Skip to comments.Massachusetts rapist wants to see victimís child
Posted on 10/03/2012 2:30:14 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
A Massachusetts man who pleaded guilty to raping a 14-year-old in 2009 is now seeking visitation rights for the child he fathered a sensitive case that could force the victim to maintain contact with her rapist.
That possibility has left the teen mother in an emotional tailspin, according to Fox 25 Boston, and she doesnt want to interact with the man a then-20-year-old she had met through the same church.
She got raped at 14, the victims mother told Fox 25. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.nydailynews.com ...
That Judge needs to be jerked up by his/her collar and shaken until the fillings fall out of his/her teeth.
What kind of FOOL would make a decision like this.
Allowing a pedophile to have visits with the product of a rape he committed.The SOB should have been hanged for the rape.
This is the kind of antagonistic and threatening behavior that could get your rapist butt shot right off. But then my family is all rednecks and hillbillies.
Not technically a pedophile, because she was a post-pubescent girl. I get your point, just pointing out the literal meaning of the term.
This is whay all rape victims MUST have abortions.
Todd Akins thinks he should have custody.
This link has a map of states that have some protections against rapists and those that have none.
At first, I thought this guy must have ‘merely’ committed statutory rape (hence the relatively light sentence) however:
He threatened me, the girl said of the rape. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldnt have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared.
3 years for forcible under-age rape is an abomination.
Get OUT of Mass. immediately. Engage a lawyer, and arrange for any communications to be via him/her, and provide him/her with a PO box in a city NOT where you live. Go Now. You know these f***ing judges: they will not only allow it, but will ORDER it. They're ordering the state to provide a sex change to a murderer, so you know they'll favor the prisoner's rights before yours.
Pack and get the hell out. Now!!!
Not the way I read it.
He served NO time in prison - it was all probation.
“The victims rapist, who was not identified by Fox 25, was sentenced by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire to 16 years probation in 2011.
Prosecutors were seeking three to five years in prison for the man, who pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape of a child, Fox 25 said.”
The case is complicated by the fact that the court ordered the slime to pay child support. Payment of child support gives the dirtball a crack in the system to try to justify visitation rights.
My suspicion is that this piece of trash is using the visitation rights approach to get out of the child support requirement.
Were I the judge, and able to go back in time, I’d have given him a choice: serve your sentence (ideally more than three years), and pay child support until the kid reaches adulthood, or stay in prison until at least the time the kid hits 21.
If he was convicted of the rape, and sentenced, then when he has completed his sentence, he does have a case -- by the same logic we all use here on FreeRepublic that a felon who has completed his sentence should regain his right to bear firearms and vote. We all do not require that an ex-felon never regain his right to defend himself later in life.
Similarly, then (and this is a very difficult thing to say, because rape is such a heinous crime), this rapist is still the biological father, and biological fathers have rights that are forcefully defended here on FreeRepublic. He's paying child support. Rapist or not, after he has completed his sentence, he is still the father of the child. Are we saying we want to deny his rights as a father AFTER he's completed his sentence?
That's a tough one. As the father of a daughter, my personal sympathies are totally with the girl. But I have a hard time saying that the father will never get to see his child, or that the child will never get to know her father.
OTOH, it sounds like he only got 16 years of probation, no jail time, and he's asking for father's rights prior to the 16 years being completed. That's not right, IMO. That weak sentence complicates things a lot.
He got probation. The court ruling is consistant with a situation where there was some sort of consensual relationship and the rape was statutory rather than forced, although the girl is quoted in the story as being coerced into sex.
I like that the girl kept her child, the child of a rape. I like that the man was put in a position where he would have to pay child support. Unfortunately, that opened the door for the problems that are being addressed in this article.
Her lawayer is trying to get the “child support” payments changed by court order to “restitution”, so that he will no longer have parental rights. That is how it should have been done in the first place.
The article does not indicate that the girl or the parents were upset with the probation ruling, in this article they are upset that he might get visitation rights. They may also have been upset with the court outcome — just the story doesn’t say that.
You nailed it. The child support was the key to getting visitation.
The victim’s attorney to trying to redefine this....
