pardon granted to a sex offender

Great news for a young man who left his misdeeds behind him!

The Nebraska Board of Pardons voted unanimously to pardon [the man] for a sex crime he committed as a juvenile but was convicted of as an adult....

More important for [this man], clemency will remove his name from the sex offender registry, which he said revives his dream of playing professional football

I wrote about this case earlier when there was surprise expressed that he seemed to have a real shot at getting the pardon.

The board also rarely grants pardons to sex offenders. But [his] crime did not involve a physical assault, which was a mitigating factor for the board.

Most sex offenses do not involve physical assault.

Psychologists concluded that [he] is not a sexual predator and represents a minimal risk to reoffend.

And most sex offenders are not sexual predators and are at minimal risk to reoffend.

This is excellent news not only for this young man but for all sex offenders. Most of their offenses fit the same criteria that the Pardons Board saw as mitigating factors.

This offers hope to sex offenders who have lived exemplary lives since their offenses, as this man has. 

I am looking forward to this young man using his recent success and visibility to speak out against the sex offender registry.

so much judgment about the Willow Smith/Moises Arias photo...with so little cause

Recently, a photo of a 13-year-old girl and a 20-year-old man went viral and stirred up controversy because of the age difference between the two. The girl is Willow Smith, daughter of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith; the young man is Moises Arias, an actor and friend of the Smith family. In the photo, the two are on a bed. He is shirtless, sitting up. She is lying across the bed. The two are not touching.

Michel Martin, of the NPR program Tell Me More, talked to a few people about the photo. You can see the photo at the link.

Leslie Morgan Steiner, author of The Baby Chase: How Surrogacy Is Transforming the American Family, said:

But he's 20 and she's 13. And I tell you, my parenting head would explode if my 15-year-old daughter or my 12-year-old daughter were found in a bed anywhere, anytime with a shirtless 20-year-old man. And if I discovered my 17-year-old son with a girl six years younger, I would be beyond furious.

Phil Lerman, author of Dadditude: How a Real Man Became a Real Dad, said:

If you're OK with your kid, at 13 years old, lying around on a bed with a 20-year-old guy, then God bless you and good luck to you. We have so many stories on "America's Most Wanted," thousands of stories of child molesters and pedophiles. Stories that started out with - it seemed like such an innocent relationship.

So there you have the Chicken Little reactions to the photo. A 13-year-old is lying on the same bed that a 20-year-old shirtless man is sitting on. There is no context given for the photo, no way to guess what was going on before or after the photo was taken...and yet Steiner says her head would explode and the photo makes Lerman think of child molesters and pedophiles. 

My own reaction to the photo? I don't understand why there was a fuss at all about the photo. I do not think that a man without a shirt means sex. I do not think that a young girl next to an older man means sex. I do not think that the photo is evidence of anything untoward. If I were there and I knew what really was going on, perhaps I might be more (or less!) exercised about it.

Jada Pinkett-Smith, Willow's mother, said something we should all listen to:

There was nothing sexual about that picture or that situation. You guys are projecting your trash onto it. And you're acting like covert pedophiles and that's not cool.

I love her recognition that the people making a fuss are the ones thinking about sex when they see the 13-year-old.

Definitely not cool.

truths about--and consequences for--teenagers

In Barrington IL, school administrators and parents are trying to teach students not to share pornographic images. Pornographic images were shared--via text messages--among a large number of students. At that time, the images were deleted from all the phones but another incident occurred recently and may result in a couple of students being charged with felonies because the images are considered child porn.

...although middle and high school students are “regularly taught about safe online behaviors,” the district is considering introducing “age-appropriate lessons” on sexting in upper elementary grades.

Will those lessons about sexting go the way of the DARE program?

DARE is very popular with students, school administrators, police, and the general public. This, in spite of the fact that research over the decades has repeatedly demonstrated that DARE is not only ineffective, but also sometimes counterproductive. That is, students who graduate from DARE are sometimes more likely than others to drink or do drugs.

Kids get frequent warnings about the dangers of sharing too much on the Internet. A current Facebook stunt is to post a picture and ask people to 'like' it; the goal is to show kids how far and fast a picture will travel via social media. Because posting an indiscreet selfie can embarrass you far, far away and very, very soon.

Teaching kids why they shouldn't share too much information, while certainly not pointless, is ineffective, as are many lessons we deliver about personal safety. One night, a group of high schoolers around our kitchen table all shared the codes that opens the garage doors at their homes, laughing about the warnings their parents had given them. They have all been told not to share that information but they did it anyway. At that age, very little bad has happened to them and they cannot conceive the unexpected hairpin turns ahead in their lives.

