Mom Beats Up sex-Offender

[jessiej920]

A mother in my good ol' home-state of WA has plead no-contest to the accusation that she beat up a sex-offender, who she saw talking to her 10 year old child, with a baseball bat. A little twist on the issue is that not only did she attack him in his own home, but she also beat him up, not for molesting her children, so she says, but because she recognized him as a man she had seen "chatting up" her daughter the year before and offering her fire-works. She says that once the man moved into her neighborhood and fliers were distributed, she recognized his face and height (7"3) and went to confront him and then attacked him

Here is are links to the article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/401858_batattack28.html

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

Link to sex Offender Registry and the man attacked:

http://www.familywatchdog.us/ViewOffenderDescription.asp?oID=WA935945&aID=&at=1&sid=&sp=1&nm=

What do people think of this?

Some things to think about:

This woman broke the law and admitted it. Vigilantism is illegal.

This man is a Level 3 (High risk offender), though age and sex of his victim(s) is not listed.

RCW 9A.44.083
Child molestation in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.

This man has served his time and has been released.

Should we be allowing level 3 sex offenders back on the streets when they are at such a high risk of re-offending?

In general, what do people think of this woman's actions?

Please discuss respectfully and attempt to not be sexist/racist.

 

[Asguard]

jessie as distasteful as the crime you say (i dont know either way) is did his punishment as authorised as the courts include being beaten up by this women?

i sugest it doesnt and there for what she did was compleatly immoral. This is why these sex offenders registries are so wrong, its all well and good for the police to have a record of people like this and there offences but its a compleatly different matter for it to be in the hands of the public. He would be well with in his rights to sue the state for not protecting him from her actions, not to mention the moron who put up the flyers.

I mean look at the precedent this sets, would it be ok for someone who has had a friend or family killed by a drink driver to hack into the criminal database, look up all the names of those who have been convicted of drink driving and then kill them?

what if it was a fake and it turned out it was just his ex gf who he cheated on had put these flyers around to get back at him?

 

[PieAreSquared]

7'3" and she went after him with a baseball bat.... hope she got him in balls a few times
:jason:

 

[jessiej920]

jessie as distasteful as the crime you say (i dont know either way) is did his punishment as authorised as the courts include being beaten up by this women?

No, his punishment did not. I agree that what this woman did was wrong, but at the same time, I am not a mother and Goddess knows what I would do if I saw a registered sex-offender talking to my daughter. I might attack him. The thing about this issue that I found interesting was that she acted a year after she saw this man talking to her daughter, only realizing he was a sex offender when he moved into her neighborhood. This could mean several things, but two I think are possible are A) she was mistaken and chose to take her anger about sex-offenders out on the one living in her neighborhood or B) this sex-offender frequented her neighborhood before he moved there and not only that, but if he did speak with her daugher after his conviction, I would assume he was in violation of his parole. he could have been targeting the child.

This is, of course, just my opinion. It doesn't make either his actions of speaking to the child (if commited) or her attacking him (obviously commited) right.

i sugest it doesnt and there for what she did was compleatly immoral. This is why these sex offenders registries are so wrong, its all well and good for the police to have a record of people like this and there offences but its a compleatly different matter for it to be in the hands of the public. He would be well with in his rights to sue the state for not protecting him from her actions, not to mention the moron who put up the flyers.

I agree that her actions were wrong, but I do not believe sex-offender registries are wrong, especially for level three offenders who have such a high risk of re-offending. So many people, especially children, are killed each year because the state has failed to keep track of sex-offenders and simply releases them back into society. I do see, though, the faults in the system as well.

With level three offenders, because they are such high-risk, their information is made public and is required by law to be distributed to the community. Police inform the citizens of the community and so on. With level two to one, I believe you must go down to the police station to gather any information on their crimes.

The reason for this is that level one sex-offenders, for example, are deemed very low risk and not likely to re-offend. Sometimes they are even the victims in cases of statutory rape gone awry, such as the case I am working on right now. It truly sux that some people are victimized by the system and lumped together with those that deserve to be in a completely different category of criminal.

An 18 year old male or female who sleeps with someone even ONE hour too young for the age of consent could be convicted of statutory rape and have to register as a sex-offender no matter if the sex was consensual or not.

I mean look at the precedent this sets, would it be ok for someone who has had a friend or family killed by a drink driver to hack into the criminal database, look up all the names of those who have been convicted of drink driving and then kill them?

