Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Allen County Prosecutor's Office Attacks Victim of Sexual Predator

Readers might remember my recent post about a convicted child molester receiving extremely lenient treatment from the Allen County prosecutor despite allegedly beating, kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman. In the original story, I was outraged that this scumbag might only receive a 5 year sentence but now it's official and he's only getting a 2 year sentence which means he'll likely be out of jail before this time next year. I wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not. This prosecutor refuses to protect this community by continuing to give sexual predators, including child molesters, the most lenient sentences imaginable.

Now, the prosecutor's office has taken to publicly attacking the victims of the very scumbags they continue to put back on our streets:
After the plea agreement was reached this month, the woman wrote to the court and said she was ashamed of the prosecution for offering such a deal to Meyer, Speith said.

But Speith said she is ashamed of someone who would levy such serious charges against another person, leading to that person being arrested and then not participate in the investigation.

Did it ever occur to Ms Speith that perhaps the victim doesn't trust local prosecutors to protect her from future attacks? Did it every occur to her that the victim might have had a legitimate reason for skipping the depositions? Did they even bother to investigate that? I suppose it's easier to just make a deal and get that case file off her desk.

But publicly ridiculing the victim of a convicted child molester? Even I never thought Karen Richards' office would stoop that low...

9 comments:

fairplaybeach said...

That's horrible.

Parson said...

I find it interesting that a female prosecutor is being so lenient and not understanding the problems a victim of those types of crimes face.

de_tokeville said...

The only thing I find shocking/disturbing here, Jeff, is your willingness to make such an incredible leap.

Karen Richards is the most sympathetic prosecutor toward victims of abuse that this county has ever seen. She has taken the police to task before—publicly—when they've let abusers go in cases where female victims get cold feet about pressing charges against their abusers. She understands this psychology fully and sees it frequently playing out in the cases she handles. That's why women can no longer simply lift a "no contact" order when they have a change of mind or heart out of fear. They have to hop through some serious hoops first.

Karen also has been around long enough to know when vindictive women are abusing the system, making outrageous allegations against men because they have axes to grind. This happens less often, but the prosecutor's office has seen enough of these cases to know when things don't smell right. Serious allegations have to be entertained no matter what, but when the women making them are ticking off a litany of infidelities and slights and acting cagey about the actual abuse they have alleged, the prosecutor has no choice but to err on the side of caution toward the accused.

Do you think this would be a better world if any woman could accuse any man of a crime and the man would be put away no matter what?

You've really lost me on this one. It's a shame because otherwise you say a lot of things on this site that need to be said.

Jeff Pruitt said...

So let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that we should give the benefit of the doubt to a convicted child molester or a victim of said child molester?

I certainly do not think that women should be able to accuse a man of any crime without reprucussions but let's be honest about this particular situation.

You have the scum of the earth, convicted child molester, being defended by the county prosecutor's office. But beyond that you have the prosecutor publicly ridiculing the victim - what am I missing here?

Even if the prosecutor is angry about the lack of coorperation from the victim you don't publicly comment on it - that's Public Relations 101...

de_tokeville said...

No, Jeff.

What I'm saying is that the prosecutor's office must be very confident in this instance that the accuser has ulterior motives rather than a legitimate complaint. They're just not calling her a lying sack of shit in explaining their decision.

That's public relations 101.

Even if the accused is a scumbag with an odious past, he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. If this case were to be presented to a jury, his past wouldn't be admissible as evidence because it would prevent him from receiving a fair trial.

You can rest assured that the prosecutor's office doesn't take a case to trial that isn't winnable based on evidence, and you don't have evidence if the accuser is unwilling to testify to her own accusations.

otto said...

Jeff,
How about we stick to the facts. If you think Karen Richards is somehow soft on crime you are ignorant or delusional. It is that cut and dried. She likes to hang em high.

I don't know how you might have other information that undermines her decision. As you are so easy to jump to conclusions without any facts other than his previous conviction, they could use that easily to get a quick conviction if they thought it possible.

Fortunately, bloggers aren't prosecutors who jump to conclusions while claiming to be rational. Believe it or not cops, probation officers and people in general don't tell the truth.

If you want to bitch about a case that she dismissed it would be Shine's abuse charge. She didn't need his wife's consent to prosecute, but she let it drop. That is a case that sounds fishy. Believe you me, if she had half a chance at a case she would have pursued it.

otto said...

Jeff,
Not sure how you think due process should be suspended.

Jeff Pruitt said...

"due process should be suspended"

Oh come on, I never said that Otto - that's ridiculous. There's nothing in my post that would even suggest such a statement.

Your first post is fine and I appreciate people sharing their comments even (especially) if they disagree with my viewpoint...

otto said...

Jeff,
Your post is a negation of due process. To make the broad and inaccurate statement that sex offenders are treated leniently and then to sketch out details of a case that you know little of is a negation of the system.