Part of the probation arrangement demanded he acknowledge he is the babys father and follow probate and family court rules, according to My Fox News station.
The law requires him to pay child support but also entitles him to seek visitation rights.
Now the man has allegedly asked for visitation rights, but the teenage mother says he has ‘never cared’ about her three-year-old toddler until now, Fox 25 reported.
The man’s legal representative refused to comment on the requests to see his child, but said the initial relationship between the victim and his client was consensual.
The teenage mother’s attorney Wendy Murphy told the NY Daily News that she had asked the Superior Court judge to amend the sentencing conditions.
Ms Murphy has filed a motion asking that the rapist would pay ‘restitution’ instead of child support, which would deny him access to the child through family court.
She has also asked that he be made to stay away from the child and mother.
A shocked Ms Murphy questioned why a criminal court had ‘punished’ the father with potential parental rights, NY Daily News reported.
She said allowing the man access to family courts he could have the chance to influence the child’s upbringing.
Ms Murphy, who teaches classes on sexual violence at New England Law-Boston, told NY Daily News:’This family has been very clear from the beginning that they want nothing to do with this guy.
‘What legal system requires a toddler to have a relationship with the man who raped her mother?’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209258/Familys-outrage-girls-rapist-seeks-paternal-visitation-rights-child.html#ixzz28H5zY0X8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I am sure that is the argument the attorney for the rapist would use. But you are gorgetting one thing, the woman who was raped. What about how it victimizes her every time she has to even talk to the rapists? Is that not a form of mental abuse that she has a right to be free from?
They were seeking 3-5 years in prison. He received 16 years probation. Didn’t do any prison time at all.
While the girl is quoted here in a manner that suggests forcible rape could have been alleged, both the prosecution and the court appear to have treated the case as a consensual statutory rape case — I say that by judging both what the prosecuter was SEEKING, and what the court actually ruled.
I have no other knowledge, nor am I giving my approval to the outcome, just trying to understand what we are reading.
This ruling is judicial terrorism. If the only way to get the rapist out of her life is to kill the baby, that’s what raped girls/women are going to choose. Otherwise they could be terrorized by JUDGES their whole life long.
The probation sentence is a farce and and a total injustice.
Let him pay support for those 16 years and stay out of trouble, and maybe then he can bring a case.
yeah, but fathers’ rights and all that...
Personally I think the perp should have been locked up for a very long time, at the very least. Contact with his victim is not at all good.
I'm in NO WAY defending the perp. Good lord no. I'm just trying to line up our (FReepers') attitudes on what status a perp has, once they've completed their sentence.
This SOB has barely STARTED his.
Let him try to visit once, and then rake whats left of him out of the harbour, after he has an accident on the ferry getting there.
this is why bammy is president....muddled unclear thinking and excuse making for abominations....
as a freeper, I defend common sense and morality....if there's grey areas, well that's life.... a sperm donor is NOT a father...
Jamie Melendez, now 24, was convicted of raping a middle school student he met when he was 17 and a foster child involved with a church youth group in Norfolk, Mass. According to the victim's attorney, Melendez went to the girl's house when he knew her mother would not be home and pressured her to have sex with him. She said she felt threatened and intimidated by Melendez.
Frankly, if the dude was concerned with his right to be able to defend himself he shouldn't have done the crime.
Sometimes life is tough ~ as it should be to those who are criminally inclined.
Some. Not all. IMHO the second amendment is a right, the voting franchise is a privilege, and the idea of child visitation rights for a convicted rapist is an abomination.
A father’s rights should be supported. I don’t think a person who became a father by rape should be included in that group. Not even close.
Being rapist changes it all.
And there are only a few Freepers crazy enough to want to restore felons’ RKBA right out of prison. I’m not one of them.
So no way should this subhuman have access to the child or be allowed near his victim.
To be honest, I agree. I brought up the difficult logical point in my initial comment, because I usually find myself in the minority position (among FReepers) with regard to felons getting their rights back.
I tend more toward the position of, "You screwed up and committed a crime. The results of that crime are still around. Sorry, you don't get all your rights back, just because you've completed your sentence."
