CASE UPDATE 4/22
The man accused of abducting two 17 year old girls and holding them in a small room under his shed has been captured.
As I've watched this story unfold throughout the day- I've been bothered by the fact that this man was deemed dangerous- and yet the judge felt compelled to allow him his freedom. He could have been committed under the civil commitment laws, but as it seems to happen so much recently- a judge opted to give him his freedom.
It seems that more and more often we are hearing of judges deciding in favor of a sex offenders freedom over the impact his (or her) release has on the safty of society. I for one, am tired of it. Are you?
Election time is coming up right around the corner. Soon, we'll be seeing all the signs in the yards, all the commercials, and all the political banter that is sure to pop up. When we stand in line- waiting for our turn at the poll booth- I hope that we as a society keep in mind recent cases of judges supporting and releasing sex offenders. A judge is either elected or appointed- why should we continue to vote in those that choose to ignore the warnings, bypass the laws, and leave our children at risk? We are lucky enough to have a say in our judicial system, and it's about time that we take a long hard look at those who are sitting on our benches... if they refuse to get tough on sex offenders, then there is no reason that we should support them in their bid for the bench. If those we elect can only find "soft on sex offenders" judges to appoint- than it is time we stop putting them in a position to appoint anyone.
We have the right, and the RESPONSIBLTY to ensure that those on the bench will abide by the desire of society in keeping sex offenders locked away from our children. It matters little what the laws are, or how tough they may be- if the "robed" ones are able to bypass these laws and decide sentencing by their personal opinions. Mandatory sentencing, preventing a judge from deciding that a convicted rapist should get probation. We have the right to demand this, we have the ability to enforce it- but we can't do it until we stop electing those soft on sex crimes.
UPDATE 4/22
Categories: predators
The man accused of abducting two 17 year old girls and holding them in a small room under his shed has been captured.
Authorities captured a convicted sex offender after aday-long search that involved police officers, bloodhounds and helicopters. The man is wanted in connection with the rape of two teenage girls in an underground room behind his home.
As I've watched this story unfold throughout the day- I've been bothered by the fact that this man was deemed dangerous- and yet the judge felt compelled to allow him his freedom. He could have been committed under the civil commitment laws, but as it seems to happen so much recently- a judge opted to give him his freedom.
Hinson was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991. Just before his release from prison in 2000, a review committee recommended he be committed indefinitely to a Department of Mental Health facility for treatment, said Trey Walker, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office. But a circuit judge later ruled that prosecutors failed to show Hinson would likely offend again.
It seems that more and more often we are hearing of judges deciding in favor of a sex offenders freedom over the impact his (or her) release has on the safty of society. I for one, am tired of it. Are you?
Election time is coming up right around the corner. Soon, we'll be seeing all the signs in the yards, all the commercials, and all the political banter that is sure to pop up. When we stand in line- waiting for our turn at the poll booth- I hope that we as a society keep in mind recent cases of judges supporting and releasing sex offenders. A judge is either elected or appointed- why should we continue to vote in those that choose to ignore the warnings, bypass the laws, and leave our children at risk? We are lucky enough to have a say in our judicial system, and it's about time that we take a long hard look at those who are sitting on our benches... if they refuse to get tough on sex offenders, then there is no reason that we should support them in their bid for the bench. If those we elect can only find "soft on sex offenders" judges to appoint- than it is time we stop putting them in a position to appoint anyone.
We have the right, and the RESPONSIBLTY to ensure that those on the bench will abide by the desire of society in keeping sex offenders locked away from our children. It matters little what the laws are, or how tough they may be- if the "robed" ones are able to bypass these laws and decide sentencing by their personal opinions. Mandatory sentencing, preventing a judge from deciding that a convicted rapist should get probation. We have the right to demand this, we have the ability to enforce it- but we can't do it until we stop electing those soft on sex crimes.
UPDATE 4/22
Categories: predators
Comments
One case I've heard of demonstrates the dangers of civil commitment more than all others. A young man had consensual sexual relations with a teenage boy and was imprisoned for a lengthy sentence. When he was about to be released from prison a panel recommended that he be sent for life to a "civil commitment" facility. His "victim", by now an adult and apparently very much in love with him, attempted to rescue him by piloting a helicopter over the walls of the prison. The small helicopter couldn't bear the weight of two people and crashed outside the prison walls where both individuals were apprehended. The result was that not only was the original offender sent for life to civil commitment, but his victim too was sent to prison for 4 years. What kind of a fascist dictatorship do you have to live in where the law "protects" people in this way? Both these individuals have had their lives ruined and there are numerous cases, including one now ongoing and occassionally in the news, of sexual relations between minors and adults where the two individuals later married.
While sexual relations between minors and adults are forbidden for very good reasons; judges should learn to use discretion in the sentences they pass. There *is* a difference between rape and consensual sexual relations and there is a difference between a victim and a minor who willingly engages in relations wtih an adult. No matter the case - civil commitment is wrong. There should never be a mechanism in the law that forces a mandatory sentence on someone regardless of the circumstances of their crime - that's why we have judges to begin with and not computers passing judgement.
Finally, while the case of Hinson demonstrates what happens when a sex offender is wrongly released, there are many many cases of offenders being released who did not reoffend. You can hardly take this obscene case as some sort of standard for judging all offenders; especially as some proportion of those offenders weren't even guilty of any crime and had been wrongly convicted by a jury.
Secondly, why on earth would I want to release a rapist to begin with? Why sit back and wait for him (or her) to stock up a few more victims before someone realizes that they have been serving life to begin with?
I prefer life sentencing for all cases of rape, or child molestation. However- when we get judges on the bench that feel it's okay to reduce a sentence, or that barely even give one to begin with- there should be a back up plan. If law makers refuse to administer maximum sentencing laws- than we have a right to demand some sort of safety net for those predators who walk out of jail with little time under their belts- especially when they have been deemed likely to reoffend. We lock criminals with mental disorders up everyday- I see no reason not to lock these sick freaks up too. Either in a jail cell- or a padded room.
The case you refer too- I'd love to see some sort of report on that- is sad. Really. The fact that someone could deem themselves above the law and have a sexual relationship with a minor, and by doing so put both the child and themselves into the position they are in now is just down right sick. You blame the system, but if you would be willing to put the blame where it really belongs- on the sex offender- you'd be more correct in your thinking. THe laws did not cause this- a person blatantly ignoring them for their own personal gratification did. How sad they didn't have enough respect for each other to wait until the child was of legal age.
As for your many many cases- please clarify that better. What you should have said is that there are many many cases of offenders being released that don't get caught again. You can't actually say they haven't= because you only know that haven't been caught. The average child molester has 8 victims before the first time they are caught- do you really believe that they don't learn to adapt their habits in order to reduce getting caught again?
In sex-related crimes there also isn't always a victim. If a man has relations with a girl who later goes on to marry him, loves him deeply and forms a family with him I challenge you to find the *victim*. Is it in society's interests to convince a girl she has been raped if she believes otherwise? Is it even logical to call a person a child one day and the next day when they have had some random birthday to suddenly call them an adult?
The laws regarding statutory rape exist to supposedly promote some higher interest of society - an interest in preventing young girls and boys from being seduced by older individuals, exploited and harmed. But life isn't black and white - there isn't always harm there. And if you come at a problem which is in shades of gray, trying with all your might all the while to see it as either black or white your bound to make mistakes.
The case I illustrated in my previous comment concerned two people, Clifford Burkhart and Steven Whitsett (a straight google search will turn up their complete story from multiple sources). It's been several years now since Burkhart and Whitsett were imprisoned when Whitsett attempted to rescue Burkhart from an American penal institution on the eve of his commital for life to a psychiatric facility. I challenge you to prove that any good has been performed by the government in this case. Has Burkhart been "helped" by being imprisoned - first in prison and subsequently for life in a mental hospital? Has Whitsett profited from seeing his lover imprisoned for life and then himself being locked away after trying to rescue him? I posit that a victimless crime deserves no punishment and that if punishment is given for such a crime the person who has given the punishment has himself committed a crime and should be sentenced accordingly.
My final point is quite simple. As I stated last time, juries make mistakes and innocent men are occasssionally sent to jail. Its one thing for an innocent man to rot 20 years in a cell and another for him to rot there for life. I take it you support this as some sort of lesser evil in the interests of keeping sexual predators locked away. I do not. I oppose this policy in the same way I oppose the death penalty - you cannot have an ultimate punishment when you cannot ever be 100% certain of a person's guilt. To make a single mistake would be catastrophic and the potential for misuse is too great; as in the case of Burkhart.
Sexual crimes with clearly defined victims and perpetrators exist and are fairly common - these crimes deserve strict punishments. It is the judge's prorogative to assign the degree of punishment and it is not the public's prorogative to force a blanket punishment for all cases. That would truly be a miscarriage of justice.
These decisions cannot be emotional. We're dealing with people's lives here - not all of them the scum of humanity, not all of them guilty of harming other people, not all of them guilty even of the crime for which they were convicted. We must err on the side of caution, painful though it may be at times, so that mistakes are less serious and less common.
- Burkhart was the victim; Whitsett the original perpetrator
- Burkhart attempted to rescue Whitsett from the psychiatric treatment facility itself using the helicopter (not from a jail)
- In 2004, Burkhart was in the process of being resentenced to 10 years in prison because he was carrying a firearm during the escape.
- Several years later it was determined that Whitsett didn't meet the conditions for detention in the psychiatric facility and would have been released had he not tried to escape. Bear in mind that Whitsett and Burkhart couldn't have known this at the time and from their point-of-view Whitsett was going to be committed for life.
- Whitsett was sentenced to 20 years in prison for armed escape and carrying a firearm as a felon.
We as a society have identified with the criminal so long that we have neglected the right of society to be protected from predators. It is time to take our protective responsibilities seriously. We need to consider the right of the average citizen to be free of danger from predators. Since the civil process failed, 2 girls were victimized and faced death form an offender who could have been kept in custody.
Justice should be blind only in that it should never favor any party before it. It should be fair to all participants. It should not be blind to facts, wisdom or intellect.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/14388955.htm