No Second Chances !

  Let me begin by saying that for the most part I believe everyone deserves a second chance. But when it comes to these monsters that prey on innocent children, well I guess I have to say, I can’t see much sence in giving them a second chance to destroy the life of another child.

  At the present time there is a lot of talk in the local community about how to treat these monsters. This is because of the case of Dr. Bradley who it seems may have raped over a hundred children , some as young as just a few months old. If this is not the definition of pure evil then I’m not sure what is. There is also the case of Sarah Foxwell, the eleven year old Salisbury girl who was kidnapped and murdered by the former boyfriend of her guardian who was also a twice convicted sex offender and listed as a high risk on the sex offender registry. We have also heard now of a fifty-seven year old man in Dover who molested a seven-year old girl, he too was a registered sex offender.

 I think we can clearly see that registering these monsters does nothing to stop them from repeating their crimes. All too often they fail to register and are lost to the system until they are caught for another offense.

 So what is the answer? Well tougher laws that keep these evil animals away from society is a good start.

  I believe that anyone who would rape or molest  a child under the age of twelve should be eligible for the death penalty. Anyone who would rape or molest a child between the age of thirteen and eighteen should receive a life sentence.

  Currently Delaware State Representative John Atkins is proposing legislation that he says is intended to make Delaware the most un-welcome place for sex offenders. I commend Mr. Atkins for being out front on this issue.

  He has proposed several new laws and enhancements to existing laws to achieve his goal.

  First he is calling for truth in sentencing, so that a twenty year sentence means they serve twenty years. The problem is what we need are mandatory sentences with no discretionary powers for the liberal judges that might be hearing the case. That is up to the legislature to set.

 Mr. Atkins is calling for a life sentence for a second offense, well I have already stated that I do not feel that they should be allowed out to have a second chance. Again we need sentences that keep these animals away for life  at a minimum.

 And this is where I think Mr. Atkins has gone in the wrong direction, he proposes repeat and high risk offenders to have a special mark on their drivers licenses, on their car license plate, he wants them to register their Internet domain names and chat room identities, and he wants those who are to be released from prison to be chemically castrated.

 The trouble with all of Mr. Atkins proposals, is that they still allow these monsters to move among the rest of civilized society.

  What we need are laws, that once these monsters are identified , they are never allowed to be around normal people again. There should never be a repeat offender. I say that once you have proven that you can not be trusted around children and others, that you should be locked up at the very least, and put to death for crimes such as Dr. Bradley has been accused of. And one other thing, when we send them to prison, let them fend for themselves among the general population. No special treatment or security for them. Let them know how it feel to be the prey.

  In Africa they kill man-eating lions , right here in America we put down dangerous dogs that attack people, how is this any different from these animals who rape and murder the weak and innocent ?

  This is not a criticism of Mr. Atkins or his attempt at doing something about this problem, I just personally do not think that he has gone far enough.

  And if our legislature can’t keep these monsters away from us, then turn them over to us. I’m sure that if  after they are convicted by a jury, if the state would announce a time and date, and a location for releasing these animals, I suggest somewhere around Bridgeville or Gumboro, that there are some fathers out there that will know how to deal with these rabid dogs.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “No Second Chances !”

  1. Sheeple Herder Says:

    Your post highlights the ignorance of the public in general. You did get one thing right the registry laws are a proven dismal failure yet your solutions seem to betray more about your “thug mentality” rather than offer any real solutions.

    “I believe that anyone who would rape or molest a child under the age of twelve should be eligible for the death penalty. Anyone who would rape or molest a child between the age of thirteen and eighteen should receive a life sentence”

    Shall we exucute a twelve year old boy for playing doctor with his 11 yo friend? Shall we send a 19 yo to prison for life because he had sex with his 17 yo g/f?

    Shall we haul all those teen “sexters” away to the gallows? Those who might have said somthing sexual to someone underage on the internet yet never met the person?

    Like many social Ill’s this issue is complicated and not black and white and and requires thought. The Dr. Bradley case everyone can agree on this guy should be in prison forever no parole also the man in the Foxwell case will recieve the death penalty if found guilty no problems there.

    The thing that is leading our nation on a path to hell is this “one size fits all” RSO registry that puts the Foxwell killer on the registry right next to a Romeo and Juliet offender who is right next to some older guy that had consensual sex with an underage female.

