Thursday, April 10, 2014

Once Fallen on Dr. Drew, April 7, 2014

Video Description:
Once Fallen on Dr. Drew On Call, discussing whether "sexually violent predators" can be cured. I personally feel this was one of my best interviews. I am on starting at about the 2:30 mark. Aside from the one ignorant statement from the redheaded woman, whom I corrected, it went fairly well. What I didn't like was how every time I spoke, they put that scary mugshot up; people would likely focus on that while I spoke. But at least they posted my link.


Matt said...

Derek is brave but part of me feels like this was a trap. You have four to one debating whether this guy should be released, Derek being the sole dissenter. Not only that but this guy was one of the worst examples of sex offenders out there, so he is really hard to defend. People think that most sex offenders are serial rapists/molesters like this guy, when they are not.

Not his best interview in my opinion but he did keep cool and made his points well in the short time he had to make them.

cartercarter5 said...

This was not the guy to try to defend. I am on the registry and don't believe I deserve to be, but I didn't rape 38 women. This guy was released and reoffended. He should be locked up for life because he screwed up his chance at being free when he chose to reoffend. I have no sympathy for offenders who go through what a conviction entails to just turn around and do it again. There is a big difference between a serial rapist like this guy and those who make up the majority on the registry with a single conviction for a one time offense.
I will say that if he did the time he was sentenced to then he should be freed because that is what the sentence was. I do not believe in civil commitment. But, this guy should have probably been sentenced to life in prison and there should be no need for a discussion about civil commitment. I wouldn't want him living next to my mom, sister, aunt, or daughter.

Danny said...

The one thing about Derek is he believes in what he is doing and if you read his site and his book you will really understand him. I just finished his book and must say if you are a registered citizen or have a friend or family member that is his book will help you! Derek never backs down even when he is out numbered nor do vigilantes scare him. He believes he's a changed man because he is! His crime happened when he was very young.

The pillow case rapist is one of the worst examples of a sex offender I have ever heard of. He most certainly isn't the average person on the registry. Most serious sex offenders are in prison or under the prison.

Chuck Balogh said...

In my humble opinion, Derek should have joined the ladies and discussed how the laws need to be changed to NOT allow someone like this to ever be in society again - I have to agree that this offender is beyond any hope that society should have to bet on him not reoffending.

Derek messed up here and I think it hurt the cause for fine tuning the the laws much more than it helped. Derek's points were accurate but they should have never been made in the context of this heinous crime.

oncefallendotcom said...

Chuck, first off, I don't get to choose the venue or the topic. Second, I believe when a person is freed, no matter his past, that person should be given the chance to become a productive member of society, PERIOD. I will not join the popular side, I join the side of the US Constitution. No matter how you feel about the person, once he is out he deserves the same chance as the person who only committed one offense.

oncefallendotcom said...

I have to disagree with your assessment this was not one of my best interviews. I think it ranks as the best. This was a rare time I came away satisfied with my performance. It is a worst-case discussion, obviously, but we cannot be allowed to be goaded into agreeing with the opposition on any points.

Despite how you feel about this person, IF he even gets out, then he deserves the same chance to be a productive member of society, like it or not.

oncefallendotcom said...

I personally can't believe anyone on our side of the issue has any issue with my interview. You people need to understand this:

1. I don't get a choice in determining the topic; I take whatever that give me and I have to run with it; and,
2. Some of you don't even sound like advocates for the rights of former offenders. My personal views about this man have no bearing on my view that if him or ANYONE released from a state-sanctioned sentence, no matter how fair you feel it is, that person should be given the chance to succeed on the outside.

Personally, I don't think he'll be released, and if he is, they'll violate him on some minor technicality and he'll be back in prison.

If you think my interview is bad, besides the fact that I disagree with you, you have to remember the media has memory like Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates. Dr. Drew is already on to the next celeb rehab story and this is an afterthought. But i'm sick of the armchair prognosticating and the trembling from those who aren't out on the front lines.

Matt said...

The reason I think it is not your best interview is not so much because of anything you said or did but because of the people who were nearly shouting at you, the subject you were forced to talk on and because the short time you were given.

In my opinion this was one of your better interviews:

The interviewer was polite, he didn't try to argue he just asked questions and you got to say a lot and you said it very well.


I'm not saying this guy doesn't deserve a second chance (or would this be his third chance now?), although one could argue many things. Perhaps he should have gotten a longer sentence for 38 rapes. (Dear God, people get longer sentences for simply downloading stuff.) And it's not like these were statutory rapes either, they were forced and violent rapes.

But if he is allowed out, then yes he should be allowed back in society. I agree with you, we don't need the sex offender registry. If this guy attacks another woman than it's the fault of the sentencing and the failed rehabilitation.

It just pisses me off some that people like this are let out when other people who commit far less heinous and violent crimes are given longer sentencing and civil commitment.

Matt said...

Let me respond to some of those points, I hope it won't make you too sick.

1.) The problem people have with this interview is not so much you but it's entire context. Dr. Drew is not the best person to talk to, personally I think the guy is a scumbag and a snake. I think he purposely brought you on to talk about one of the worst examples of sex offenders to try and make you look bad (But I think you did well despite this). He wasn't even fair to you, he should have at least had one other person there to give a different opinion as yours, instead he brought on four women to argue against you. He's a fucking asshole.

