Category : Abuse

Pennsylvania Child Sex Abuse Laws and Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal

Sex crimes of all nature, especially child sex abuse crimes, are considered very serious crimes in Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania Statutes Sections 3121-3130, you could be charged with the most serious felony crimes of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, institutional sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, or misdemeanor charges for indecent assault, indecent exposure, sexual intercourse with an animal or conduct relating to sex offenders. Prosecutors vigorously try these cases and courts are harsh on sentencing convicted sex offenders involving sex crimes against children. Prison sentences for the most serious sex felony crime convictions are lengthy ranging from maximum minimum 10 year sentences to 40 years for crimes involving rape and multiple deviate sexual intercourse charges involving minors, especially minors under 13 years of age and fines up to $100,000. Convicted sex offenders must register on the state sex offender registry after serving their sentences, which could affect where you can live and may affect other aspects of your life such as employment. Even if you are not accused of these offenses, you can still be charged with failing to report serious sex crimes to law enforcement and also be subject to perjury charges if you lie under oath about not having knowledge of such crimes.

Case Example

Former Penn State football defensive coordinator and assistant football coach Gerald “Jerry” Sandusky was arrested on November 5, 2011, accused of child sex abuse crimes involving eight boys over a time span of approximately 10 years. He was released on a $100,000 bond after the arraignment on 40 criminal counts according to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. Charges include seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, single counts of aggravated indecent assault and attempted indecent assault. Sandusky is facing up to 20 years in prison for the seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse alone besides additional sentences for other charges if he is convicted. Mr. Sandusky denies the charges. Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, 57, and the University’s vice president for finance and business as well as having responsibility for overseeing the University Police Department, Gary Schultz, 62, have been charged with perjury and failing to report information they had regarding the sex abuse allegations.

At one time, Mr. Sandusky was considered to be a likely replacement for the legendary Joe Paterno, Penn State’s head coach position, prior to his retirement in 1999. After retiring from Penn State, Mr. Sandusky continued his work with at-risk-children through his non-profit organization Second Mile, which he founded in 1977. All of the victims in the case are alleged to have initially come into contact with Mr. Sandusky through his Second Mile organization. In 1999, Mr. Sandusky was banned from the Clinton County school district after the mother of an approximate 11 or 12 year old boy at the time reported to the high school that her son received expensive gifts and trips to sporting events and reported to her that he had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky during an overnight stay at his house. These charges triggered the State’s investigation into Mr. Sandusky’s current alleged sexual abuse charges.

Other allegations by a graduate assistant, Mr. Kelly, took place in 2002 when he reported that he saw Mr. Sandusky sexually assaulting a naked boy approximately 10 years old in a locker room of the Lasch Football Building located on the campus. He and his father reported the incident to Mr. Paterno, who then reported it to Mr. Curley, but it was not reported to any law enforcement agencies or Child Protective Service Agencies as required under Pennsylvania Law. Mr. Paterno has not been charged with any wrongdoing in the case according to prosecutors. Mr. Curley testified that he banned Mr. Sandusky from bringing any children onto the campus and that he reported the matter to Penn State President Graham Spanier. Mr. Sandusky was no longer coaching at Penn State during this time.

On November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno announced he was retiring at the end of the season, but the University made the decision to ask Paterno and President Spanier to leave effectively immediately, naming defensive coordinator Tom Bradley as the interim coach and provost Rodney Erickson as interim University President. With such a major scandal for a school that has maintained one of the most pristine images in college sports and one of four major schools that have never been found guilty of any major violations by the NCAA, this is a devastating blow. With the school’s reputation at stake, the University has hired their own investigator, former FBI director Louis Freeh, to conduct an independent investigation regarding the Sandusky child sex abuse allegations.

Hire an Attorney

If you are accused or charged with Pennsylvania sex crimes involving minors or other related sex offenses, these are very serious charges and require the assistance of a Pennsylvania Criminal Sexual Offense Attorney to defend you. The attorney understands the Pennsylvania laws and can aggressively defend you by interviewing witnesses and may be able to convince authorities and prosecutors to drop or dismiss charges against you, or in some cases, avoid charges from being filed against you if were falsely accused. The attorney may also be able to get charges filed against you reduced to a lesser crime such as indecent exposure or get you community service or probation.

