Massachusetts rapist wants to see victim’s child

NY Daily News ^ | 9/26/2012 | ERIK ORTIZ

[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 doesn’t want to interact with the man — a then-20-year-old she had met through the same church.

“She got raped at 14,” the victim’s 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?”

[dayglored]

> 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?

Absolutely!

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.

[Candor7]

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.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I'm going to point out something unpleasant and difficult. 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? Eh? The comparison with the right to own guns after completing your sentence and visiting the child you conceived with rape is completely invalid. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that ex-criminals should be allowed to force themselves into the lives of their victims, especially because of the result of their crime.

[cherry]

I don't defend "father's rights" and no way should a violent act EVER be rewarded with "visitation" .....this is not like some property crime felonius acts...this was a personal attack that caused grevious harm....

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...

[CharlesWayneCT]

Here's a paragraph from an ABC story on the same issue:

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.

[muawiyah]

Not all of us agree that a convicted felon should get his right to tote guns back ~ and most certainly not when he used a weapon in the commission of the crime.

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.

[katana]

the same logic we all use here on FreeRepublic

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.

[nickcarraway]

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.

[Little Ray]

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.

[dayglored]

> Not all of us agree that a convicted felon should get his right to tote guns back ~ and most certainly not when he used a weapon in the commission of the crime.

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.

[Chode]

the judge and the rapist should receive the same talking to...

[Little Ray]

You are not in the minority. The “restore felons’ RKBA” types are just very noisy.

[dayglored]

Just so y'all know, see my comment #30 above, I agree with you guys.

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:

• The crime was heinous
• The light sentence was a complete miscarriage of justice
• Allowing the perp access to the victim and her child is unjustified
• If there's any case to be had, it should be that the victim should ask that the sentence be reviewed and the perp get some serious jail time.

It complicates things that she's been accepting the child support. Maybe she can return it, in trade for putting the scum behind bars.

[dayglored]

> 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.

I like that. You thinking propellers, or sharks, or just a group of concerned citizens on the ferry?

[madison10]

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?

[TheDon]

What judge would allow such nonsense?

[drpix]

"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..."

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?

[dayglored]

> 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!

[fella]

This kind of sounds like the way muslims treat rape victims. One more step toward sharia.

[katana]

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.