Port Leyden man charged, accused of sex with child under age 11
Dec 13, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WKTV
A Port Leyden man has been charged after authorities say he engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 11.
#1 Dec 22, 2012
Whats in the water in Port. this is the 4th or 5th this year?
#3 Jan 24, 2013
"About 12 years ago, before I moved up here, an acquaintance (an ex-South Lewis principal) told me about the magnitude of incest and child molesting going on in the local area. The cases were kept under wraps mainly because it was deemed "A family affair" (!?). I believe since these cases were not publicized, it had been seen somewhat acceptable within the community.
Recently, national media has brought attention to the severity of this crime. Over the past decade it looks as though outside influence has identified child sex an unacceptable practice. As a result of the sweeping media attention the local girls have been "educated" and are no longer afraid to come forward. Probably because of this latest Sandusky scandal local LEO have become more thorough in the investigations surrounding child predators, too.
Child sex offenders CAN NOT be rehabilitated. If someone goes after one little girl (or boy), there are or will be many other children molested by the same perpetrator. This is a fact.
Child predators gravitate to careers that supply them with the children. Adults wanting to hang out with kids should be a concern, especially one on one. This can happen not in only a school or church setting, but with the nice man just down the street or Uncle "Bob".
Once it's done, it's done. The deed will never be erased from the child's mind. Please don't ignore the signs. Please don't ignore what the children have to say."
#4 Jan 30, 2013
Are you a relative of Sigmund Freud?
#5 Jan 30, 2013
I have yet to see any tolerance in any statement in any post. Please sight the studies of which you get your facts as my teacher in college seems to think that you are wrong since he is a doctor of pshy and has never heard of a study that you mention and actully showed me 100s that counterdict your including by the fbi.
#6 Jan 30, 2013
Tolerance is a crackpot that likes to try to get people to latch on to her crazy thinking. Smoke a few more! Please expand your horizon past your ex-principal friend.
#7 Jan 30, 2013
I'll be happy to supply reference for my facts. Please let me know on which of those you would like me to concentrate.
I'll start looking for references about the sex offenders not being able to be rehabilitated. I thought that was common knowledge, everyone I come in contact with seems to always be in agreement. I am surprised your college professor has a different understanding (?).
As an aside, I have a next door neighbor that "retired" (very early) from being a sex offender parole officer. She said there was a 100% incidence in repeat offenders. Of course, I don't think she wasn't there long enough to see 100% in every single case, but those were her words.
Give me some time to do some digging so I can find the most reputable source. I am hoping to find some solid statistics; I always liked histograms and such because it's easier to see trends with things like that then just looking at columns of numbers and percentages.
Thanks for asking.
#8 Jan 30, 2013
Please lets's not start insulting each other.
I have said enough concerning the ex-principal.
I am fine agreeing to disagree.
#9 Jan 30, 2013
So, the first problem I see within the studies conducted on repeat sex offenders .... sex offenders don't always get caught the first time they sexually offend someone. Then, even after they get out of prison, the under reporting really puts a damper on the offenders being deemed as repeat. On top of that, most studies that track sex offenders take place within the first three years from being released from prison. So, the problem with under reporting compounded with how long it takes some victims to step forward makes the studies on repeat sex offenders weak, skewing the probabilities towards a minimum**!
Here is an except from an article that shows why these studies are hard to nail down:
"Counting crimes that go unreported is, of course, paradoxical. One approach is to extrapolate a true crime rate from victimization surveys and compare that with reported crime, typically finding that roughly 90% of sex crimes go unreported. Some put the estimate even higher." (90%!!! I didn't know that.)
There are a couple more good points in this article I have cited below. For instance, here are the characteristics of the sex offenders most likely to repeat:
"The debate over an all-encompassing number obscures the wide variance in different people's risk of repeating sex crimes, depending on the nature of their first crime and other factors. Young, violent offenders who suffer from mental illness, use alcohol or drugs and target very young victims outside their family pose the biggest risk."
Most of the sex offenders I read about in Lewis County fit into one or more of these "biggest risk" categories.
The bottom line of this article is that 24% of all sex offenders are caught repeating within the first 3 years, child molesters had a lower rate of 20.4% of being caught again within the first three years from being released from prison. I think that is why sex offenders have to register and have restrictions placed upon them as to where they can and can not live. So, in light of how law enforcement handles the sex offenders I thought everyone was in agreement to the risks associated with repeat offenses.(Maybe you could remind your professor of this. I don't think other criminals have to go on a registry.)
from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1201223760535...
I'll keep looking. There's got to be something more robust than the Wall Street Journal (although a good publication, not entirely scientific).
#10 Jan 30, 2013
All the articles I have read cite the same problem with under reporting sex crimes to track the repeat of sexual offences.
From the Scientific American article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm... :
"When providing clarifications about the lower than generally acknowledged rates of recidivism, we must be careful not to oversimplify. Recidivism research is as difficult as it is important. For instance, although average rates tell us what percentage re offends one or more times, we also need to be aware that a subset re offends at a frighteningly high rate. In addition, there are reasons to think that published findings underestimate the true rates. Most research necessarily omits those offenders who were not detected and arrested or whose victims did not report the crime. Further, many sex offenders plea-bargain down to a nonsexual offense." (The last point is something I hadn't considered previously.)
So, alas, I probably can not come up with a histogram! to say the least.
But this is how someone can use the 90% failure to report a sexual offence number in conjunction with the 20.4% repeat for child molester number:
... therefore, on the average, anywhere between 6 and 12 sexual offences can occur without the sex offender being caught, again. So, the number 20.4% could be upwards of more than 90% and we'd never know, hence no repeat on the offence.
