Judge's decision about convicted child S.O. was wrong
Judge's decision about convicted child sex offender was wrong
I understand the term "low risk" when talking about car insurance, investments, loans and heart attacks. However, I'm confused when those two simple words are used to define confessed and convicted pedophiles. In fact, when considering the recidivism rate for pedophiles, "low risk" scares the bejiggers out of me.
The "low risk" phrase is what Williamson County Judge Ronald Eckiss used last week when he pulled the bonehead judicial blunder of 2005 and turned convicted child sex offender Davis "Skip" Mallory back on the streets for the good folks of Williamson County to deal with.
Mallory, 61, of Johnston City, had already entered an open plea of guilty to charges accusing him of sexually abusing a 16-year-old Johnston City girl. The charges of abuse, which occurred in March and April of this year, each carried a potential sentence of three to seven years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Inexplicably, Eckiss threw caution to the wind and sentenced Mallory to 48 months probation. And keep in mind this was not a plea agreement between the state and Mallory's attorney.
Judge Eckiss had the final say in this matter and opted to ignore the arguments of Williamson County Assistant State's Attorney Lisa Hutchens-Irvin who recommended the maximum sentence of 14 years for Mallory.
If there's any consolation in this deplorable situation, it's that at least Hutchens-Irvin, who obviously had a better grasp about the danger to the community than Eckiss did, fought to keep a child molester off the street.
Since I'm handing out "bonehead" awards this morning let me also give one to defense attorney Brian Lewis, who somehow managed to make Mallory out to be the victim in this case. Lewis said Mallory would be punished and his freedom altered by the state requirement that he must register as a convicted sex offender.
"Johnston City is a small town," Lewis said. "We all know the type of stigma that can attach to this in a small town."
I wonder if for a single second Lewis thought about the "stigma" now attached forever to the 16-year-old victim who watched the judicial system and Eckiss fail her. Or, what about the stigma attached to Mallory's niece who came forward and testified during the sentencing hearing that Mallory molested her 25 years ago?
I wonder if Eckiss or Lewis gave a second's thought to the message that was sent to future victims by slapping Mallory on the wrist and turning him loose?
During the past year I've covered three separate hearings where children were forced to testify about being molested and in each instance I felt like I needed to take a shower when I left the courtroom.
During one of those hearings I listened intently to the testimony of Dr. Michael Fogel, who is director of the sex offender evaluation unit for the department of corrections. Fogel testified that he had interviewed thousands of child molesters and said that there are several different "weighted" factors that go into determining if a child molester is prone to be a repeat offender.
In the end, Fogel admitted that there are no guarantees when trying to determine if and when a pedophile will abuse another child.
After listening to Fogel's testimony I recall thinking that trying to predict if pedophiles will offend again is like trying to pick winning Lottery numbers.
In other words, you might get lucky but there's a far greater chance that you won't. It seems to me that the only sure way to ensure the safety of children is to ensure that child sex offenders like Mallory hear the sound of a prison cell door closing behind them.
My question to Judge Eckiss and defense attorney Lewis is this: Would you want Mallory living next door to you or being in the same vicinity with your children or grandchildren? I didn't think so.
I also wonder if Mallory would be considered "low risk" if he lived next door to Eckiss or Lewis? Once again, I'm certain the answer is "no."
It's a given that judges like Eckiss have a lot of authority inside their courtroom when considering important matters such as the risk factors involved with child molesters. But, judges like Eckiss should also understand that the residents of the First Judicial Circuit also have a lot of authority when considering important matters such as the risk factor involved with judges who turn child molesters loose on the public.
Ironically, Judge Eckiss is up for a retention vote in 2006, so I guess it will be up to voters to determine if he's low risk or high risk.
From my vantage point, Judge Eckiss' action in the courtroom last week is a pretty good indication.
JIM MUIR is a columnist for The Southern Illinoisan and can be reached at writeon1@shawneelink.net.
