Very Disturbing news about Clint George

John Riggs wrote: He had a 20 year sentence of which 15 was supsended and he's out already? Must be good behavior. My concern-recidivism rate on pedophiles is extremely high.

According to the news stories the examining psychologist felt his likelihood of repeating was low (hence his status in the database as an unlikely repeat offender). However, that position strikes me at best as odd when you consider George reportedly met with the girl a number of times after his arrest in violation of court order.

But yeah, 20 year sentence, 15 suspended, 1 year served.

I agree. He's already demonstrated recidivism after being ordered to stay away. At least 4 times according to the girl.

Keith Larman wrote: According to the news stories the examining psychologist felt his likelihood of repeating was low (hence his status in the database as an unlikely repeat offender). However, that position strikes me at best as odd when you consider George reportedly met with the girl a number of times after his arrest in violation of court order. But yeah, 20 year sentence, 15 suspended, 1 year served.

Keith:

Your observations and opinions are one's that I share. The examining psychologist spoke of some kind of profile for a pedophile. There simply is no good research that indicates a "profile" of a pedophile. Mental health professionals do not have any special predictive capacities. Simple fact is that the best predictor of future behavior is a pattern of past behaviors. The examining psychologist spoke of Mr. George as being "immature." As a fellow psychologist, I find that description lacking in multiple areas.

Based upon his history, I think that it is safe to say that he should not be around and/or communicate (any medium) with pre-teen girls and older without some responsible adult oversight. Prison time is not going to "cure" what ails him, nor will it help him become more "mature." The consequences of his actions have certainly caused well-deserved havoc in his life. For what ever the reason(s), the judge decided to give him essentially a slap on the wrist. The stigma of being a convicted child sex offender will follow him around for the rest of his life. The threat of finishing out his sentence is another incentive to fix his life. All and all, it is a sad chapter in the life of someone with a lot of promise in our world. Hopefully, all involved can experience some genuine healing from this horrible incident.

Marc Abrams

Immature! At 51? Perhaps living in Japan under a different culture retarded his maturity socially and psychologically. I do hope he doesn't relapse.

I don't get the 'fascination' people seem to have for pedophiles in general and Clint in particular.

Ricky Wood wrote: I don't get the 'fascination' people seem to have for pedophiles in general and Clint in particular.

Got any children? Not fascination but great concern. Aikido is for the development of better folks with mature personalities. Given the history of Mr. George one wonders if this case proves aikido to be a complete failure.

I've got a pedophile living around the corner and I am not fascinated but concerned and keep a good look out.

Ricky Wood wrote: I don't get the 'fascination' people seem to have for pedophiles in general and Clint in particular.

Let's see... Nine year old daughter at home. I teach Aikido to children. I'm on an advisory board for my daughter's school for student safety. And I've seen the effects of childhood abuse on more than one close friend.

Fascination? I'm glad it's not something you need to worry about. But it isn't some sort of salacious interest. It is something of great concern to some people.

Ricky Wood wrote: I don't get the 'fascination' people seem to have for pedophiles in general and Clint in particular.

I'll second that. But for the reason of there being no shades of grey in peoples' minds where it concerns 'paedophiles' (I find it very annoying for example, that someone who has consensual sex with a teenager just under the age limit is tarnished with the brush of a predator who abducts and abuses every child who isn't locked safely away). Someone who had an inappropriate thing for one individual is not automatically an unstoppable rapist.

Keith: Sorry, I saw your post before it was gone. Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about this case. Just in general.

Concern because they have a very high repeat rate.

Ricky Wood wrote: I don't get the 'fascination' people seem to have for pedophiles in general and Clint in particular.

I think it's because they cross a line that, for most people, is an unthinkable taboo.

(with that said, and not to open another can of worms, we are encouraging a certain amount of built-in craziness by referring to people who are 17 years and 11 months old as "children" -- and we certainly do, when it suits our purpose. Our current model of age-of-consent laws allows no real graceful transition from the official status of "immature person who is not ready for sexual relationships" to "person who can give consent to anything, woohoo!". If we want to solve a bunch of problems, some day we really oughta rethink that)

No law can ever quite cover all the grey areas of life, but some shading is possible.

Here in Canada, the legal age of consent was recently raised from 14 to 16. Also, a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with someone no more than two years older and 14 and 15 year olds can consent to sexual activity with someone no more than 5 years older.

As a side note, the legal age of adulthood in Canada (at least in Quebec) in 18. That is the age you can vote, sign contracts and drink alcohol (in Quebec at least).

