Society should take steps
to institutionalize pedophiles

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Pedophilia is a horrific mental illness. Pedophilia is a horrific crime. These two definitions clash with each other when it comes time to respond to the pedophile.

New Jersey was the first State in the U.S. to construct a prison facility for those convicted of sex crimes, in 1976 in the town of Avenel. Although I wasn't directly involved in treatment or research on sex crimes, I visited the facility several times in the course of my own work. It was an outstanding penal institution with a heavy emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation.

And then, one of the former inmates of this facility was the man who later defiled and killed little Megan, whose death spurred the first statewide sex crimes registry and notification act in the U.S. He had been released as rehabilitated. The creation of that law generated enormous protests, for and against, regarding the civil rights of the offender and the definition of the behavior, whether as illness or crime.

Research on sex crime, in particular on pedophilia, is poor. The activity only comes to the attention of authorities when the offender has committed a large number of crimes. We do know, however, that those who are identified and convicted of sex crimes have a high rate of recidivism. And we also know, based on recent research conducted in New Jersey, that even with intense treatment while incarcerated, the rate of recidivism for further sex crimes remains as high as before treatment. (Rates for other types of crimes seem to be reduced, but the sex crimes are not.)

Sex crime and other forms of deviant behavior (such as drug use, gambling, and prostitution) are at the edge of civil rights. The question always becomes: How much of my behavior should be controlled by society? For me, the answer lies in the further question: Is there a victim? If there is, then society has a responsibility to protect itself against the offender. One way to judge the severity of a sex crime is to look at its intensity. For instance, the recent arrests in Costa Rica that involved many hundreds of CDs and hard drives filled with pedophilia, reflect extensive obsessive and compulsive behavior. We cannot even guess at how many little children are the victims.

For victimless crimes, I believe that government has no right to meddle in my business. But for crimes with victims, I want protection for myself and my loved ones. Pedophilia is one of those crimes. And because it has a substantially high rate of recidivism, society should consider it as the highly intractable mental illness that it is, and institutionalize pedophiles accordingly. They are a life threatening danger to the weakest members of society, our children.




U.S. rules on immigration
also are discriminatory

Dear AM Costa Rica:

Two opinions published Tuesday require response.

Mr. Lam criticized the Costa Rican government as favoring some expats more than others. He argues that less wealthy U.S. retirees bring talent and other benefits to the country.

Mr. Lam and others would do well to study the immigration rules for the U.S. and to ask themselves whether Costa Rica is wrong to act as it does.  U.S. voters, through their representative lawmakers, have rightly or wrongly installed a discriminatory system.  It issues H1B visas to highly technically qualified and educated foreigners. Very wealthy investors are issued another type of visa.

The precious Green Card is offered more favorably to some nationalities than to others and usually requires evidence that a U.S. citizen is unavailable to do the job. Only the wealthiest retirees can actually achieve residency in the U.S. Many have to leave regularly in a very similar way as to what happens here in CR.

The one talent that too many immigrants from developed countries bring here is an ability to whine about how superior their ideas and system of government were back home. Too many retirees come to Costa Rica and latch on to the cheap and over-stretched medical services. In general, retirees can cost a lot more in health care than they bring in local employment and inward investment.

Both the U.S. and Costa Rica need worker bees. Nicaraguans are ethnically, culturally and linguistically closer to Ticos than most Gringos. Is immigration policy here as crazy or as unusual as Mr. Lam argues?

Mr. Beedle fears the consequences of hostile Nicaragua building a competitor to the Panama Canal.  Is not competition generally considered to be a good thing?

Mr. Beedle raises fears that require answers.  He suggests that a Nicaraguan canal would be used to traffic arms and drugs. Many in the U.S. and Latin America consider demand from the ill-controlled drug market in the U.S. as the major cause of international drug crime and smuggling. The real solution may lie in regulating demand in the U.S., rather than focusing on the supply side.

A canal is an enormous investment and way beyond the poor Nicaraguan state. Investors are unlikely to pile in, given U.S. hostility and the lack of interest in capitalism of the current Nicaraguan government.  The exception might be China, with its mountains of U.S. dollars and penchant for twisting the U.S.’s tale in Latin America.  China is also better at building massive infrastructure projects faster than just about everyone else these days.  The Chinese and perhaps Nicaragua are likely too clever to actually build such a project. All they need to do is to show interest and maybe do some initial digging. That would tie up U.S. resources in unwise threats against Latin America. It might even cause inept military intervention, with the usual negative consequences.

Fellow Gringos please stop feeling that you are doing the poor Ticos a favor by coming here.



Southern zone highways
always are poor at this time

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

The road situation is the same in most places, especially here in the Zona Sur.  We all suffer from a general downturn in tourism, enhanced by the road situation.  The last four years in Playa Zancudo, we have often paid the costs ourselves to have our road which runs thru town fixed each December.  It usually costs about $3,000 and is paid by businesses, and wealthier residents with cars.  Of course, that doesn't help much with the rest of the incoming road that brings the guests in.

Generally, over the past five years there has been a slight road maintenance improvement that is encouraging.  Come November, many of our service trucks won't come in.  Worst is that the school bus quits coming in just when the high school kids are needing to complete tests for graduation.  Everyone pitches in, a truck gets hired and we muddle thru.

This time of year we could enjoy more national tourism, as we lower our rates, but the wear and tear on the private vehicles is just too daunting for many locals.  Our daily boat services stop for the off-season too, as those transportation costs are also high.

I always wonder about the high costs of living here... and often think it is related to transportation costs, high cost of vehicles, and the damage sustained by them on the roads, and expensive gas.

I understand that not getting to a doctor, and emergency situations make some locations for vacation risky, but still think it part of the package to visit such a beautiful and remote location like Drake Bay.



Tigo's channel decision
was not for customers' benefit

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

For those of you are Tigo subscribers, you might have surprised by another change in Tigo when you tried to access the ABC network.  Tigo informed you that it would now be available on Channel 22, explaining in a twisted form of logic that "we expect that every change done will benefit our customers." 

What Tigo didn't bother to tell you is that the NBC network, which previously was on Channel 22, was being eliminated.  When I called Tigo to learn what happened, I was informed that the NBC network "had directed" Tigo to stop using the NBC signal. In other words, in another twisted form of logic, it was the responsibility of NBC in deciding to stop providing its signal to Tigo.  The truth is, however, that NBC — as with any other business — would be delighted to make its signal available to any cable service that is willing to pay the negotiated price. 

Tigo didn't want to pay the price, so it decided — in a self-proclaimed effort to "benefit" its subscribers — to eliminate NBC from its list of channels.  I am sorry Tigo, but I don't understand how I have been benefitted, nor do I appreciate your attempt to blame another party for a decision made only by Tigo.