Being a celebrity of any kind, even the kind of small-time following that a minor league baseball player in Mexico might acquire, inherently gives someone more social power, for lack of a better term. Having people recognize your face, being affiliated with anything with any degree of fame, gives you more opportunities to gain people’s trust. For a normal athlete this means you’ll have groupies, even if it’s just a handful, you’ll have people buy you drinks in a bar, people will want to talk to you, etc. For a fucked up piece of shit child molester, it means you have more chances to manipulate kids. It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that there are baseball fans in Mexico who are not aware of what this guy did and could be vulnerable to being convinced to let him take their kid or a group of kids out for some kind of party or WHATEVER, child molesters have always been able to con their way into situations where they can be alone with kids.
There is no reason to think he will always have “an adult watching him for untoward behavior.” I don’t have any faith whatsoever that he will be adequately supervised, this guy is a ticking time bomb, I cannot believe he’s being allowed to play baseball.
No time served, no fine, no punishment. He had to attend molester classes, my prep material did not mention that (I have exceeded my NYT free article limit for the month), I was 100% wrong on that. Not sure I call that punishment, but yes I missed that molester did in fact have to attend therapy, the horror.
The letter apologizing to niece he was forced to write (why not voluntarily?) was written in the form of “IF I had done it, I would be sorry, but I didn’t do it”, so not sure the point of that.
How would that apology letter go anyway, even it he admitted guilt- “sorry I ruined your life, forced you probably into therapy for years, made you mistrusting of others, gave you nightmares, ruined your childhood, made you more likely to abuse others in the future, but hey, I was bored in between games?”
Is Heimlich being rude to society by not quietly retiring to some quaint isolated cabin and putting a shotgun in his mouth, because that’s starting to sound like the only satisfactory resolution to the situation.
FTR: my SO’s nephew was coerced into fellating her (former) thirtysomething friend; perv’s mother used a high-powered lawyer to get the perv off on “cultural differences”. Outrage at a ballplayer? I’m not seeing it.
I’m willing to bet that someone with a drug conviction at age 15 would probably still be able to play professional sports, and a pro player caught molesting kids would fall under the same regulations as the players being sanctioned for drug use, abuse, etc. Whether you want to hand-wave it away or not, there’s a difference between crimes committed as an active player and something done years before.
I’m having a hard time finding a single instance in the article about Josh Gordon that says that he was ever “banned for life.” He’s been suspended numerous times over the years but always allowed to come back after receiving treatment. But I can see how “so-and-so banned for life for using pot but child molester get to play” works as an appealing, if overly dramatic, comparison to try and bolster your argument.
The point about Heimlich’s sex offender registration was relevant enough for you to put it in your OP so it seems relevant enough to comment on, especially when your statement in the OP is false. Your ABC new cite doesn’t support your assertion that he failed to register, it just says he was cited for not registering. The Sports Illustrated article cited by Wikipedia goes into better detail, but basically a mix-up by the state police about Oregon vs Washington reporting laws flagged him as not registered even though he was. His citation was dismissed but not before it was added into the system and discovered by the media.
Seems weird to include how great a player he is in your title, but I guess that’s just MHO.
Whether he registered correctly or not is nothing but a distracting sidebar- yes, one I mentioned, but only to highlight his stupidity in that none of this would be known if he had registered correctly- some sources say yes he did, some no, but not relevant to the OP- just an amusing sidenote if true.
Whether Josh Gordon was banned or indefinitely suspended also irrelevant (I brought this up as well)- want a clear example, below is a list of NBA players banned for life, the several drug ones are recreational drugs. Mentioned only to show there are athletes banned for recreational drug abuse which are much lesser crimes than molestation- the individual names not pertinent.
Oh don’t even start me on the Polanski worship. I think a lot of people who don’t know the facts think it was just a case of sleeping with an underage girl (who was willing), which is still pretty skeevy. But when you find out what actually happened, and you still defend the fucker? That just blows my mind.
I still feel that way about Ben. Too many stories from close family members.
What if we banned him from ice cream parlors forever. I mean, there are kids in those places. Plus, I’d hate to walk into my home town ice cream parlor and see this unrepentant molester living the high life eating his favorite sundae like nothing ever happened. Call me strange, but that just don’t sit well with me, nosiree!
I mean, no more sundaes is hardly an extreme punishment for what he did, sure isn’t.
I got a call from my local city’s SVU the other day. I don’t answer the phone, but the number looked interesting. So, I Googled and called back. Something happened to my son when he was 6 (10 years ago) and I guess they finally got a DNA match with the now 20 year-old perp. Detective wanted to know if we wanted to press charges. Asked me to talk it over with my wife and call him back. I knew 100% there was no way in hell she would want to press charges and neither did I. Sounded like a long shot anyway, but regardless I sure couldn’t think of any reason to pursue.
