This story has many scratching their head.
Gov. Patrick fires the Chair of the Sex Offender Registry Board, veteran prosecutor Saundra Edwards, and puts its executive director Jeanne L. Holmes on leave, citing their treatment of the case of Gov. Patrick’s own brother in law.
Boston Globe: Patrick ousts two, with motive partly personal, by Michael Levenson (Sept 22, 2014)
Boston Herald: Board overhaul spurred by suit involving Gov. Deval Patrick’s brother-in-law, by Matt Stout, Erin Smith (Sept 22, 2014)
The larger context is that of a Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) which had several run-ins with the state Supreme Judicial Court. In 2010, the SJC found that “the board’s actions were arbitrary and capricious”, and rewrote the rules it has to follow.
Forensic psychologist David Medoff, who served on the SORB when it was created, and later resigned, said that “…the Supreme Judicial Court has approved the legality of what they do, but that is separate and unrelated to the accuracy of what they do”.
The paramount question is not whether the SORB is at all needed, but whether the rules it follows are fair to the people coming to its attention – and that the rules are applied evenhandedly.
Not all presumed offenders are equal; some can afford a lawyer, others have to rely on the public defender. Case by case confidentiality prevents the transparency needed to ensure the rules of the game are fair to everyone – once a presumed offender is cleared, his or her records have to be kept confidential.
In the case at hand, Gov. Patrick’s brother in law, Bernard Sigh, was convicted in 1993 of raping his wife, Patrick’s sister, while they were separated. This happened out of state. Sigh served prison time, then reconciled with his wife.
When Sigh later moved to Massachusetts, the hearing officer assigned to Sigh ruled that he did not need to register as a sex offender, because he posed no danger to the public. The name of the hearing officer is Attilio Paglia. Cue in the Globe report:
“But Edwards, Holmes, and other top officials at the board pressured Paglia to reverse his decision, according to the governor and to a lawsuit Paglia filed in December 2008, alleging improper interference in the case and others.
“In his lawsuit, Paglia alleged that board officials sent him a revised ruling that concluded that Sigh was obligated to register and asked Paglia to sign it.
“Paglia refused and then began to receive “unprecedented criticisms” of other pending decisions he had drafted as well as poor performance reviews, according to his lawsuit. He left work on a medical leave in June 2008, citing emotional distress and anxiety, and resigned six months later.
“Paglia settled his lawsuit for $60,000 this April, a month before the case was set to go to trial. ”
The issue in all this is not why Sigh, the Governor’s brother in law, was given a pass and did not have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is what happens to other people in Sigh’s situation, who are not as connected.
Maybe the ouster of SORB Chair Edwards and executive director Holmes is a step in the right direction. But why does it take for a member of the Gov’s family to be in cross hairs to get this high level shake-up?
…where knowing somebody involved changes your perspective. In the abstract you hear “sex offender” and conjure images in your head of the worst sort of monster, but if you are close to someone to whom the law applies and know the specific facts of the case you may wonder why he is still being restricted after serving his time.
I had a high school teacher who years before I was a student had inappropriate contact (I don’t know the specifics.) with a female student. I’m pretty sure he didn’t serve time, but he was barred from further teaching girls. The laws also weren’t then what they are now on these matters. He started teaching in my HS when it was still boys-only which apparently was fine, but my freshman year was the year the school went coed. He continued to teach until the year after I graduated when somehow this long-ago conduct came back up. I’m not sure how, but it was when clergy sex abuse was in the news a lot and he was a Brother so I suspect that prompted some digging. Since the school had gone coed he of course had girls in his classes again. He was rearrested for violating the order against teaching girls even though there had not been any more complaints about his conduct in all those years. Faculty, parents, students, and alumni almost unanimously rallied around him in support and it is because of this case that I am not a big fan of the registry. The way I see it if you are still dangerous you should still be in jail, but if you have done your time restrictions is they exist at all should be very limited to relevant contexts.
this is a Registry story, but it took place in Massachusetts. I don’t know if it was a change in law or what.
A guy I’m acquainted with was convicted of forcible rape when he was pretty young. He did his time, stopped drinking, and changed his life around. He has a job, a home, and leads a sober, law-abiding life.
Years after he was off parole, he was forced to start wearing an ankle bracelet, restricted from out-of-state travel, and subject to law enforcement officials showing up at his job to “check” on him. All this happened after his imprisonment and parole were legally, officially done. Eventually, either due to a change on the part of the state or his timing out, he was free again. The state’s actions had nothing to do with anything he did. He has never committed another crime.
I have absolutely no problem with society being protected from dangerous people, but this kind of thing is wrong.