This piece originally appeared at the National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws site. What Luke Heimlich did was wrong and deeply disturbing. It also sounds like it was not a one-off. But he was punished, he was treated, and he has not re-offended. If he hadn’t slipped up on an administrative issue — missing a registration date — he would be going on with his life.
How does “outing” him make anyone safer? And if it doesn’t, then what’s the point, other than shame and vengeance? Who do we allow to redeem themselves, and who do we condemn forever?
Foul ball! Oregonian drags pitcher through the mud
By Sandy….
At 15, Luke Heimlich committed a crime; he inappropriately touched a young female relative, age 6. He pled guilty and was sentenced to two years, which was served in a probated term. He successfully completed the probation and a two-year course of sex offender therapy. He is ranked as level 1 — someone the least likely to commit an additional sexual offense. He has had no additional offenses.
Now he is 21, a student at Oregon State University, a member of their men’s baseball team — the number-1 ranked team in college baseball — and their top-ranked pitcher.
A brilliant career in professional baseball lies ahead of him; he’s rated number 43 for the upcoming MLB draft by Baseball America.
He recently failed to renew his sex offender registration within ten days of his birthday, an oversight that was quickly remedied with minimal legal consequences but has the potential for destroying his life in the real world.
The local media, the Oregonian, discovered the charge of failure to register and printed an article about Luke’s status as a registered sex offender.
The school has issued statements speaking of their concern for the safety of all students, the rights of those on the registry to attend college and participate in sports, and the fact that the criminal matter has been previously addressed and satisfied by the judicial system in the state of Washington.
Rumors are flying that he may be refused his right to participate in the MLB draft.
If, at 15, Luke had been seriously addicted to drugs, had gone through rehabilitation, and was now totally drug-free, the evils of drugs would be proclaimed by all, and he would be touted for his courage in overcoming them and possibly asked to speak to high school anti-drug assemblies across the state.
If he had killed someone at age 15, been sentenced, served his sentence, and subsequently been accepted at university and became a baseball star, the wild impetuousness of teenagers would be blamed, and he would be held up as a role model for overcoming his delinquent beginnings with determination and hard work.
But Luke didn’t take drugs. He didn’t kill someone. He didn’t commit armed robbery or set buildings on fire or slaughter puppies and kittens. He touched a child.
And then, because his crime was sexual, he was required to put his name, year after year after year, on a registry, a registry that says to the world, “I am dangerous; I am a threat to your safety and your children’s safety and the safety of everyone who comes within my proximity.”
Editors of the Oregonian, in an attempt to justify their choice to print the story, wrote, “Our society decided long ago that sex offenders should carry the burden of their conviction well after their sentences end — and that juvenile sex crimes should follow offenders into adulthood.”
Has not our society also decided that rehabilitation and re-entering society as productive citizens were the hoped-for outcomes of punishment — and that those who erred, especially juveniles, deserve a second chance?
Statistically, Luke’s risk to commit another sexual offense is the same as someone who has never previously been charged with one. Legally, he has satisfied the court-ordered punishment for his crime. Logically, his efforts and his determination have earned him the respect of his peers and authority figures and the place he holds as a rising star. But realistically, because he is required to put his name on a registry declaring him a sexual criminal, his future is in jeopardy. His ability to pursue his career is in jeopardy. His ability to live his life as a productive member of society is in jeopardy due to the eternal and everlasting punishment that is the sex offender registry.
The Cubs’ general manager, Jed Hoyer, has announced the Luke is “off” the Cubs’ draft board. – L
.
153 Comments
Yeah, sorry, but no. Sexual abuse of a child is not a one-off thing, and it’s not a thing that goes away. We don’t actually know if he has never reoffended again, because that’s the thing about child molesters – they’re excellent at carrying out what they do for a very long time without being caught. Look at Jerry Sandusky: it took over 60 years for him to get busted. And speaking of Jerry Sandusky, there’s also no way to know if this kid has been caught, but it’s just been swept under the rug by university officials in the name of preserving everybody’s reputation. Do we really want to risk *decades* of children being molested on the off-chance that this kid is the one rare case of a person who never reoffends? I wouldn’t risk my children on it.
Hey, “No More Victims”? Congratulations, you’re exactly the kind of paranoid, unforgiving idiot that’s responsible for all the bullshit blanket laws we’re dealing with right now! I really hope none of your kids, if you have any, ever does anything that puts them on a list like this. Methinks your hypocrisy will really show then! (By the way, real subtle nickname you have there. It really shows you’re unbiased, objective and rational. Or maybe just too cowardly to put your actual name? In any case, why the hell are you visiting this page? Sounds to me like you’d better serve the “other guys”!)
To No More Victims: I certainly agree with your user name, but you need to know that your name and the position you have taken on it are in opposition with each other.
The science is clear: the best way to assure no more victims is to move from a system where the focus is on the perpetrator — severe punishment, tracking, monitoring every move, and limiting participation in most of life — and the focus moves instead to a model that appropriately punishes and then provides maximum opportunities for former offenders to be rehabilitated and build connections and relationships within a law-abiding community. The true focus then shifts to where it should have been all along: on former, present, and future victims. This involves money spent on victims’ services focusing on recovery and on research-based prevention initiatives in schools.
This position is consistent with the empirical evidence: virtually all sexual abuse of children and teens is committed not by someone on the sex offender registry but rather by those already in the victims’ lives in close positions, predominately their family members, peers, and authority figures. Re-offense rates for former offenders living in the community vary among sub-groups, but are across the board between 1 and 6 or 7% in virtually every follow-up study done, both before and after the registry came into existence. Luke Heimlich was legally a child himself when this occurred. More study has been done on juvenile offending than any other sub-group. Motivation is almost always curiosity and experimentation and not predatory. Treatment programs are extremely effective with youth. Re-offense rates are extremely low.
As long as we persist with the model we have, nothing will change; there will continue to be victims. If we want to chance that dynamic, we must change how we address it. We must do what science shows us to be effective.
I don’t buy the “curiosity and experimentation” argument when it’s a 15 year old molesting a 6 year old. A 15 year old should be cognizant that fondling a small child is incredibly wrong and can affect the child for the rest of his/her life – all in the name of a teen’s “curiosity”. Yeah, no. To be blunt, if Luke was in my social circle or family, he’d never be allowed anywhere near my daughters.
That said, I don’t think his future should be destroyed because he’s a sex offender versus a drug dealer or murderer. In either of those other two cases, the public might have no idea of his past because juvenile records are sealed (except apparently for sex offenders). He served his sentence, he should be able to move on.
I am biased. I am the victim of childhood sexual abuse by a family member living with us. It first happened when I was 3 or so, early memories are tainted by it, and ended when I was 10. He also abused 3 out of 6 of my childhood friends that slept over. I suspect 3 were safe because he was friends with their older siblings. It mostly ended when the neighbor, a friend, who had slept over, reported it. He was 17. He was arrested and charged, but charges were dropped. I was interviewed by cps. I lied. He had brainwashed me and threatened my pets, parents, and friends. I was too afraid to be honest. He got away with it because I directly contradicted what the neighbor girl said happened..
The record of the charge was expunged.
My parents never even asked me. They were pleased it supposedly wasn’t true.
So on went life until I was 17 and suffering from mental health issues, mainly anxiety. I tried to bring it up with my parents. They were accepting of anxiety but when I tried to hint at the abuse they shut me down. They told me not to dredge up things. I was upset but listened. When I was in my mid 20s I was doing much better. Then I had my first child and the sexual abuse came to the fore. The birth brought back the anxiety with a vengeance and added in a case of PTSD. The psychologist thought that my previous abuse did give me PTSD as a child and teen given my descriptions and that it was triggered by the birth, by unwanted touching. I suffered sexually and mentally. It’s tough to stay married when you feel like your hubby touching you is a pervert and it triggers revulsion. He was really not looking forward to the birth of our second, but this time I allowed no one to touch me without consent. The PTSD did not recur to this degree and my mental and sexual health is better.
I thought about bringing charges, as I still could. 20 years later with no evidence and no witnesses it would be a waste of police time. Especially considering my mental health issues in the past would be used to paint me as unstable. I’ve tried to contact his victims. One is severely mentally ill, one would not speak to me, and one I couldn’t find.. I couldn’t find the victim that reported him. I want to apologize to her and offer to make this right. My hubby and family do not want me to contact her. It’s not up to them.
The thing about sexual abuse is that it lives with me. The abuse didn’t just happen and then I got therapy and moved on. It’s not that simple. It is like a giant scar that still burns and itches sometimes. I can’t think about my childhood and not think about it. My beautiful childhood has a hideous monster hiding in it in a variety of places. I have under control PTSD, but it’s still there. I still worry for his other victims and think weekly about the one that I failed. She was so brave, and I such a coward.
Anyway, what makes you think this young man is rehabilitated unlikely to reoffend? Because he hasn’t been caught doing anything else? I’m sorry, but someone capable of touching a child when they know full well the age difference makes it wrong has something wrong with them in my view.
The family member that hurt me never seemed to touch another child that I know of.. But he physically abused me. And, his first wife, that he married at 18, she left him and cited sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. His next wife found child pornography on his computer and reported it anonymously. She told him for some reason. He strangled her, threatened her with a gun, and destroyed the evidence. He was investigated but not charged. She is in the process of divorcing him and has told me horrible sexual, physical, and mental abuses he inflicted on her.
He now lives with a friend, a friend with a family that has a prepubescent daughter in the home. Now, tell me that if he’d been convicted 20 years ago that this family has no right to know who is in their home. Tell me as if it was your daughter. Heck, I think they should know he was charged and why the charges were dropped. Insufficient evidence. I dropped them an anon note in the mail telling them to be careful who they let live in their home. His wife called me saying he thought it was her and he was livid but she convinced him it wasn’t her, now he thinks it was his ex wife that he is many states away from, what was I thinking.. He sweet talked his way out of it. I hope however that they they are watching him more closely now.
So, you seem to have an opinion, and I have one too. Everyone should know about these foul acts. The victim deserves that peace of mind that she or he doesn’t have to be the one to warn people about who precisely they are inviting into their home. Sometimes they change, but in my experience they just get better at hiding. People deserve to know and be on guard and extra careful.
Actually, people can be rehabilitated. Often, those who sexually abuse a child have been abused themselves. It does not make it okay, but it is still a learned behavior that can be replaced with healthy behaviors. If he has taken responsibility for what he has done and gone through the necessary steps of rehabilitation as well as serving whatever his sentence was then we need to help him to reenter society. That does not mean that he is completely off the hook, but it does mean that we allow him to live his life so long as he is showing he remains low risk. For those of you that are against this, I will put this to you: at 13 a boy molested a 5 year-old girl. It caused physical pain. He threatened the safety of her family if she said anything. He knew full-well that he had done something wrong. The mother and father of the girl knew the family of the boy well. They were a good family and he was, in general, a decent kid. They fought for him to get counseling. If that was your 13 year-old son, would you want his entire life destroyed, or would you want him to get help so that he could move on and be a productive member of society? Even as someone that is close to the victim and her family, I want the latter.
“If, at 15, Luke had been seriously addicted to drugs, had gone through rehabilitation, and was now totally drug-free….”
Well, that’s the thing about drug addiction, one is never truly drug-free. There’s a reason we talk about “recovering” rather than “recovered” addicts. It’s something that remains a part of the addict’s life forever because the urge to abuse their substance of choice will always be there to a greater or lesser extent. That’s why recovering addicts are strongly encouraged (and sometimes court mandated) to stay away from triggering situations. Willpower alone is rarely enough to keep an addict clean – it usually requires a complete lifestyle change and a great deal of support.
The same is true of sex offenders. The urge to abuse is always there, it’s just a matter of what opportunity the person has to offend. I don’t trust any offender’s willpower, much less his word as far as re-offending. I basically agree with Another Katie that continuing to ruin Luke’s life doesn’t make sense, but on the other hand, he can never be let off the hook either. Missing a registration deadline isn’t just an “oops”, as anyone in AA or NA or any other recovery group could tell you. It’s something that needs to be constantly monitored and addressed. He was not just an innocent kid who “made a mistake”. He was plenty old enough to know what he was doing and the devastation it could cause. I hate the term “sex offender” because it’s really not about sex – it’s about power and control. At 15 he took control of a 6 year old girl, knowing he was hurting her (and apparently did it more than once). That kind of thing doesn’t just go away just because someone has been through the justice system and gotten therapy.
I live in Eugene, Oregon and have thought about this case quite a bit. I was also molested when I was a girl by two teenage relatives. In my case, they were never charged with a crime. An adult found out what was going on with me, my sister, and other young female relatives. The adults put a stop to the behavior. I don’t know if the relatives went on to commit additional deviant acts. Neither have ever been arrested or accused of such since. I am now in my 40s and both men are in their 50s.
I also have two daughters myself. If that happened to them, what would I want?
Although I am sure my experience had an impact on me, I really didn’t experience and major trauma over it. Kids are resilient, you know. I tend to think that kids who commit crimes should have a chance to have their record expunged as adults. I think so in the case of the baseball player as well. I fail to see how his registration as a sex offender would make anyone more safe.
The response of the media and quite a few commenters to the various articles published on this subject really shed a huge amount of light on the issue of sexual offending and the aftermath. To the average citizen who is not educated on such matters the answer is pretty much cut and dried, meaning that in their opinion all people who commit sex offenses are pedophiles or sexual predators — that’s far from the truth. To throw those terms around so loosely is damaging to all concerned.
The facts are clear if one keeps and open mind about it, regardless of the type of sexual offense committed, the reoffense rate for former sexual offenders is very low once the individual is adjudicated. In the case of El, one of the commenters above, the one who committed the offense evidently never was adjudicated and evidently never received punishment or treatment — you can correct me if I’m wrong.
I know that sexual offenses are terrible crimes, especially those involving children, and the ripple effects are tremendous and can have enormous adverse effects on not just the victim but their families as well. What I don’t fully understand is why we want to elevate these adverse effects of these particular victims more so than we do for a whole host of equally horrendous crimes — many of which are also carried out against children. A few examples would be physical and mental child abuse, child murderers to name a couple. Is child sexual abuse really the most absolutely worst crime that can be committed? Why do we have to single out sexual offenders as the ones everyone must fear and know everything about?