Does that make you feel any easier in the assumption that they can be rehabilitated? Well, not me! If you want to disagree, that is your choice and that's totally fine with me.
Thank you for your question.
#11 Jan 30, 2013
Tolerance, maybe you need to get a job working with these offenders. Most of us know at least one i'm sure. But your on and on copy and paste articles are getting boring. Please find something worthwhile to do with your time, like maybe counseling victims or working with offenders. you have too much time on your hands. get a hobby.
#12 Jan 31, 2013
Just trying to answer a question for another poster. Thought it would be rude not to respond to a request for a reference.
I have plenty of hobbies as well as volunteer ... although I am still looking for full-time work! Thanks for your concern (?).
May I make a suggestion? Just don't read my stuff, avoid it altogether. It seems to me you'll probably feel much better if you do.
#13 Jan 31, 2013
One answer casteration neutering. period, amen
#14 Jan 31, 2013
Tolerance, no one reads your stuff any more. Your responses are really quite bizarre and sometimes downright nasty and rude. Trying to persuade Topix readers to join your perspective is really grasping at straws. I agree, you should go get a full-time job, try not to have such a closed mind and try to somehow better yourself from your narrow viewpoint.
#15 Feb 1, 2013
#16 Feb 1, 2013
We are all capable of looking up statistics. Each case is individual. Child abuse, molestation and sexual abuse are obviously major issues but there's no reason to come on here and overtake every news topic with your copying and pasting. it makes you look desperate for attention.
#17 Feb 1, 2013
Hi and thanks for your input.
I read the article and noticed something about it's overall message, although well written, I noticed the message was mainly about unfair practices concerning people deemed as sexual offenders. I don't care if two teenagers have sex, that's a part of growing up. I also believe that people that urinate in public should not be considered sex offenders.(Two examples in the article.) The overall message of the article begged me to look up the group that put out the publication.
The Human Rights Watch is an organization that concerns it's self with the Human Rights of all peoples. I have nothing against this premise! I totally understand the message of the article, and agree with it.
What I disagree with is the ease the authors strike down the safety procedures that are in place which protect innocent people (the potential victims) without offering another alternative to replace the safety procedure.
For instance, the authors give the reason why registration of the sex offender is not a good idea; it may bring about vigilantism or harassment against registrants. I do not disagree with this point. We can all find fault in anything, given enough time, but it takes that "genius" to strike down something that is seen as inadequate AND offer a replacement for it's purpose. Because of this method of fault finding I believe the authors fall short in the analysis of the problem --- but that was not within the SCOPE of the article.
What I am concerned with (obviously) is not the rights of the man that raped the 11 year old child but the rights and safety of the children of the community, and everyone that won't come forward after an assault because of ridicule.
Believe me, if I was a sex offender I would agree with EVERYTHING this article had to say, but I'm not .... so I agree with around 50% of it.
#18 Feb 1, 2013
You really need to get a life... too funny
#19 Feb 3, 2013
"Port Leyden man pleads guilty to predatory sexual abuse
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2013
LOWVILLE — A Port Leyden man admitted Friday in Lewis County Court to sexually abusing a young girl over the course of nearly two years.
Frank J. Mann, 52, of 6970 Sullivan Trailer Park Road, pleaded guilty to charges of predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. Sentencing was set for March 8.
He was accused of repeated acts of sexual contact with a girl under the age of 13 from January 2010 through September."
The age of the child is now being reported as 13 years old. I guess they used the two years of abuse to increase her age from 11 to 13 years old. March 8 will be the sentencing. He can get up to 25 years, see NY state guidelines below:
Rape in the 3rd degree:
This crime is considered a Class E felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison. You may be facing this charge if any of the following apply:
1.You engage in intercourse with someone incapable of consenting or agreeing to it,
2.You are over the age of 21 and the other party is less than 17 years old, regardless of whether or not it is consensual, or
3.You have intercourse with someone without their consent.
Rape in the 2nd Degree:
Second degree rape is considered a Class D felony and carries a potential 7 years behind bars. You could be facing this charge if the prosecution has reason to believe you:
1.had intercourse with someone who is mentally disabled or incapacitated and unable to give consent, or
2.you are over the age of 18 and your partner is less than 15 years old.
Rape in the 1st Degree:
Rape in the first degree is the most serious rape offense and is considered a Class B felony. This carries a very hefty potential sentence of up to 25 years in prison. This rape charge could apply if you had sexual intercourse where:
1.It was by force,
2.the alleged victim was helpless,
3.the alleged victim was under 11 years old, or
4.the alleged victim was under 13 and you are over the age of 18."
#20 Feb 3, 2013
#21 Feb 4, 2013
Frank J. Mann had been pleading innocent when the charges applied to a child under 11 but when her age was raised to over 13 he plead guilty.(Of couse there may have been other factors of him pleading guilty, but why the age change?)It seems unscrupulous that they would "use" the two years of abuse to seemingly reduce his charges based on age ... you know, for sentencing.
Since the last local man was sentenced for ONLY TWO YEARS after sexually attacking a 14 year old girl, maybe the recommended guidelines and the artificial age change won't matter ANY WAY in the final sentencing. The guidelines are supposed to assist in standardizing the sentencing so there are no areas in our state safer than others for sexual predators.
Add your comments below
|Handicapped Parking||2 hr||Stupid||3|
|Accident on 12||2 hr||Stupid||42|
|pub (Apr '09)||2 hr||Lowlit||49|
|Tara Allen||3 hr||jersey joe||2|
|Family of Kevin Ward, Jr. issues statement||3 hr||JHat||159|
|What's Happening TO Boonville, NY?||4 hr||daddio||44|
|Lyons Falls Tire Shop||7 hr||Ripped Off||4|
Find what you want!
Search Constableville Forum Now