[LOCKED] OT: Oregon State pitcher is a sexual predator
I realize college baseball is done for most of you, but this is big local news. Also, it's pretty big in the world of college baseball given he is arguably the top pitcher (11-1 record and 0.76 ERA) on the #1 team in the country and this story broke just before the Super Regionals and MLB draft this weekend.
Summary: Heimlich abused a female family member (6 years old or younger) back when he was 15. He plead guilty to the felony and did his time. What he failed to do was register as a sex offender when he moved to Oregon for college. There are questions as to what OSU knew and when they knew it.
I'm torn on this topic. On one hand, what he did as a 15 year old was probably the most vile thing a human can do. He also did not fulfill his legal duty to re-register in Oregon (though he is registered now and the police did not pursue any chargse). On the other hand, he has fulfilled every other part of his guilty plea, and appears to be on the "straight and narrow" now.
Should his extremely poor judgement in the past affect his future indefinitely? Should he be banned from starting tomorrow? Should his stock fall in the MLB draft Monday? Where do you draw the line for something like this?
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/why_we_published_th…
MOD EDIT - In reading some of the comments, I think we'll lock this one for now. - LSA
Basenoballs...
I guess that meants he'll only ever throw strikes
It meants he throw no balls.
It went on from when the girl was 4 to when she was 6. It wasn't a one time thing, at ages 13-15 you know how incredibly wrong that is. Sure he's been on the straight and narrow since, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be permanent consequences for something so vile.
For 2 years? This makes me sick
Not forced to work minimum wage jobs, but have what happens to other convicted felons when they apply for jobs, disclose your felony and allow the employer to make the decision on whether or not to hire you. Several MLB teams have already taken him completely off their draft boards. Even the state of Washington considered his crime so bad that they did not keep his juvenile records sealed. He is a convicted felon and sex offender, he must deal with those consequnces, like the poor girl will be dealing with that abuse the rest of her life.
No one in Washington decided not to seal the records based on the severity of the crime, it is default Washington policy that juvenile records are not sealed.
I feel it's both necessary and ridiculous that i have to say that this comment is in no way me passing judgment on the crime itself, but simply clarifying the law.
I can't believe you're on this board defending this person's reprehensible actions!
(I feel it's both necessary and ridiculous that I have to point out that my comment is in jest. Not to you, FGB, but to the few hair trigger folk on this board.)
and social media in general - down pat!
How can people say this topic is too OT when we spent the past year talking about Joe Mixon punching a female that antagonized him?
This guy is much worse and the media doesn't seem to give 2 shits.
The double standard is hilarious here.
Surely those were all marked OT as well? I'm not really sure what your point is here. It's not related to Michigan athletics at all. Not even a little. Hence OT.
Juveniles are not convicted of crimes (unless they are tried as an adult). They are adjudicated for delinquent acts. So he is not a convicted felon. The difference may not seem important, but legally it is very significant.
this was a well thought out answer.
I mean, he sexually assaulted a 4-year-old girl and then assaulted her at least once more when she was 6, and I can fairly assume those weren't the two instances. I have a near 4-year-old girl at home, and the thought someone thinking "I'm going to tough her privates" at any age, especially a teenager, is just disgusting. He's not in jail, and beyond that I don't think he deserves any breaks. It's cruel and maybe not fair, but I'm not going to cry a river over a guy who thought what he did years ago was fine.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable permanently branding a person for their conduct as a 13-15 year old. Yes, he knew it was wrong, but at the same time brain chemistry/impulse control/etc. is extremely different at that age than it is for an adult.
"She said that she told him to stop, but he wouldn't," and that "it hurt" when he touched her. It wasn't two kids exploring each other due to urges or not knowing what they were doing. He deliberately kept abusing her after she kept pleading for him to stop.
support what the gentleman above said about impulse control (unless the man has something wrong with his frontal lobe). Children and teenagers who engage in this type of behavior were more than likely molested or abused by someone. Which doesn't make it ok, but that cycle of molestation and abuse continues because of the damage inflicted on the previous party. Now that being said, when intervined on appropriately (punishment, counseling, etc.), the likelihood of him re-offending as an adult (remember he committed this crime at 15) is much lower than say a 23 year old forcibly touching a 16 year old.