Take murder for instance, that’s pretty final don’t you think? Did you know that their are people living among us who are certified psychopaths who are not on a registry but are known to people who are privy to that information. There’s no true cure for psychopathy that I’m aware but it is treatable to some extent. Yet we hear no great clamor about the potential harm that they can do to us. Sex is the difference here, put the word sex in a sentence and all of a sudden our ears perk up and our interest becomes keen.
Everyone who commits a crime against another person should be punished and once they do their adjudicated sentence then they should be allowed to get on with their lives. This national campaign against the citizens among us who commit sexual offenses and all of the specialized laws aimed at them should be halted and these laws should be abolished. Children of quite a few of these registered citizens are being adversely affected by these draconian laws — I don’t hear much from the former sex offender hate club about these particular children. Oh wait, those children don’t really matter because their daddy or mommy is a perverted sexual predator right?
We need a sense of sanity and clarity about this issue and not focus just on the emotional aspect of it. It’s a delicate subject — hell the politicians know this, the media know this, that’s one reason why we are caught up in directing such vitriol and hatred towards the offenders of this subject, we’ve been conditioned for many years to respond in like manner. Let’s break this habit and start looking at this as responsible adults.
I am an Oregon State University alum and my daughter will be, too, in a couple of weeks, so this is “close to home”, so to speak.
Random distribution suggests that the OSU student population contains around 70 RSOs. One of them happens to be a promising baseball player.
The point of registration is to limit re-offending. In most crimes, including sex offenses, the PRIMARY means of preventing re-offending is the criminal justice system; offenders are caught, tried, and then punishment is applied… fines or supervision for minor offenses, jail or prison for major. But in all but a few cases, prisoners are released; probation ends. This is where sex-offender registration comes into play. Registration provides a method by which the general citizenry can know who has offended, and take steps to protect themselves. A sex-offender who has attacked victims of convenience (as most have), should have limited future opportunities of convenience, and people who are aware of who the sex-offenders are can take steps to make sure that they (and their children) are not convenient victims.
Here’s what I mean. Suppose you have a child with a talent… musical, athletic, whatever. Professional coaching could help this child achieve at a very high level. Suppose there is a very good coach who has a history involving a sexual relationship with an underage student. You might still let this coach work with your child, but you will not leave them alone together. Or maybe you’ll choose a coach who doesn’t have such a history. By limiting the opportunities to re-offend, we limit re-offenses.
In this form, registration as a sex-offender is not cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment, because it isn’t punishment at all. However, some politicians in some states discovered that they could tack on other requirements beyond simple registration. And politicians in some states decided to add crimes to the list requiring registration where the additions don’t really require public notification (peeing on the wall behind a bar after the bar is closed is a sex crime?)
@ James Pollock,
Do you have credible empirically based statistics to back up what you are saying about reoffense rates for the citizens among us who have committed a sexual offense and have been adjudicated? I do, one is a DOJ study from 2003 that shows a 5.3% reoffense rate for a new sex offense. The California Department of Corrections recently released a study showing that less than 1% of the parolees convicted of sex offenses went on to reoffend sexually.
These are very low reoffense rates and do not mandate the level of attention that has been placed on one particular group of felons. The overwhelming majority, up to 99%, of new sex offenses are committed by those among us who are not on the registry — think about that for a second.
You state that the registry allows you to know who has committed a prior sex offense and thus allows you to protect yourself from that individual and then go on to say that it’s not a form of punishment. Tell that to Luke who may very well have any chance at continuing his baseball career as a result of this registry. It is indeed punishment and a growing number of courts are beginning to rule it as such. Registration is not “simple” as you label it. Registration does not just affect the former offender but also each and every member of his/her family including children. These children face alienation and bullying at their schools and have deep scars from being treated as such simply because one of their parents is on this registry. Does this not even matter to you James? Or are the only victims those who are sexually abused?
This whole approach to dealing with the citizens among who are former sex offenders has a huge amount of unintended consequences that comes along with it. It’s not near as cut and dried as you make it out to be James. You should probably have more concerns about the potential danger to your daughter from the frat parties and such that go on at colleges across the party than from someone such as Luke, who as statistics indicate, would have an extremely low likelihood to reoffend since he was adjudicated and went through treatment.
No More Victims, you voted trump didn’t you? I can always tell.
For this one post, please consider my handle to be “No More Nitwits”
Dear “No More Victims”,
If you want sexual abuse of a child to be punished by banking, have the courage to say to, and to hold the red hot in yourself. Otherwise please have the class to go climb a tree and stay there. The various ‘registries’ have become the modern, cowardly, version of the old practice of branding convicts, thus assuring that they would remain criminals for the remainder of their lives.
If you truly believe that sexual abusers of children never reform, then campaign to have them put away for life.
Dear HypocrisyEverywhere,
As it happens, I voted for Trump. Please cut back on your assumptions. I frankly suspect that No More Thought voted for Shrillary. She, after all, is the embodiment of the “The Government Knows Best” ethos.
“No More Victims, you voted trump didn’t you? I can always tell.”
Right, because Trump is very much concerned for victims of sex crimes.
*eyeroll*
“Do you have credible empirically based statistics to back up what you are saying about reoffense rates for the citizens among us who have committed a sexual offense and have been adjudicated?”
Since I didn’t say anything about reoffense rates, I guess, no, maybe? Or maybe yes? Your question doesn’t make any sense.
“The overwhelming majority, up to 99%, of new sex offenses are committed by those among us who are not on the registry — think about that for a second.”
Ah. So you’re arguing that registration works. Think about that for a second.
“You state that the registry allows you to know who has committed a prior sex offense and thus allows you to protect yourself from that individual and then go on to say that it’s not a form of punishment.”
No, actually, I didn’t.
“Tell that to Luke who may very well have any chance at continuing his baseball career as a result of this registry.”
Um, no. If he loses “any chance at continuing his baseball career”, it will be because of his own actions, his own choices. And, of course, he became the top pitcher on the top college baseball team in the country, all while on the registry. The poor guy.
“This whole approach to dealing with the citizens among who are former sex offenders has a huge amount of unintended consequences that comes along with it.”
Again, no. The consequences are fully intended. Politicians got the support they wanted by dumping crap on a disfavored minority. Not exactly a new play in the political playbook.
“You should probably have more concerns about the potential danger to your daughter from the frat parties and such that go on at colleges across the party than from someone such as Luke”
No, I have no concerns about either one. The one because my daughter wasn’t 6 when Mr. Heimlich was 15, taking her out of that particular victim demographic; the other because she can take care of herself.
And one PS:
“These are very low reoffense rates and do not mandate the level of attention that has been placed on one particular group of felons.”
Say, you DO know that several other types of felons are subjected to registries, right?
“Right, because Trump is very much concerned for victims of sex crimes.”
Trump isn’t much concerned with anyone who isn’t Trump.
But Trump SUPPORTERS projected a lot of things they wanted to see onto him, starting with basic competence for the job, whether it’s actually there or not.
Which is funny, based on the number of Republicans who complained that Democrats did the same thing for Barack Obama just 8 years prior.
FACT: Putin got just what he wanted.
@ James Pollock 12:22 pm
It’s quite evident from your response that you are indeed ignorant, and a liar at that. Anyone who can comprehend the meaning of my response to your first comment would agree. You did indeed say what I quoted you as saying.
Any further response from me in regards to your future comments would a waste of time since you evidently are 100% sure that your view on the matter is the only one that really matters. You certainly don’t give your other OSU alumni a glowing reflection as far as intellectual aptitude is concerned.
The same is true of sex offenders. The urge to abuse is always there, it’s just a matter of what opportunity the person has to offend.
There is no evidence whatsoever to back that up. Imagination, sure. Evidence? Nope.
The reoffense rate for sex offenders is very very low. It was very very low before registries, too. The registry is not preventing new offenses.
Typical “gotcha” story by struggling news print organization to try to make themselves relevant.
“Any further response from me in regards to your future comments would a waste of time”
Yes, indeed. As was the case with your prior endeavors.
“you evidently are 100% sure that your view on the matter is the only one that really matters.”
That’s funny, coming from the guy who couldn’t figure out what my view is.
“You did indeed say what I quoted you as saying.”
You, um, didn’t quote me. Have you been drinking?
El, your story is so horrifying and tragic; I am so very, very sorry that you went through such a horrible thing. It is exactly because of situations like yours that the entire system must change.The focus MUST switch to a victim-centered paradigm rather than a punishment one. Since he was never held accountable for his crimes and you were not able to tell the truth out of fear, he did not get help; more importantly, you did not get help. Think of how different your life would have been if prevention-education programs had been in place in your school, if you had received the message early on that telling trusted adults about the abuse would take away the power of the abuser to threaten you and continue the abuse. He would have received appropriate punishment, and the chances are high he would have stopped hurting others. Most abusers, once punished, do not re-offend. There are a small percentage who either cannot or will not change the behavior, but almost all do; based on some things you said, he may fall in this category. But most importantly, you would have received help. Once it comes out in the open, almost all victims are able to recover, especially when they are told that they can. Recover doesn’t mean forget; it means to move past it and not let it continue hurting you. It is important for you that you tell your story and be believed. I don’t believe in there being no statute of limitations on charges like this — it creates too many possibilities for miscarriages of justice — but in your family you need to be heard and believed, even if not everyone will support you. If possible, you need to confront him. I can almost assure you that once you have been open about it, you will find the past has lost much of its power to continue to hurt you. I pray for strength and blessings for you.
OK this is not compelling. You can’t blame the sex registry law for the fact that a “journalist” decided to smear somebody. That happens all the time regardless of sex offender registries.
I have to register all kinds of things regularly in order to have a career. I also have to take courses that have nothing to do with anything I have done or will do. Big whoop. I’m sorry, but a 15yo molesting a 6yo is not something to blow off. Remember the big stink that was made when it was discovered that Josh Duggar did exactly that? Well he’s a lot older than 21 and nobody felt sorry for him about being outed. (Myself included.)
Shame on the so-called “journalist” and all other journalists who get their jollies out of smearing people in ways that clearly do not make our society better.
And the reoffense rate of child sex offenses is NOT low. It’s actually unacceptably high.
I think if you molest a child, you lose the right to be in a role model type of occupation such as a baseball star. If he wants to move on in his life, fine. Be an accountant. But I am certainly not going to go to a game with my kids and cheer for the dude who ruined a 6 year old little girl’s life.
For the record, if he would have killed someone at 15, I would feel the same way.
@ SKL
Show us the empirical evidence to back up your assertion that adjudicated former sex offenders have a high rate of reoffense.
Yeah, the murder comparison is a bit ridiculous. If a 15yo was convicted of murder, the chances of him graduating from college as a star athlete at age 21 are approximately zero, because he would still be in the slammer until he was 21 or older (depending on whether he was tried as an adult).
And the drug comparison is ridiculous because drug abuse is a victimless crime; it’s really kind of insulting to imply that child molestation equates to that in any way.
George, here ya go. Scroll down to the part specific to child molesters. The rate of people who were again arrested within 15 years was 35% for boy victims, 16% for girl victims. I’ve seen other reports putting the rate about 20%. And obviously these numbers do not include the offenses that are not reported, which would be most of them.
https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html
Now to be fair, you please post proof that the recidivism rate is very low.
“The same is true of sex offenders. The urge to abuse is always there, it’s just a matter of what opportunity the person has to offend.”
That depends largely on why they abused to start with. A true pedophile is likely to always maintain a sexual attraction to young children. However, very few sex abusers are true pedophiles. There are many reasons that people sexually abuse that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sexual attraction and many of those issues can be resolved completely through therapy or sometimes simply through aging, especially when the aggressor is a child himself.
“Show us the empirical evidence to back up your assertion that adjudicated former sex offenders have a high rate of reoffense”
Congratulations! You found someone who ACTUALLY ASSERTED this claim this time!
You could start here:
“Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
That same article continues:
“The 15-year recidivism rate is 13 percent for incest perpetrators, 24 percent for rapists, and 35 percent for child molesters of boy victims.”
“Recidivism research is as difficult as it is important. For instance, although average rates tell us what percentage reoffends one or more times, we also need to be aware that a subset reof fends at a frighteningly high rate. In addition, there are reasons to think that published findings underestimate the true rates.”
Perhaps this statistic is more telling:
“Of the almost 9,700 sex offenders released in 1994, nearly 4,300 were identified as child molesters. An estimated 3.3 percent of the 4,300 released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years. Most of the children they were alleged to have molested after leaving prison were age 13 or younger.”
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
This page has a lot of analysis:
https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html
“Hanson, Scott, and Steffy (1995) found that child molesters had lower rates of overall recidivism (based on reconviction) than non-sex offenders (61.0 percent compared to 83.2 percent), but much higher rates of sexual recidivism (35.0 percent compared to 1.5 percent). Not all child molesters in the study, however, recidivated at the same rate. The highest rate of recidivism among child molesters in the study (77 percent) was found for child molesters with previous sexual offenses, those who were never married, and those who selected extrafamilial boy victims. In contrast, the long-term recidivism rate for child molesters categorized as low risk was less than 20 percent.”
@Kate,
You’re certainly entitled to your views as I am. Have you ever considered why you feel the way you do towards those who molest children? What makes this particular crime anymore heinous than other serious crimes against children.
There are parents who physically and mentally abuse children, they burn, cut, beat, lock into closets and cages. At this point most of those are not on any registry and the general consensus is that these offenders shouldn’t have their lives on publicly display and have any sense of normalcy removed from them as well as the innocent members of their families, including their children.
All crimes against anyone is tragic, especially against children but why the focus and spotlight on the sexual aspect of it?
SKL – Actually that is not what that article says at all. It says that statistics are essentially all over the place, with many differences depending on the type of sex crime and the sex of the perpetrator and the sex of the victim. I imagine that you would also see great differences depending on the age of the perpetrator, but they did not break the statistics down that far. It also states that sex offenders of all kinds are far more likely to commit another non-sexual offense than another sexual offense.
Further, since most sex offenders never get any form of sex offender treatment, the general statistics do not correctly portray the number of treated sex offenders who reoffend. Doing nothing other than throwing someone in prison and telling them not to reoffend (and then scratching our head wondering why they just don’t listen) – our basic approach to all criminal activity – still has a fairly low recidivism rate for sex offenses compared to other crimes, but imagine what the rate would be if we actually did something about addressing WHY they offended.
My point is trump’s campaign and presidency is driven by a fear of the boogie man. We need a wall, because immigrants are rapists and thieves. We need a Muslim ban because they are all terrorist or they are going to convert us to Sharia Law. trump was even talking about a Muslim registry early in campaign for American citizens who practice Islam. Its all based on fear and irrational thinking, much like the sex offender registries.
