home > archive > 2003 > this article
Caring less for our children
By Paul Walfield
Most people who go to law school will remember learning about the tremendous deference given to children by the courts. Law students are taught that in just about any criminal situation involving victims who are children, the law leans heavily in favor of the children's well being and woe to the people who sought their harm. At least that is how it used to be, but not so anymore, at least not according to the appellate court in Indiana.
Nowadays, it is well understood that pedophiles, convicted child molesters, do not generally speaking, repent. Regardless of the psychiatric treatment, jail time, whatever, those vile creatures continue to prey on our children. That being the case, you would think that when you are aware of a three times convicted child molester visiting a park to fantasize about the little children there, a restraining order at the very least, would be called for. The mayor of a town thought so, so did the rest of the town's leaders, but, two Clinton appointees to the Indiana Appellate Court disagreed and the pedophile is free to "window shop" once again.
A pedophile known as "John Doe" was convicted three times for molesting children. He was out of jail and attended group therapy sessions with other like minded individuals. During the sessions he confessed to going to a park in Lafayette, Indiana to fantasize about having sex with some of the little children there. Sometimes the urge to act on the thoughts became so strong, he had to leave the park and, according to a report in the Washington Times on July 3, 2003, he became "upset with himself." It seems even his fellow pedophiles saw the writing on the wall and "members of a Sex-Offenders Anonymous group betrayed Doe to the police after Doe's admission that he was ‘cruising' when he visited Columbian Park and Murdock Park." In other words, people who know when you need to be concerned about your children, ratted the guy out in an effort to prevent another little girl from being a victim of this monster.
The mayor, Dave Heath, after learning of the clear danger posed by John Doe, had a restraining order issued by the city Attorney that forbade the pedophile from "cruising" the parks for his lifetime. The ACLU decided that a pedophile's right to pursue his dreams was more important than the harm child molesters could cause to kindergartners. Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams joined by Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood agreed with the ACLU that the case merely involved the pedophiles "thoughts" and no one in America can be punished because of his or her thoughts.
The dissenting opinion was written by a Reagan appointee, Kenneth F. Ripple who correctly pointed out that the matter was not just about thought. The pedophile physically placed himself in a park with children to better enable himself to act on his fantasies saying, "He went to not one but two parks in search of children at play in order to achieve sexual gratification ... and consequently became sexually aroused. In short, he engaged not only in thought but in activity directed toward an illegal and very harmful end."
In the end the court was not swayed from their notion that a three time convicted pedophile who admitted to going to children's parks for the sole purpose of fantasizing about the children there and who on several occasions had to leave the park because the urge to act on his deviant impulses became too great, was being unconstitutionally punished by being banned from the parks.
After the verdict, the ACLU attorney who represented the pedophile, according to the NWI Times said, "These cases are symptomatic of what sort of discrimination follows people around." Imagine that, convicted pedophiles who cruise city parks in search of children are "discriminated" against because decent people who want to protect their children, get a restraining order to stop one in particular who literally admitted to his vile intentions.
The pedophile was not banned from the park because of his thoughts, but rather because of his past deeds, known predilection, failure of treatment, and his actively going to the park to pursue his depraved compulsion. Yet, the ACLU and two Clinton appointees to the Court chose to narrow the case to being about the "thought police." And while no one wants to create an atmosphere of fear regarding our thoughts, it is no stretch whatsoever to simply give deferential treatment to our children in cases like this.
The fact that our children's welfare is involved should have separated this case from what Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote about in the Court's opinion. Namely, the judge wrote, presumably as an analogy, that no one would arrest someone who had been previously convicted of bank robbery for standing in a bank's parking lot and fantasizing about robbing the bank. The simple fact that the judge did not see the difference between a child molester and a bank robber is astounding, but the fact that the judge could not see the difference in harm between robbing a bank and raping and torturing a five year old girl is nothing less than shameful, and a testament to how far the Left has strayed of human feelings, morality and regard for America's future.
By now we all know the obvious subversive nature of the ACLU. There is no way to bring them back to their original goals of upholding the Constitution for the sake of America, rather than their present goal to further their anti-American agenda.
However, our court system can be shaped to serve all Americans in the best interest of our children. It is incumbent for all of us to remember who in political office prevented conservative minded judges from being appointed to the bench by President Bush.
We all need to do what is right when it comes to our children and as Mayor Heath is quoted as saying to the Washington Times when asked about the high cost of taking the case to a higher court, "it's going to be worth whatever it does cost."
If we don't look out for our kids now, their fates will be up to the likes of the Clinton appointees and the ACLU. No one wants that. After all, how do you explain the court's ruling to the parents of the pedophile's next victim, let alone to the parents of little children who had been molested by him, that the monster is now free to "cruise" playgrounds once again?
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and an attorney and counselor at law
with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral
and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small
town of Houlton, Maine and is now practicing law and writing about current
events. Paul can be contacted at email@example.com. ©2003
Paul Walfield All Rights Reserved
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.