Mary Malmros wrote: I think it's because they cross a line that, for most people, is an unthinkable taboo. (with that said, and not to open another can of worms, we are encouraging a certain amount of built-in craziness by referring to people who are 17 years and 11 months old as "children" -- and we certainly do, when it suits our purpose. Our current model of age-of-consent laws allows no real graceful transition from the official status of "immature person who is not ready for sexual relationships" to "person who can give consent to anything, woohoo!". If we want to solve a bunch of problems, some day we really oughta rethink that)

David Maidment wrote: Keith: Sorry, I saw your post before it was gone. Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about this case. Just in general.

No problem.

WRT age of consent...

That is an area that will never find full resolution. With emotional and physical development being so varied from one person to the next there will obviously be variation and times when the rules will "not be fair". However, society does have a vested interest in protecting minors and as such has to set boundaries legally to allow for redress for bad behavior. As already noted many jurisdictions have rules that are "flexible" depending on the relative ages of those involved. anyone here want to argue for an exception for 13-year-olds with 49-year-olds? Heck, there are girls who don't even start puberty until 12 or 13.

Obviously there will *always* be an arbitrary aspect to "drawing a line". But society needs to draw those lines because of things like this. Yes, we hope our police and prosecutors will use good judgement (which is not always guaranteed) and various jurisdictions have flexibility in the laws with respect to relative ages of the participants. And of course there is the point that a girl that's almost 18 is legally off limits but a day later things change completely. Of course that's not how her emotional development works. And of course things will get difficult if you have an older person hooking up with a mature 17-year-old. But again we're getting into what we used to call the "muddy middle" areas.

But all that said, all those exceptions and considerations are totally irrelevant in this case, neh? She was 5 years shy of 18. Not a few months. Not a year. It's not even considered late for a girl to start puberty at 13. And he most certainly wasn't 18 or 19. He was 49. 36 years older.

So sure, I agree that there is a difficult question involved in these type of policy issues. And I would argue that there is no solution that would work in all cases. But in *this* case, I don't see much grey area at all.

Anyway... I revived the thread with the idea of posting something indicating the closure of the topic. Others said and I agreed that we should tread softly in this particular case as we were not privy to all that had happened. But now we have a record of the newspaper articles as well as the public record available on-line.

He was convicted of sexual assault. One count. The victim was 13 at the time. He was 49. He was sentenced to 20 years, 15 suspended, served 1. Currently living in Montana.

All those facts are a matter of public record.

I will add that the good thing that happened as a result of this were some serious discussions at our headquarters. And some revisions and tightening up of our attitudes and policies. Always have two adults in classes. No one needs to be alone with a child for everyones' protection. And remember that the person who does bad things isn't necessarily the creepy guy hiding behind a tree. Sometimes the absolute worst offenders are the last people you'd suspect which is why they are some of the worst -- they can get away with it and they'll always have their defenders who just can't fathom that they could do such things.

None of this means you treat everyone like a child molester. But it does mean that you keep your eyes open and pay attention.

I just can't resist.
it is a travesty.

Keith Larman wrote: WRT age of consent... That is an area that will never find full resolution. With emotional and physical development being so varied from one person to the next there will obviously be variation and times when the rules will "not be fair". However, society does have a vested interest in protecting minors and as such has to set boundaries legally to allow for redress for bad behavior. As already noted many jurisdictions have rules that are "flexible" depending on the relative ages of those involved. anyone here want to argue for an exception for 13-year-olds with 49-year-olds? Heck, there are girls who don't even start puberty until 12 or 13. Obviously there will *always* be an arbitrary aspect to "drawing a line". But society needs to draw those lines because of things like this. Yes, we hope our police and prosecutors will use good judgement (which is not always guaranteed) and various jurisdictions have flexibility in the laws with respect to relative ages of the participants. And of course there is the point that a girl that's almost 18 is legally off limits but a day later things change completely. Of course that's not how her emotional development works. And of course things will get difficult if you have an older person hooking up with a mature 17-year-old. But again we're getting into what we used to call the "muddy middle" areas. But all that said, all those exceptions and considerations are totally irrelevant in this case, neh? She was 5 years shy of 18. Not a few months. Not a year. It's not even considered late for a girl to start puberty at 13. And he most certainly wasn't 18 or 19. He was 49. 36 years older. So sure, I agree that there is a difficult question involved in these type of policy issues. And I would argue that there is no solution that would work in all cases. But in *this* case, I don't see much grey area at all. Anyway... I revived the thread with the idea of posting something indicating the closure of the topic. Others said and I agreed that we should tread softly in this particular case as we were not privy to all that had happened. But now we have a record of the newspaper articles as well as the public record available on-line. He was convicted of sexual assault. One count. The victim was 13 at the time. He was 49. He was sentenced to 20 years, 15 suspended, served 1. Currently living in Montana. All those facts are a matter of public record. I will add that the good thing that happened as a result of this were some serious discussions at our headquarters. And some revisions and tightening up of our attitudes and policies. Always have two adults in classes. No one needs to be alone with a child for everyones' protection. And remember that the person who does bad things isn't necessarily the creepy guy hiding behind a tree. Sometimes the absolute worst offenders are the last people you'd suspect which is why they are some of the worst -- they can get away with it and they'll always have their defenders who just can't fathom that they could do such things. None of this means you treat everyone like a child molester. But it does mean that you keep your eyes open and pay attention.