You are welcome.
“A 15 year old should be cognizant that fondling a small child is incredibly wrong and can affect the child for the rest of his/her life”
A 15 year old whose parents properly discussed sex should, in fact, know this. However, the level of sex education in the home varies wildly from family to family and it is very possible that any given 15 year old would not know this.
A true pedophile is no different to a gay person in that they can’t choose who they are attracted to.
And, like a gay person, you can’t ‘convert’ them. They will always be attracted to kids, its their sexuality; just as a gay man will always be attracted to other guys, its his sexuality.
Now we’ve come a long way in western societies approach to gayness which, in many countries, was a crime until relatively recently.
The decriminalization of homosexuality has been possible because of the introduction of the concept of consent, where two gay men are able to give consent to their activity and, thus, its not criminal. In the past it was the act itself that was criminal, not the issue of consent.
Thats why pederasty is still illegal in the western world (though, sadly, it is thoroughly endorsed and an integral part of society in much of central asia eg Afghanistan). Ie even though a pederast is a gay man and can’t choose who he is attracted to, since children can’t give consent its still a crime.
But theres a different class of ‘sex offenders’; those for whom it is not a matter of sexuality but a matter of curiosity that went too far.
You’d hope that the justice system, if it were worthy of the name, could tell the two apart and deal with them differently and appropriately.
And how are you supposed to deal with someone who, like the homosexual, can’t help being attracted to a certain class of person? Its not a voluntary thing is it? Its more like a mental illness. So treat it as such.
Of course, just like homosexuality, there is absolutely no hope of ever being able to alter a persons sexuality and any research into altering peoples sexuality is completely suppressed and banned, you aren’t going to ‘cure them’. So what can modern psychology actually do with them? I guess teaching self control or something?
On the other hand, dealing with people who, due to unfortunate circumstance and curiosity and lack of good judgement, committed some crime well the ‘justice system’ already knows how to deal with that. So use the same methodology here.
What happens, sadly and unfortunately, is that in English speaking societies as soon as the word ‘sex’ is mentioned all reasoning and rationality go out of the window. How do you deal with that problem? Its been with us since the Victorians.
Donna, you must have missed the part where I said “scroll down to the part about child molesters.”
I don’t care about the recidivism rate overall. What do I care who is likely to steal a case of beer or shoot heroin? The sex offender registry isn’t about that.
The fact is that when you look specifically at child molesters, the re-offender rate is not low, not by my definition of low. It’s high enough that I would want to know if the guy next door is one.
“cheer for the dude who ruined a 6 year old little girl’s life.”
I absolutely hate this attitude and believe that it the horribly detrimental to sex abuse victims. This insistence that a life is ruined based solely on the knowledge of a single experience. Many, many, many sex abuse victims grow up to lead happy unruined lives. Different lives than they would have without the abuse, maybe, but not ruined. I know a few who would give you a very forceful talking to if you tried to insist that their lives were ruined by what happened to them.
I am not negating the trauma of sexual abuse nor am I saying that it doesn’t, in fact, ruin some lives. I am saying that 1 + 1 doesn’t automatically equal 2 in this case. Many factors go into the outcome of the person. Stop insisting that people who have been sexually abused are per se ruined. Heck, even if they are ruined, they will probably still appreciate you not pointing it out.
“Donna, you must have missed the part where I said ‘scroll down to the part about child molesters.'”
Nope, saw that part. You must have missed the part where is gives different recidivism levels for male and female child molesters and male and female victims. And none of that deals with varying levels you get based on age of the perpetrator as well as age of the victim.
Here in Germany we have a project in a number of hospitals all over the country (11 up to now) which offers therapy for men who are attracted to children. Very recently they have started to have therapy also for teenage boys (age12-18). It’s been thouroughly evaluated and been so successful that by next year the therapy will be paid for by our health care system. It’s called “Kein Taeter werden” – “Don’t become an offender”.
Donna, my point was that the recidivism rate for child molesting is not low. Are you saying it is low? If so, what is your definition of “low” and where do you get your stats?
If you are not saying it’s low, then what are you arguing for?
Revenge is sweet, oh, so sweet!
Scoring ruined lives makes some people feel so good, so superior.
Good luck changing this throughback to privitive anchestral traits.
My heart goes out to Luke, his family and his friends.
I was the subject of “exploration” by a teenage babysitter when I was seven.
It did not wreck my life.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
Sex offender laws are mostly odious and useless. Over 90% of ioffenders will not reoffend. Research on which will is clear. Millions of dollars could be saved with a little common sense applied to the legal system.
By contrast:
There are ten year old kids in this country who are raped, impregnated and marred by their religious rapists. These men escape penalties. The little girls have no say and must bear the babies and become virtual slaves to their husbands. They have no legal rights until age eighteen, and cannot divorce these men.
They cannot seek shelter at shelters for battered “women” because they are underage.
Why not throw sympathy and support to these girls, some 25000 new victims of underage marriage each year?
Playing doctor is not a comparable offense.
I’m really torn on stories like these. The registry, generally, appears to do far more harm than good. But at the same time, I find it impossible to have much sympathy for offenders whose lives are ruined by the history of their actions travelling with them. Sexual assault victims tend to live with he impact of their assaults for the rest of their lives, lives that are, not that infrequently, shortened because they cannot live with what happened to them. I cannot imagine how it must feel for a sexual assault victim to see his or her assailant become a popular hero and be looked up to by the public, a daily reminder of how little society protects or fights fro them. Even testifying in court can be more of a sentence for the victim than their assailaint will receive if found guilty.
This is for Luke. Yes, you made a bug mustake…as a 15 yr old. You have done everything required. DO NOT let others run your life. Pitch in the CWS and show the world you deserve that.
“It’s high enough that I would want to know if the guy next door is one.”
And while you are concerned with the guy next door, your kid is being molested by his neighbor who is not on the registry.
A child is FAR more likely to be molested by someone not on the registry than someone on the registry. In 10 years as a public defender, about 95% of our molestation clients were not on the sex offender registry. This was the consistent in Georgia, California, American Samoa. Non-sex offender registry child molestation clients FAR outweighed sex offender registry child molestation clients.
That is why the registry, not only doesn’t make kids safer, but can actually make them less safe. Based on the way people talk about it, I think it lulls people into a false sense of security. While I find the sex offender registry a very handy tool in my legal practice, I have never looked up my address. I prefer to teach my child the skills she needs to be safe around anyone rather than focusing any attention on specific people.
I don’t think anyone believes the SOR is all we need to protect children. It is one tool. When I knew there was a child sex offender living next to the park my kids played at, I used that information to guide my kids i.e. don’t go into the woods between the two properties. Doesn’t mean I didn’t also tell them not to do xyz with any individual without my express advance permission.
I feel there’s a trend here toward totally sensationalizing the “bad” results of the SOR. Oh it’s causing suicides, it’s stopping baseball players from ever having a career etc. Therefore the SOR needs to go. Only it’s never actually the SOR itself that caused those things. It’s people reacting irrationally or vindictively to the SOR.
Here’s an idea for cases like this. Maybe it should be illegal for journalists to dredge up old crimes they discover just because of the SOR. In my town, in order to get a report of what sex offenders live near me, I have to agree not to use that information to harm those people in any way. The whole point being, let these people try to straighten up and fly right, don’t make it harder for them. Why aren’t journalists held to that kind of standard? Maybe that journalist should be prosecuted or fired or both.
“Are you saying it is low? If so, what is your definition of “low” and where do you get your stats?”
I have very limited belief in stats in general. Everyone that is publishing statistics has an agenda and statistics are easy to manipulate.
I will say that, as a former criminal attorney, child molestation cases involving people already on the registry make up a very small portion of the cases we deal with. I will also say as a current juvenile court attorney who deals with a large number of child molestation victims (sometimes it is the children; sometimes it is the parents who end up disclosing a history of child molestation during the case), this holds true. The legal system is not currently seeing high levels of registered sex offenders committing new acts that would be expected if the recidivism level is high.
Just about any other crime (except murder) we see people cycle through our courtroom charged with the same thing over and over on a daily basis. I can wander into my old courtroom for criminal calendar call and still 5 years after I left the public defender office recognize more than half the names. I no longer know any of the DAs or PDs, but I can greet most of the defendants by name. One of the major reasons that I don’t do criminal law any more is that I got tired of dealing with the same people doing the same sh&t every other year. We don’t see that with child molestation. I have never personally represented anyone more than once for child molestation. I’ve represented some of my child molestation clients for other things later, but never for child molestation again.
That said, many of these cases, both criminal and juvenile, involve people who, while not convicted or arrested previously, do have other sexual allegations floating around.
“I don’t think anyone believes the SOR is all we need to protect children”
To the contrary, I know many people who focus on the SOR and ignore the fact that their child’s offender, if there is to be one, is most likely NOT going to be on that list.
“In my town, in order to get a report of what sex offenders live near me, I have to agree not to use that information to harm those people in any way.”
Well, that is nice and all, but there are no consequences if you were to use it to harm those people (other than being charged with any crimes related to the actual harm).
Donna, so your anecdotal experience is your guide.
One thing I’m not clear on. You generally present yourself as a juvenile defense attorney. Well if you haven’t seen a lot of repeat child molestation among your juvenile clients, that should surprise nobody. Most sexually deviant juveniles haven’t been sexually active long enough to offend, get tried, get punished, offend again, get arrested, and make their way back to the courtroom.
Plus, being a child molester isn’t very common, thankfully. So it would be logical that each individual defense attorney doesn’t see repeat offenders very often. But the statistics don’t support an argument that the recidivism rate is low.
“Here’s an idea for cases like this. Maybe it should be illegal for journalists to dredge up old crimes they discover just because of the SOR.”
Couple of problems. First, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Second, convictions of crimes are public records. Third, the POINT of the registry is to let people know who has been convicted of sex crimes.
” The whole point being, let these people try to straighten up and fly right, don’t make it harder for them. Why aren’t journalists held to that kind of standard? Maybe that journalist should be prosecuted or fired or both.”
So the journalist should be fired for doing his job? Harsh.
Keep in mind, statistics suggest that there are probably somewhere around 70 registrants enrolled at Oregon State University. Nobody has gone out of their way to “out” any of them. One, however, is the top pitcher on what is currently the top college baseball team in the country. He drew attention to himself, and, SURPRISE! public records about him surfaced. Guess what? People are interested in personal details about famous people.
The fact that a star athlete has a criminal past is a fair subject for inquiry… did his star athlete status cause the university, the athletics department, or the baseball team to “cover up” his past? (You see, it turns out that sometimes athletes’ issues get covered up to protect the universities, the administrators, and/or the coaches. Coach gets a better deal when it’s time for a new contract if he can point to a national-championship trophy in the trophy case. The University gets more money from the TV deal, and more money for seats, and more money from alumni donors when the team(s) win.)
—
“Just about any other crime (except murder) we see people cycle through our courtroom charged with the same thing over and over on a daily basis.”
But a full analysis needs more than a single person’s experience.
For example, maybe you weren’t seen the same faces over and over because the sentence was long enough that they weren’t getting out.
More significantly, since the majority of child molestation cases involve close circles, maybe the difference is that once the family and acquaintances know to keep the offender away from the kids, they don’t have ready opportunities to offend again (in the same way). Put another way, the most frequent modality of molestation is an abuse of trust.. If the offender comes out of prison and nobody trusts them, they can’t abuse trust again, even if they wanted to.
(Of course, there as many reasons why someone is an offender as there are offenders.)
I would note that if you read the original article, it says that the Oregon SOR list Heimlich is on is NOT generally available to the public. It is intended as information to law enforcement. Also it appears the offense of not re-registering annually was dismissed because Heimlich did not know he was supposed to do so. So really this is just a mean-spirited act on the part of journalists who want to harm this athlete and his school.
The article gets very deep into what policies colleges have (or should have) regarding juvenile sex offenders. It is an interesting question, and I think it would be better to address that than to whine about the fact that a non-public SOR exists in Oregon.
The journalists seem to believe that nobody with a felony juvenile conviction (including a juvenile crime that would be a felony if committed by an adult) should ever be allowed to play college sports. Do you agree with that or not? That would prevent a LOT of athletes from living out their dreams.
Or maybe this is really about how great it is to unearth any sex scandal. They went to town on Josh Duggar though iirc he was not actually convicted & not on a registry. (And yes he is a filthy pig, but the media wasn’t reporting out of concern for any victims, potential or otherwise.)
Bottom line this story really isn’t about the SOR at all.
The human brain, specifically the part that controls rational thought and feelings of empathy, is not fully developed until our early to mid 20s. It is hard for someone as young as Luke was at the time to consider the consequences of his actions or the harm he was causing the victim. That on top of the fact that he was 15 year old boy with out- of-control hormones is what likely led to the abusive behavior, and that behavior by no means renders him a pedophile for life.
The registry will cripple him by hampering his efforts to lead a constructive life. It can also rob him of a support system that all humans beings need. He may become depressed, withdrawn, angry and desperate. Those issues are what often cause a person to turn to abusive and criminal behavior in their adult years, which in turn may put more children at risk. This is why the registry is counterproductive.
Talking about a reoffense rate for sex offenders is practically meaningless. That rate is for those who *get caught* reoffending. Just because an offender doesn’t get caught again doesn’t mean he doesn’t do it again. Sex abuse is one of the most underreported crimes there is.
“The human brain, specifically the part that controls rational thought and feelings of empathy, is not fully developed until our early to mid 20s. It is hard for someone as young as Luke was at the time to consider the consequences of his actions or the harm he was causing the victim.”
OMG. Seriously? You’re saying you don’t think a fifteen year old doesn’t know the harm he’s causing a little girl??? Are you kidding me? What teenager doesn’t know that? If that were remotely an excuse, let’s just throw out the rule book because obviously teenagers don’t know anything and can’t control themselves. In which case, the rest of us need to be protected from them, so let’s lock them all up.
Really, people think like this???
“Playing doctor is not a comparable offense.”
You’re not seriously suggesting that a fifteen year old molesting a six year old was “playing doctor”, are you? Please don’t allow your fifteen year old sons anywhere near my daughters.
The drive to excuse the inexcusable actions of some boys on this site can be truly frightening at times.
Its not an excuse. Its a medical fact, but even then it is still punishable.
If you are going to insist on being willfully ignorant, then its pointless to have a discussion wit you.
Why don’t you try reading my message again and this time really absorb what I am saying. I am confident you can do it if you just try.
