An Illinois man, understandably upset at having to swerve to avoid a 14-year old girl who'd run in front of his car, got out and grabbed her arm, presumably to give her an earful, but she then ran away. Now he's been convicted as a sex offender (go read the story, then come back).
As the father of a little girl, I'm all about nailing sex offenders to the wall. But this case has gone way past any sense of rationality:
While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested.Buying a gun is a precursor to murder, but we don't arrest everyone who likes to hunt, do we? Buying a telescope or a security camera is a precursor to stalking/invasion of privacy, but we don't arrest astronomers and shop owners, do we?
The accused's lawyer asked a good question about the implications of this case:
"If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"
I wish child molestation didn't exist. And I think anyone who commits such a heinous act should suffer horribly. But I also know that people are not omniscient. This country's justice system originally believed that it was worse to put an innocent man in jail than it was to let a guilty man go free. Apparently that's all changed - now it's guilty until proven innocent. Except for this guy, there's no way to prove he's innocent. As far as I know, under the sex offenders law, you're registered until you die.
Posted by Tom Nugent at July 1, 2005 02:29 PMDo you now see why there exist in the world people who don't like the concept "rule of law", and much prefer "rule of whatever I think is right at the moment"?....Sometimes the later just makes more sense.
Posted by: Tom at July 1, 2005 11:14 PM