Keith:

As a result of this incident and an incident with Stephen Toyoda, my school drafted a tight policy as well. Parents are actually given a copy of the policy so that they are aware that this policy is in place to protect both the children and the instructors.

I conduct psychological evaluations for the courts on a full-time basis. I was particularly disturbed by the characterization and findings of the evaluating psychologist that Mr. George was being "immature" and used the relationship with a minor to prop up his "self-esteem." Heck, I have no problem and actually enjoy acting "immature" with my friends without having low self-esteem or the desire to engage in such a grossly inappropriate type of relationship. That is a FAR CRY from engaging in the kind of conduct that he engaged in. How is it that a husband and father, who served as a representative for some organizations and was held in high esteem by the Aikido community (in general) needed to have a relationship with a minor in order to build up his self-esteem?

As you correctly noted, this girl was not some "mature", "older-looking" 17 year old girl. This was a 13 year old girl who had been in his school training under him for a while. We simply need to speak to any 13 year old child and note the gross disparity in maturity between us and any child of that age. Calling somebody "immature" and in need of propping up their self-esteem is simply a cop-out in my book that minimizes the truly pathological nature of his actions.

There are numerous people who deserve some real healing as a result of this incident. I for one, would not want Mr. George to be around ANY girls without appropriate "mature" supervision. Recidivism is high because of the entrenched psychopathology that typically underlies these types of behaviors. Simply "growing-up" and becoming "mature" will not minimize the danger of him engaging in this type of conduct again.

Marc Abrams

Hi Marc
One thing always nags at me with these things. I don't care if the girl was 13 or 16. I have seen girls at 16 or 17 who wanted to explore their sexuality and them being drawn to an older guy (20's and early 30's) and going after them. Now let's add in adult women who are drawn to men with powerful positions in their business circles.
To me the burden is on the the older person or the one with power to have the capacity to understand the situation and quite simply control themselves for the benefit of the other. It seems to me that there is a fundamental lack of caring, a total disregard for the person in the younger or junior role. I don't know where the psychological profile fits in, or even if there is one, but the undercurrent of selfishness, or cold blooded predator like focus (I want, what I want) that bothers me the most.
One friend of mine was seduced by a young secretary and I upbraided him, not only for bragging about it, but for getting involved at all. I told him if he got fired not to come looking to me for support.

I think there is a reason these rules are in place, and it is about placing the personal responsibility looking out for the welfare of others on to the perpetrator. Thus the perp mitigating it with the oldest excuse in the world-"She was mature for her age" fails from the start.
The law recognizes the common good and that the one most able should be the one most responsible doesn't it? Thus placing the burden on them to care for both. None of this is just about sex-I think it is far deeper than that and expresses a foundational lack of caring for anyone but themselves.

Cheers
Dan

Keith Larman wrote: However, society does have a vested interest in protecting minors and as such has to set boundaries legally to allow for redress for bad behavior.

That's fine, but if all you've done is create a punishment system for transgressors, you have at best solved half the problem. If society "protects" minors until the day they turn 18, but does nothing to prepare them for adulthood (and sexual relationships are only one aspect of this), you're simply leaving them high and dry the day that legal "protection" runs out.

Keith Larman wrote: As already noted many jurisdictions have rules that are "flexible" depending on the relative ages of those involved. anyone here want to argue for an exception for 13-year-olds with 49-year-olds?

Don't go building a strawman -- you know that that's not what I was talking about.

Dan Harden wrote: Hi Marc One thing always nags at me with these things. I don't care if the girl was 13 or 16. I have seen girls at 16 or 17 who wanted to explore their sexuality and them being drawn to an older guy (20's and early 30's) and going after them. Now let's add in adult women who are drawn to men with powerful positions in their business circles. To me the burden is on the the older person or the one with power to have the capacity to understand the situation and quite simply control themselves for the benefit of the other. It seems to me that there is a fundamental lack of caring, a total disregard for the person in the younger or junior role. I don't know where the psychological profile fits in, or even if there is one, but the undercurrent of selfishness, or cold blooded predator like focus (I want, what I want) that bothers me the most. One friend of mine was seduced by a young secretary and I upbraided him, not only for bragging about it, but for getting involved at all. I told him if he got fired not to come looking to me for support. I think there is a reason these rules are in place, and it is about placing the personal responsibility looking out for the welfare of others on to the perpetrator. Thus the perp mitigating it with the oldest excuse in the world-"She was mature for her age" fails from the start. The law recognizes the common good and that the one most able should be the one most responsible doesn't it? Thus placing the burden on them to care for both. None of this is just about sex-I think it is far deeper than that and expresses a foundational lack of caring for anyone but themselves. Cheers Dan

Dan:

We do live in a narcissistic society where personal responsibility seems to end with what feels best for my own benefit. I sadly feel that some days we seem to be dinosaurs who truly believe in looking out for the greater good of society.