No More Victims brought up an interesting point. (not the one on his or her head) Some people re-offend. Therefore we can’t take that chance. The boy offended when he was 15. Therefore he proved that he has sex fiend DNA and this is unable to be purged. Even if only 1% re-offend, the 99% still have to tough it out. They are sex offenders so who cares about them anyway?
Justice is all about revenge.
BTW he offended at age 15. At this age, even people like No More Victims agree that children are not fully aware of what they are doing and this is why under 18-year-old girls are unable to give consent to sex. Therefore this is statutory rape. However, the ‘not fully developed brain’ argument does not apply to sex offenders. We need to punish them for life in order to protect society and maintain the peace.
It’s a good thing that we have people such as No More Victims to make this world a more peaceful place. Keep up the good work!
The victim of sexual abuse is scarred for life. Therefore we must stop this at all cost! Even if this means that if the McCarthyism creates 99% victims unjustly, it’s still worth it.
Only by this ruthless approach can we make the world peaceful
“A 15 year old whose parents properly discussed sex should, in fact, know this. However, the level of sex education in the home varies wildly from family to family and it is very possible that any given 15 year old would not know this.”
For crying out loud, I don’t think any teen should have to be told that you don’t molest your pre-pubescent female relatives. Or any pre-pubescent child. Mentally healthy people don’t have sex with small children. A teenager who’s cognitively capable of going to college doesn’t repeatedly “play doctor” out of curiosity at 15 years old. This is just trying to excuse away what he did.
Having researched this situation further, I’m OK with Luke suffering the consequences of what he did. This wasn’t a 17 year old who wound up on the SOR for consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend whose parents found out, he repeatedly violated a little girl and only stopped when he was caught.
Sure, he deserves a second chance to live a productive and fulfilling life, but that doesn’t mean that absolutely every opportunity in life has to still be open to him. A person convicted of trafficking narcotics is likely unable to be a nurse or doctor. A person convicted of domestic violence is likely to be unable to be a licensed social worker. A person convicted of money laundering is probably not going to be able to work as an accountant or financial planner. Sometimes committing a crime, even as a juvenile, means that some career paths will be more difficult or closed off entirely. Now that Luke’s past has come to light, he may not be able to have a lucrative career as a big leaguer because no MLB team is going to want the lousy PR of drafting a convicted child molester – cry me a river.
He screwed up when he didn’t re-register (on a non-public registry) and it resulted in public charges for failure to register. You’d think that his parents or lawyer would have been ALL OVER reminding him of the importance of keeping up with this, given that he wasn’t on a public sex offender registry. Whether or not you think the SOR has any value, it behooves the people on the registry to know what the law requires of them. He’s the one who may have cost himself a major league baseball career.
@George
Why do you assume the sexual aspect of it is where I draw the line? If he would have physically or emotionally abused a child and left her sexually unharmed, I STILL think a career of ‘baseball star’ should be off limits. Heck, it still burns my ass that Michael Vick was allowed to continue playing football after he killed some DOGS.
Now do I think he should be ostracized and driven into poverty and blah, blah, blah? Nah, go ahead and “move on” with your life. Get a job as an accountant, collect the trash, sell some real estate. Buy a house and live your life. But as far as playing ball in front of millions of screaming fans and having little kids out there trading your a card with your picture on it like you’re some kind of hero? No. Just no. I draw the line there. Hero status should be unattainable for people who victimize others.
Whether or not he does it again is a moot point. Out of sheer respect for the little girl he already did this to, I will not “cheer” for this man.
I don’t cheer abusers. Sexual or otherwise.
“BTW he offended at age 15. At this age, even people like No More Victims agree that children are not fully aware of what they are doing and this is why under 18-year-old girls are unable to give consent to sex. ”
Somebody here mistakes allowance and ability.
Also, the laws vary even in the backwards US.
Here it’s 14 if the other person is below 21 and 16 for anyone else. Also, if everyone involved is under 14, nobody is subject to punishment either.
In his defense, I can understand how it would probably be easy to let his registration lapse in a state that wasn’t the state where he was convicted and sentenced. Yes it is his responsibility to know the law there, but how many of us really know the laws everywhere we go?
As for whether a 15yo can understand cognitively that what he did was very wrong, I am just not buying that. Yes there is gray area there, but the age difference of a 15yo and a 6yo is way too stark for that argument to hold. If you told me a precociously developing 11yo had come up and talked him into “playing doctor” with her, OK maybe I would consider the argument. Not a 6yo. Plus the little girl said it hurt and she asked him to stop and he didn’t. This is not just a curious act but a mean act. I would be horrified if my 10yo didn’t stop upon being told she was hurting a smaller child in any way.
The original article mentions that the little girl and her parents continue to be marginalized in family gatherings because most of the family sides with Luke. (This was before the recent story hit.) Which means that Luke’s family has decided not to hold him accountable in any way. They would rather blame the 6yo (she was reportedly 4yo the first time). What the hell. A family like this raised that young man and turned him loose on the world. Makes me wonder whether he actually learned anything from the “intervention” that he completed before going to college.
Further, if MY OWN SON had committed this crime, I STILL think status of “baseball star” should be off limits. In fact, I would probably expect him to refrain voluntarily from that career as proof of his remorse and repentance.
“Son,” I might say, “How do you think [victim] might feel if every time she turned on the TV, she had to watch the world cheering for her abuser? Do you think that might further her trauma? Shouldn’t SHE be allowed to move on in peace?”
If he wanted to redeem himself, he can go cure cancer. But becoming a sports hero (and a role model for young children) is not something you are “owed” once you cross the line. I think quite a few jobs should be off limits to you once you victimize another person.
Even if only 1% re-offend, the 99% still have to tough it out. They are sex offenders so who cares about them anyway? Justice is all about revenge.”
Assuming “tough it out” means “have to admit to friends and family what they have done”, then, yeah.
Let’s point this out again: He became the top pitcher on the country’s top college baseball team WHILE ON THE REGISTRY. Nobody has taken anything away from him except his right to keep his past private.
“BTW he offended at age 15”
Actually, he offended over a two or three year period that ended when he got caught at 15.
“We need to punish them for life in order to protect society and maintain the peace.”
Except, of course, that this is not how the law works (in Oregon, anyway) and level I offenders like Mr. Heimlich can be relieved of the requirement to register five years after they first incur a registration requirement in Oregon.
“You’re saying you don’t think a fifteen year old doesn’t know the harm he’s causing a little girl???”
Does a 15 year old know that what he is doing is socially unacceptable? Most likely, yes. Does he know the harm he is causing? Most likely not unless he has also been molested. Hell, I deal with ADULTS every day who are completely oblivious to the idea that any harm may have been caused when their own children are molested. Who view it as little different than their kid having their bike stolen. Who think that an apology resolves the issue. Who don’t think their kid should need counseling. Who don’t think that the victim should have a problem with seeing the perpetrator at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Who think that all they need is a little family counseling while the victim continues to live with her brother who has been perping on her for years. Who are completely puzzled when their victimized child starts acting out, sexually or otherwise.
This is a very fertile ground for CPS intervention and something I deal with every single day. I am not talking about the parents who deny the abuse occurred (we get them regularly too). I am talking about parents who fully accept the abuse occurred – often reporting it to the authorities themselves – but then think it is no big deal.
@James
All of my comments were satire. I was showing how logical it is to try to eliminate fear and hate by using hate. However, you attack my comments. Does that mean that you think that it’s a good idea to eliminate fear and hate by using fear and hate?
“Assuming “tough it out” means “have to admit to friends and family what they have done”, then, yeah.”
If the only drawback for being on the sex offenders list were to admit to family and friends than I would agree with you. These people have their lives turned upside down. You’ve been on this site long enough to understand that the sex offenders list does far worse things than simply make people to “have to admit to friends and family what they have done”.
“Actually, he offended over a two or three-year period that ended when he got caught at 15.”
By your own admission, he offended at an earlier age than 15. This means that his brain was even less developed.
“We need to punish them for life in order to protect society and maintain the peace.”
“Except, of course, that this is not how the law works….”
I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about the media frenzy. This was a satire against all the bloodthirsty people. I implied that a sex offender has it written in his DNA and it cannot be purged. This is mocking the people that act this way.
Are you arguing for the sake of argument again? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You get the same perk from an argument that Popeye gets from eating spinach.
No More Victims, take your propaganda elsewhere. You are as big an idiot as the editors of the WHOREgonian. You disgust me and everyone like you need psychotherapy. Stop playing the victim card and suck it up. On to the WHOREgonian.
When you write FOUR articles in succession, including an article to justify your actions, then have your discount Howard Stern write a second piece to justify his justification, then you’re not engaging in journalism. This was a targeted hit piece designed to ruin a man’s life.
John Canzano is the male wife of Anna Canzano, a former KATU reporter who made her career on RSO hit pieces. They’re both scum.
Canzano says the following:
“Can we start with the premise that human life matters? Anyone disagree on that? This isn’t a complicated starting point. The young relative who was molested by Heimlich deserves your thoughts and respect. The victim matters. She matters more than Heimlich.”
How can Clownzano claim human life matters when he clearly states that some lives matter more than others. At the least, he ripped of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Second, he says this:
” For those who say Heimlich has, “Paid his debt to society” or “Been punished for his crime,” and should be left alone — huh? An important part of his punishment is that he has to register as a sex offender. There’s a reason a felony crime is a felony crime. The punishment is supposed to act as a deterrent.”
Every time a victim cult blowhard admits the registry is punishment, you prove that SCOTUS was full of it. They claim the registry isn’t punishment.
This wasn’t journalism. This was a vigilante attack. The Oregonian should fire everyone involved.
@Kate, you are just as stupid.
“If he wanted to redeem himself, he can go cure cancer. But becoming a sports hero (and a role model for young children) is not something you are “owed” once you cross the line. I think quite a few jobs should be off limits to you once you victimize another person.”
Who the fuck are you to decide what jobs a registered citizen can or cannot have.
I’m on the registry and I collect SSI because I’m unemployable. So every time I collect my welfare checks, I’ll imagine this is YOUR taxes I’m spending, you self-righteous cunt. Fuck you and everyone like you.
“I feel there’s a trend here toward totally sensationalizing the “bad” results of the SOR. Oh it’s causing suicides, it’s stopping baseball players from ever having a career etc. Therefore the SOR needs to go. Only it’s never actually the SOR itself that caused those things. It’s people reacting irrationally or vindictively to the SOR”
It DESERVES to be sensationalized! The SOR ruins lives! It is the most damaging thing you can do to a person in American society.
The registry IS the cause. Your logic is like the NRA gun nuts who use the dismissive “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” While technically true, the reality is without guns, there would be a whole lot less murders in America. Guns make it easy for a coward to kill lots of people.
The SOR has made it far easier to discriminate against people, from what is going on here to skinheads murdering registrants using the registry. No, the registry IS the cause of this and NEEDS to be abolished. Anyone who believes the registry has a place in this world is completely stupid!
“Donna, so your anecdotal experience is your guide.”
No I am using the collective experience of the criminal justice community of which I am a part as my guide. I belong to a number of state and national criminal defense organizations. Or at least belonged when I was more actively practicing criminal law. I put our collective experience in the trenches over statistics any day.
Nor is my experience necessarily contrasting to the statistics. As you pointed out, the world is not filled with child molesters. 20% of an already small number of people is a really small number of reoffenders. It makes sense that we wouldn’t see them very often.
But a 20% reoffense rate is extremely low in the scheme of criminal recidivism. Most crimes have a much higher recidivism level. In general, one third of prisoners reoffend within 6 months of release from prison and more than 75% reoffend within 5 years. 20% within 15 years compared with 75% within 5 years puts sex offenders at the very extreme low end for reoffense among criminals.
“You generally present yourself as a juvenile defense attorney.”
I have never presented myself as a juvenile defense attorney. I have presented myself as a criminal defense attorney. In that role, I have represented both juveniles and adults. My primary role has always been as an adult attorney, however, everyone has to pitch in in a public defenders office and I have handled a substantial number of juvenile court cases.
I do now almost exclusively represent children, but that is in CPS cases and not criminal cases. Outside of the half dozen long-pending cases that are still floating around my office, I am not practicing criminal law right now.
“Most sexually deviant juveniles haven’t been sexually active long enough to offend, get tried, get punished, offend again, get arrested, and make their way back to the courtroom.”
I wouldn’t say this at all. I’ve seen more reoffenders in juvenile court than adult court. A lot of juvenile child molestation cases I’ve dealt with (both criminal and CPS) did not involve actual intercourse. They are fondling cases such as the one here. That behavior starts younger than intercourse. And the penalty in juvenile court is often not great.
Also, many juvenile sex offenders are victims of some kind of trauma, so they are not normally developing. Their molestation is not about sexual gratification, but about their own trauma so puberty need not have hit. I have a CPS client who offended for the 1st time at 10 (not prosecuted) and the 2nd time at 12 (prosecuted). I have an emergency hearing tomorrow for a case where a 9 year old has been fondling his 4 year old brother. We had a hearing on Friday involving a child in pre-k who fondles other children and must be closely supervised at all times. In fact, many of my CPS cases involve children who sexually act out at very young ages. It is a manifestation of trauma, not a sexual thing.
If my tax dollars keep this ALREADY VICTIMIZED woman from flicking on her radio and listening to everyone praise her abuser’s great game play from the night before or, god forbid, dealing with her young son someday asking to wear her abuser’s jersey, then I consider that money well spent. I don’t begrudge one single cent of my tax money going towards that cause.
I am so so upset by this situation. I have 2 boys and 2 girls. I cannot imagine how I would react if a family member touched my girls inappropriately. I would probably go crazy, fight for the harshest punishment, etc. On the other hand, what if one of my boys lost his mind and did something stupid (along the same lines as what Luke did)? Again , I cannot imagine… I would pray for hope, healing & peace the victim. I would pray for mercy, forgiveness, rehabilitation for my son. And I would pray for another chance at life for both. Side note: I work with students ages 13-15. Some are still extremely immature.
“All of my comments were satire.”
But not very GOOD satire. Because you misunderstood the facts, your satire misfires. Satire is like caricature; you start with something that is true and then exaggerate it. For example, you might satirize Jim Comey by saying that he’s 8 foot 2, and that would work, because he IS very tall. But if you satirize him by making fun of how often he pays Russian hookers to pee on a bed, it won’t work. Get it?
