A man is driving his car when a fourteen year old girl runs out into the road in front of him. He manages to swerve and avoid hitting her. He then calls her over to the car and grabs her by the arm while he gives her a telling off. Sounds like a fairly ordinary scene doesn't it? Not in Chicago. The man in question was taken to court and as a result has been placed on the sex offenders register.
Ridiculous? Of course it is and even the court recognised the fact, stating that it was, "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated." However, they went on to state that although this wasn't a sex offence, his actions- that is, grabbing the girl by the arm- are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested. Got that? His actions might indicate the type of behaviour that a potential criminal might engage in so he's to be charged anyway. He was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction but the offence he was found guilty of- unlawful restraint of a minor- is a sex offence, hence his inclusion on the sex offenders register which means that he will have to inform police where he lives, and he will not be able to live near a school or park. Who knows what effect this might have on his private life either- seems to me that a man's entire life has been ruined because he didn't run a girl down. In fact, given the charges filed against him an the conviction, it looks like he'd have been better off not swerving to avoid her.
Barnaby's lawyer stated- "This is the most stupid ruling the appellate court has rendered in years. If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"
The court's response was- again- "because of the proclivity of offenders who restrain children to also commit sex acts or other crimes against them." Think about that for a moment- engage in a behaviour which is an indicator of possible future criminal activity and be charged- just to be on the safe side. The Judge in the case even stated that he didn't "really see the purpose of registration (on the sex offenders list)". He also said, "it's more likely than not" Barnaby planned only "to chastise the girl" when he grabbed her, but "I can't read his mind." So, just to be on the safe side, charge the guy and ruin his life. Didn't it used to be that someone had to be guilty to be charged with a crime?
I have two young daughters and I am very concerned about their welfare- in my opinion a sex offender should be thrown in prison for the rest of their life on the first offence with no chance of parole or early release. There is no place in society for those who prey on children. None at all. And yet I can't even remotely see the logic of this conviction- perhaps if Barnaby had just stopped his car and called the girl over, grabbing her arm, I could understand why he'd be put on a sex offender's list- but to do that to him because he told her off after nearly running her down? Those circumstances don't seem to warrant the charge, especially when the court itself said that it was unfair to stigmatize him, right before it did so anyway.
I wonder what other "indicators of possible future criminal activity" exist? Want to bet that you're engaged in some of them? Take this for example- many paedophiles are also Trekkies. I'm sure that the "pre-crime division" would like to speak with you about...something.
No comments:
Post a Comment