    All of those cases are different and require different punishments and different supervision yet the ignorant among us simply see the word’s “Sex Offender” and assume their all the same and a gleefull hoard of politicians eagerly panders to those fears with an ever more unconstitutional and ridiculous list of laws that accomplish absolutely nothing and in fact may even increase sex crime .

    I lean mostly to the right with my politics yet it blows my mind how everyone both left and right assumes that somehow the government got this one right?

    The registry is a purely political device that is much more about ratings and votes than protecting children and it’s so much easier to grab your “torch and pitchfork” rather than discuss rational solutions that might actually decrease the number of sex crimes in our country.

    I would advise you to do 10 minutes of reasearch on this subject you will find that over 90+% of all sex crimes are comitted by someone with no criminal record that is known to the victim such as the good Doctor.

    If we executed all 1 million RSO’s you could expect to enjoy a 3.5-5% decrease in overall sex crimes and while that bloodbath might make many feel better it will not make any real difference in the number of new sex crimes so I ask is it the goal of a society based on the rule of law to seek bloodthirsty revenge against criminals or to protect it’s children from new sex crimes?

    This is a very complicated issue way to much for any one blog posting but I hope I havent offended you as I try to inject a little logic and sanity into your “Kill em all” rant.

  2. JohnDoeUtah Says:

    Some of your post seems to instruct violence and vigilantism. Be warned that the First Amendment Right to Anonymous Speech is not absolute. Some of what you say here could be used against you later down the road if this blog is ever connected with an act of violence against a former offender; both civilly and criminally. All it takes is a Warrant or Subpeona to find out your true identity. So, with that, be warned – and watch your tongue. Its ok to have an opinion, and voice it, but not all speech is protected under our constitution.

  3. Lmom Says:

    One of my children was molested, and at the time I found out, it was a good thing that the molester, a family member, was out of my reach, as I would probably have strangled him on the spot. However, I discovered that it was not as serious as I had at first thought. Indeed, the psychological damage done by his own biological father created much more harm than the mere touching by another family member.
    I wish it were possible to never have another child harmed. However, revenging ourselves on those who have behaved badly in a sexual manner, such as streaking, mooning, or even touching will not do anything to make children safer.
    We must make it easier for those who have unacceptable impulses to seek help with control before they act upon those impulses.
    We must also make treatment for those who have been offended against available, at reasonable cost, so that no one who has been offended against will have to suffer long-term consequences to their lives and mental health. We must learn to accept the advice of professionals concerning how each individual may best heal, even if it means doing something that goes contrary to what we feel is best, such as treatment that may include a restorative model.
    Too many children have been asked to make the choice between their own mental and emotional health and the imprisonment and banishment of someone that they love. This should not happen. Children deserve to be listened to. Children deserve to have their needs met. Children do not deserve to have to make a no-win choice. Children deserve to be free from abuse from the so-called justice system.
    Think, research, and don’t just put forth as severe a “solution” as this without looking at all sides of the problem.

  4. Smackdab Says:

    When someone starts using terms like “monsters” in their speech, I have to say – turn out the nite lite – there’s no such thing as “monsters”, dearie.

  5. frankknotts Says:

    Well, I’m glad to see that the those who would defend even the most evil among us have shown up.
    sheeple hearder ask whether we should send,”Those who might have said somthing sexual to someone underage on the internet yet never met the person?”, to the gallows. Well I don’t know if you know this or not sheeple hearder, if that is your real name, but that is illegal and usually leads to larger crimes. These people tend to escalate their behavior. They continually seek bigger and bigger thrills until they must act out their fantasies. So while the gallows may be extreme, certainly a good long jail sentense seems in order.
    I do agree that we need clarification of what is and is not a sex offender, a man pissing by the road is not, a man pissing in site of a school , may be. But once these monsters have touched and or raped a child then we need laws that keep them from having a second chance to do so.
    To JohnDoeUtah, who says, “All it takes is a Warrant or Subpeona to find out your true identity”, well coming from someone who is afraid to use their real name , I have to wonder, what are you hiding?
    Lmom says,”We must make it easier for those who have unacceptable impulses to seek help with control before they act upon those impulses.” This is nothing more than leftist feel good speak, these people who will escalate into full blown sexual predators , will not seek out help in the early stages, if for no other reason than the taboo that is affiliated with these acts. And even if they did , it doesn’t address those who have acted upon their perverted urges and the fact that they should not be allowed a second chance to hurt another child , just to ease your conscience.
    Smackdab says,”When someone starts using terms like “monsters” in their speech, I have to say – turn out the nite lite – there’s no such thing as “monsters”, dearie.” Well if you don’t believe people such as Dr. Bradley and Thomas Leggs Jr. are monsters and evil then you are just a fool or maybe a monster yourself.