“If the only drawback for being on the sex offenders list were to admit to family and friends than I would agree with you. ”
I live in a state (as does the young man in question) where the only requirements of registration are coming in to the local law enforcement offices to fill out paperwork. (Other restrictions are sometimes applied as probation requirements, but the only requirement of being a RSO is keeping registration current.) There’s a lot of trigger events which require renewing registration… moving, attending a school… and having a birthday, which is the one he missed.
“I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about the media frenzy.”
I see. You’re of the opinion that this media frenzy will continue for the rest of his life? I think you SEVERELY overestimate the media’s attention span.
“Are you arguing for the sake of argument again?”
No. Are you trying to distract from the criticism of your commentary again? You said above you’d agree with me, if (facts which are true were true facts), so, since you’ve already agreed with me, if anyone’s arguing for the sake of argument, it would be you.
—
“This was a targeted hit piece designed to ruin a man’s life. ”
Actually, it was a feature article about the star pitcher on the local sports team, which turned up information that caught nearly everybody by surprise.
“Every time a victim cult blowhard admits the registry is punishment, you prove that SCOTUS was full of it. They claim the registry isn’t punishment.”
Not all registries are alike. The one that got to SCOTUS wasn’t punishment. (YMMV.)
“I’m on the registry and I collect SSI because I’m unemployable. So every time I collect my welfare checks, I’ll imagine this is YOUR taxes I’m spending, you self-righteous cunt. Fuck you and everyone like you.”
I can’t IMAGINE why people aren’t flocking to your side.
“Who the fuck are you to decide what jobs a registered citizen can or cannot have.”
A person who has discretionary income to spend on entertainment, and who gets to decide what to spend it on. Yes, it can be unfair to people who choose to do unpopular things that the paying public just does not like. Colin Kaepernick is unemployed, too. Bill O’Reilly, as well. And Kathy Griffin. The Dixie Chicks had a rough patch after speaking ill of President Bush. Paul Reubens had to lie low for like 20 years. Writers black-balled from Hollywood productions because they wouldn’t “name names” for the HUAC.
“The registry IS the cause.”
Really? Not the fact that people just choose not to associate themselves with people who do whatever got you on the list? (No, I don’t care what it was.)
Make no mistake. I am no fan of the registry. But I understand what it was intended for, and why someone might want it, and I approve of my state’s implementation of the federally-mandated registry.
“The SOR has made it far easier to discriminate against people, from what is going on here”
One more time. “What is going on here” is that Mr. Heimlich has been free to pursue his athletic gifts, has of late been very successful with them on the field, and has been rewarded for this with a free university education. The poor oppressed SOB, how he is made to suffer. Why… people who don’t even know him have said very mean things about him!
James
You live to argue. In the gladiator days, a ‘He-Man’ was the one in the tribe that won most battles. Many attached their self-worth to how many battles they win. You do that same in a war of words. You determine that your self-worth depends on ‘conquering’ your opponent. However, your arguments are very confusing. This is an extreme example and not one of your arguments.
Alcoholism is a disease. I don’t dispute that. However, you often pervert words/meanings to suit your case. You may claim that convicted drunk drivers should not be punished in any way. They should instead go to the hospital. It’s not their fault that they caught alcoholism just like a person that catches the flue is not at fault either.
Of course, I’m exaggerating but it’s very obvious that ‘Winning’ the war of words is more important to you than using logic or common sense. You often add 2+2 and end up with 22.
“I see. You’re of the opinion that this media frenzy will continue for the rest of his life? I think you SEVERELY overestimate the media’s attention span.”
That was an example. Ok, I’ll use a different example. People on that list are very restricted at what kind of job they can do. THIS IS WHAT AFFECTS THEIR LIFE. How about that they are on a public list available to all vigilantes?
“You said above you’d agree with me, if (facts which are true were true facts), so, since you’ve already agreed with me, if anyone’s arguing for the sake of argument, it would be you.”
This is a perfect example of how you add 2+2 and believe it to equal 22
“You live to argue.”
Right. Except… you already said you agreed with me, and… you’re still arguing? And complaining that *I* won’t stop arguing? Weird world you live in.
“People on that list are very restricted at what kind of job they can do.”
Except… they’re not. Say it out loud… “The only restriction on people on Oregon’s SOR is that they have to periodically physically come to a local law-enforcement office to fill out paperwork.”
See how there’s nothing there about “Oh, yeah, and they are also very restricted on what kind of job they can do”? That’s because they aren’t restricted on what jobs they can do.
“THIS IS WHAT AFFECTS THEIR LIFE.”
So… this thing that doesn’t exist is what affects their life? We’re back to “what a weird world you live in”.
“How about that they are on a public list available to all vigilantes?”
Court records (including convictions) are public records… open to anyone who cares to look. The sex-offender registry, on the other hand, is mostly not available to the public..
http://sexoffenders.oregon.gov/
Any other false “facts” you’d like to raise?
Or do you really, really LIKE arguing for the sake of arguing (and bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting)?
“This is a perfect example of how you add 2+2 and believe it to equal 22”
This is a perfect example of how you argue for the sake of arguing. If you can’t refute the facts, resort to attacking the person pointing out your bullshit.
The punishment should fit the crime, but as in many cases we don’t really know what exactly happened in this case. Does the perpetrator deserve a lifetime of suffering? We should be very suspicious of witch hunters who are eager to punish first and ask questions later. The claim that “He probably did other crimes,” is not a legal or moral justification for inflicting suffering on anybody.
“The only restriction on people on Oregon’s SOR is that they have to periodically physically come to a local law-enforcement office to fill out paperwork.”
“You said above you’d agree with me, if (facts which are true were true facts)”
What facts are you talking about? Are you saying that the only harassment that people have on SOR is that they have to keep the police informed? THIS IS BULLSHIT! They are not restricted where they live? Are they not greatly disadvantaged in the job market? While we’re on the subject about refusing to answer questions, why don’t you answer mine?
I was showing how logical it is to try to eliminate fear and hate by using hate. However, you attack my comments. Does that mean that you think that it’s a good idea to eliminate fear and hate by using fear and hate?
I don’t know if a youthful sex offender like Luke can be rehabilitated. Part of me says Yes, they can, the other part says no.
But it is odd that sex offenders are the only ones that are punished for the remainder of their lives. That, seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to me.
The entire system needs an overhaul, preferably removing mere bad behavior (public urination, anyone?) from “sex offense” and creating different categories based on both the age of the victim and specifics of the offense. As it stands, there’s not a legal difference between the victim being 6 and the victim being 15. Plenty of instances we’ve heard about right here on FRK involve teens who are capable of making decisions, and who are involved in sex-offense cases only because the law classifies one or both as children. A set-up that separated young children, teens (especially accounting for dating teens), and adults , would help.
Anyone making the “he was only 15” argument needs to understand the implications of that – and it’s the exact opposite of free range. If 15 year olds are not capable of understanding the wrongness of molesting six year olds, and/or don’t have the impulse control to stop themselves from doing so, that is a perfect argument in favor of intensive supervision of teenagers. No one who doesn’t know right from wrong and/or who can’t control themselves should be free to run amok.
The whole free range concept is based on the idea that kids are very much capable of knowing right from wrong and exercising self-control. Sure, kids make mistakes and do bad things, but that means that they need to be held accountable, not excused with “well, he was only 15”. The fact remains that Luke repeatedly committed a heinous crime that has a very high potential for scarring an innocent little girl for life. He didn’t stop on his own, only when he was caught. I have concerns about the registry in general, but so long as it is the law, Luke was justifiably placed on it. And, having been placed on it, it’s his responsibility to follow through on the requirements for registration. By the way, he’s not 15 any more, so that defense is out the window.
Free Range Movement: Kids are smart and capable and deserve more freedom and responsibilities!
Also the Free Range Movement: Poor little 15 year old muffin didn’t REALLY understand that molesting a 6 year old is bad.
Which is it, Free Rangers? Because I’m all for giving my own 13 year old son some more responsibilities and free time to socialize with his peers. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be on board with giving him a pass to molest the toddler next door.
for all those saying he was 15, he knew what he was doing, there is no hope of rehabilitation……what’s the age cut off for someone to change to be rehabilitated, to learn to control those urges because they are wrong? 14? 10? what? if there is not hope for rehabilitation why release any one charged with any crime because they can’t change or learn. make life in prison with no parole the standard. at least they’d have a place to live. and do it for other crimes too. murder someone? never see the light of day again. it was a car accident and you didn’t mean it? t
too bad. just took something from a store on a dare? all your windows will have bars.
I’m not defending what he did but people, especially young, can learn and change. for all those that say he needs to suffer his whole life and be an outcast…what is his motivation to change, to become a better person.?why change if he’s still going to be treated as if he’s the devil forever ,then he’ll act like he is. the bible saying is let those with no sin cast the first stone. how many of you, if you were really honest with yourselves, have nothing in your history that would not make you an outcast if people knew?
There has been a great deal of recidivism discussion here. Arguments centering around recidivism or reoffense rates are problematic at best and useless at worst. Understanding all of the factors includes the vocabulary and the definitions. Are we talking any offense, including parole violations, that results in a re-arrest, or only a repeat sexual offense? Are we talking re-arrest, re-conviction, or re-incarceration before it is labeled “recidivism”? Was the study group a cross-section of all offenders, or did it focus on special populations? Were control groups in place? Was proper procedure followed? Was there peer review?
Proponents of ever-increasing stringency and monitoring of former offenders claim that most studies track recidivism only for three years, and that with each year, the rate increases. However, while it is true that, due to its cumulative nature, recidivism in general increases a little each year of a study, for every individual in the study, and actually for individuals everywhere, the risk or chance of re-offending goes down every year they remain in the community offense-free, and even high risk individuals reach the point where their risk is no greater than that one someone never charged with a sexual offense.
When you add to this the fact that the vast majority of those who are committing sexual offenses right now and will in the future are those not on a sex offender registry, and this is even more true in cases of child sexual abuse, the actual risk to any given child from a registered individual is minuscule.
The real bottom line, however, is regardless of whether the recidivism rate is high, low, or unknown, public notification and registration do not reduce it. A plethora of evidence supports this. What reduces it is a combination of victim support services, meaningful re-entry initiatives for former offenders, and research-based education/prevention programs in schools, communities, and PBS programming.
In the food-for-thought category, these are two accurate statements about chances and risks as they involve children and persons on the registry.
The person who will sexually molest your child is many times more likely to be found sitting around your table at holiday meals than on a sex offender registry.
Your child is more likely to end up on a sex offender registry him or herself than he or she is to be harmed by someone on the registry.
Speaking of rehabilitation, what evidence do we have that he has been? That he hasn’t been re-arrested/convicted of a similar offense? Maybe he’s just learned to be sneakier about it.
Other commenters have looked into this story a bit more in depth and, apparently, Luke’s family is still ostracizing the girl and “siding with” Luke. If that’s true, that right there is evidence that he has not been rehabilitated and that he does not recognize the wrongness of what he did. If he did, the very least he could do to take responsibility and atone for his actions would be to make it clear to his family that he was the perpetrator and that the girl was innocent and did nothing wrong. He should tell his family that if they’re going to ostracize anyone, it should be him. There should be no “sides” if he’s truly rehabilitated.
Right now, all I’m seeing is that it’s all about him. His ruined chance at a career in baseball. Well, guess what? Approximately 7 billion people don’t get to have a career in baseball and their lives aren’t “ruined”. The girl, on the other hand, having been abused for two years of her early life? Much more likely to be “ruined”. Or, at least, severely traumatized with a lifetime potential for relationship, self-esteem and other mental and physical health issues.
Paul – very well said. Thanks.
“What facts are you talking about?”
The fact that the only restriction placed on SOR registrants is that they periodically physically show up at their local law-enforcement office to fill out paperwork.
This is a fact.
“Are you saying that the only harassment that people have on SOR is that they have to keep the police informed?”
Yes. This is a fact.
“They are not restricted where they live?”
They are not restricted where they live.
“Are they not greatly disadvantaged in the job market?”
They are not greatly disadvantaged in the job market.
“While we’re on the subject about refusing to answer questions”
Who is refusing to answer questions?
It does seem that you require the answers to be repeated multiple times, but that is hardly the same thing.
“I was showing how logical it is to try to eliminate fear and hate by using hate. However, you attack my comments. ”
Once again, your satire misfired because you are operating on “facts” that simply aren’t true.
It seems that you must first get over your OWN fear and hate, before you can try to eliminate it in anyone else.
Good luck with that.
Since you seem to need things answered multiple times, I’ll do it again:
There was no bloodthirsty mob. Mr. Heimlich has not been turned out of his home or his university; he is still on the university’s baseball team. All that he has achieved has been done while he was on the sex-offender registry. So your “satire” of the bloodthirsty mobs trying to destroy his life falls flat because there is no such mob.
Got it yet?
One more time.
Oregon law requires registrants to physically appear in a local law-enforcement facility periodically, to fill out paperwork. This is all they are required to do as a result of being a RSO. Unless they are assessed as “predatory” or “likely to reoffend”, their registrations are not open to the public.
Note: These facts are all easily confirmed. Yet you prefer to argue (baselessly) that they are not true.
Why do you prefer to argue from a non-factual position rather than accept that you were wrong? Some kind of personality defect?
I eagerly await your complaint that I am “arguing just for the sake of arguing”, which complaint will somehow not address any of the facts.
“THIS IS BULLSHIT!”
Readily verifiable facts. In fact, the link I gave you earlier contains such verification. Here it is again… click on it this time.
http://sexoffenders.oregon.gov/
I’m sorry that reality does not fit your preconceived opinion. But, since I live in reality, I must insist that any facts used in this discussion adhere to reality, as well.
“it is odd that sex offenders are the only ones that are punished for the remainder of their lives. That, seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to me.”
That would be odd, if it were true, but it is not.
Aggravated murder carries a life in prison sentence.
And sex offenders can get off the registry. Level I offenders like Mr. Heimlich can petition for removal 5 years after they are first placed on the list. (ORS 163A-120 et seq)
“As it stands, there’s not a legal difference between the victim being 6 and the victim being 15.”
You might want to review ORS 163A-140.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors163A.html
“A set-up that separated young children, teens (especially accounting for dating teens), and adults , would help.”
Yeah. We have that, too.
diene it’s not all about him. it’s about the sor. and james it is true you can petition to be removed from the sor after 5 years. however it is not ordinarily granted. in fact it is not granted at all unless there is evidence found that the alleged offender was in fact guilty. otherwise it is a good as a life sentence. as for the restriction is that he register go ahead and try. you’ll be handed a list of prohibitions of where you can live and work., gio live under those for a while and tell me it’s not a life long punishment.
