When ____ ____ was 7 years old, her uncle ____ ____ sexually abused her, resulting in ____ being convicted in 2002. Now 21, ____ had hoped to put the ordeal behind her, but now she’s forced to deal with it every day, now that ____ is out of prison—and living in the house next door to her. Full Article
Related posts
-
OK: Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Sending Sexy Selfies Unless You’re Married
Source: reason.com 1/22/24 It could also outlaw any sort of sexualized image, play, or performance, pornographic... -
OK: Henryetta families advocate for life sentences for child sex crimes
Source: news9.com 9/11/23 The families of two of the girls murdered in Henryetta want stricter laws... -
OK: Sex offender searches in Oklahoma prove more complicated than one would think
Source: kjrh.com 5/12/23 TULSA, Okla. — The case involving registered sex offender Jesse McFadden has rocked...
I actually agree with this move. This is no different than a battered wife having her abusive husband moving in next door to her. The victims should not be placed in this situation. Besides, it seems awful strange that the only place for this person to live is right next door?
Though I’d prefer a clarification that the person could not take up a new residency near their victim rather then simply not being able to live next to their victim. Difference being that a person shouldn’t be forced out of their home because the victim moved in close to them, similarly how people shouldn’t lose their homes because the city build a “pocket park” and suddenly the person is out of compliance through no fault oftheir own.
For him to next door to his victim is selfish and stupid. If no therapeutic work has been done between them, he needs to leave. It would be the right thing to do. He is re-victimizing his victim with his actions. Does not matter if he can legally be there it is being human. Sell the property and get another. Don’t get me wrong I am into our rights but please.
This situation will only cause some idiot law writer to come up with something that will hurt more RSOs. Cost tax payers lots of money. This law writer (will not mention his name) is after publicity. It can be heard in his statements.
As much as this guy shouldn’t be next door, it’s the wrong path to have Legislature deal with this.
This should have been dealt with by the Judge, during the sentencing phase. A judge can protect public safety past your term of jail or probation or parole as long as it is narrowly tailored. There could also be a restraining order demanding he keep a certain distance that could be put into affect now by a Judge.
Everything doesn’t need legislature involved.
What happens to the victims that got over something and want to be around a relative if the lawmakers ban that for all?
She was 7 years old! She should not have to live in a constant state of anxiety and fear. Feelings we as SO all know Too well.
And yes, to banish is unacceptable, but the dude assaulted a little girl and has no business living next door to her. That’s not right either. IMO
I think everyone has hit on points that make sense, and I agree in part with each. If he has completed all sentencing requirements, he is free to live as and where he wishes, within the RC constraints. He’s certainly being selfish and hurtful living where he is, but he’s exercising the exact freedom of movement and residency we all complain we’re not getting. Perhaps a risk-assessment back when he was under control of the state would have been helpful. If deemed a risk, he could have had longer post-release supervision attached–including staying away from the victim and routine risk assessments to ensure effective therapy and counseling. I’m guessing that wasn’t done, so the victim suffers. If he becomes a problem towards the victim, or anyone, yes of course a restraining order is proper, but not until or unless he shows harassing or harmful intent. What if this is the only place he can find to live? Would you prefer he be made homeless? That again is something many have railed about on here…but it’s okay in this case?
Don’t get me wrong, I have complete empathy for the victim, but how far do her rights extend? I posit they extend just as far as his, yours and mine do: as far as possible until they restrict someone else’s. That’s a very, very fuzzy and grey line. Again, I agree that he’s probably not thinking about her, but perhaps it’s his only option. Only he knows.
–AJ
Unless it is a part of sentencing, a temporary or permanent restraining order is civil matter- not criminal. And it requires a hearing where both parties can have their say with a judge. Why this family is trying to lobby the legislators to change a law to apply to everybody when they could have immediately filed an order of restraint and probably obtained it ( especially if the victim is still a minor) makes this story very fishy to me.
A law that says that you must stay a certain distance from your victim forever doesn’t take into account registrants who went on to marry their “victims” , an incestuous relationship or inappropriate contact between siblings or someone who ran naked across a football field with potentially hundreds of unknown “victims”.
Will it still be enforceable if someone is relieved of their duty to register? Is every crime victim afforded the same piece of mind? A slippery slope indeed…
@AJ- I didn’t mention anything about rights.
He’s living where he’s living because he has the right to.
What I AM saying is that the guy, regardless of the situation is playing with fire and has put himself and his victim as well as all their family members in a terrible situation.
I think if a State is going to set us up to fail at life, then they should have programs to aid in stability not keep pushing ppl out into the streets to live under a bridge.
But just the fact that this guy has to carry with him the label of sex offender will ensure that he and his victim will relive the experience every single day.
And yes I feel really bad for the girl.
I also think there should be no course of action by LE as they do not get to cherry pick who does and does not have rights.
“It should be a commonsense fix to add ‘or within so many feet of the victim’s residence’ to existing law.”
That is not a common sense thing to do to bring one more law on the books that keeps all families even willing families from living together or near each other in peace. This family may not know ways to restore family harmony, but many more have. Former victims and former offenders learn to confront and empower each other that way, in spirit of love and community.
About time for restorative justice. If California leads in any way, let it lead in a new way. Finland used to be the most incarcerated country in Europe. They were like us now, a punative solution to everything. Now it and the other Scandinavian countries have turned 180 degrees and the crime rate has dropped as has prison spending. That is what human networks talking and using evidence and courage can do. Stop thinking linearly. Let the family confront this man in a healing and supervised setting or if needed get a restraining order, but don’t make another on size fits all punative law, based on one high profile situation.