  6. Chris Slavens Says:

    Any blog post about sex offenders attracts sex offenders. Groups like Citizens For Change, Oklahoma, regularly search for blogs that cast sex offenders in a negative light. When we talk about sexual offenses against children, I think it’s important to use the term “child molesters” instead of “sex offenders,” as it excludes those inevitable cases of the 19-year-old and 17-year-old (not illegal in DE or MD), and innocent kids playing “doctor.” There are plenty of sex offenders that have been convicted based on false testimony or legal technicalities, but someone that has truly molested a child deserves no second chance.

  7. Smackdab Says:

    Well said, Chris Slavens. I couldn’t agree more.

    I’ve witnessed a false accusation – I saw how easy it is to convict an innocent person.

    You want to worry about ‘monsters’, Frank Knotts, let’s take a peek under the bed for a moment.

    “Guilty until proven guilty” rules the day in court. For the first time in the history of mankind; “Children don’t lie”.

    What sort of ‘monster’ would put a child up to making a false accusation?

    A vindictive ex spouse? False accusations abound in custody disputes, Mr. Knotts. A mentally unbalanced person, such as the mother who started the McMartin preschool fiasco? Persons who’s career will be rewarded, such as social workers, therapists,Law enforcement, advocates, prosecutors, Judges? Someone seeking monetary gain, such as Michael Jackson’s accuser? A truly abused child naming an innocent person out of fear or to protect their abusing parent?

    Do YOU feel perfectly safe from a false accusation? You shouldn’t.

    You realize you’ve decreed the victims of injustice are ‘monsters’ who don’t deserve a second chance – because they are legally declared ‘monsters’?

    Do you have such great confidence in our justice system you believe innocent people are never wrongly convicted? 10% of Illinois’ death row prisoners were found innocent by DNA testing – and those cases bear the HIGHEST standard of proof. What percentage do you think “Children never lie” convictions are?

    The concept of sex offender ‘registries’ was founded by the greatest ‘monster’ of them all. Adolph Hitler. Unlike in our modern enlightened times, however, innocent people weren’t regularly accused and placed on registries as they are in our modern day witch hunts.

    Personally, I have far more fear of the Meth dealer monster, or the repeat drunk driver monster, or the false accuser monster than I do of the child molester monster.

    I watched my children – I never had a problem with molesters. I have no way to protect myself from drunk drivers or false accusers – not to mention the ignorant lynch-mob-mentality monster, such as yourself, Mr. Knotts.

    You need to label people ‘monsters’ Mr. Knotts? Look in the mirror.

  8. frankknotts Says:

    smackdab, you make some very good points, even though I find your defense of those who hurt children a little troubling. Why you have such a problem with the word monster when talking about people such as Dr. Bradley, caught on tape no less, and Thomas Leggs, is beyond me.
    And where is your compassion for the meth dealer that is framed by an over zealous police officer, or the drunk driver who is pulled over in front of his home after making it all the way home without hurting anyone? We can find excetions and grey areas in any case, but when it comes to people who have been convictied of abusing children , I happen top feel that it is not worth the risk to allow them a second chance to do so.

  9. Smackdab Says:

    First off, Frank, I’m a Constitutionalist – I’ve taken an oath to defend the Constitutional of the United States. You know, the one that says “Innocent Until Proven Guilty?”

    So I don’t know if Thomas Leggs is execution worthy or not…and neither do you since he hasn’t been convicted of anything.

    I’m not familiar with Dr.Bradley.

    I have a problem with the word ‘Monster’ because it smacks of ignorant, mindless witch hunting – which is incredibly rampant in this country right now.