Sources

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1121/Penn-State-appoints-ex-FBI-director-to-lead-child-sex-abuse-investigation

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203716204577020001842475304.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-05/penn-state-abuse-case/51083628/1

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

http://deadspin.com/5859426/pa-criminal-attorney-on-sandusky-judge-i-have-never-had-a-client-who-was-charged-with-those-counts-released-on-unsecured-bail

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/pa-sex-crime-laws-under-focus-with-abuse-case-1290464.html

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/Search/statuteSearchAction.cfm?maxfiles=10&autoStopLimit=1000&index=cons&request=rape

223 Arrested In”National Day of Johns Arrests”, An Effort To Stop Human Trafficking

In 2005, Illinois passed one of the nation’s strictest laws on human trafficking which  involve offenses of involuntary servitude, sexual servitude of a minor or forced labor of persons for services. Charges range from a Class 4 to a Class X felony if kidnapping or injury to the victim is involved. If convicted, you may face severe penalties of heavy fines, jail time, a permanent criminal record and possibility of having to register as a sex offender, as well as having to pay restitution to the victim for their forced labor. The Illinois laws protect the victims of human trafficking and prostitution by providing social services under both Federal and State programs and immigration assistance.

Also, in 2010, the Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Illinois Safe Children Act which protects minors forced into sex and ensures that children are immune from criminal prosecution and instead are placed in the child protection system. Human trafficking crimes are also illegal under federal law, Title 18, Chapter 77 and the Mann Act 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 [as amended 1986], making it a crime to transport a person over interstate lines or for foreign commerce for the purpose of prostitution or other immoral acts.

Prostitution, pimping, pandering and solicitation of prostitution are also illegal under the following Illinois laws listed below. You can be found guilty of crimes ranging from  Class A misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony which carry sentences Prostitution; pandering, pimping and solicitation charges carry sentences of up to 1 yr and/or $2,500 then 1-3 yrs and/or $25,000. Law enforcement may impound any vehicle used by the person in the commission of the offense.

720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 14.1 solicitation of a sexual act is considered a Class B misdemeanor offense.

720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 15 solicitation for a prostitute offense is considered a Class A misdemeanor.

720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 16 pandering by compelling a person to become a prostitute and receiving compensation or arranging for the situation is a Class 4 felony and a Class 3 felony if the violation takes place within 1,000 feet of a school.

720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 17 keeping a place of prostitution is a Class 4 felony.

720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 18 patronizing a prostitute is a Class A misdemeanor.
.
720 ILCS 5 Sec. 11 19 pimping by receiving any article of value from a prostitution earned in part from act of prostitution is a Class 4 Felony and a Class 3 felony if the violation takes place within 1,000 feet of a school.

Case Example

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office’s pilot program announced that their Columbus Day weekend joint eight law enforcement agency sweep of “Johns” called “National Day of Johns Arrests” resulted in sting activities and arrests on the streets, hotels, brothels, the Internet and other places which were concluded on Monday morning October 10, 2011. Among those agencies that participated were:

Cook County Sheriff Police Department (Illinois)
Aurora Police Department (Illinois)
Cincinnati Police Department (Ohio)
Elgin Police Department (Illinois)
Las Vegas Police Department (Nevada)
Los Angeles Police Department (California)
Phoenix Police Department (Arizona)
Newport News Police Department (Virginia)

There were a total of 247 charges with the arrest of 216 Johns, a total of 223 arrests, fines totaling $238,490, 71 vehicles that were towed, 2 pimp arrests, 8 drug arrests. The majority of arrests took place on the street and in hotels. A grant from Demand Abolition supports Illinois public awareness programs to deter offenders from participating in commercial prostitution and/or human trafficking by offering eligible defendants an opportunity to participate in the law enforcement agency’s pilot program “John Schools.” Other voluntary and involuntary programs are also offered to rehabilitate offenders.