Telling them they shouldn't drink is a lesson they will understand and then ignore. Not every kid, of course. Some will absorb the lesson and follow the recommended course of action, "just say no". Many kids don't drink booze, have sex, or smoke. 

Many more do, though. They have all heard the advice to stay away from booze/pot/sex/etc. and they decide to try it anyway. They know the dangers of drunk driving, STDs, and drug overdoses. They know they could be arrested for drunk driving or for having illegal substances in their possession. They may even be aware that sex with the wrong partner could have lifelong consequences for one or both partners. They do not think it will happen to them.

They will still drink booze, smoke cigarettes or pot, and have sex. All that knowledge, all those warnings...for nothing?

Probably not for nothing. At some point, kids grow up and those lessons take hold. Many grownups look back to their foolish days and shake their heads. What were we thinking?

The same thing will happen with advice not to share excessively on social media, not to take suggestive or nude selfies, not to pull out the iPhone and record that couple doing naughty things in the corner. Kids hear the advice, they understand some of the dangers...and then they do it anyway.

The question isn't will they or won't they; they question is what should happen when they do?

If we charge kids with felonies, do we honestly think that will keep other kids from sharing naughty pictures? All our lessons about drugs and booze and sex have not stopped kids from drinking, smoking, and having sex. Why would we think we can control a new kind of foolishness?

Advice for the Barrington students includes:

If a person forwards a sexual image of someone underage, that recipient is as responsible for that image as the original sender. A distributor could face child pornography charges, go to jail and be required to register as a sex offender.

Is that really what we want to happen to our students? Do we really want them to be on the sex offender registry (for life, in some states) for foolishness? Child pornography includes images that are shared freely and willingly by the teens themselves. Do we really want the default reaction to be to charge them with a crime? 

We need to look at our criminal laws and decide if it makes sense to insist that foolishness is criminal since that particular kind of foolishness--indiscreet sharing--is not going away anytime soon, no matter how many times we tell kids it is a bad idea.

Computers, laptops, tablets, video game consoles, cell phones...the opportunities for online hijinks are not diminishing. The number of kids who will end up on the registry and with a felony on their record will only increase.

To pretend that we can control what kids do online might be a worse foolishness.

false accusation up-ends life for Mankato coach, even after exoneration

In 2012, a Minnesota University-Mankato coach was arrested on suspicion of producing and possessing child pornography. About three months later, the charges were dropped. End of story? Not quite.

Twenty days after the charges were dropped, the coach was suspended for viewing pornography on a university computer and for letting his wife use his work computer. After the suspension, he was reassigned to an administrative position and ultimately fired.

Months later after the coach found another job, an arbitrator held that the firing was not justified. More than one person used the computer so they couldn't know who downloaded porn. The arbitrator also said that the wife probably shouldn't have used the computer but no one should be fired because she did.

The facts of the story are simple. The effect of the original charges on the coach's life are complicated.

John Harrington, a longtime Mankato resident and Minnesota State-Mankato booster, told USA TODAY Sports at the time: "The damage is done. His reputation is tainted. On the tip of everybody's tongue is 'Sandusky.' "

After the charges were dropped, the coach was seen as tainted. He was wrongly accused and then exonerated but still seen as a possible child molester.

[The coach] says he and his wife ... are grateful for the support from the community. Dennis Hood, a longtime Minnesota State-Mankato booster and former president of the Touchdown Club, which serves as the fund-raising arm for the football program, was one of those. He says as people began to learn more about the charges, the reaction from many was, 'Golly, is this all there is?'" 

But Hood also says, "Right up until a couple of weeks ago (when the arbitrator ruled in Hoffner's favor), people were saying, 'There's got to be something. There's got to be something.' But there really wasn't."

This is what the current sex offender hysteria has wrought: unthinking emotional responses that have a facile power to ruin lives.

The laws that mandate reporting of illegal images and the hysteria around sex offenders have encouraged people to think of children in sexual terms. Instead of seeing videos of naked children playing (images found on the coach's phone), the technician who found and reported the videos thought of children and sex.

Do not think I am blaming the technician alone. Law enforcement looked at the videos. The prosecutor looked at the videos. Presumably, a grand jury also looked at the videos. 

At any one of those points, someone should have questioned if there was proof that this was child pornography instead of running with the case because, well, it could be.

At any one of those points, someone should have said, "Golly, is this all there is?"

Fortunately, the judge recognized kids' antics as kids' antics and dismissed the charges.

The coach spent a great deal of money defending himself and uprooted his family for another job. After the arbitrator found the firing unjustified, the coach has returned to his position at Minnesota University-Mankato. 

