Thousands of Oregonians have been purchasing guns this month. Only some need to petition the courts first. Mark Susi, a 60-year-old Gresham man convicted in 2012 of three felonious sex crimes, is petitioning Multnomah County to allow him to own guns again. He’s got a court date set for Thursday morning and a judge will decide whether to allow it or not (see ORS 166.274). Susi was convicted on two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree (see ORS 163.425) and one count of sodomy in the third degree (ORS 163.425), each felonies, which block him from owning guns without the court’s approval. The available details of his crimes are scant, but the definition of the charges he was convicted on indicate it had to do with a child (committing or causing “deviate sexual intercourse with another person under 16”) and penetration without consent.
An adult sexually exploiting a minor child is offensive enough, but at least some states recognize that sex offenders shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as the rest of society. Thankfully, here in Oregon, state law means that someone convicted of felony sexual abuse of a child must petition a court to be allowed to own firearms. I don’t think it’s a stretch for a reasonable person to believe that a sex offender, in addition to not being allowed around children or to live near a school, has no business being allowed to own and/or use guns.
This should seem especially apparent when an offender clearly seems not to believe that his offense was a big deal. Take Mark Susi, who seems to believe that his crime was merely some sort of “youthful indiscretion” (at the uber-impressionable age of 54), and that because he’s all better now he deserves to have his gun rights restored.
Except that his petition does nothing to create the impression that he’s reformed, remorseful…or has learned anything at all from his crimes. He seems blissfully unconcerned that he sexually abused a child, which actually really IS kind of a big deal, knowhutimean??
In his petition, he lays out that he’s a family-man with three grown children and six grand children.
How is that not setting off alarm bells among law enforcement and the community at large? Susi was convicted of raping a child; how is it that he’s allowed to entertain the idea that he should get to be a “family man” again?
“I would very much like to shotgun hunt with my son and grandson,” he said. “I have always been a bird hunter and I would like to resume that hobby.”
That seems a laudable enough goal…except for the fact he was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. That he seems to think there’s nothing amiss about his wanting to hunt with his grandson is distressing enough…but his belief that he deserves to have his gun rights restored because of what he so blithely passes off as a “mistake in judgment” is exactly why he DOESN’T deserve to be allowed to own firearms again.
In his final paragraph, he calls the felony sex crimes he committed against a child when he was 54 a “mistake in judgment”:
Over five years ago when I was 54, I made a mistake in judgment. I am 60 now and I paid a heavy price for that mistake, but now I wish to have my full rights restored.
His crimes can in no way be soft-pedaled as a “mistake in judgment.” He sexually molested children; that’s not a “mistake in judgment,” that’s felony sexual assault. A “mistake in judgment” might be one instance of inappropriate sexual behavior with a child, not the multiple felonies Susi was convicted of. A “mistake in judgment” is taking the blue pill instead of the red pill. It’s spending too much money for car insurance. It’s taking the scenic route to the airport instead of the freeway and missing your flight.
Susi seems to think that his crimes were merely “youthful indiscretions,” the sort of stupid mistake young people make because they don’t know any better and/or make poor decisions. That argument might hold true for teenagers or young adults…but not a man who was 54 when he committed his crimes.
Yes, Susi “paid a heavy price for that mistake,” as well he should have. Following that with “but now I wish to have my full rights restored” only serves to underscore how little remorse he feels for what he did to the children he molested. I believe in rehabilitation and second chances; it’s what our judicial system is predicated upon. Second chances, though, aren’t automatic, nor should they always be granted without reservation or restriction. They should and must be earned; one must demonstrate that they’re deserving and no longer a threat to society. They must demonstrate that they understand what they’ve done and the damage that resulted from their crimes, which in Susi’s case is considerable.
Susi’s breezy reference to paying “a heavy price” for a “mistake in judgment” doesn’t indicate to me that he “gets it.” There’s no expression of remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no indication that he fully understands the damage he’s caused. I don’t know the letter of the applicable state law, so I can’t speak to the criteria for restoring Susi’s gun rights. What I do know is that he not only doesn’t deserve to have his gun rights restored, he shouldn’t be allowed around children- especially his grandchildren.
Perhaps I’d feel differently if Susi demonstrated something resembling remorse and an understanding of the severity and impact of his crimes. That he clearly doesn’t speak to his lack of fitness to own and use firearms and to be allowed near children. Denial and lack of remorse should absolutely be grounds for denying Susi’s petition. His insistence that he made a “mistake in judgment” is clear and convincing evidence that he continues to pose a threat to children. When you believe behavior you’re responsible for isn’t a big deal, doesn’t it stand to reason the odds of reoffending would be significantly higher they would be with legitimate, heartfelt remorse?
I can’t help wondering what part of “deviate sexual intercourse with another person under 16” Susi fails to understand the importance and impact of?