Of course not. And all level three sex offender info is distributed by the police to the community. This does not fall into the category of drunk driving or computer hacking. Like I said in the OP, obviously vigilantism is illegal and to engage in it wrecks the balance of our justice system and only makes the criminals victims.

what if it was a fake and it turned out it was just his ex gf who he cheated on had put these flyers around to get back at him?

I don't know about the woman, but this man is a level three sex-offender guilty of Child Molestation 1 and registered.

It doesn't mean that this woman should have attacked him though.

 

[Challenger78]

So.

When it's the law against the innocent, sweet teenage girl found with 2-3 Kilos of herion in her bag, we in Australia rush to her defence,

But when its an sexual offence affecting a few children, with the offender caught and served jail time, only to be set upon by the rest of society, where are the defenders ?
Even though this crime is in the U.S. I can just imagine it happening here, with our idiotic current affair, finger pointing shows.
Justice without emotion is the fairest justice of all, Objectivity is the only thing keeping society from destroying itself.

This woman should serve time for assault. Once we start cutting deals with vigilantes, we start a slippery slope etc. The prosecutor cannot allow this case to go to a jury.

There's another side that argues that vigilantism is exactly what high crime areas need, but these things never stay contained, It's not like our law enforcement forces are totally corrupt or inept.

 

[jessiej920]

This woman should serve time for assault. Once we start cutting deals with vigilantes, we start a slippery slope etc. The prosecutor cannot allow this case to go to a jury.

Agreed. This woman was not acting in immediate defense of her child and while I don't believe the crime(s) commited by the man she attacked should be excused, IMO :jason:, he still has rights as a most unfortunate human being to not be attacked in his own home.

I agree that vigilantism unbalances the justice system put in place by state and federal government, but for the love of all that is holy, I sometimes wish I could indulge.

There's another side that argues that vigilantism is exactly what high crime areas need, but these things never stay contained, It's not like our law enforcement forces are totally corrupt or inept.

I agree mostly. I think more corruption exists then we want to admit though. :shrug:

 

[copernicus66]

So.

When it's the law against the innocent, sweet teenage girl found with 2-3 Kilos of herion in her bag, we in Australia rush to her defence,

But when its an sexual offence affecting a few children, with the offender caught and served jail time, only to be set upon by the rest of society, where are the defenders ?

What the... ass... are you on about?

 

[copernicus66]

I agree that her actions were wrong, but I do not believe sex-offender registries are wrong,

But they are. Ex-cons who have served their time are entitled to a right to privacy, and to not be targeted by vigilantes.

It doesn't mean that this woman should have attacked him though.

Correct. She should have gotten far more than three months in jail. If I took a baseball bat to a woman and injured her arm, I'd be thrown in prison for years. Vigilantes, even women (*gasp*), shouldn't be treated any differently.

 

[Challenger78]

What the... ass... are you on about?

hypocrisy

 

[John99]

Correct. She should have gotten far more than three months in jail. If I took a baseball bat to a woman and injured her arm, I'd be thrown in prison for years. Vigilantes, even women (*gasp*), shouldn't be treated any differently.

well she did what she thought was right. he did the crime so he has to accept the consequences.

 

[Bells]

What the... ass... are you on about?

Corby *Shudders*.

But they are. Ex-cons who have served their time are entitled to a right to privacy, and to not be targeted by vigilantes.

Indeed.

Had she caught him assaulting her daughter, then one could understand why she would want to kill him. But he had, as far as she knew, done nothing wrong since his release. What she did was barbaric.

Correct. She should have gotten far more than three months in jail. If I took a baseball bat to a woman and injured her arm, I'd be thrown in prison for years. Vigilantes, even women (*gasp*), shouldn't be treated any differently.

It is surprising that she only got 3 months in jail for what she did. Her punishment did not fit the crime at all.

As for the crime itself. I find the whole notion of offender's register lists to be a danger to society as a whole. So many people are wrongly targeted and abused and insulted, as well as losing their way of lives because their name happens to resemble or be the same as a 'released offender' or because they happen to look like them. And attacking him because he spoke to her daughter a year before.. Not because he abused her daughter but because he spoke to her? She should have gotten a hell of a lot longer than 3 months.

 

[Bells]

well she did what she thought was right. he did the crime so he has to accept the consequences.

He did and was released. The consequences do not involve being bashed by some random nutbag of a woman because he spoke to a kid a year before.

 

[John99]

Be realistic Bells. He took his lumps from this woman, he is over 7 foot tall and 215 pounds. He goes to prison for fighting back, say a little too hard and he goes for assault. Inmates find out about his past and he would wish he took a few hits from that bat. Which is, most likely, what he did.