I have said it before, writing about another man cleared of his charges where the story ended horrifically: 

This is what comes of instilling a fear of sex offenders and pretending that all sex offenders are dangerous.

I will add that this is what comes of thinking that all pictures of naked children are pornographic. There was no need--at all--to put this coach and his family through the wringer for silly family videos.

Too bad for him, the laws make it all too easy to do just that.

"Jury Nullification Can Veto Prison Profiteering"

Fuly Informed Jury Association writes about for-profit prison corporations lobbying against laws that would relieve prison overcrowding.

FIJA quotes from an article in Republic Report:

In recent months, a broad, cross-ideological coalition has pressed forward to reform mandatory minimum prison sentencing. In some cases mandatory minimum sentencing can lead to a lifetime in jail for nonviolent offenders. But a strange group has appeared on lobby disclosure forms reviewed by Republic Report. Prison labor companies are attempting to influence the bill, and they refuse to reveal what they’re doing and why. 

The group is called the Correctional Vendors Association, an organization that represents companies that use prison labor to produce everything from furniture to clothing goods. CVA has spent $240,000 on lobbying over the past year, and forms show the organization is interested in shaping the outcome of the Justice Safety Valve Act, or S.619, a bill proposed Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) to allow judges to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum in many cases, including drug-related sentences.

Correctional Vendors Association lobbies against a bill that would give them a smaller captive workforce. Congressmen dislike voting against any bill that can be construed as tough on crime. That combination is hard to beat.

FIJA reminds us that we have a way to fight back: jury nullification.

Remember that even a single conviction on just one of many charges—even a seemingly minor one—can trigger excessively harsh penalties due to mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, three strikes laws, 10-20-life rules, sentence enhancements for acquitted conduct, and so on. And harsh penalties mean a ready supply of forced labor who are often paid less than 50 cents [an] hour for work that would command several dollars an hour in the free market. 

Inside the courtroom, of course, we will often be misinstructed by judges that we “must” convict if the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is simply not true. Judges cannot require jurors to deliver a Guilty verdict, and jurors cannot be punished for voting their consciences. Jury nullification is not only your right, but your duty if it is necessary to deliver a just verdict.

Jury nullification can be a powerful tool in the cause of justice and FIJA does a fine job reminding us of that.

the effect of violence on children and the need to do something about it

In an opinion piece in the Omaha World-Herald, Nebraska US Attorney Deborah Gilg talks about the need to recognize how violence affects children. She writes:

More than half of America’s children and teens are in some way exposed to violence in their homes, schools and neighborhoods every year, according to a 2009 U.S. Department of Justice study. Many are victims of violence themselves, but many more will witness violent crimes or share the trauma when their families, school friends or neighborhoods are targets of violence and abuse. Unfortunately, many of these young people will experience violence from multiple sources, compounding the trauma and its effects. 

The consequences of this kind of exposure can be difficult to measure, but the harm is real.

We know that children and teens exposed to violence are more likely to experience anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. They are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. They are also more likely to fail at school, be absent from school and experience learning difficulties. These children are also more likely to enter into, and stay in, abusive relationships. They are also at higher risk of going on to commit crimes themselves.

It comes as a surprise to find that I agree so strongly with a US Attorney. Witnessing violence or being in the middle of it can have long-lasting effects on children. We should do more to protect children from violence.

A good place to start for all of us is by listening to young people and being engaged in their lives. 

Well, now...that seems a tepid approach to the problem she describes. Wait, though. She has more:

If you’re interested in learning more about the effects of violence on children, the U.S. Department of Justice has produced a video series Through Our Eyes: Children, Violence, and Trauma, available at www.ovc.gov/pubs/ThroughOurEyes/index.html. The DOJ also has launched the Defending Childhood initiative to address the exposure of America’s children to violence as victims and as witnesses.

A video? I would have preferred a more robust response but she is a busy woman. Maybe she doesn't have time to think of more effective ways to lessen the violence that surrounds children. If it isn't too presumptuous of me to think that I can help, I came up with a few ideas. Maybe she can use her powerful voice as US Attorney to promote ideas that would have a more immediate impact on reducing violence than, say, a video.

Stop shooting the family dog. When I was small, I witnessed a neighbor drive over and kill one of our dogs. It was an unfortunate accident but it was a terrible thing for a small child to see. Imagine how terrifying it must be for children to see a law enforcement officer--someone who is supposed to protect and serve--shoot their family dog. 

