As Jasmine said, the “heinousness” of the crime is the crux of the matter. If you had said that anyone who has ever done anything wrong should never be allowed to play professional baseball, that would be so silly as not to be worth discussing. It’s the heinousness of the crime or its perpetrator that your argument depends on.
No, “child abuse” is an extremely broad category, and some of the things that fall under that label are far more heinous than others.
In other words… he had his day in court but you didn’t like the judge’s decision so you want to “correct” it. Got it. You’re pro-vigilantism, let’s just forget all about the rule of law, who need that anyway, right?
Let me get this straight - you’re saying that because he did what he was supposed to do and was honest about registering you want to destroy whatever sort of career he’s managed up to this point?
This guy can’t win - if he’s honest and does what he is supposed to do you condemn him for that. If he hides it well, he’s evil so he should be condemned.
I get it - you think all molesters should be beaten to death in an alley. At least be honest that that is your position (if it is).
Frankly, I’m not at all clear on what, exactly, this guy pled guilty to doing. Did he rape her? Did they get caught undressing in front of each other? Did he touch her? Did he wave his dick at her? All of those can get you a sexual offender charge and a requirement to register as a sex offender, but they are not all equally “heinous”.
No he was supposed to register, but didn’t- he was given explicit instructions on what to do as a result of sentencing, and didn’t. If he had followed the courts order, no one would know about this, he would be in AAA in the USA now with a million dollar signing bonus in the bank.
Sorry if that is a unique opinion, yes I find child molesters the worst form of life.
If not clear on what he did, how can you have a clear opinion? Digital insertion is what he pled to.
Yes apparently there was a divorce between brother and sister in law, and somehow falsely admitting to molesting the daughter aided that somehow? this makes sense?
And I read further- neither real brother or sister-in-law talks to him, SIL says ostracized from family because molesters parents believe he is innocent, SIL highly offended he is allowed to play, and has a platform to say he is innocent, IOW a platform to call her child a liar.
Are you not able to see that there’s a very practical and important reason for that? Namely that such a person is likely to lack the judgment and integrity to work for a federal law enforcement agency – that he fails a fundamental job requirement? For the same reason, no one would hire a convicted pedophile to run a daycare or be a schoolteacher. I don’t know this particular individual that is the subject of your ire from a hole in the ground, but exactly what sort of obstacle does his criminal conviction pose to throwing a ball or hitting it with a stick?
In fact one might argue that sports figures tend to be role models for kids, but as far as that goes, I think he should be judged by his current character and behavior rather than something he did when he was 15. It’s called rehabilitation. Again, I don’t know the guy – maybe he’s a total reprobate and should be treated as such. But that isn’t what you’re arguing.
IOW, I didn’t read the thread, don’t know any facts of the case, but because I don’t care for your comments in an unrelated thread, I felt compelled to come here and take the opposite side of whatever it is you are arguing?:rolleyes:
The point about the FBI is, certain crimes preclude you from holding certain jobs. IMO, child molestation should preclude you from playing professional American sports. that is all.
Nope. Try: because your arguments make no sense to me. It has nothing to do with any other thread. If there is a reason this individual shouldn’t be allowed to play pro baseball, you have failed to elucidate it. Seems to have something to do with making too much money, or something.
Indeed certain crimes – or certain backgrounds in general – precludes one from holding certain jobs. You have failed to show why the job of hitting a ball with a stick should be in that category; you’ve merely made a statement without basis, and drawn an unsupported parallel.
This individual has committed the most heinous of crimes and denies culpability.
American sports pride themselves, allegedly, on taking hard stances against domestic abusers, child abusers, marijuana use and various other middling crimes. I think this most heinous of crimes should preclude molester from playing in the league, or at the very least, admittance of guilt, remorse, etc and a lengthy fine and suspension should be issued first. The leagues have often said when issuing suspensions and such ‘playing in our league is a privilege, not a right’.
But in reality, no teams fans are going to allow it, nor are other players, unless he is kept completely separated from the players and their kids- players kids on the field and clubhouse is a once or twice a week thing in baseball at least, how is that going to work with his team?
eta: Josh Gordon is currently (or was) 'banned for life" from the NFL for marijuana usage.
Actually I believe 1000% criminals need to be rehabilitated, be given education and job skills in jail, believe jails should not be punitive, believe jobs should hire felons, all that.
I just also believe in this particular case, with the particular crime and the unique nature of the profession, he should not be allowed to play.
Josh Gordon is banned from the NFL for failing marijuana tests. Molestation is a bit worse IMO.
I am all for allowing molester to get a job, have a family, kids, friends, and be given anything he needs to live a productive life, and if he feels he needs additional therapy or guidance, it should be provided.
But we aren’t speaking of a guy who committed a crime at 20, served 20 years and now deserves a second chance. We are speaking of a guy who committed a heinous crime, served no time, no fine, no punishment at all, possibly pitched the same day of his guilty plea. So in this case, it would be, commit such an act, punishment is no baseball, but your life is free to go on as you please otherwise.
Well, that’s indeed part of it, but there’s also some bad arguments being made about players being fined and suspended and such for bad behavior, the problem with that sort of argument being that those sanctions are for things they did while under contract to the sports club, not for something in the distant past that’s already been dealt with judicially. There’s also some bizarre argument that this guy is being paid more money than he deserves, or something – I can’t really quite grasp the point.
