent in all charges against him and now you out of all people write such an article?
That's really unbelieveable.
As if someone who knows how you've treated Michael Jackson would believe just one word!
Sorry but you are so pathetic. O.o
Comment: #29
Posted by: Tanni
Tue May 17, 2011 11:16 PM
If you mean Michael Jackson again, you leave him alone forever, BITCH! You perhaps have been sexually abused when you were child and you see in everyone a child molester who abused you through your priceless soul. hore. You leave Michael out of your cheap articles. YOu have no intelligence to write about something positive and useful. All you can write is about negative, false stories to reflect attention. It that comes from your witch soul, to hurt genious and kind man as Michael Jackson. Because you jealous of him. You are pathetic, get a life. And again, leave Michael alone if you want to gain back respect. Fuck you and go to HELL!
Comment: #30
Posted by: SSSS
Wed May 18, 2011 12:44 AM
Hopefully from the tone of the majority of posts here, Ms. Dimond, you will finally realize that EveryDay YOU create YOUR OWN history; past, present, and future. Toss enough stones at innocent people and eventually larger ones will be hurled towards you. The past cannot be changed. The present gives rise to the opportunity to reflect on yesterday's choices and make conscious decisions towards better outcomes for tomorrow. I think you know what you need to do. The world is waiting and someone is ALWAYS watching.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Cassie Mathis
Wed May 18, 2011 7:11 AM
You have the nerve Diane Dimond. You are one of the witches that helped send the most talented and beautiful humanitarian and entertainer to his early grave. He loved children, but not in the way your warped mind works. How many orphanages and children's cancer wards have you visited? How much money have you donated to helping children live a better life. You and Sneedon and a few others will rot in hell for what you did to ruin the greatest artist of our time and a man who only wanted to heal the world and make it a better place for children and for all people. You are one hideous person and I hope you get what you deserve. The world needs Michael but the world does not need you!
Comment: #32
Posted by: Liberian Girl
Wed May 18, 2011 7:06 PM
PLEASE, this bitch has the nerve to continue to talk about Michael Jackson. This bitch don't know nothing about Michael Jackson and the TRUTH.

STFU DEMON!!
Comment: #33
Posted by: Undercover Broad
Fri May 27, 2011 7:32 PM
IT APPEARS NO ONE LIKES YOU HERE DEMON, IN FACT, NO IN THE WORLD LIKES YOU, YOU EVIL DEMON. BUT WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, YOU AND YOUR LIES WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING THE MOST BELOVED MAN IN THE WORLD.

MAY YOU ROT IN HELL!!
Comment: #34
Posted by: Undercover Broad
Fri May 27, 2011 7:41 PM
Re: Laurie727 Laurie727... God Bless you. My son is labeled a sex offender and he only downloaded pornography, too! He did everything right after the arrest... took a polygraph, sought therapy, resumed school while on house arrest for over a year, had friends and family who stood up for his character, volunteered in Habitat for Humanity, did not violate any of his conditions of release... he was 19 when arrested. The press hounded us for weeks, he was amazing through it all. Now he is incarcerated for almost 5 years... and then he has 5 years suspended sentence to look forward to, and he didn't touch or harm anyone. He wouldn't harm anyone. It is sick how he is and was treated. Now he is 21, will be 26 before jail term is over, and he must register... Did you go to trial? We took a plea in exchange for the feds agreement not to prosecute in federal court. Even a former judge told me that he should onlyhave gotten probation... prison staff and inmates are telling him the same thing. No common sense in our laws regarding sex offenses... We have only started with the active sentence, and it is killing me not to see him much.
Maybe the laws will change in their favor... I am writing my reps and senators and the governor right now! Just finished my first letter. It may not mean anything, but at least I tried!
Comment: #35
Posted by: Brenda518
Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Diane Dimond
Sep. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 18 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 18 Sep 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 18 Sep 2014

4 May 2013 Moving? Beware the Criminal Element

11 Jan 2014 Why the Erosion of Public Trust? Here's Why

17 Aug 2013 Our Family Court Fiasco