Reader responds to signs
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2015 12:25 pm
In response to “Signs not answer to sexual assault,” I agree with the opening statements and the closing one. However, I question much that is in between.
You say that the signs keeping out new registrants are a good thing; this smacks of NIMBYism and, as you yourself point out, the greater risk to children for sexual harm does not come from outside the family’s circle of trust but from within. After reading many studies and much expert literature for quite a few years, I find that the percentage of childhood molestation committed by those in or close to the family is closer to 90% than 60%, but the basic premise is the same, and a much, much smaller percentage, whatever it is, may properly fall into the “stranger-danger” category.
Why is that omitted from your editorial?
(Please click link at top to read full story and response by Sandy)