“The whole free range concept is based on the idea that kids are very much capable of knowing right from wrong and exercising self-control.”
No, it’s based on the idea that SOME kids are capable, and further, that parents are best situated to know what their kids actual capabilities are.
To wit: Just because you wouldn’t trust your kid to do that at (age), doesn’t mean that I can’t trust my kid to do that at (age).
Different kids have different abilities. They’re not all alike. The fact that some kids, at 15, aren’t ready to make responsible choices regarding reproductive activity doesn’t mean that none of them are, and the fact that, at 15, some kids are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about sex doesn’t mean they all are.
“as for the restriction is that he register go ahead and try. you’ll be handed a list of prohibitions of where you can live and work.”
Right. Except… nope, this is a “fact” which is not true.
Oregon categorically does not attach conditions on housing or employment onto the SOR.
“diene it’s not all about him. it’s about the sor.”
Right, it’s all about him being on the SOR. As if that inconvenience is somehow worse than the lifetime of trauma he inflicted on an innocent little girl. As has been pointed out, the SOR really is nothing but a minor inconvenience for him. All he had to do was show up and register. He failed to do so. That was on him. Further consequences that he has suffered are a direct result of his original actions and his subsequent failure to act as he knew he needed to. There are some things in life you simply don’t let slide.
if you think there are no living restrictions on placed upon those on the sor,call the Oregon state police,they tell a different story. and diene if you think being on the sor is a minor problem I dare you to put your body were your mouth is..and live under the same restrictions he is. again I’m not defending what he did but the punishment is far outweighing the crime. he could have murdered someone and already be out, on probation yes, but not life long registration.
Dienne said, Speaking of rehabilitation, what evidence do we have that he has been? That he hasn’t been re-arrested/convicted of a similar offense? Maybe he’s just learned to be sneakier about it.
That is a good point, actually. We do not know what Luke has done wrong and not been caught for. Just as we do not know if Dienne (for example) has sexually abused children in her past. Sure, she says she hasn’t, but we’ll never know for sure, will we? What we DO know, is that we cannot prosecute people for crimes we imagine they commit. Surely that is that way it ought to be.
Here’s the deal: Somewhere out there is another 4-year-old (or 3yo or 15yo) who is being sexually abused. The sex offender registry has not protected her/him. If his/her family is looking at the registry and avoiding the registrants in their neighborhood, they are looking in the wrong direction. Maybe it is a pre-school teacher or a beloved uncle or a trusted neighbor or the favorite babysitter. It is FAR more likely to be someone not on the registry. Focusing on the registry means that the family is not going to see the real danger.
We can talk all day long about Luke and what he did and whether he deserves a second chance and whether the registry is fair to him or whether he should be able to play for the majors. NONE OF THAT HELPS. His victim is still dealing with what happened to her. As she gets older, do we really think that she won’t be approached by a reporter to talk about what happened? You want re-victimization, there it is.
Roman Polanski’s victim was 13-years-old when she was raped by him. Now that she is 54, she wants the courts to let things go because she doesn’t want to have to explain anal sex or rape or victimhood to her grandchildren. (Sorry…can’t find the article with that quote again. Maybe someone else who saw it can post that link.) In this article, she says, “I would implore you to consider taking action to finally put this issue to close as an act of mercy to myself and my family…”
Yes, letting the victim move on would be an act of mercy. Let’s hope this little girl is allowed to do that.
We need to focus on ways to PREVENT sexual abuse. The incidence of child sexual abuse has been considerably reduced already; I believe someone else posted that statistic earlier in this thread. How did that happen? Education? Willingness to talk about sex? Recognition that those close to our kids might make life-altering mistakes or might think they can get away with something secret?
The registry, though, does nothing to prevent sexual abuse. How do I know? Because with 850,000 people on the registry who are, for the most part, not committing new sexual offenses, there still are new convictions every single day. We will never get all the sex offenders on the registry. The registry protects no one.
“That is a good point, actually. We do not know what Luke has done wrong and not been caught for. Just as we do not know if Dienne (for example) has sexually abused children in her past.”
Just one, minor, wee little distinction. I have not been previously CONVICTED of abusing children. Luke has. Which is why he, not me, is on the registry.
“Yes, letting the victim move on would be an act of mercy.”
Agreed. And not seeing her abuser’s name for the next decade in every major newspaper and on every major sports channel celebrating his baseball prowess will very likely go a long way toward that.
Overlooked this one: “Because with 850,000 people on the registry who are, for the most part, not committing new sexual offenses….”
That means it works, right?
For Dienne and James….
Dienne, that sounds good, that the registry is responsible for the low number of people re-offending, but, alas, it is not so. Studies done examining data from ten years before the registry came into public existence and then coming forward another ten or eleven years show the same results both sides of the line: 95-96% of all reported sexual crime was committed by persons not on the registry, persons who had never been previously charged with a sexual crime at all. The overall re-offense rate held steady between 4 and 5% across all of those years. A few studies showed some positive correlation between a private law enforcement registry and lowered re-offense, but when it all went public, re-offense actually increased. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231989.pdf , page 15.
James, you may want to back off your dogmatic stance against Oregon placing no restrictions on registrants. According to these statutes in the Oregon criminal code, § § 144.642 (1)(a) and 144.644(2)(a), “The Department of Correction decides where and how close a sex offender can live to a school or daycare center based on a decision matrix.” https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm
I have no personal knowledge one way or the other, but I interpret that to mean that there are restrictions but they are not across-the-board ones; they are applied on an individualized basis. That certainly, in my opinion, puts Oregon head and shoulders above other states that apply or allow them applied as blanket rulings since the effectiveness and usefulness of restrictions of that sort are contradicted by the data.
I thought this discussion turned to the registry in general, not just Oregon. I don’t know about Oregon, but it is well known that most states have vicinity restrictions that say an offender cannot; live, work or loiter within 1000 feet of any location where children “might” gather. In most cities, this rules out just about every neighborhood or employer. So James, please explain your logic again.
Remember, your argument is that they are not facing much of a hardship. However if you want to admit that its a just punishment instead and completely change your course, feel free.
“if you think there are no living restrictions on placed upon those on the sor,call the Oregon state police,they tell a different story.”
This is another one of those “facts” that isn’t true. Feel free to cite the statute that says otherwise, or STFU.
“if you think being on the sor is a minor problem I dare you to put your body were your mouth is..and live under the same restrictions he is.”
The restriction of receiving a free university education? Of playing the sport he excels at in front of thousands? Of winning 90% of his games?
Of having people he doesn’t know say mean things about him on the Internet?
Hint: Until very recently, nobody even knew he was ON the registry. He WAS on it… he registered properly on arrival in Oregon, If the restrictions are such that nobody knows you’re restricted, how restricted are you?
“the punishment is far outweighing the crime.”
What punishment are you referring to? The probation he served before coming to Oregon?
“he could have murdered someone and already be out,”
Sure, except… nope… that’s another one of those “facts” that you made up.
If he was charged as an adult, the minimum sentence is 20 years, so he’d still be in prison. If he was charged as a juvenile, the sentence would have been detention until his 25th birthday, which he hasn’t reached, so he’d still be in detention.
“Here’s the deal: Somewhere out there is another 4-year-old (or 3yo or 15yo) who is being sexually abused. The sex offender registry has not protected her/him.”
You can’t say that for certain. The fact that Victim (V) was abused by abuser (A) doesn’t imply that V wasn’t protected from Registrant (R).
Let’s try some analogies. If I go to cross the street, and I look only to the left before stepping into the street, I will not be safe from traffic approaching from the right. Does that suggest to you that looking to the left before crossing the street is useless?
How about this. Statistically speaking, omewhere in America, right now, is someone who will be murdered within the next 24 hours. I don’t know who, or when, or what the circumstances are. When that person IS murdered, all the laws against murdering won’t have protected them. Does that suggest that abandoning all laws against murdering is an appropriate response?
One more. The airbags in my truck only protect me in the case of a collision. They do nothing for me if, say the vehicle is submerged. Should I take out the airbags?
“The registry, though, does nothing to prevent sexual abuse. How do I know? Because with 850,000 people on the registry who are, for the most part, not committing new sexual offenses, there still are new convictions every single day. We will never get all the sex offenders on the registry. The registry protects no one.”
Seatbelts don’t save lives. How do I know? Because every car manufactured for the last half century has had seat belts in it. Seatbelt use is mandatory. But there are still thousands of deaths in automobile crashes. Modern medicine doesn’t work, either, because people still die in hospitals. People still drown, so boats don’t work.
@George:
You sighted some statistics that say the recidivism rate for child molesters is low compared to other crimes. Now, I’m not trying to be a troll here but playing devil’s advocate, could the reason be that people on a sex offender registry for committing a sex offense against a minor are so highly restricted from being anywhere near a minor that they just don’t have the opportunity to re-offend? Again I’m not trying to be a troll here but I think I ask a valid question that the rest of American society would ask too.
But with that said, I really don’t understand why we treat ALL forms of child sexual abuse as the worst crime imaginable. Now, I’m certainly not making light of it as any sexual contact with a child is lewd, lascivious and s/b treated as a crime BUT I do believe there are sex crimes against a child, such as touching or fondling, that do not come close to murder or even beatings but yet we treat them just the same and sometimes even worse. I.e., even though I consider myself conservative and very pro-military, I personally believe that the infantryman who murdered those 9 Afghan children is worse than Jerry Sandusky. Now I’m not making light of what Sandusky did but at least his victims will have a chance at life, especially considering most of them are now millionaires. Whereas those child victims of that soldier are all DEAD and will never be there for their parents when their parents grow old. But yet many Americans made excuses for that soldier, like he was stressed out or that he was suffering from PTSD, etc., etc. and those same Americans wanted Joe Paterno (who never murdered or molested a kid) dug up and strung up by his testicles because he went to the administrators instead of the police! I just don’t understand the logic.
Adrian Peterson is another example. This guy PHYSICALLY abused his 4-year-old son by beating him with a stick. There were bruises and welts all over the kid INCLUDING near his genital area. But instead of beating his kid, let’s say that Peterson fondled his kid thru his clothes. If that were the case, would Adrian Peterson still be playing in the NFL? No way because he’d be in prison now and even if he weren’t, I doubt there’d be an NFL team who would sign him. But yet he beat his kid instead which I believe is much more damaging and traumatic to the child than placing his hand on his genital. Despite of that, Adrian Peterson is now a New Orleans Saint. Now I agree with giving him a second chance for what he did but why should we treat this 15-year-old kid any worse?
“James, you may want to back off your dogmatic stance against Oregon placing no restrictions on registrants. According to these statutes in the Oregon criminal code, § § 144.642 (1)(a) and 144.644(2)(a), “The Department of Correction decides where and how close a sex offender can live to a school or daycare center based on a decision matrix.” https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm”
Or, I may not need to back off my stance towards Oregon placing no restrictions on registrants, because it remains true. It is obvious that you did not actually refer to the statutes you cited, because if you had, you would have realized that ORS chapter 144 is not related to the sex-offender registry. I didn’t even have to go that far to know that this chapter of the law is not referring to the sex-offender registry, because it is obvious from the text you cited… the Department of Corrections does not run the sex-offender registry, the State Police do.
The statutes you cited actually refer to parole and probation conditions, and have nothing to do with the SOR.
Here is the actual text of ORS 144.642(1)
The Department of Corrections, in consultation with the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision and community corrections agencies, shall adopt rules establishing criteria to be considered in determining the permanent residence requirements for a sex offender released on post-prison supervision or parole. Transitional housing is not subject to permanent residence requirements. The department shall include in the rules:
“I have no personal knowledge one way or the other, but I interpret that to mean that there are restrictions but they are not across-the-board ones; they are applied on an individualized basis. That certainly, in my opinion, puts Oregon head and shoulders above other states that apply or allow them applied as blanket rulings since the effectiveness and usefulness of restrictions of that sort are contradicted by the data.”
Oregon DOES NOT place any restrictions on registrants other than the requirement to periodically re-register in person. Oregon DOES place restrictions on parolees and probationers (and not just parolees and probationers who were convicted of sex crimes).
“I thought this discussion turned to the registry in general, not just Oregon. I don’t know about Oregon, but it is well known that most states have vicinity restrictions that say an offender cannot; live, work or loiter within 1000 feet of any location where children ‘might’ gather”
In the present case, Oregon’s approach is the relevant one. Other states make their own choices. Why would an Oregonian be responsible for the way a state other than Oregon implements its laws?
“So James, please explain your logic again.”
I live in Oregon.
“Remember, your argument is that they are not facing much of a hardship.”
No. My argument is that at present, Mr. Heimlich is not facing much of a hardship. There’s only one of him, so “they” is an incorrect pronoun. He is not facing much of a hardship. He served his probation, which presumably was more of a hardship.
“However if you want to admit that its a just punishment instead and completely change your course, feel free”
No, I don’t think I’ll be doing that.
Another fact about Oregon: Oregon has the highest incidence of registered sex offenders (676 per 100,000) of all the states. Compare that to 271/100,000 next door in Idaho, 301 (WA), 230 (NV), or 266 (CA). Arkansas has the next highest, at 544/100,000. See a map here:
http://www.missingkids.org/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf
Okay. You have made it clear that you are only talking about Oregon and this individual. if Oregon really doesn’t place any vicinity restrictions on offenders, I will have to agree that is lax compared to most states. However, if Oregon adopts the Adam Walsh Act and enacts the vicinity and other restrictions that come with it, what will you say then?
The idea that the registry isn’t getting in Luke’s way much at all…let’s talk about that for a moment. It is true that in Oregon, he isn’t on a public registry and that has benefited him. Now that the cat’s out of the bag, though, his story is very different. I can’t imagine a major league team that will be willing to put up with the hassle of managing registry rules/laws as the team travels around the country, so that possibility is probably gone for him. Enough about Luke, though.
Let’s look at his future family, should he get married and have children. His wife and his children will have their address on the registry. Friends of his children may not be allowed to come to their home because it is listed on the registry. Depending on which state/county/city they will live in, the kids may not be allowed to have Halloween decorations or to hand out candy on Halloween. Their house may be targeted by vigilantes. Their very lives could be in danger, as we saw when the wife of SC registrant Charles Parker was killed with her husband by vigilantes targeting addresses found on the registry.