    “Monster” is a term used to dehumanize human beings by apparently dehumanized human beings. YOU are the one proposing the killing of another person, Frank, perfuming the smell of death with the intent of ‘saving children’.

    How noble is that?

    I don’t defend people who harm children. I am a victim of child molestation myself. My father beat the man so badly he died a few days later. I don’t know what sort of child would rejoice in knowing someone died on their behalf. Would you, as a child?

    As far as my compassion for meth dealers, drunk drivers and the like goe – they harm, maim and kill FAR more children than sex offenders do, but somehow manage to get a free pass when it comes to getting the pitch fork and torch treatment.

    They need to qualify for the death penalty, too, since the death penalty seems to be your answer to society’s ills.

    The vast majority of child abuse convictions are not repeat offenders.

    Over 90% are first time family members or close and trusted aquaintances. You are talking about strapping Grampa on ‘ol Sparky , or giving Uncle Jim or cousin Cindi the needle.

    Oh what fun!

    Not to mention the largest growing segment of ‘sex offenders’ are children. America was the last civilized nation to stop executing juveniles, and now you wanna start the kiddie killing machine again.

    I don’t know what the answer is Frank – millions upon millions of dollars are flushed in the toilet registering, GPS-ing, spying and harassing those convicted of sex offences – nothing is done to find the cause, or preventative measures.

    So kids still get harmed. Neighbors spy and harass neighbors. Innocent people are beaten up and murdered because of a wrong address.

    And injustice is justified…’cause it “might” save just one child….

  10. frankknotts Says:

    “I have a problem with the word ‘Monster’ because it smacks of ignorant, mindless witch hunting – which is incredibly rampant in this country right now.” Well do tell smackdab, what would you call a man, a doctor no less who has molested and raped over a hundred children some as young as three months old. Now this is not my number and I am not guessing that Dr Bradley did these things, he filmed them . So what enlightened desciption would you use to describe him ?
    At some future time I may talk about drunk drivers deserving the death penalty, but for now I am interested in “MONSTERS” like Bradley.

    “And injustice is justified…’cause it “might” save just one child”, I will not apologize for advocating to save the life of even one child, be it from a “MONSTER” like Bradley or from the monsters who call themselves abortionist. Far too many enlightened people in this nation have decided to sacrifice the lives of innocents for the sake of seeming enlightened. And like so many who feel the need to defend the indefensible, you attempt to cloud the issue by accusing me of wanting to execute children. As for grandfathers who rape children, well age is no excuse for unexceptable behavior and they should be delt with however society deems suitable.

  11. Smackdab Says:

    Let’s put it this way, Frank –You are a man. I am a woman. The next time you take an airline flight, YOU will NOT be seated next to a child traveling alone….. but *I* will.

    Why? Because YOU are a potential “monster” and *I* am not.

    Men rape and molest. Women do not. Men are bad. Women are good.

    If you are cool with that, so am I.

    Protecting all children from you because of your gender ‘might’ save just one child. Allowing women to falsely accuse men of rape or child molesting without fear of prosecution also ‘might’ save one child.

    You DO realize this simple truth, do you not, Frank?

    As I told you, I was molested -by a stranger, no less – as a little girl, yet I don’t advocate ” monster” witch hunts, and don’t quite understand why you do. YOU are far most subject to becoming a legally decreed “monster” than I am.

    I’m a woman, a mother AND a Grandmother. If anyone should be on board with monster hunting, it would be me.

    But as a wife, sister, daughter, mother and mother in law of men – I live in fear.

    I’ve seen how easy it is to convict an innocent person of this horrible crime. I’ve seen the never ending hell the wrongly convicted are put through on the mere say so of a vengeful, mentally unbalanced woman.

    I’m not accusing you of wanting to execute children – but I don’t trust the ‘just us’ system in place it won’t happen one day. An elderly man in our town was arrested, convicted and jailed for ‘exposing’ himself to children. He is now a listed sex offender. His family pleaded for mercy – he had dementia and pee’d outside. NO MercY! NO second chances! Children Must Be Saved!!!

    There always has been and always be abberant criminals in society, Frank.

    The problem is no more and no less than it always has been, yet the fear, breast beating , and bloodletting has ramped up to an nsane level.