 

[Bells]

Be realistic Bells. He took his lumps from this woman, he is over 7 foot tall and 215 pounds. He goes to prison for fighting back, say a little too hard and he goes for assault. Inmates find out about his past and he would wish he took a few hits from that bat. Which is, most likely, what he did.

So you think vigilantism is acceptable in society?

Firstly, he never did anything to her daughter aside from offering her some fireworks.. a year before. The articles are so biased in her favour by stating he chatted up her daughter when all he did was offer her some fireworks.

Secondly, she lied.

Thirdly, without provocation, she went to the guy's door (or his uncle's house) and demanded he come out. And then she beat him up with a baseball bat.

She is completely unrepentant and while in jail, threatened to do worse to him. She then proclaimed that she was protecting her children... against a man who only spoke to her daughter once the year before when he offered her daughter some fireworks.. no contact since then.. So she protects her children by getting herself thrown in jail. Hmm.. yes.. makes sense.

Want me to go on?

She's not a hero. She's a retard.

 

[Asguard]

bells, a question for you. Do you belive that even convicted people should have there names releaced by the media?

As i understand it the theory goes, you do a crime, you are convicted, you get sentanced by the courts and serve your sentance and then you are surposed to be treated like it never happened with a few exceptions like having a police record and depending on the crime things like not being able to work with children or not being able to drive or having restrictions on your licence or not being able to work in the finantial sector ect.

If this is the case how can a person get on with there life (especially with the internet) when people can just look them up or what not, including future employers who are banned by law of forcing people to show there criminal convictions.

Further more what if the persons conviction is latter over-turned because they were inocent and now there life is in ruins because people are going to be preduced against them even if the courts have overturned it.

 

[John99]

I dont recommend vigilantism, especially in this case because she is lucky and it appears he didnt fight back. which is, most likely, due to him not wanting to get sent back to prison. For assault charge he is no longer afforded protective custody.

A child molester in prison has a target on their back, he knows this. But child molesting strikes a raw nerve with people and this tends to linger.

 

[copernicus66]

Be realistic Bells.

Why don't you try and be realistic? Unprovoked, pre-meditated assaults with a deadly weapon should be severely punished.

 

[jessiej920]

While I think that what this woman did was wrong and she does deserve to be punished, I think that looking at the heart of the situation behind this article is important; not only public opinion, fear, and discrimination of sex offenders, but also the reality of sex offenders crimes, who they prey on, and why.

Many people think sex-offender registry is wrong and in some ways I can see why. These people did their time, were released, and should be free to live their lives. But for me (I can't speak for everyone obviously) when it comes to repeat offenders as well as sexual predators of children, I do feel that they need to have tabs kept on them. From what I can tell, sexual offenses against children are looked at as more of a mental sickness that the offender has little control over. They can't learn from punishment if the compulsion to rape a child stems from mental illness that is left untreated and unwatched. Level three sex offenders almost always re-offend within three years of release and while some didn't kill the first time, they sometimes will the second time, and over 60% of child molesters in prison victimized someone 13 years or younger. Children are more defenseless when it comes to protecting themselves and so I do feel that child predators need to be closely watched.

Maybe this is biased, but I feel that children are much more innocent in this situation. A child who is four years old cannot defend themselves against a 40 year old child rapist.

I just know that whether sex offender registry is ethical or not, I certainly wouldn't feel safe, comfortable, or sane raising a family of small children next door to a level three child rapist who is almost gaurenteed to re-offend. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

There is a reason we don't keep tabs on everyone. Many people learn from their mistakes and try to move on with their lives. Not all, but some. Obviously with child rapists and molesters we've learned that many of them cannot. This is why we have sex offender registry.

 

[Bells]

I have never been a supporter of offender registries. They cause more problems and lead to more crimes in the long run, usually against innocent people who happen to have a similar or the same name as the offender, or happen to look a bit like the offender. Not only that, it promotes vigilantism against these innocent and completely unrelated individuals and against the released offenders themselves and their families.

I don't like the fact that their names are released to the media and then made publicly available. Sometimes with their photos. It is very dangerous and can and does lead to highly volatile situations where people are not only injured but sometimes killed as a result. Half the time, it is completely innocent people who are targeted and harassed, injured or even killed.

 

[John99]

They dont lead to more crimes because most people are not criminals, the offenders are though and this has extremely high recidivism rate. I checked out the sex offenders where i live but i just looked at their names and some photo's but thats it.