On many threads, that position draws me a lot of flak, though.
You are not in the minority. The “restore felons’ RKBA” types are just very noisy.
I was only pointing out that it seems a majority of FReepers have taken a seemingly different position when it's a firearms crime.
It appears however that THIS thread has a very different consensus, which agrees with my own personal one, that:
I like that. You thinking propellers, or sharks, or just a group of concerned citizens on the ferry?
General Hospital-Luke-and-Laura liberal nonsense...bump.
They should not have called it child support, he should have been made to pay “damages” to the mother for emotional harm, but it should have coincided with the child’s age. Why should a rapist have a say in what happens to the baby, what are we using for the judicial system now, sharia law?
Why wasn’t the creep in prison?
What judge would allow such nonsense?
It would only be 'similar,' if we forced the felon's victim to sell him the firearm or be in contact with the armed dirtbag. As for the child resulting from the rapist's crime, he/she should be considered the proceeds of his crime. Since when are criminals entitled to the proceeds of their crimes?
When the limitations placed by "sex offender" laws, even restricts a rapist's freedom to interact with other woman/children, why should he be allowed to interact with the women victim and child resulting from his crime?
Finally, felons have never had the right to vote until demented liberal logic gave it to them. Are you on FR to support extending demented liberal logic even futher?
Not at all. Please see my later comments above, #30 and #33 in particular, in response to others FReepers; and please consider yourself addressed by those as well. Thanks!
It’s OK. Your second comment came after my knee had already jerked. There are going to be shades of grey, even among Conservatives, when it comes to opinions about how far and for what reasons natural rights may or may not be restricted. Your only error was in generalizing about Freepers, as highly opinionated, educated, thoughtful, and vocal a group as exists on the internet.
That was three years ago....and I would assume this POS is cooling his heels in a prison cell....for pleading guilty to raping a 14 year old....
She is being asked to bring junior to his prison / S
Pedophiles are usually released, if at all, under lifelong rules regarding contact with children.
My personal opinion is that if we plan to restrict the prior rights and privileges of a person convicted of a crime, then the sentence should be explicit in that regard. For example (just making up the numbers for an example):
To be confined for a period of 10 years in prison, and made to pay a fine of $10,000 regardless of how long it takes, and to be stripped of the 2nd Amendment right to bear firearms for life, to be stripped of the privilege of voting for life, to be restrained by court order from contact with the following individuals for life, to not consume alcohol for life, to not drive a car for life, ...... and so on, whatever the sentence may be. Make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the perp does not revert to normal citizenry, even at the end of incarceration or completion of certain other parts of the sentence.
I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with making ALL conditions of penalty and punishment absolutely clear during sentencing.
It would save a lot of subsequent trouble, such as in this unfortunate instance.
From the article, it appears he plead guilty to the lesser charge of statutory rape and avoided prison time with a long probation period instead.
Some states have laws that spell it all out. Still, there will always be some judge who feels sorry for somebody and try to show discretion.
The defense attornies argued successfully in a MA court that since it wasn't possible to figure out which bat had killed which victim, murder was not provable.
I believe they changed their laws a bit since then, but you'd think that by the time the 20th Century had come around even MA legislators would have figured out how to describe mob or group action and how to hold members accountable for the crimes.
Hopefully someone will kill him and save her and her child from being emotionally raped by the worthless sack of garbage.
In many/most states, going back for ages, any death (even of another perpetrator) during the commission of felony is grounds for a murder convictions against all the perpetrators (even getaway car drivers) who where provably part of the initial felony. The courts and or laws in Massachusetts are truly demented!
You bring up an interesting and critical point. What if the crime was committed in State A, and after some period of time, the victim(s) move to State B (we don't want to restrict them). Then after completing the jail sentence, the perp decides to move to State B.
And let's say State B doesn't have the tight restrictions of State A. Can the perp avoid the lifelong aspects of his sentence from State A?
The only way to enforce the lifelong restrictions from State A is that part of his sentence is to be required to remain in State A for life.
IANAL so I don't know what happens in such a case, but it sure seems this life-long aspect can get complicated if it's not a federal crime.