    I don’t know what profiteer is fueling this current sex offender hysteria, but ‘saving children’ is the excuse, not the truth.

    For these two ‘examples’ you present – one not even convicted yet and I never heard of the other, I can present hundreds if not thousands of undeserving people paying for their sins.

    I’m glad the McMartins and Buckeys weren’t executed. I’m glad the 40+ citizens of Wenatchee, WA weren’t executed. The witch hunt victims of Kern County, CA, or the Ameraults in Mass. All people convicted of raping children later found INNOCENT.

    I personally support the return to Constitutional due process so innocent people won’t find themselves facing the death penalty you are so fond of.

    I have often wondered how innocent people are being released from prison only after DECADES from DNA testing, while truly horrific people who MURDER are let out after a few years.

    WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?

    Not a peep of protest for the wrongfully convicted exonerated, but Frank wants people not even convicted yet executed.

    Maybe a call for ACCOUNTABILITY from those responsible is in order before supporting the death penalty option, don’t cha think? Frank? Who knows? The life you save might be your own.

  12. frankknotts Says:

    I do share you concern for those who are wrongfully imprisoned. I wish you shared my concern for the ones who are rightfully accused. You make the statement,”And injustice is justified…’cause it “might” save just one child”, so tell me what is the magic number of children saved that moves you to action ? And what would be your idea of justice for these people that you choose to have moving among us ? You list those wrongfully accused in an attempt to divert attention away from that which you find to difficult to address . You mention DNA evidence, well in today’s world it should be fairly reliable to convict someone of rape, according to you. If DNA is so reliable for freeing the innocent , then it should be just as reliable for convicting the guilty. If so , would you support a life sentense for a convicted rapist, if the DNA evidence showed positive ?

  13. Smackdab Says:

    The ‘magic’ number Frank?

    “Better that 9 guilty go free rather than convict an innocent person”.

    How does that work for ya?

    Not one child has ever proven ‘saved’ by the enormous money down the toilet or the Nazi era laws being enacted.

    Not one.

    Have you ever killed someone Frank, or had someone killed on your behalf? Most humane, decent people find it hard to live with. Think how you’d feel if you killed a child that ran in front of your car. It’s not your fault, but you ‘might’ feel bad it happened. It might be hard to live with. That burden is what you wish to impose upon a child.

    Killing molesters is discrimination. Drunk drivers, drug dealers, gangsters all damage lives or kill children – FAR more than molesters.

    Kill ’em. Kill ’em all.

    That’ll put an end to the problem!

    I have no problem with DNA convictions, Frank. MOST child accusations do not have evidence of any sort. It’s in fact RARE.

    I am posting information from an attorney’s site.

    Read it through, and then we’ll discuss what to do with ‘real’ offenders –

  14. Smackdab Says:

    The Elimination of Constitutional Rights
    Prosecutors and the child saving industry have convinced the legislature that merely creating hysteria is not enough to insure conviction for those accused. In addition, rights originally created in our constitution to protect the criminal defendants must be eliminated.

    The Rules to Have Changed to Secure Convictions
    All across our nation, state legislatures have supported child advocacy special interest groups. The following illustrates how constitutional rights have been taken away in child sexual assault trials:

    No Right to Confront Your Accuser:
    Criminal law codes have been rewritten to where in many cases, the child accuser does not have to appear in court and face the accused. Instead, the state can offer the child’s testimony through a video tape made by agents of the prosecution.

    “Hearsay Evidence”:
    Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” (Tex. Rules. Evid. 803 (2)). In Layman’s terms, “Hearsay” evidence is when a witness testifies about something they do not personally know, but were told by someone else. Hearsay is considered unreliable and is normally inadmissible as evidence against an accused. In child abuse cases however, hearsay evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. A so called “outcry” witness can testify as to what a child supposedly said to them regarding the alleged abuse.

    “Syndrome Evidence” Is Admissible Against the Accused:
    In most states, the prosecution can have an expert witness testify that the child is suffering from “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome”(CSAAS). This psychological “mumble jumble” is an unscientific theory of supposed traits of abused children. The psychologist who came up with this syndrome many years ago has since indicated that this theory is not reliable evidence in a court of law. Prosecutors do not care! This junk science makes its appearance in courtrooms across the country daily.