This. As a prosecutor, I can honestly say that in the overwhelming majority of the sex offense cases I've handled, the Defendant / Perpetrator has at some point been a victim of a sex offense. Certainly not an excuse, but it should be noted.
Wasn't saying this was a lack of inpulse control. Was using that as an example of how 13-15 year olds' minds aren't the same as adults. He obviously exhibited predatory actions as a 13-15 year old. There's no question it was horrific. Just saying that given his age at the time of his actions doesn't mean he is still a sexual predator today.
I'm of two minds on this. First, he should carry some stigma and be registered as a sex offender until psychiatric science can get us to a point to know that he will not be a repeat offender. (That's not happening anytime soon.) As others have pointed out, this was a series of events over two years, and pretty devastating to the victim. It's serious shit. So carrying the stigma is part of the package, so I don't mind that he gets "branded".
However, I also believe in redemption. Because this guy was a predator as a young teen doesn't mean that we should throw his life away either. There's a reason that we have special provisions for juvenile defenders.
Plus, we don't know his full back story. He may well have been molested when he was young, and repeating the cycle. Of course this doesn't excuse his behavior, but it might (if true) help explain it. Our focus should be (i) on keeping other potential victims safe, and (ii) breaking these cycles. Totally ostracizing a person for acts as a young teen doesn't really help them become productive members of society.
So I think my position is that branding is OK to a degree, but writing off someone entirely for crimes committed at a young age is a mistake too.
Most of you guys are overthinking this. The law says he has served his time, that he must do certain things (like the registry), and so forth. The law does NOT say he can never be employed again. The law also does NOT state that anyone HAS to hire him, especially for a multi-million dollar job as a professional athlete. So, a team can hire him or not at their discretion. If your team drafts/hires him, and you don't like it, vote with your money and allegiance and refuse to support that team. If you want the law changed to make child molesters unemployed the rest of their lives, lobby politicians to change the state or federal laws. Otherwise, there's nothing more to talk about, really. JMHO...
There is no "brain chemistry" that justifies sexually assaulting a 4-year-old. This isn't two kids messing around, or a 17-year-old having sex with his or her 15-year-old significant other. This is grossly inappropriate, and while I understand people mature and change over time, and maybe he was a victim of sexual violence himself, it doesn't change the fact that there are repercussions for your actions. I mean, had he drove recklessly and killed someone at 15, I doubt anyone would be as quick to worry about his future.
Full disclosure:
1. I'm M Law '91, M Bach Art '88
2. I'm a criminal defense lawyer whose practice is heavy on representing individuals who are charged with some type of non-normative sexual behavior; I speak on sex crimes defense and am working on a manual on sex crimes defense (writing and editing)
3. I'm a fiercly protective dad of three daughters
4. My life has been touched in many ways by sexual abuse
5. For the above-described reasons, I've gotten deep in the weeds on what works and doesn't in criminal and family law, the sociological, psychological, and biological understanding of how social norms are set, how sexuality forms (and changes), and how sex offenders can be effectively treated.
Here's my short take.
1. Of all offenders, this guy is EXCEEDINGLY unlikey to be a predator. Predator is a legal term of art where risk is high of recidivism. He was adjudged a the lowest level of risk, entered and completed a treatment program. I don't know enough about him to opine, but for most sex offenders, early treatment, success in treatment, and an effective safety plan make, often involving maintenance treatment, makes convicted sex offenders in this category LESS LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE
2. There are very effective treatment programs for most offenders, but many offenders are processed, not effectively treated, and not effectively managed becuase we'd rather lock them up and make them MORE DANGEROUS than they were if we did nothing at all
3. There are very few, if any, credible studies that suggest that the shame and stigma of conviction and registration aids in reducing risk and harm
4. Some people (predators), and even some opportunistic offenders who will not treat, do need to be warehoused in prisons for the protection of all
5. Most offenders are opportunistic (i.e. non-predatory) offenders who, if effectively treated are low risk
6. "Deviancy" has limited use as a term because it is laden with judgment, not facts or science. The science is that many more people are "non-normative" than society at large thinks
7. Executive functioning and impulse control (i.e. adult thinking) are not well-formed in males until they reach 25-27 years old, females a few years younger
8. Society is currently teaching us to wear down our impulse control through the commercialization of sex and the ubiquitous access to advertising, short-term thinking, consumer culture, and on-line pornography
9. Sexuality has a significant degree of plasticity (i.e. it can be changed thru environmental factors and changes over the course of one's life)
10. About 1% of the American population suffers from zoophilia, the same rate and pedaphilia, neither of which means that one has acted on desire, just that the desire is there to a degree which causes some significant degree of discomfort. It is understood that these have both a biological and environmental components
11. Some of the moral outrage is good and healthy as it discourages behavior, but some of it is quite bad and prevents people from seeking help before they act out as they fear consequences, shame, etc.