2.) Not all advocates have the same opinions. Not everyone is for complete removal of the registry; infact, I would wager that most aren't. Shana Rowen is an example of one who isn't, she does not believe that the registry should be done away with completely but she does argue in favor of a lot of ex-offenders who she believes don't deserve the punishment they are getting. I doubt she would argue in favor of this guy though. (if she's around, I'll let her correct me if I'm wrong.)

Lastly, I think you should keep in mind that most people admire your bravery and courage and will admit they don't have it. They aren't trying to annoy you with their "armchair prognosticating." We're just trying to offer constructive criticism, consider it and if you don't like it, leave it - but why let it offend you?

Sex Offender Issues said...

I think Derek did well given the fact that there was 1 man and 4 women. That's how you stack the deck against someone.

Chuck Balogh said...

Hi Derek. Thanks for responding. Please don't get me wrong - I am on your side. I also have no idea what you were told in preparation for this interview. Regardless of what anyone started off thinking, this seemed to be a discussion about changing the laws to be harsher on reoffenders. This man should not be let free in society - he has proven well beyond a doubt that he is very sick and as a society we have our rights to protect our children and if that means life incarceration, then so be it.

To your point, IF an offender is freed from jail, he should be given every chance to make it and that is the real crime against sex offenders AND SOCIETY at large. Many RSO's I know, were convicted on possession of child pornography and it was their only offense of any kind. These guys should be given a chance (assuming that their psycho-sexual evaluation would support this). But they can't get jobs and become a burden on society. Too many take their lives over not being able to function is this society.

Finally, I thank you for fighting the fight.

oncefallendotcom said...

Shana's not the head of USA Fair these days.

Personally, I am for the COMPLETE obliteration of the registry. After all, the registry is what it is today because the registry was allowed to exist under any form, period. Remember, the registry began as a list of only repeat offenders under a private 10 year list under the Wetterling Act. Then we got Megan's Law just two years later, and the rest is history.

And lets be honest, we simply can't pick who is a real danger nor can we determine who is rehabilitated. In this guy's case, I wouldn't bet on him, but no group of offenders has 100% recidivism no matter how you slice it.

As stated previously, I don't get to pick the venue or topic, I can only take the opportunity. If I took everyone's fears into account I'd never have a venue to go to. EVERY interview is going to have a counterbalance, and certainly not an equal counterbalance. It isn't just Drew, it is everyone. Even sweet and sassy Mary Duval got her lumps on occasion. After all, we are on the unpopular side and they can't look like they support us. I just have to do something with the lemons they hand me. Either make lemonade or squeeze the lemons in their eyes. Sometimes both.

oncefallendotcom said...

Yes I can get defensive when criticized. I take pride in my work and when I left this interview, I felt so confident it was one of my best interviews I went the extra mile to get it online.

Some of you didn't like it (still don't see why), but what matters to me is results. There is a simple adage, "visibility equals credibility." Every time I or another activist gets air time, that's credibility. It isn't about "ego" so much as it is about "promoting a product." We have a quality product (our message) that does not get the amount of airtime as our competition. Beggars can't be choosers, as they say.

I can assure you that the four-minute panel the worst-case scenario. I can think of things I'd rather do like scrub the toilet or cook lutefisk with Limburger cheese sauce with the windows closed.

But I do it because in the two days since the show, I had a number of calls from registrants who saw the show and didn't know this movement exists. That makes all this frustration worthwhile. In the end, I am doing it not for me but for those people who need us most.

Danny said...

Chuck you basically insulted Derek then end it with a thank you! That's really lame to me. If you can do better do the next interview on TV with the same odds and arm chair jerks. I'm betting you won't do it!

Danny said...

I like how you censor me for sticking up for Derek but don't censor the putz's trashing Derek. Exactly why I donate to Derek monthly and not you!

Sex Offender Issues said...

And we love how you jump the gun. All comments are moderated due to the haters and vigilantes out there, and your comment is no different. It's now been approved since we finally checked it.

Anonymous said...

Not only are you outnumbered four to one, but I honestly am not going to lose any sleep over a guy like the Pillowcase Rapist being civilly committed. Not only should this guy have been sentenced to 2,000,000 years in prison, but I really don't care in the least if he's (probably unconstitutionally, but I still don't care anyway) civilly committed. Going on air and making an arguement this guy's commitment is an example of an injustice to sex offenders is only creating the impression that the Pillowcase Rapist is a typical RSO. I'm sorry Derek, but I don't think arguing against this guy's commitment is the best of ideas from a PR perspective or really anything you should be focusing on. Plus, as someone else mentioned, DR Drew is an asshole who it's impossible to reason with.

Chuck Balogh said...

Geez dude, loose the attitude. I had an opinion about the Dr. Drew piece I voiced it. I bashed no one and if I insulted him, I'd be surprised. To the contrary I have great respect for anyone who stands up publicly for OUR cause.

Most people are ignorant to our cause and I still believe that Derek's defense of fair treatment under the law were not heard by most viewers. All they could hear is that this horrible man was released from jail multiple times and re-offending multiple times. This is what those women were focused on. The issue should have been that the laws needed to be changed to prevent a guy like this from being released again.

matt said...

What I do if I don't see a comment I posted right away, I wait a few days. I see if the administrator of the website has been on during the time. Then I check again to see if my comment has been posted. If I still don't see it and I'm curious to know why then I write a private email asking why (perhaps there was an error uploading the message and the administrator never even saw it.) I've seen tons of people make asses of themselves by crying censorship too soon. Not just here but everywhere on the internet where there is a comment section.