I was molested myself (a one time event) when I was 5 or 6. So was my cousin. I know a couple people who did things (older kid/younger kid) and got away with it and then NEVER have so much have been accused of any kind of crime in their adult lives at all. I’m not saying it was right or OK, but I don’t think people who do these things are necessarily irredeemable monsters. There is a lot of selective outrage, especially when it comes to children (even when the perps are children) and sex crimes.
Good or bad, this ballplayer has faced his judicial punishment. His profession is ballplayer, that’s his talent in life. He’s not a daycare worker or pediatrician or child psychologist. I don’t think he should be barred for life from participating in his occupation. That’s my opinion. Obviously, owners/league may choose not to employ him in a sort of unspoken blackballing, which has recently happened to talented athletes for being non-criminal good citizens. So, I guess I’m not going to be too outraged on his behalf if he never makes affiliated pro baseball. But if someone wants to employ him, they should.
BTW, guys like Matt Bush (who did much worse) and Josh Hamilton (mostly drug related) received multiple second chances with MLB. Bush had multiple physical assaults, multiple DWI and hit and run incidents, including hitting and then running over the head of a 72 year-old motorcyclist. I remember at least one NFL player who killed a man before his career.
The Polanski Heimlich comparison is an interesting one, if looked at from a legal standpoint only (i am fully aware Polanski is accused of drugging raping and sodomizing a 13 year old goal. i have seen her and read her several times and she is 1000% credible and i believe every word she said is true, and dont watch anything after The Tenant as a result. I am also aware many underage girls have said he assaulted or had sex with them, but no charges filed. I am not saying losing his family in the Holocasut and then to the Mansons garners him any sympathy in this case.
However, from a legal standpoint, he pled to unlawful intercourse with a minor only, so legally, not morally or ethically, that is his crime of record, strictly for the purposes of this comparison. So same crime, legally, or very similar, to Luke?
No, Polanski pled guilty of rape (although the official term used is a bit fancier than that). This is not a matter of being “accused” or “alleged”, he admitted his guilt during a plea bargain and fled the country prior to sentencing.
In contrast to Heimlich, who stuck around to hear what the judge had to say, did not flee, and did what the court required of him. Which, in my mind, makes him a hell of a lot more trustworthy than Polanski. On top of which, it seems Heimlich has behaved himself ever since whereas further accusations of sexual assault have been made towards Polanski. Where’s your outrage over Polanski?
Why should it? Most people who survived the holocaust didn’t turn to rape. Most people who have had family members brutally murdered don’t turn to rape. Neither is a valid excuse or a mitigating circumstance.
They both penetrated an underage girl. You have to ask that question? Yes, it’s the same goddamned thing. Except Polanski also drugged the girl. And Polanski was a full grown adult man. In my mind Polanski is far worse scum than Heimlich.
made it abundantly clear in my post I was coming strictly from a legal standpoint only, said that six times, but you still missed it- fine.
You are very wrong, below is what Poalsnki pled to, cite he admitted more or pled guilty to more?
so, legally similar crime, both accepted plea terms, both accepted punishment (Polanski actually served 42 days jail).
I have outrage over many people, I just couldnt fit them all in one thread. Start one on him, Ill be glad to come by and give my thoughts.
Wikipedia-
*At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges.
As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor”,[124][125] and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institution for Men at Chino.[126] Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation.*
Recidivism rates for juveniles who commit sexual offenses is lower than that of adults. It is actually less likely that they will reoffend as adults, and most reoffending that does occur is not sexual in nature.
It is bad policy to treat adult and juvenile offenders the same way.
So, what you are promoting is no less than “Vigilante Justice”. Because YOU don’t think the system handled his case properly, you want to take it upon yourself to administer the punishment YOU deem fit.
So, tell me, where exactly do we draw the line in terms of your view of law and order? Do we all just administer punishment for various crimes as we all individually see fit? Let’s suppose that you drive down the street and run over my pet, whom I love more than anything or anybody in the world, and you kill him. Is it okay if I drive to your house and shoot your son in the head because he is the one thing you love more than anything or anybody else in the world? Seems fair to me.
Social media, like anything else, has its pluses and minuses. One big minus I’ve noted is that it has spawned what I can only call a lynch mob mentality where people rush to judgment, often with skewed or completely incorrect information, They basically try, judge, and sentence people all in one swoop. What’s even worse is that we’ve gone to digging up old transgressions that were done when people weren’t even the people that have become now and, what’s worse, we want to punish them as if they did these things yesterday.
Senator John Doe snorted cocaine twenty years ago when he was a 19 year old college student. Impeach him!