Southern Illinoisan
Judge's decision about convicted child sex offender was wrong
I understand the term "low risk" when talking about car insurance, investments, loans and heart attacks. However, I'm confused when those two simple words are used to define confessed and convicted pedophiles. In fact, when considering the recidivism rate for pedophiles, "low risk" scares the bejiggers out of me.
The "low risk" phrase is what Williamson County Judge Ronald Eckiss used last week when he pulled the bonehead judicial blunder of 2005 and turned convicted child sex offender Davis "Skip" Mallory back on the streets for the good folks of Williamson County to deal with.
Mallory, 61, of Johnston City, had already entered an open plea of guilty to charges accusing him of sexually abusing a 16-year-old Johnston City girl. The charges of abuse, which occurred in March and April of this year, each carried a potential sentence of three to seven years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Inexplicably, Eckiss threw caution to the wind and sentenced Mallory to 48 months probation. And keep in mind this was not a plea agreement between the state and Mallory's attorney.
Judge Eckiss had the final say in this matter and opted to ignore the arguments of Williamson County Assistant State's Attorney Lisa Hutchens-Irvin who recommended the maximum sentence of 14 years for Mallory.
If there's any consolation in this deplorable situation, it's that at least Hutchens-Irvin, who obviously had a better grasp about the danger to the community than Eckiss did, fought to keep a child molester off the street.
Since I'm handing out "bonehead" awards this morning let me also give one to defense attorney Brian Lewis, who somehow managed to make Mallory out to be the victim in this case. Lewis said Mallory would be punished and his freedom altered by the state requirement that he must register as a convicted sex offender.
"Johnston City is a small town," Lewis said. "We all know the type of stigma that can attach to this in a small town."
I wonder if for a single second Lewis thought about the "stigma" now attached forever to the 16-year-old victim who watched the judicial system and Eckiss fail her. Or, what about the stigma attached to Mallory's niece who came forward and testified during the sentencing hearing that Mallory molested her 25 years ago?
I wonder if Eckiss or Lewis gave a second's thought to the message that was sent to future victims by slapping Mallory on the wrist and turning him loose?
During the past year I've covered three separate hearings where children were forced to testify about being molested and in each instance I felt like I needed to take a shower when I left the courtroom.
During one of those hearings I listened intently to the testimony of Dr. Michael Fogel, who is director of the sex offender evaluation unit for the department of corrections. Fogel testified that he had interviewed thousands of child molesters and said that there are several different "weighted" factors that go into determining if a child molester is prone to be a repeat offender.
In the end, Fogel admitted that there are no guarantees when trying to determine if and when a pedophile will abuse another child.
After listening to Fogel's testimony I recall thinking that trying to predict if pedophiles will offend again is like trying to pick winning Lottery numbers.
In other words, you might get lucky but there's a far greater chance that you won't. It seems to me that the only sure way to ensure the safety of children is to ensure that child sex offenders like Mallory hear the sound of a prison cell door closing behind them.
My question to Judge Eckiss and defense attorney Lewis is this: Would you want Mallory living next door to you or being in the same vicinity with your children or grandchildren? I didn't think so.
I also wonder if Mallory would be considered "low risk" if he lived next door to Eckiss or Lewis? Once again, I'm certain the answer is "no."
It's a given that judges like Eckiss have a lot of authority inside their courtroom when considering important matters such as the risk factors involved with child molesters. But, judges like Eckiss should also understand that the residents of the First Judicial Circuit also have a lot of authority when considering important matters such as the risk factor involved with judges who turn child molesters loose on the public.
Ironically, Judge Eckiss is up for a retention vote in 2006, so I guess it will be up to voters to determine if he's low risk or high risk.
From my vantage point, Judge Eckiss' action in the courtroom last week is a pretty good indication.
JIM MUIR is a columnist for The Southern Illinoisan and can be reached at writeon1@shawneelink.net.
Southern Illinoisan