12. If we are ever going to break the cycle, for the vast majority of offenders, the shame and outrage has to be set aside. We need to save the prison space for the predators first (still treating as it helps) and second for the carrot and stick for the opportunists that will not treat and stay with it
That's my soap box for today. Happy to discuss off-line with anyone who is interested.
Thanks for this post. It was pretty interesting skimming through and probably deserves a more thoughtful consideration when I have more time.
and how does anyone know he's been on the straight and narrow. If I had been OSU and was aware of this I never would've recruited him and if I was an MLB scout I would pass on him.
Reads like corporate HR video
it's always good to ask ourselves these two questions in such a case:
- how would I feel if said athlete were on the team for which I root?
- how would (and/or should) someone who couldn't hurl a spheroid be treated for such transgressions?
A baseball is not a spheroid, which is elliptical in nature. It also isn't a true sphere since the seams make it uneven. That is the end of my knowledge.
I'd like to dig into this further.
Extremely messed-up -- a 15 y/o brain is clearly developed enough to know how wrong something such as that is with someone that young.
BUT
Still don't think his life needs to be destroyed because of it at 15. Hypocritical, I know -- but that's my stance.
get why this is even being discussed on the blog? I could understand better if it was something major and new added to his back story, but we are literally discussing someone who has paid his debt to society, who is not being charged with anything new, and since he was 15 "apparently" has done nothing wrong. Being a school counselor, I find this behavior to be repulsive and hope this cloud follows him everywhere he goes, he earned it and I don't feel bad for him. That should be punishment enough, I think you are going down a slippery slope if you start retroactively punishing people for things they have already been legally consequenced for.
Except that he hasn't followed through on his punishment. He never registered in Oregon.
I don't think he should be barred from the MLB, but he certainly did something wrong after age 15.
is compliant now and the cops aren't going to pursue it. Seems like a dead issue to me if the police aren't willing to file charges on him.
Unfortunately now, in the age of internet outrage, people have to hang in the court of public opinion. A lot of folks seem to love to hate and be mad.
Of course I am not saying what he did was ok. Like you, I don't know that it is worth much beyond stirring up an opponent.
I agree, not barred from the MLB, but any team can sure as hell say "fuck this guy" and not draft him.
I understand that "paying your debt to society" is a commonly used phrase when discussing crime nad punishment, but I don't see how this man owes a debt to society. He owes a debt, one which can likely never be paid, to a young girl.
Just because he has fulfilled his legal consequences doesn't mean there aren't further consequences in life.
with. You aren't immune from all consequences of life after you have fulfilled your legal obligations. So, if all the owners agree not to draft him, then so be it. I'm only talking about suspending him from playing in college or legally barring him entry in to the MLB. If their is no law to cite, or no new crime has been committed, then there should be no suspension or further punishment. Plain and simple.
Are you suggesting that if the MSU players take a plea deal that keeps them out of jail, their should be no reason to frown upon any school willing to admit them and allow them to play football?
I only ask because that is seemingly what Baylor did and now people want the program burned to the ground.
Playing baseball at Oregon State is a priveledge, not a right. No one is taking away his rights by saying because of his past he is going to be removed from the team now that it has come to public knowledge.
Personally I have no objection to what OSU does either way, but to say that if they do remove him from the team is not fair is overlooking the fact that humans make those judgement calls in their lives everyday.
I have to agree. The only issue here is that he didn't register as he was supposed to. I'm sure he'll be punished for that but other than that, he did his time. His crime was reprehensible and I have no sympathy for him should anyone feel the need to punch him in the face but legally, there's nothing else to be done.
That said, who knows if he would be where he is had he registered as a sex offender like he was supposed to. That's a tag that absolutely should follow a person for the rest of their lives and if they lose out on things because of it, oh well.