But yes, the rehabilitation is argument is part of it. And there’s not a lot of “sides” to it, in my view. While obviously some criminals are just not amenable to rehabilitation, in general the evidence strongly supports the view that an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than harsh punishment as “deterrence” results in a lower rate of recidivism and a safer society. Unfortunately many conservatives tend to see that as “soft on crime” and advocate punitive policies that have the opposite effect of what they intended.
Sex offenders are notorious for recidivism. That said, as long as this guy isn’t allowed any place which would give him opportunity to re-offend, what’s the problem?
Which of those situations would allow him to be alone with children? More to the point: how do you know he doesn’t always have an adult watching him for untoward behavior?
You’re also wrong about how Heimlich’s record was revealed. According to your own cited wikipedia article in the OP, the Oregon State Police screwed up and thought he failed to register, but that wasn’t the case.
Mind explaining WTF your thread title means? Pitching lights out?
yes I see a difference- one is incomprehensibly disturbing, the other is rather benign- yet the benign one can get you banned.
Josh Gordon at one time was banned for life, but current is not- you are correct, I was in error of the current status, but do note a ban for something so innocent is indeed possible.
Wikipedia says he registered, other places say he did not, but really not relevant to the OP
The Oregonian, while doing a routine background check on Heimlich for a feature story, discovered Heimlich was cited for failing to update his sex offender registration status in April.
Pitching lights out, sorry, baseball vernacular, thought it was also a common real world term:
Wait a minute - I thought you said he DID register? You said he was stupid for updating the register? But you said he didn’t - this is very confusing. Even if he didn’t register as soon as he was supposed to (which is bad) he did eventually do so, correct?
OK, they’re the worst form of life, but that still does not justify extra-judicial vigilante action against them.
Oh, silly me, asking for clarification! OK, “digital penetration”, he finger-raped her.
As for opinions - I have certain moral and ethical views. Such as not beating people to death, allowing even scum to make sufficient money to provide for basic needs, and respecting the decisions of the courts even when I don’t agree with them as basic requirements for a civilized rule of law. I don’t need to know a felon’s crime to know he doesn’t deserve to be beaten to death because no one deserves that. First priority is to keep a criminal from causing harm again, second to mete out punishment. Actually, reform would be a better second step, if it’s possible.
Huh? He pled guilty. That’s pretty much taking “culpability”.
What, exactly, do you want him to do to show his repentance? Because as near as I can tell you’ve decided he’s damned to hell no matter what.
>snort<guffaw Oh, REALLY, now…?
“American sports” is a cesspit of corruption and immorality. If it’s not people involved in the industry betting on outcomes (lookin’ at you, Pete Rose) or venerating “nice” football players (>cough< OJ Simpson >cough<) it’s guys cheating with pharmaceuticals or dumping shit-tons of money on 20-24 year old young men and acting surprised when some of them get stupid with it and other players use their profits to subsidize pastimes like dogfighting (Yo, Michael Vick!)
Punishment seldom seems to fit the crime. Does Pete Rose really deserve a lifetime forever ban? Why was Vick allowed to re-enter the profession? Does any of this strike you as consistent? It doesn’t look that way to me.
He already admitted his guilt. In court. If you have a problem with the punishment - or lack of it - meted out the proper person to complain about is the JUDGE, not the person pleading guilty.
Again - what do you expect child molesters to do to redeem themselves?
Either he is not permitted to be with the team when they are doing stuff with kids, or he has some sort of security at his elbow the entire time.
Or would you prefer he wears leper’s robes, ring a bell, and shout “UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!” everywhere he goes? Are you aware that convicted child molesters are permitted to do such things as put gas in their car, shop at a grocery store for food, and otherwise move about in public?
So many people hyperventilate about the caught/convicted molesters, the guys on the registries, but those are NOT the most dangerous predators because you can see them. You know what they look like, who they are, where they live. It’s the ones that haven’t been caught, the ones you don’t know who they are, the ones that are invisible, that are the greatest danger. Because you don’t know to be wary of them.
Did the player molest someone while he was under contract to the league? If the answer is “no, he did it years before he joined the league” then no, he shouldn’t be banned, fined, or otherwise punished by the league. Just as no one is going to be banned, fined, or otherwise punished by a major sports league for a drug conviction BEFORE they joined the league. It’s conduct while under contract that a league has a say in, not what happens before a player is signed.
So… you say criminals should be rehabilitated then turn around and say “but not this one”. You really don’t see how confusing and twisted your statements are, do you?
How do you reconcile “must be kept away from kids to the point of not being permitted to be a ballplayer” with “have a family, kids”? Here again, you make no sense/are confusing/contradict yourself. You say one thing then turn around and negate it.
No, we’re talking about a guy who committed a crime at 15, while still a minor himself, went in front of a judge, admitted guilt, and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life here in the US.
What it comes down to is that you think he hasn’t suffered enough for his crime. I question if you think there could ever be “enough” suffering for child molestation given some of your statements in this thread, including not having a problem with the guy being beaten to death outside of the judicial system.
Frankly, I’d be much more concerned about this guy applying to be a schoolteacher than a ballplayer. As others have said, I don’t see how being a child molester prevents him from throwing a ball, hitting a ball with a stick, and running around a diamond shape on a field.
Well, the rest of the team can do those things while he sits in the locker room or something. There, problem solved.
So… if someone in officialdom made a mistake (thought he didn’t register when he did) then that is somehow his fault? Oh, forgot, he’s a child molester - according to you that means he can do nothing right.
Honest to Og, over a half century living in the US and I have never heard that term before. And even after looking it up I still have no clue how this relates to the player’s criminal acts in the past. But I’ve sort have stopped expecting everything you say to make sense at this point.