Follow by Email

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Prosecution Due To Mindset

Is this good?

Hey folks,

I will admit I am complete torn on this one. Truth is, I have no idea if this is good or not. Truth is, I like it, but it seems to me to be a dangerous and very slippery slope.

Now you know that I have said in the past that I see Child Molesters and Rapists as the lowest and completely un-rehabilitable scum. Perhaps even worse than Murders. We have seen over and over again that these folks, nearly all of them, WILL molest and rape in the future if and when they are released. I do not know what it is, why it is, but they seem to have this never quenching hunger to do the things they do.

So when I first saw this, I thought to myself, GREAT. This is GREAT. But then I started to think about it. According to the PRNewswire-USNewswire, and this News Release,

First Sexually Dangerous Individual Committed Under New Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

BOSTON, Feb. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- After a ten-day trial before Judge Patti B. Saris, Jeffrey Shields of Bath, Maine, was civilly committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a sexually dangerous person. Shields is the first individual in the country to be civilly committed to federal custody as a sexually dangerous person.

In July 2006, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub.L. No 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006), to combat sexual violence and to protect children. The legislation created, for the first time, a federal civil commitment program for sexually dangerous persons. To commit an individual under its provisions, the Government must establish that an individual: (1) had engaged in child molestation or sexually violent conduct in the past; (2) suffers from a mental illness, abnormality or disorder; and (3) would, because of that illness, abnormality or disorder, have serious difficulty in refraining from future acts of child molestation or sexually violent conduct in the future.

Evidence presented during the trial proved that Shields had numerous prior sexual offenses against children. In May of 1988, Shields was convicted of making obscene phone calls to two boys in Wakulla County, Florida. In January of 1989, in Camden, Maine, Shields fondled the genitals of a thirteen-year-old boy after luring him to an abandoned building. In April of 1989, Shields committed an indecent assault on a nine-year-old boy in an elementary school bathroom in Florida. In July of 1989, Shields sexually assaulted a fourteen-year-old boy in the bathroom of a private school in Bath, Maine and in September of 1989, Shields sexually assaulted a six-year-old boy outside the same school. In March of 1998, in Portland, Maine, Shields engaged in unlawful sexual contact with a twelve year old boy. While on probation for his 1998 offense, Shields was arrested by the Portland Maine Police for possession of child pornography and Shields later plead guilty to federal child pornography charges.

At trial, three psychologists opined that Shields suffered from pedophilia, a recognized mental disorder. In finding Shields sexually dangerous, Judge Saris found that, as a result of his pedophilia, Shields would have serious difficulty in refraining from future acts of child molestation if released into the community.

"When the Adam Walsh Act was passed in 2006, it sought to strengthen federal laws to protect our children. The civil commitment of Jeffrey Shields is one step toward keeping our children safe from sexual predators," said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, upon finding that he is a sexually dangerous person, Shields is committed to the custody of the Attorney General.

The case was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark Grady and Eve Piemonte-Stacey, of Sullivan's Civil Division.

SOURCE U.S. Attorney's Office

So I agree that this guy is scum. He likes, or cannot help himself from, molesting little Boys. Should he be locked up for life? I think so. But you know as well as I do, that once something like this is put into place, a lot of the time, it is the starting point. Something placed into reality that others decide need to be amended and added to.

So let's look at the criteria

(1) had engaged in some conduct that others see a wrong in the past;
(2) suffers from a mental illness, abnormality or disorder; and
(3) would, because of that illness, abnormality or disorder, have serious difficulty in refraining from future acts of said conduct in the future.

So, could this be added on? Let's say you do something that others see a bad. We can and have deemed certain conduct in this country that may necessarily be wrong, but through time and through propaganda, the majority seem to agree that you just shouldn't do whatever it is.

So now they find you are guilty. The Psychobabble Community, and Big Drug, come out and label you with having some sort of mental disorder. New ones pop up every year. Mostly for the financial gain that comes with treatment. Then they say, you can't help it, your sick, you WILL repeat whatever the offensive behavior is in the future. So NOW they have the right to just lock you up for the rest of your life? Based on nothing that you actually DID, but because they have deemed it possible that you MAY in the future?

I do not know, but it seems a little dangerous to me to get into an area when we start throwing people away based on what OTHERS may think is in their minds. But then again, maybe I'm just paranoid. {Smile}
Peter

No comments: