Can a pedophile pass the Diana screen?

Answer 1

In short, possibly.

Here's the problem: Gene Abel, the designer and chief proprietor of the Diana Screen claims to have developed the test by examining and studying over 100 subjects, yet none of his work on the test has been peer reviewed or published. On the surface, the test and the claims made about it are those of the solicitor of the testing material and seem to be based upon emotionality and sex-abuse fears generated and stoked by zealous media outlets.

There are no returns on academic searches for the Diana Screen. There are a number of returns on internet searches, but all seem to be clones of each other and those published by Gene Abel.

You have to ask yourself, "Should I trust the snake oil sold to me by the snake oil salesman based solely on the words of that salesman?"

If you answer yes, well then Caveat Emptor. If you answered no, then keep reading.

There has been at least one apparently objective analysis of the claims of Gene Abel (linked below). The results of that analysis were not glowing.

The facts regarding sexual abuse:

• "Pedophilia" is a psychological term for a very specific condition suffered by a very small group of people, between 3% and 9% of offenders (between 22,500 and 87,500, or roughly 0.006428% to 0.0001928% of the US population). Not a significantly great number.
• The term "pedophile" is colloquially (and incorrectly) used to refer to anyone convicted of a crime with a sexual component. In the US and her territories, that means roughly 750,000 registered offenders (slightly over a million for those whose crimes predated the registry and for juveniles and others who have been removed from the public registry). This compiles approximately %2 of the population of the US alone (not counting territories--so the percentage is actually lower).

Facts regarding any standardized test:

• Standardized tests are largely ineffective for determining behavioral patterns for groups that share few common behavioral traits such as those convicted of crimes with sexual components. (It isn't that those so convicted do not share common traits, more that no conclusive or comprehensive studies have ever been published).
• Any standardized test can be circumvented or "foiled."
• Psychological testing is only as effective as the information gathered, and regardless of how complete the gathering process is reliant upon the interpretation and biases of the evaluator. No evaluator is competent enough to be able to take in ALL potential variants.

A conclusion:The only effective way to protect your children from sexual abuse is to isolate them from contact with any other human being, including (and disturbingly enough) their own parents and other family members. Fully 80% of sexual abuse cases result from family/close associate relationships. Oddly enough, these do not include relationships with teachers or caregivers; such instances of sexual assault are actually rare--despite the coverage given to them by the media. That 80% statistic has stood examination and challenge for more than thirty years (for as long as such statistics have been tracked). Relying on assessments such as the Diana Screen is a poor substitute for practical, realistic, and attentive parenting. Using any psychological assessment to make a decision for you is, frankly, much like testing whether someone is a witch by dunking her in a pool of water while wrapped in chains.

Education is the key to prevention, if not early detection. Children need to be taught to speak up, and be given an environment where doing so is not fraught with taboo and condescension. Crimes with a sexual component have been present in the human population for as long as there have been humans. Their prevalence or rate of commission is not on the rise. Rather, the phenomenon society is currently experiencing is more the result of heightened reporting. While this can be a good thing, it is more commonly negative (understanding of the statistics reported below will help the reader accept the facts). Can sexual assaults and other crimes be eliminated from human behavior? Not likely. But, they can be better understood, and more efficaciously addressed than is being done so now. The most important step in effectively dealing with the problem is to avoid knee-jerk, emotionally driven actions such as using a supposed, alleged psychological test to weed out those "most likely" of criminal sexual offenses.

A few statistics to leave with you: (these may be found at the Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics)*

• The average time served for conviction of a sexually based crime is 6.7 to 8 years (times vary due to federal or state convictions and incarcerations).
• 98% of those convicted of sex crimes will be released from prison.
• Less than 3% of those released will ever reoffend, and those who do will do so within 5 years of release. After five years from release, recidivism (the incidence of reoffence) is statistically nil (0).
• The only class of felon who reoffends less often than those convicted of sex crimes are murderers, and 98% of them will never be released from prison.
• Of those who reoffend, roughly 85% of those who do are those who have committed the most violent past offenses (and oddly, those convicted of public exposure, "flashers," who tend to reoffend nearly 100% of the time).
• Fully 95% of those convicted of sex crimes are first time offenders. That is they have NO past criminal history or give indications of any criminal behavior.
• Again, 80% of sex crimes involve a close relative (father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt, or cousin), or a close family associate (friend or neighbor). This is a hard statistic, that is it remains constant, and has for more than 30 years.
• Homosexual offenses are no more common than heterosexual offenses, potentially even slightly less so. However, those who have committed an offense against a victim of the same gender are 20% more likely to have offended more often, and more often with multiple victims; and, are %15 more likely to reoffend than their heterosexual peers. Although this does not affect the overall less than 3% recidivism of sexual offenders.
• Crimes with a sexual component are not the exclusive venue of the under-educated, lower economic strata. The majority of offenders are college educated, many performing in professional positions.

*The link for DOJBOS is provided below, but it requires a great deal of digging to find the specific points, and may require some math skills, as percentages are not always provided. Percentages given are most commonly figured against a national population of 350 million Americans, with the exception of those figures specific to conviction, recidivism, and offense rates.

If you answered "yes" to the snake oil question above, and you have read this far, AND still choose to rely on the allegations of the salesman, well, good luck. If this got your intention and you continue to dig deeper to form your own opinions, then the answer has done its job.

One last thought: consider that those who fall victim to being pigeon-holed with no other evidence than that given by an unproven assessment purchased from an internet sight are slowly being pressed against a wall. Think about what happens when such is done with any form of life. If you offer a scared dog no avenue for escape and he bites you, whose fault is it?

Again, Caveat Emptor in all its metaphorical meanings.