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 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.
Don't judge all or even a majority of FReepers by a thread that happened to be pinged onto by those who think alike and post in gangs. And never go along to get along - not even for one comment - not even on FR!
“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.”
The way I see it, I don’t think that depriving felons of guns is wrong per se, but the arbitrary way it is done is. Being deprived of their guns should be an explicit part of their sentence. I.E. ‘X was sentenced to 10 years in prison for armed robbery and is prohibited from owning or using guns for 25 years/life or whatever’.
Yep. See my comment #43. We're in complete agreement.
A 9mm to the head would fix the visitation situation.