    With Syndrome Evidence, the State Replaces Its Lack of Real Proof with Speculation.
    CSAAS theorizes that because an alleged victim is supposedly demonstrating certain behavioral patterns that he/she must have actually been abused. Unfortunately, a big problem with this and other syndromes is that the character traits offered to show abuse are also common for non-abused children. If the child has been crying, he/she must have been abused. If the child has nightmares, he/she must have been abused. If the child is withdrawn, he/she must have been abused. If the child is outgoing, he/she must have been abused. If the child is happy around the accused, its because the child enjoyed the abuse. The list of factors goes on forever. But to a jury, when an expert witness is connecting typical childhood behavior with indicators of abuse, the testimony is extremely damaging to the falsely accused.

    Convictions Without Physical Evidence:
    Our prisons are full of persons who have been convicted of child molestation without any physical evidence ever introduced against them at trial. In other words, the typical evidence in which the state offers to convict a defendant, such as body fluids, blood, semen, hair, DNA, are not introduced at trial to link the accused to a crime.

    Medical nurses and employees whose livelihoods depend upon their contracts with child advocacy centers will give opinions that a child was abused. Failure to give the right opinion will mean the contract is not renewed. These opinions from medical “experts” will say the findings are “consistent with” sexual abuse. Of course, “consistent with” is not a true medical diagnosis. This testimony, as demonstrated by a competent defense attorney will reveal the findings given as “consistent with abuse” are just as “inconsistent with abuse”.

    Prosecutors Secure Convictions by Manipulating the Juries’ Fear of

    Releasing a Child Molester Back Into the Community.

    Instead of physical and medical evidence, the falsely accused are convicted upon theories, inferences, and speculation. Prosecutors secure convictions by manipulating the juries fear of releasing a child molester back into the community. This fear will be combined with hearsay, expert witness “syndrome evidence”, misleading medical testimony, and the biased opinions of child advocacy investigators.

    To support this speculation, a biased child protective services caseworker will produce a video taped interview of the child. This biased interviewer will use leading, suggestive, and coached questions to easily obtain an “admission” from a child. Many times the child does not make a statement that abuse occurred, but merely agrees with the adult authority figure who informs the child of the abuse.

    After an outcry, it is easy to find witnesses who can place the accused in circumstances in which he was alone with the alleged victim.

    The system is not on your side. At Stuckle & Ferguson, we beleive in your innocence. The time to act is NOW! Contact Us for an evaluation of your case.

  15. frankknotts Says:

    “At Stuckle & Ferguson, we beleive in your innocence. The time to act is NOW! Contact Us for an evaluation of your case.” I have to ask smackdab was this just part of an article or do you work for a law firm ?I will hold my reply for your answer.

  16. Smackdab Says:

    If I worked for a lawfirm, Frank, I would probably be a cheerleader for the greatness of the just us system.

    Here’s one of them ‘convicted’ sex offenders that needs executin’.

    Git a rope, Frank!

    (Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs).

    Accusers as “victims”: A case study of the David Dutt trial

    © 2009 William N Grigg, Pro Libertate

    Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.

    One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity…[A]t the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
    Deuteronomy 19:15

    May 21, 2009 — It would hardly be difficult to convict any man of child sex abuse if the prosecutor were provided with the following advantages:

    • The accuser would be designated a “victim,” and referred to as such in pre-trial hearings and during the trial, thereby leaving jurors predisposed to accept her allegations as fact;

    • The trial judge grants a prosecution motion in limine (a request to exclude “prejudicial” evidence) forbidding the defense to call witnesses whose first-hand testimony would impeach the credibility of the accuser;

    • In similar fashion, the judge prevents the defense from “prejudicing” the jury against the “victim” by referring to at least one previous occasion on which she made a false allegation of abuse;

    • The accuser/ “victim” is permitted to change critical, materially relevant details of her story without being accused of perjury or simply impeached as unreliable;

    • Even as the judge carefully shields the “victim” from adversarial scrutiny, he permits the prosecution to mention that the defendant had previously been the subject of an abuse investigation, without being charged, prosecuted, or convicted of any offense;

    • Most egregiously, the judge permits the prosecution to present an “expert” witness to explain how the critical piece of exculpatory evidence in a child rape trial — a gynecological examination of the accuser showing perfectly normal physical development, including an intact hymen — was actually a common finding in child sexual abuse cases.

