Police have a new weapon in the battle against cyber sex crimes
If you are lurking in an internet chat room, searching to have sex with children, know that we are watching you. We will catch you and put you behind bars.
- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
No one would reasonably argue in support of child sexual predators. I'M certainly not about to. There are not words accessible in my vocabulary to adequately express my disgust with and disdain for those who would prey upon the innoncence of children. It would seem that Texas is dialing things up a notch, and that is without a doubt a good thing.
Texas is the only state in the entire country to use a mobile computer crime lab. In just a few months, it's already yielded results....
Satellite technology lets authorities access Internet chat rooms from wherever they travel in the state as they track down suspected offenders looking to meet young girls for sex....
The Texas attorney general's cyber crimes unit arrested seven men, six from the Houston area, during an undercover sting operation in Huntsville earlier this year. Agents nabbed Gregory Battson, 32, at a hotel where authorities say he was expecting to meet a teenage girl for sex.
"They all went to great lengths to travel to have sex with what they thought was a 13 or 14 year old," said Abbott....
"They show up with all kinds of paraphernalia, such as condoms, sexual devices, other things they want to use to help them carry out their deviant acts," said Abbott.
I applaud Abbott and his staff for taking the fight to the enemy. It is definitely a step in the right direction. Perhaps it really will serve as a deterrent.
My problem with all of this is not with the enforcement effort, but with the way in which it was reported. As the reporter for Channel 13 droned on about the successes of this new program, in the background with the picture of one of the men arrested in the sweep with the word "ARRESTED" in large block letters. (The Houston Chronicle's website displayed photos of six of the arrested suspects.)
No, the man hasn't been convicted or sentenced, but his picture was all over the 6pm news. Now that everyone watching the report knows what he looks like, he is as good as convicted in the eyes of the viewing public.
So whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? No, I am not defending child molesters, not by any stretch. I am concerned, though, that Channel 13 sees no problem with displaying the picture of a man who may have been charged with a crime, but has not yet been convicted. Presumed innocent? Not hardly. Given the nature of the crime and the social stigma that goes along with it, merely being accused of child sexual abuse can be enough to ruin a man's life and destroy his career. If a man truly IS guilty, I would feel no remorse over his life and career heading south. What if this same man is actually innocent of the charges?
Let's just say for the sake of argument that the police made a horrible mistake. Let's say that it was a case of mistaken identity and the charges are dropped in the end. Does anyone reasonably think that Channel 13 or anyone else will issue a retraction or an apology? Yeah, right....
Given the highly charged nature of being accused of child sexual abuse, shouldn't the media and law enforcement officials be responsible for exercising extra caution? I'm not standing in defense of the truly guilty, but what IF a mistake has been made? How do you restore a man's reputation?
This man may well be guilty of soliciting a child for sex. If so, he deserves to be turned loose in the general population in Huntsville. Until that time, though, our legal system still affords him the presumption of innocence. Of course, that was until Channel 13 decided that sensationalism in the pursuit of a story is no crime. This is beyond despicable, because if this man is found not guilty, it will not matter in the court of public opinion. His life, and the lives of his family members will be forever altered, and not for the better.
So much for responsible journalism....
I know what you're saying. There was a case in ... California? ... where the people running a preschool were accused and ruined. Later it turned out that at least one of the defendants actually was NOT guilty.
I think the case was sensationalized as the Peggy McMartin Preschool case, but I may be remembering wrong.
I also think I remember an accused man committing suicide messily and publicly, and then being exonerated via DNA evidence -- in Florida, I think that was, a few years after the McMartin preschool case.
Having said all that ... if he's guilty, don't just turn him loose in the genpop @ Huntsville. Be sure WHAT he's in for gets highly reported inside, too.
I'm a progressive -- actually, damn it, I'm a liberal. But I grew up in the country and there are some things you just can't let go on. Rabid animals -- and rapists are rabid animals, no matter the age or sex of the victims; and they're every bit as "curable" as a hydrophobic skunk, too -- should be recognized as an ongoing public danger and responded to accordingly.
Sarah...I believe you're thinking of California v. McMartin. It's a perfect example of what happens when the truth leaves town and hysteria takes over. Lives get ruined, and the truth takes a hiatus.
He looks a bit jaundice in that photo...
I saw that report too and thought that the tv stations kind of forgot about the "innocent until proven guilty" principle that is the foundation of our legal system. The nature of these alleged acts, of course, upsets the public greatly. But there is a very fine line between entrapment and committing a crime and it may will require a court to figure out if a law was actually broken. Once again, an allegation made by a police officer or a District Attorney, even of a heinous offense, is not proof.