One can always find someone bad enough to say “he belongs on the registry with all the difficulty that comes with it”. The family of the registrant, though? Would anyone be so cruel as to say that they deserve what comes with the registry?
If he had not been on the Oregon registry but just had his juvenile crime (which is public in his home state) leaked, the fallout for him would be exactly the same. So this is not about the registry.
As far as this following him and his family all his life, nonsense. The law has been stated as allowing him to get off the registry pretty soon. I assume he could also get off of it by moving, which he is likely to do when he graduates from college anyway.
Another thing to remember is that often, people choose the SOR as part of a plea bargain to stay out of jail. Keep in mind that this young man, who molested a little girl multiple times, served no jail time, no hard labor, nothing that I would really consider punishment for his crime. He and his family have not acknowledged openly that he was wrong, other than what he wrote to get the plea bargain. He was not prevented from attending school, graduating, and going on to higher education, perhaps with a full scholarship (which most law-abiding people do NOT get), so that at a mere 21yo he has so many opportunities ahead of him. One almost feels like the people crying for him think baseball is more important than a little girl’s safety and innocence. But back to my point. In all likelihood, he CHOSE to be on the SOR rather than serve time, which would arguably hurt him more.
Some time ago, this site had an article about a guy who had taken a plea bargain to be on the SOR rather than serve time, after he put a $5 bill in a teen girl’s boobs. I think Lenore took it down because people got pretty harsh about that one too. I mean hello – you chose the crime – you do the time – especially if you plea bargained for it. The victim gets no say in a plea bargain. When these cases come up here, we’re just supposed to pretend there was no victim other than the perp himself.
I am becoming skeptical about the comments that most states do in fact ruin every aspect of a juvenile sex offender’s life forever. It seems there tends to be a lot of exaggeration on that topic every time it comes up here. I don’t feel like this is a place to find the objective facts on this particular topic.
“Now that the cat’s out of the bag, though, his story is very different. I can’t imagine a major league team that will be willing to put up with the hassle of managing registry rules/laws as the team travels around the country”
That’s not the problem. The problem is one of PR, which is related to the conviction, not registration. Does that affect his employment? Yes, it does. Does it END ALL POSSIBILITY of employment? No, it doesn’t.
“Let’s look at his future family, should he get married and have children. His wife and his children will have their address on the registry.”
Unless, of course, he is not ON the registry when this hypothetical wife and children appear on the scene. He is a level I offender. They come off the registry 10 years after they go on, and can petition to have that happen up to five years early.
“His wife and his children will have their address on the registry.”
If he stays in Oregon, his address will be on the registry but the registry is not available to the public.
“Friends of his children may not be allowed to come to their home because it is listed on the registry.”
No, although friends of his children may not be allowed to come to their home because a known sex offender lives there. That is the parents’ choice. Are you suggesting that parents should NOT have a choice in which homes their children visit?
“Depending on which state/county/city they will live in”
Stop right there. The state/county/city they live in is entirely their choice. They will decide if the benefits of moving there exceed the difficulties of moving there. The fact is, nothing that follows applies unless the mythical Heimlich family choose it to be so.
“the kids may not be allowed to have Halloween decorations or to hand out candy on Halloween. Their house may be targeted by vigilantes. Their very lives could be in danger, as we saw when the wife of SC registrant Charles Parker was killed with her husband by vigilantes targeting addresses found on the registry.”
Being targeted by vigilantes is something that can, indeed, happen when one is guilty of a crime. It’s also possible that they could be targeted by kidnappers because of their wealth, or by terrorists because they follow a specific religion. Or a rock could fall on them from space.
“The family of the registrant, though? Would anyone be so cruel as to say that they deserve what comes with the registry?”
Perhaps the mythical Mrs. Heimlich should consider that when she considers his marriage proposal. As she remains hypothetical, I am comfortable ignoring her suffering for now.
“If he had not been on the Oregon registry but just had his juvenile crime (which is public in his home state) leaked, the fallout for him would be exactly the same. So this is not about the registry.”
This. I’ve been trying to make this point.
And… for the people insisting that he can’t do this or that because of the registry…
He’s been on the registry the whole time.
It didn’t stop him from moving into the state. It didn’t stop him from enrolling at the University. It didn’t stop him from joining the baseball team. It didn’t stop him from earning a scholarship. It didn’t stop him from becoming a highly-regarded professional prospect looking forward to this year’s draft.
I’m beginning to believe from some of the comments here that a few on this blog would have felt right at home during the salem witch trials or the inquisition. “oh his punishment is nothing”. again if you think it’s nothing,,walk in his shoes, live his life. I am not defending what he did ,it was horrible, but do any of you know what rehabilitation is? it seems almost like some of you are glad the poor girl will have to live with this all her life. it gives you a reason to say he has no reason ever to be able to live a normal life. oh, but he got a full scholarship nobody gets those,yeah just most of the athletes I knew in college. several of you here think he should cover himself in sackcloth and ashes and spend his life begging on the road side alone and forsaken by the rest of humanity and even that is too good for him. I don’t know what is being done for the poor girl[therapy etc] but she hopefully will be able to get on with her life. but again it seems like some hope that she’ll be damaged because then they can keep being the self righteous judges of humanity.
SKL, there is no choice between serving time and serving time on the registry. If the crime puts them on the registry, there is no way to say “I’ll do prison instead of the registry” or “I’ll take the registry instead of prison.”
It is not wrong to hope that both victim and offender can go on to live good lives.
common sense said,
…it seems like some hope that she’ll be damaged because then they can keep being the self righteous judges of humanity.
Excellent point, cs. I see that, too, all over this thread. One example:
As if that inconvenience is somehow worse than the lifetime of trauma he inflicted on an innocent little girl.
“SKL, there is no choice between serving time and serving time on the registry. If the crime puts them on the registry, there is no way to say ‘I’ll do prison instead of the registry’ or ‘I’ll take the registry instead of prison.'”
This is incorrect.
A plea bargain includes bargaining for exactly which charge the defendant will plead guilty to. They may start out with a charge of 3rd degree sexual battery, and go on to plead guilty to disturbing the peace in exchange for having other charges dropped.
Also, not all charges carry automatic registration. Some include registration (or not) at the judge’s discretion during sentencing. The prosecutor can’t bind the judges hands, but if the judge doesn’t follow the prosecutor’s recommendation for sentence, the guilty plea can be voided.
I think the real story here is that any time the press can find a good sex scandal, they will ruin all the lives necessary to cash in on it.
The press is attacking college baseball for not punishing athletes way beyond what their original sentence. They know the public will back them because what kind of monster isn’t horrified when a 4-6yo is molested? The public will suffer temporary blindness to the real issue here.
The real issue: should athletes be shut out of sports because of juvenile sex offenses (or any sex offenses, or any offenses of other types)? Because this case was dredged up in this way, we really do need to have this discussion, and to be rational about it.
This young man did his crime and agreed to be placed on the SOR. That side of things is not up for discussion at this point. The SOR laws in Oregon do NOT prevent athletes from playing sports. Oregon SOR laws are not the issue. Other states’ SOR laws are also completely irrelevant to the real issue here.
If they actually decide to have a conversation about this real issue, then hopefully they can discuss all sides of it. Personally think a juvenile offense such as the one here has nothing to do with whether the young man should play baseball. What the hell does baseball have to do with it? If the question is can he coach little league, or regularly be in a room alone with a young child, that is a different discussion.
Here’s what I’d do now if I were Luke. I’d make a statement that I was convicted at age 15 for a juvenile offense of improperly touching a 6yo girl. I would admit guilt and talk about how sorry I am, the punishment/rehab I’d done. And then I’d push for a principled discussion about how juvenile acts should impact college and professional sports, taking into consideration how the industry handles acts and how society in general handles juvenile acts. And then I’d shut up and sit down. But out of the spotlight, I would develop and promote my arguments for the discussion. To make it a principled vs. selfish argument, I’d involve other young athletes who had juvenile records that may or may not impact their opportunities.
“This young man did his crime and agreed to be placed on the SOR.”
No, he admitted to a crime that required his registration on the SOR. Or he admitted to a crime and the judge sentenced him to the SOR. There is not a whole lot of agreement to it.
“Other states’ SOR laws are also completely irrelevant to the real issue here.”
Other states’ laws are only irrelevant at this moment. I do not believe Oregon has a professional baseball team so pursuing a career in baseball would require being drafted by a team outside Oregon. The SOR is governed by the state of residence, not the state of conviction. I am not even going to venture a guess as to what this will mean for him.
“A plea bargain includes bargaining for exactly which charge the defendant will plead guilty to.”
Correct in theory, however the DA holds almost 100% of the power in the plea bargain process. The defendant’s only power is to elect to go to trial. Going to trial is only a bargaining chip if you actually have a chance of winning said trial.
“I’m beginning to believe from some of the comments here that a few on this blog would have felt right at home during the salem witch trials or the inquisition.”
Well said!
” the DA holds almost 100% of the power in the plea bargain process.”
Depends on the strength of the evidence available.
“Going to trial is only a bargaining chip if you actually have a chance of winning said trial.”
Not quite. The prosecutor may have reasons to wish to avoid trial that aren’t related to fear of losing. (obtaining information that can only be given willingly (stereotypically, where the bodies are buried), sparing victims the need to testify, sparing the expense of bringing victims (or other witnesses) to testify, to obtain help in other, more significant cases, etc.)
“I assume he could also get off of it by moving, which he is likely to do when he graduates from college anyway.”
Absolutely not. Criminal sentences don’t just go away because you move states. If they did, everyone would just move after being convicted.
If he changes state of residences, he will be required to follow the SOR laws of his new state. Say he were to move to Georgia to play for the Braves. He would have to register in Georgia and follow all the SOR requirements of Georgia. If he is later traded to NY to play for the Mets, he would then have to follow the laws of NY. This is assuming that “state of residence” for registry purposes is the state for which he plays. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea how they would determine “state of residence” in this situation.
…it seems like some hope that she’ll be damaged because then they can keep being the self righteous judges of humanity.
“Excellent point, cs. I see that, too, all over this thread.”
I’m glad that others see this as well. The Roman Colosseum of 70 A.D. is very much alive and well today. People still enjoy watching harm come to others. Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortune of others.
Yes, Donna, I know that the laws in his new state of residence would apply, but he would have some control over where he moves and therefore what specific laws will apply to him. He can choose not to live in a state where the SOR law is particularly heinous. Who knows, maybe there are some states that wouldn’t even require him to register, given how long it’s been since his juvenile offense.
I’d actually be interested to know the range of state SOR laws, e.g., what are the most lenient, which are the toughest.
“The victim gets no say in a plea bargain.”
They do in my state. The DA still has most of the power, but victims have a right to be heard and judges don’t have to take plea bargains. Whether the judge will refuse to take a plea bargain varies by jurisdiction. I worked in one county where the judges refused to take plea bargains all the time. I’ve never seen it happen in any of the others.
“I am becoming skeptical about the comments that most states do in fact ruin every aspect of a juvenile sex offender’s life forever.”
The laws governing the SOR vary GREATLY by state. There are no generalities that can be made. In my state, being on the SOR does pretty much ruin your life for life. However, juveniles convicted in juvenile court don’t have to register (juveniles convicted as adults would and we consider you an adult for criminal purposes at 17, not 18).
There are likely some states out there that both ruin sex offenders lives for life and require juveniles to register, but it is not universal. Some states are like mine that ruin your life for life, but don’t require juveniles to register (unless convicted as adults). Other states require juveniles to register and life for them pretty much sucks, but they can get off the registry after some years. Other states require juveniles to register, but there are few requirements other than registering so their life doesn’t suck.
“He’s been on the registry the whole time.
It didn’t stop him from moving into the state. It didn’t stop him from enrolling at the University. It didn’t stop him from joining the baseball team. It didn’t stop him from earning a scholarship. It didn’t stop him from becoming a highly-regarded professional prospect looking forward to this year’s draft.”
Thank you, James, for helping me make my point. You have been correct about some things and incorrect about others, but in this regard you are 100% correct. The registry as such did not stop him from accomplishing any of those things. Why not? Because his registered status was not publicly known. Chances are that the university knew and those in charge of the sports programs knew, but he was not publicly listed due to his juvenile status and to the policies of the state of registration.
It is obvious now that is changing. His future on the team and as a “highly-regarded professional prospect” in the coming draft are very much in question. If the school and the team do the right thing, he will be able to remain a part of them both. If professional teams do the right thing, he will still be able to have a professional baseball career. But the rabidness of those who are screaming for his blood will not stop. It will take courage for the owner of a baseball club to hire him and stick by him. So yes, you are right; being on the registry has not impeded him — as long as the public did not know. This is what the public registry does. It doesn’t take residency restrictions or “child-safe” areas or prohibitions about where he may go or work or what he can and cannot do on Halloween. All it takes is that he is now known as a registered sex offender. He is the same person today that he was a week ago. But his life is not the same. The chances of it ever being the same again are very small.
“Who knows, maybe there are some states that wouldn’t even require him to register, given how long it’s been since his juvenile offense.”
It is my understanding that all states require someone who is on the registry in another state to register if relocating. This is true even if they would have not had to register had they been convicted in the 2nd state originally. For example, Luke would not have had to register in Georgia had he originally been convicted here. However, because he is on Oregon’s registry, he would have to register so he probably shouldn’t seek to be drafted by the Braves.
“I’d actually be interested to know the range of state SOR laws, e.g., what are the most lenient, which are the toughest.”
It is probably out there on the web somewhere. I would only trust something written within the last couple years. SOR laws seem to change more frequently than other laws. At least in my state.
“It is obvious now that is changing. His future on the team and as a “highly-regarded professional prospect” in the coming draft are very much in question.”
Yes, it is. As of now, he is no longer playing and likely will not play in the championship (at his request). And it is reported that at least 4 major league teams have dropped him from their draft lists. I think his odds of being drafted by a major league team are low.
But, as James or SKL or both stated, it is the fact that he has been convicted of molesting a 6 year old that is the problem, not the fact that he is on the registry. If he were on the registry for streaking across the football field at 15, things may be different. The legalities involved with having a team member on the registry might still turn teams away. He might choose not to be drafted by certain teams due to their state’s SOR laws. But there would not be this great moral outrage against him. There would likely be a great moral outrage for him actually because most would think that streaking across a football field at 15 should not end a promising baseball career.
“being on the registry has not impeded him — as long as the public did not know.”