    Indeed, just as the notorious “magic bullet” of Daley Plaza managed to defy established laws of physics, changing directions several times without losing its lethal velocity, the accuser’s virginal membrane possessed magical properties that permitted it to survive repeated episodes of full intercourse forced upon the girl by her step-father, which supposedly began when the accuser was 12 and the accused was in his late 20s.

    It is possible, albeit monumentally improbable, that a young girl could endure multiple sexual violations, including incestuous intercourse, without enduring physical trauma of the sort revealed in a detailed gynecological examination.

    In the absence of corroborating evidence, however — such as eyewitness testimony, photographs, video, or perhaps an item of intimate apparel infused, Clinton-style, with DNA from the accused — a normal examination should be enough to shut down a prosecution cold. All that would be left is the word of the accuser, which — under the tenets of Western law as old as Moses — is not enough to secure a conviction.

    Yet it’s likely that every week, if not every day, people (usually men, although women are hardly immune) are convicted of sex crimes and sent to prison following “trials” that follow the template described above.

    The word of a single accuser is considered the self-ratifying testimony of the “victim,” exculpatory physical evidence is suppressed or explained away; the defense is forbidden to impeach the credibility of the accuser, while the prosecution is free from any similar restrictions in assailing the character of the accused; and a presumption of guilt informs the entire proceeding.

    Often such trials partake of “magical thinking” of the sort that led credulous officials in 17 th Century Salem to accept “spectral evidence” — dreams and visions in which the disembodied spirits of the accused supposedly committed vile acts while their physical bodies were in another location — as a valid rebuttal to an otherwise unassailable alibi.

    Once those convicted in such “trials” serve their sentences, most of them — including at least some people who are victims of grotesque injustice — can be designated “sexually dangerous persons” who will never fully regain their freedom. In fact, a law enacted in 2006 permits the open-ended “civil confinement” of paroled sex offenders within the federal prison system. This amounts to a potential life sentence inflicted on the basis of crimes yet to be committed, since “civil confinement” only begins after the detainee has served the prescribed sentence for the crimes of which he was convicted.

    Some innocent people caught in the coils of this system find themselves in a uniquely painful predicament: To obtain parole and a chance to rebuild their lives, they must allocute to the offense for which they were convicted.

    In some cases, this confession is coupled with a polygraph examination, which puts genuinely innocent people in an inescapable double-bind: If they assert their innocence, they will be denied parole; if they falsely confess to the charges, they’ll most likely fail the polygraph examination, with the same result.

  17. frankknotts Says:

    I have yet to deny that mistakes are made. Your example would lead me to believe that in that case the judge was in large part at fault if the accused was innocent and found guilty. It would seem as though you feel that every victim is a potential liar, that all of those accused are innocent. You seem to be okay with allowing the real monsters to roam free among us ,so as to assure that no one is every wrongfully charged. I do agree that to imprison even one person for that which they did not do is a gross miscarriage of justice and that we should take all precautions to insurew that it doesn’t happen.
    That being said, it doesn’t change the fact that we need stronger penalties for these crimes against the most innocent and vulnerable among us. That we must insure that those who commit these most heinous of crimes , can never again harm a child. Anyone who does not understand the need for this, needs to carefully examine their motivations.

  18. Smackdab Says:

    Don’t put words in my mouth, Frank.

    “Innocent until proven guilty” pretty much says that yes, indeed, accusers are potentially lying, and yes, the accused are potentially innocent.

    Much smarter people than you or I can up with that concept, Frank.

    Since ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is no longer a due process right – because it ‘might’ save just one child ‘ – and those found making false accusations are not prosecuted, I DO think the possibility of innocent people being executed is very real – which is why I do not espouse the idea.

    The laws have changed DRAMATICALLY since the 1980’s, with much stiffer penalties. It hasn’t changed the crime stats one iota. Millions of dollars, and countless innocent lives devastated with no positive results.

    The ‘once child’ is not only not being ‘saved’ but being put on sex offender registries themselves.

    But yet you bleat on and on…without carefully examining your own motivations.

    Set your thuggish murdering mentality aside for a moment, Frank, and maybe you can come up with a solution that might actually save children…

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: