A question has been on my mind, and although I feel as if I already have the correct answer to it, I thought I would put it in your heads, and see what you come up with. For those that are willing to humor me, all I ask is that you be honest in your reply. Explain your answer as much or as little as you like.
Last year the media was swarming around stories like Joseph Duncan and the Groene murders. Anyone who watched more than 30 seconds of a news story was quickly made aware to the fact that he had been previously convicted and had recently been arrested (and released on bond) for sexual offenses. There was an increase in attention to cases that seemed to highlight today's routine of "catch and release, and catch again" when it comes to sexual offenders.
Early in March, the nation watched in shock and horror as Jessica Marie ``Jessie'' Lunsford was reported missing, only to be found days later- sexually assaulted and murdered at the hands of another previously convicted sex offender, John Couey.
We also heard reports of Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller, a serial child molester who police say may have had over 30,000 victims, and was also a convicted sex offender- who had failed to register.
Now, recalling some of these cases, and knowing that there were so many more that I could have mentioned- put your mind back to where it was last year. Pretend that you are sitting in your home, and you read that a convicted sex offender has been arrested... he is a twice convicted sex offender, recently released from treatment after having convinced a judge that he is no longer a threat. The news story says that he approached a 11 year old boy and attempted to convince the child to return to the offenders home.
The news starts to spread, and you read about how the offender was said to have "showed a "large degree of impulsive behavior" and to "display deviant sexual arousal" around the time of his release". They mention violent sexual behaviors. You realise that he lived just blocks from your house.
Time goes by, you flip on the television to see headlines about Duncan, Couey, Schwartzmiller and many others. In the back of your mind you think about the local man, how he was also a convicted offender... how close he lived... how he was caught...how his trial is approaching. And then one day, you get a summons to court for jury duty. You pass the requirements of both the defense and state. Soon, you're sitting in a court room with 11 other people, listening to the case about your local sex offender, and how he tried to lure another child into being a victim.
You're on the jury. You get to decide this already convicted offenders fate. In good faith, you should be deciding verdict according to the merits of the case. You listen to testimony, remain completely focused as evidence is presented. You stare at the accused as the trial goes on, trying to read his expression- looking for something to tip you off as to what he is thinking. Closing arguments are compelling from both the State and the defense counsel, their words play over and over in your head. The twelve jurors, including yourself make way into a closed room, you have to decide guilt or innocence.
Now, here is the all important question, what moves you to vote "guilty"? Do the headlines of other, worse crimes committed by other previously convicted offenders, come to mind? Does how this man had convinced a judge he wasn't a threat, was released and then quickly caught again remind you of how Joseph Duncan walked out of a jail on bond shortly before going on his cruel assault against an innocent family? Do you sit and think of all the times an offender re offends, after being released? Do you wonder about how many victims you could prevent if you vote guilty for this deviant? Is the fear of what could have happened had this man not been caught, lurking in the back of your mind? Are you able to completely block out every media report, every fear of the "child predators" that has been burned into you after countless horrific and shocking stories?
What is the motivation, the reasoning behind how you decided innocence or guilt?
Categories: predators, misc
Last year the media was swarming around stories like Joseph Duncan and the Groene murders. Anyone who watched more than 30 seconds of a news story was quickly made aware to the fact that he had been previously convicted and had recently been arrested (and released on bond) for sexual offenses. There was an increase in attention to cases that seemed to highlight today's routine of "catch and release, and catch again" when it comes to sexual offenders.
Early in March, the nation watched in shock and horror as Jessica Marie ``Jessie'' Lunsford was reported missing, only to be found days later- sexually assaulted and murdered at the hands of another previously convicted sex offender, John Couey.
We also heard reports of Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller, a serial child molester who police say may have had over 30,000 victims, and was also a convicted sex offender- who had failed to register.
Now, recalling some of these cases, and knowing that there were so many more that I could have mentioned- put your mind back to where it was last year. Pretend that you are sitting in your home, and you read that a convicted sex offender has been arrested... he is a twice convicted sex offender, recently released from treatment after having convinced a judge that he is no longer a threat. The news story says that he approached a 11 year old boy and attempted to convince the child to return to the offenders home.
The news starts to spread, and you read about how the offender was said to have "showed a "large degree of impulsive behavior" and to "display deviant sexual arousal" around the time of his release". They mention violent sexual behaviors. You realise that he lived just blocks from your house.
Time goes by, you flip on the television to see headlines about Duncan, Couey, Schwartzmiller and many others. In the back of your mind you think about the local man, how he was also a convicted offender... how close he lived... how he was caught...how his trial is approaching. And then one day, you get a summons to court for jury duty. You pass the requirements of both the defense and state. Soon, you're sitting in a court room with 11 other people, listening to the case about your local sex offender, and how he tried to lure another child into being a victim.
You're on the jury. You get to decide this already convicted offenders fate. In good faith, you should be deciding verdict according to the merits of the case. You listen to testimony, remain completely focused as evidence is presented. You stare at the accused as the trial goes on, trying to read his expression- looking for something to tip you off as to what he is thinking. Closing arguments are compelling from both the State and the defense counsel, their words play over and over in your head. The twelve jurors, including yourself make way into a closed room, you have to decide guilt or innocence.
Now, here is the all important question, what moves you to vote "guilty"? Do the headlines of other, worse crimes committed by other previously convicted offenders, come to mind? Does how this man had convinced a judge he wasn't a threat, was released and then quickly caught again remind you of how Joseph Duncan walked out of a jail on bond shortly before going on his cruel assault against an innocent family? Do you sit and think of all the times an offender re offends, after being released? Do you wonder about how many victims you could prevent if you vote guilty for this deviant? Is the fear of what could have happened had this man not been caught, lurking in the back of your mind? Are you able to completely block out every media report, every fear of the "child predators" that has been burned into you after countless horrific and shocking stories?
What is the motivation, the reasoning behind how you decided innocence or guilt?
Categories: predators, misc
Comments