Stop sending SWAT teams into homes where children are present when that level of force is not necessary. People, including the children, have been hurt and killed in those raids. Watch this video of a SWAT raid in Columbia MO and try to imagine being a child in that home. Radley Balko estimates law enforcement agencies carry out over 100 SWAT raids every day across the country. How many children are affected by violence in their homes perpetrated by law enforcement?

Stop putting so many people in prison. The United States has 2.2 million prison inmates. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (famm.org), one in 28 children have a parent in prison. This doesn't count the kids who have a sibling or other family member in prison. How does that affect children? 

Stop relying on mandatory minimum sentences to push a defendant into taking a plea agreement and start proving your cases in court. Introducing mandatory minimum sentences has increased sentence length even for crimes that do not carry a mandatory minimum. Tearing families apart is traumatic for all family members. Tearing them apart for longer than necessary is cruel. 

Children in homes with a drastically reduced income, children with a parent struggling to be everything to everyone--prison spouse, mother and father--in the midst of his or her own grief, children grieving for the family member in prison, children unable to visit the prison because distance and expense are too great...these children suffer a violence that the US Attorney does not address. 

deserving a chance for a pardon

A 25-year-old registered sex offender has been granted a hearing before the Nebraska Board of Pardons. This is excellent news for this young man because if he is pardoned, he will regain his civil rights and he will no longer be on the sex offender registry. 

According to the Omaha World-Herald article, it is unusual for a sex offender to be granted a hearing because

[t]he Pardons Board rarely considers the applications of sex offenders. But board members said they are willing to listen to this one because Weich has lived an exemplary life except for one crime committed as a 14-year-old.

An exemplary life should be rewarded. 

He didn't rape, fondle or even touch anyone. In 2003 he and two other teenage boys made a secret video of two or three female classmates using a shower at his mother's house in Pierce, Neb. The incident involved a game of truth-or-dare and the camera also caught one of the girls using the toilet, according to documents in his Pardons Board application.

A non-contact crime committed as a 14-year-old, not repeated. He was charged as an adult because the crime was not discovered until he was 18.

This man has gained some powerful allies. A state trooper for one and Nebraska's Attorney General, Jon Bruning, for another.

Other factors in [this man's] favor include pre-sentence psychological evaluations that found he is not a sexual predator and showed he was a minimal risk to reoffend. He completed all of his probation requirements, which included more than 20 sessions with Dr. Kevin Piske, a Norfolk psychologist who specialized in treating sex offenders.

Not a sexual predator, unlikely to reoffend, got through probation with no trouble. Saw a psychologist for awhile. This man is a success story.

The psychologist was one of 93 people who submitted letters in support of [the man], which likely represents a record number, said Sonya Fauver, the board's administrator.

Ninety-three letters of support! Many friends in his corner. 

[His] status forced him to give up on his dream of playing football for a major college program. He had been invited to walk on at Kansas State University, but he was told the school couldn't take a chance on a sex offender. He also had to leave the dorms. 

Although it was difficult, he found off-campus housing and finished his second semester at Kansas State.

Later, he was offered a football scholarship and began playing at Wayne State College in Nebraska. Again, he wasn't allowed to live on campus. He got his degree in business management in 2012.

The registry still haunts [him], especially when it comes to finding employment and housing. He said he has held some temporary jobs but hasn't been able to get an offer related to his major when employers learn he is a registered sex offender.

Recently, he had the opportunity to show the National Football League his punting skills. One of his college coaches called him "the best punter he has seen in his 30 years as a coach" so it seems this young man may have a chance at a position in the NFL.

“How many people do you know in the world who would even have a chance to make it in the NFL?” [one of his supporters] asked. “But he can't because of this. It just doesn't seem fair.”

No, it doesn't seem fair to have lived an exemplary life and yet be held back because he is a registered sex offender. 

Among the 93 letters is a letter from 

...retired District Judge Patrick Rogers, who presided over [the man's] trial. 

“I commend him for all of his accomplishments since 2007, even while carrying the burden of his offense,” Rogers wrote. “He could have easily given up, as I believe so many others do.”

But do so many others give up? 

Statistics show that, like this man, very few registered sex offenders commit another sex crime. 

Like this man, most registered sex offender are first-time offenders.

Like this man, most are deemed at low risk to reoffend.

Like this man, most are not considered sexual predators.

Those are not signs of people who gave up. Those are signs of people who are very much like this Nebraska man.

Like him, they have trouble finding employment. Like him, they have trouble finding a place to live. 

Like him, they have hopes and dreams for the future that have been stymied by their status as a sex offender.

This young man who lives an exemplary life deserves every chance at his hopes and dreams, just as other law abiding citizens do. 

Just as every other law abiding sex offender does.

This young man is not the exception. He is the rule.

UPDATE: Good news.