Being on the registry isn’t impeding him now that the public knows, either. All of those things that were true about him a week ago are true now.
His problem is NOT the registration requirements. Imagine, for a moment, that overnight, a new law is passed that means he no longer has to register. Does that mean that all his problems disappear? No, they don’t, because whether or not he is a registered sex offender, he remains a CONVICTED sex offender, and it is the actions that led to his conviction that created the public’s distaste for him. Registered, not registered… not a difference maker..
Mr. Heimlich’s real problem? It’s a combination of two things… he got famous, and he had a shameful episode in his past. Either one of those, without the other, would not have created a problem for him. Both of them together, however, converted his fame to infamy.
Maybe it will turn out that he is unable to play baseball for a living. Guess he’d just have to fall back on his university education to find a real job. Like, you know, almost all of the OTHER college baseball players do. Oregon State won back-to-back college world weries titles a decade ago. You know how many of those players had major-league careers?
” I think his odds of being drafted by a major league team are low.”
He is, of course, MUCH better off if he is not drafted. If he is drafted, he can negotiate with only one team. If he is not drafted, he may choose the team(s) to which he’d like to offer his services.
Draft is for the benefit of the drafters, not the drafted.
That said, I think he will be drafted. Not as high as he otherwise would have been perhaps, but professional sports is show business, and show business depends heavily on the fickle tastes of the public who pays, directly and indirectly, for the show.
I was against Mike Tyson being allowed to fight again after some serious shenanigans, but apparently I was in the minority. There are others out there who have done some pretty bad things and still have a sports career, or entertainment career etc. While molesting a 6yo is an especially repugnant crime, Luke was a juvenile and he did serve his sentence. Unlike some other celebrated people.
I do hope Luke finds a way to get past this soon. Not that I really care whether he is able to get filthy rich throwing balls, but because the time for moving on is past.
“being on the registry has not impeded him — as long as the public did not know.”
Luke Heimlich is being impeded, to the extent he is impeded, because he is a convicted child molester, not because of the registry. The only part the registry plays in all this is that it was his failure to register properly that brought his crime to the attention of the reporter.
There are many people out there who are actually impeded by being on the registry. People who live in tent cities because they can’t live with their family due to residency requirements. People who lose jobs because their employer relocates within a certain distance of a school or daycare. People who can’t take their kids to the park or go to their school play because they are not allowed at those locations.
This guy isn’t suffering any of those consequences. He is suffering consequences merely because people found out about a prior crime. Something people have always been able to do. It is not as though criminal convictions were private before and the sex offender registry laws made them public.
Hey Dienne,
Who are YOU to assume what a former drug addicts true intentions are on the subject of continued drugs use?
Oh, I get it….you watch too much TV.
I’m a former cocaine addict. I spent my mid teens being so addicted to it that I stole money from my family to get it.
One night, alone in my room, snorting line after line, I almost OD’d. I callapsed to the floor, heart racing, room spinning and sweating profusely.
I did NOT go to the hospital. I never told anyone what happened. I made it through the night and when my body calmed down, I took the remaining cocaine that was on my little “coke” mirror and dumped it into the toilet, never to touch it again for fear that the next time would be my last time.
So take your assumptions of what people HAVE done and what they MAY DO again and shove it.
Thanks 🙂
@ HypocrisyEverywhere,
As if voting for Hillary would have been any different? If she was in office, every feminist nut job from CA to VT would be crying “rape” just because a man LOOKED in their direction.
Sex offense accusations would be made HOURLY.
Democrats and the leftists have serious mental issues. Their whole spiel about “acceptance and equality” is a load of BULLSHIT. They’re the biggest hate mongers on the planet.
Do you know how to use YouTube? I suggest you do and look up: SJW, protests and Antifa.
“Democrats and the leftists have serious mental issues. Their whole spiel about “acceptance and equality” is a load of BULLSHIT. They’re the biggest hate mongers on the planet.”
irony.
Once I had to design a sundial Charlotte North Carolina. I had to look up the latitude and longitude for that city. I entered the keywords “latitude Charlotte North Carolina”. On that page were the longitude and latitude as well as a few other things such as:
NC state bird
tourist info
weather
AND wait for it
A list of sex offenders that live in this area including their names and addresses
To SKL,
“Another thing to remember is that often, people choose the SOR as part of a plea bargain to stay out of jail.”
The SOR is NOT part of a plea bargain. It’s a REQUIREMENT for any type of sex offense.
Where are you getting your info from? Law & Order: SVU?
“Democrats and the leftists have serious mental issues. Their whole spiel about “acceptance and equality” is a load of BULLSHIT. They’re the biggest hate mongers on the planet.”
Extremist on either side (Dem and Rep) are dipshits. However, you pointed out who the real enemy is. ANYONE that has an attitude of THERE IS NO OTHER VALID OPINION ACCEPT MINE. ANYONE THAT BELIEVES IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT I BELIEVE IS AN ASSHOLE!
I agree that acceptance and equality can be taken to far, However, nil acceptance and equality is often associated with Hitler.
Hey James -I think I know Everything- Pollack,
You said:
“And… for the people insisting that he can’t do this or that because of the registry…
He’s been on the registry the whole time.
It didn’t stop him from moving into the state. It didn’t stop him from enrolling at the University. It didn’t stop him from joining the baseball team. It didn’t stop him from earning a scholarship. It didn’t stop him from becoming a highly-regarded professional prospect looking forward to this year’s draft.”
To which all I have to say is:
THATS BECAUSE HIS REGISTRY WAS PRIVATE ONLY FOR THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
You, sir, are a royal piece of shit. I’ve read all of your comments and in each one you become more and more of an ignorant piece of shit.
donald
I don’t hear the conservatives/republicans screaming about “acceptance and equality”, so if they don’t offer it, at least they’re not being hypocrites about it.
I am neither party because both may have good points but both shove their heads up their own asses.
And to James the Jackass Pollack,
Fuck your irony, you asshole. Mr fucking know it all about how the registry does or doesn’t effect people. Go soak your head in your toilet and keep it there, under the water. Take a deep breath.
LOL
I guess the world would be a much better place if we had more people like you
Sorry Phil
I thought that you were calling me an asshole
Perhaps my suggestion for a rational discussion was too optimistic ….
Whoa, easy there now Phil and sorry James, not a tinch of irony in the statement you quoted.
Perhaps my suggestion for a rational discussion was too optimistic ….
People who live on the registry and understand how it works tend to get a little riled up when others talk about how it isn’t a big deal.
“The SOR is NOT part of a plea bargain. It’s a REQUIREMENT for any type of sex offense.
Where are you getting your info from? Law & Order: SVU?”
It’s a requirement for some crimes. It’s left up to the judge as part of sentencing for some crimes.
However, some plea bargains involve the defendant offering to plead guilty to a crime that doesn’t carry an SOR registration, instead of one that does.
—
“Hey James -I think I know Everything- Pollack,”
It REALLY undercuts a rant of this nature when you start off by proving that you can’t even get the person’s name correct.
“To which all I have to say is:
THATS BECAUSE HIS REGISTRY WAS PRIVATE ONLY FOR THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.”
That’s the registry he’s still on now.
Everybody needs to stop acting as if the sex offender registry is a single thing. There is not one sex offender registry; there are 52 sex offender registries. Each state (and DC and Puerto Rico) has their own sex offender registry laws and they vary greatly. What is happening in your state is not universal. Stop insisting that it is.
This is one I don’t have a clear cut answer for. It would depend on the severity, perhaps. Idk.
I personally have several issues with the registry, especially when involving those who were put on it for consensual sex with other teens close to their age, sexting = child porn charges, or teens having a naked picture of themselves. That is ridiculous. I also think it grabs too many parents attention, focus & fear considering that most offenders are not on the list at the time of their crime.
I have several issues with most things implemented by grieving parents (who often spawn a larger mob of hysterical and outraged parents) in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy/crime or well documented mass hysteria. There are always plenty of important questions to be asked about these measures, and it’s hard to ask them when a very panicked % of the population (that contains a rather insane group who tend to believe in Satanic Ritual Abuse and think you’re a part of an organized ring) automatically accuses you of advocating for pedo’s. It’s a vile crime.
I do not appreciate it when people act as if assault/rape is the most horrific crime in the world for adult women, over being mutilated or violently murdered. People have been deplatformed on college campuses for making this statement, including rape victims. I don’t think it does a lot to help, and I say that from experience. It is a horrible crime but we do tend to put it above all others and give the impression that you can never, ever recover or be remotely normal. We tend to make everything 20 times worse when it happens to children because it’s unimaginable, and often ongoing.
During the Ritual Abuse Hysteria it became popular belief that all children would automatically shatter from trauma and develop multiple personalities. The push back people received when they tried to address/correct & expand on this very simplistic/blanket narrative, often pushed clinically insane quack therapists, was unreal. People still call
Debbie Nathan a pedo supporter for sharing a study when she was just trying to calm nerves.
The registry exists… I’d like to see it properly questioned and addressed… but I don’t know what you do in the meantime with situations like this. I don’t think all should. I don’t think those who got in the list as juv’s, have completed their requirements, have gone 6 years with no incident and have been given the lowest risk assessment should be targeted or taunted forever.
“Everybody needs to stop acting as if the sex offender registry is a single thing. There is not one sex offender registry; there are 52 sex offender registries.”
You’re right. I must admit that I’m guilty of that as well. Also, there have been changes to some of them in the last few years. However, I’m still judging it as the public stoning that it was. When it first started, I imagine it was a good thing. However, it became a tool for political grandstanding.
@James
I take back some of the things that I said. (about the registry) However, I still stand firm on several other things.
We are all walking mirrors. People will always reflect back to us what we send out. For example. If I’m so consumed in proving to everybody that I’m always right, then by default, I’m not listening to what anyone else has to say. THEREFORE, NOBODY WILL LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT I HAVE TO SAY. The discussion becomes a shouting match because neither party cares what the other has to say. They only want to stress their view as loud as they can.
I think you need to ponder that a bit. It may be the reason why so many on here call you a troll. (and several other things)
“I do not appreciate it when people act as if assault/rape is the most horrific crime in the world for adult women, over being mutilated or violently murdered. I don’t think it does a lot to help, and I say that from experience. It is a horrible crime but we do tend to put it above all others and give the impression that you can never, ever recover or be remotely normal. We tend to make everything 20 times worse when it happens to children because it’s unimaginable, and often ongoing.”
WELL SAID!
I believe this as well. I used the analogy of a toddler that falls down but does not immediately cry. They instead look around to see who is watching before they decide if they should react with a giggle or a blood-curdling scream!
“Hey James -I think I know Everything- Pollack,”
James Pollock really needs his own website. It’s a discredit to the world that his wealth of personal knowledge of ….well, just about everything…is encumbered by himself by being self-contained into this tiny corner of the world wide web, and only read by a few supporters of free range parenting.
James, how much would it take for us to donate to your cause to get you your own website?
First off: just because his sentence say “molestation” does not mean he brutally rape the girl. Remember when laws are made they clump them under one name!!! Shows the laziness of our law makers. So “molestation” could range from Luke holding the little girl in a hug to raping the girl!!!
We need to know “what” he did to justify if he deserves the “scarlet” letter we have branded on him. Most of the time it’s the parents of the younger child that make it a bigger issue than what it really was.
The registration laws were pushed during 2006 by John Walsh. If states don’t keep up with their sex registries they loose federal prison funding. Hum? Who is easier to convict: a 15 he old BOY touching a girl or a 30ish of older MAN who usually had multiple surviors and knows how to hide his actions?
Oh and what was our country doing in 2006???? Oh we were at WAR!!!! so most of us were to busy waving our flags instead of paying attention to our law makers passing idioctic laws.
Look,at your states satistics on the sex registries most registars were placed on there between the ages of 18-21.
I am a survivor of sexual assult, once at the age of 3 (family friend 15 year old son) and stranger assult in the army. I am not a victim when you say victim I feel I should feel bad about myself! Heck no!!! The more I am a “VICTIM” THE MORE POWER THE jerks have over my life!!! Sorry my life is mine!!!!
I feel sorry for this 11 year old girl because she will forever be reminded everyday that she is a “VICTIM” She will never be normal because our society wants her to stay the “VICTIM” So they can justify their actions of throwing stones.
If I could talk to this girl I would say ” Girl you are awsome! You are alive and a survivor! Don’t let anyone bring you down!!! You are not this guys victim!!!
I don’t live in fear. I have PTSD but under control, my kids live normal lives! As grade school students they walked by themselves to school. They have flown on planes by themselves. My daughter drives across 5 states to come home from college. By herself. My kids know about sex. They know what making love is. They know the difference between the two. They know to go with their gut feelings. They know of my past.
So those of you who are not wanting the “Lukes” near their daughter’s well then you better keep your daughters off the roads too. More children are killed in car accidents than children getting sexual assulted. Oh and according to John Walsh your daughters should not have male babysitters so sorry dad’s you fall in the category of male!!!! And I guess your daughters shouldn’t have male teachers nor male bosses nor even male husbands since all males are pre programmed to want sex and are more than likely to abuse “girls”.
I have to say are we raising a group of whimsy girls or strong women who can overcome!!!!
.
James Pollock: “‘ I think his odds of being drafted by a major league team are low.’
He is, of course, MUCH better off if he is not drafted. If he is drafted, he can negotiate with only one team. If he is not drafted, he may choose the team(s) to which he’d like to offer his services.
Draft is for the benefit of the drafters, not the drafted.
That said, I think he will be drafted. Not as high as he otherwise would have been perhaps, but professional sports is show business, and show business depends heavily on the fickle tastes of the public who pays, directly and indirectly, for the show.”
Well, the draft has come and gone and Luke was not drafted.
And this is not to his benefit.
If you are a good player and somehow go undrafted, then James is correct and you are in good shape because you can negotiate with whichever team you want. But if EVERY SINGLE TEAM knew about you, you were projected to be a round 1 or round 2 pick and NO ONE even wasted a late 30s round pick on you … well, the chances that a team that could have picked you in the 38th round, offered you a $10,000 signing bonus and did not then turns around and offers you any sort of deal are … very, very low.
All 30 teams knew he was a legit 1st or 2nd round pick. And none of them used even their 40th round selection on him (at which point he could only sign with them for the next year). This is not a good career development for Luke, and in fact, his theoretical MLB career is now probably dead.
“his theoretical MLB career is now probably dead.”
Maybe… but if it is, it’s BEEN dead since he was 15.
He’s got another year of school left.