As a father and grandfather (daughter and grand-daughter - second grand daughter is 1/2 way baked and still in the oven!), the irrational part of me longs for "frontier justice." I do the best I can to help raise a family of caring, morally-responsible individuals, while looking out and helping to protect the community that I live in. These incidents sadden and anger me in that we have a LONG WAY to go in order to help our society do a better job at developing healthier, morally-sound individuals.

As an Aikido instructor, I truly look at budo from a macro perspective. The healthiest and most connected community is the one that is best protected from the inside out. I express this concern and desire regularly in class and have the dojo practice this culture of healthy caring. We just celebrated our third anniversary last weekend. I was delighted to see how the dojo has gelled as a community both inside and outside of the dojo, and was very happy with the amount of food that we collected that I anonymously donate to the local food bank. I hope that my students impact those around them in a similar manner so that we can develop into a healthier society. Unfortunately, I am not holding my breath on that one.

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Mary, I wasn't building a straw man -- no intention whatsoever. I agree it is a complex issue. And I agree we as a society are completely bonkers with respect to most issues sexual. I also agree that we need to do a lot more to ensure our children grow up to be strong, confident, educated, etc. As a society we have done very poorly on these things on many fronts.

The only point I was making on the legal side (which is a very narrow issue in the midst of a much larger problem) is that even though it is very difficult to draw lines that make a lot of sense, they still need to be drawn.

Marc Abrams wrote: Recidivism is high because of the entrenched psychopathology that typically underlies these types of behaviors.

Marc,
Perhaps this is why the subject fascinates people. Would you please expound upon this comment?
Ricky

PShttp://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/12/....offender.law/

Hi folks,

Let's try to steer the discussion back to being directly pertinent to aikido and the original topic. If you wish to discuss a more general topic, please do so in the Open Discussions forum.

Thanks,

-- Jun

Rebecca Menard wrote: What has given you all permission to make assumptions and justifications of Mr. George's actions?

I'm not assuming; I'm just reading:

On Saturday, a search warrant of George's Helena home was executed. His phone and computer were seized. Police found 85 emails exchanged between the two. "The content of the emails and times they are being written related to the ages of the individuals involved did appear to be inappropriate," court documents note. During an interview Saturday, George told police that the relationship with his student of two years started with hugging and "petting" and had progressed in the last three months, the documents say. The two began inappropriately touching each other through their clothes, he told police.

Unless our source here is entirely making up police reports and court documents out of nowhere, Mr. George is guilty of some very serious crimes and some very serious abuses of his position. Period. No assumption is needed.

I suggest, though, that, rather than judging and condemning a man many of us have never even met, we allow Mr. George to teach us one last lesson: that no level of mastery, no amount of authority, and no number of good intentions will make us morally invincible. Serving as a moral guide for others does not relieve us of the duty to keep an eye on our own moral compasses. Let us not make Mr. George's mistake of becoming blind to our own foibles. Morality, like aikido, is a journey and not a destination; if we are not travelling forward, we are travelling backward.

For the record, my post was meant to show an example of how grey areas can be legislated. Clint's behavior crossed the legal line where he lived, the legal line here and any line I would personnally establish for this type of case.

Marc Abrams wrote: I was particularly disturbed by the characterization and findings of the evaluating psychologist that Mr. George was being "immature" and used the relationship with a minor to prop up his "self-esteem." How is it that a husband and father, who served as a representative for some organizations and was held in high esteem by the Aikido community (in general) needed to have a relationship with a minor in order to build up his self-esteem? ...Calling somebody "immature" and in need of propping up their self-esteem is simply a cop-out in my book that minimizes the truly pathological nature of his actions.

Was this evaluation in any way mitigating the idea that Mr George should be held accountable (such as suggesting he somehow be punished to some lesser extent than allowable by law)? Unless he was somehow developmentally delayed, I don't see how a lack of maturity could be excusable...of course I'm not a lawyer though. Any crime could be viewed as a lack of maturity, couldn't it? Self-esteem issues affect even the most successfull of people, and I believe there's no better way of describing Mr George's behavior than "immature," but I'd be shocked to find out that somehow could provide basis for leniency.