Victims of prostitution and human trafficking are offered social services and safe housing to allow them to leave their lifestyle of prostitution.  The success of the law enforcement agency’s pilot program is expected to lead to future collaboration John sweeps across the nation in the fight of solicitation of sex and related crimes.  Next year, under Illinois Senate Bill 1037, sponsored by Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights) and Rep Karen Yarbrough (D-Maywood), defendants of human trafficking at the time of their prostitution convictions will be able to file a motion to vacate the conviction if they can prove their participation was because they were a victim.

Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are arrested of a prostitution or human trafficking crime in Illinois, it is important to understand your rights. Since these are serious crimes, it is recommended that you hire an Illinois Criminal Defense attorney to defend you. The attorney understands that arrests for prostitution, pandering, solicitation and related human trafficking crimes many times involve entrapment, violation of privacy and are discriminatory resulting in false charges and individual rights being violated. Other factors to be considered are whether a human trafficking offense occurred as a result of fear or abuse. The attorney will defend your rights to try get your charges reduced, community service, a voluntary or mandatory John educational or other community program, probation or get your case dropped.

The Erosion of the Right to Confrontation in Child Sexual Abuse Trials

Few criminal cases have higher stakes than those involving accusations of child sexual abuse. The accusation alone can permanently damage a person’s reputation in the community. A conviction may bring significant prison time, a sex offender registration requirement, and restrictions on employment options. With so much at stake, it becomes even more important to follow Constitutional procedures designed to prevent convictions based on false accusations. Yet many states have acted to eliminate one of the most important rights of an accused in sexual abuse cases: a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.

Defendant’s Right to Cross-Examine His Accusers

The “Confrontation Clause” of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to allow the defendant to cross-examine his accusers. It assists in the truth-finding process by allowing the judge or jury to examine a witness’s demeanor in the courtroom to determine whether he or she is being truthful. Requiring an accuser to be in the presence of the accused encourages truthfulness, because it is more difficult to lie about someone in their presence.

Many states, however, have essentially eliminated the confrontation requirement in child sexual abuse cases. Due to the young age of child accusers and the sensitive nature of the subject matter being discussed, many states have given judges the discretion to keep the accusers out of the courtroom. Prosecutors claim that traumatized child victims must be shielded from further trauma that they believe will result from facing the defendant in open court. Instead, child accusers in these states are permitted to testify via closed circuit television from a location other than the witness stand and other than the courtroom. Although defense attorneys have challenged this position, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this practice. In Maryland v. Craig (1990), the Court ruled that, although the right to confront your accuser is important, that right is not absolute. Face-to-face confrontation sometimes gives way to the state’s interest in protecting children from potential psychological harm.

Do Defendants Lose the Presumption of Innocence?

Yet defense attorneys continue to argue that shielding child accusers from the accused presumes the defendant’s guilt. More importantly, it deprives the defendant of the presumption of innocence. The threat increases that innocent people could be convicted if a child witness is lying or if the child’s memories are influenced by suggestive questioning from adults.  Only by requiring a child witness to testify and be cross-examined in front of the defendant can a fact-finder arrive at the truth. While the youngest members of our society deserve to be protected, it should not be at the expense of fundamental due process rights of criminal defendants.

Despite its ruling, the Supreme Court continues to recognize the importance of face-to-face confrontation in criminal trials. Craig requires prosecutors to satisfy certain requirements in order to waive a child’s appearance in the courtroom. “The trial court must hear evidence and determine whether use of the one-way closed circuit television is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 855.

Impact of a Child’s Presence in the Courtroom

Because the presence of the child in the courtroom can have such an impact on the finding of guilt or innocence, a criminal defense attorney should vigorously refute the necessity of closed-circuit testimony. A defense attorney can accomplish this by showing that the child witness’s trauma would be caused only by the courtroom generally, and not by the presence of the defendant. A skilled defense attorney will hold the State to its obligation, as the party with the burden of proof, to present evidence that the appearance of the child accuser in court will render the taking of testimony impossible. While seemingly a small battle in the war that a sexual abuse trial will be, its loss may result in denying a defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial.

Mass Hysteria: Lessons Learned from the Day Care Center Sexual Abuse Scandals

In the 1980s and 90s, highly publicized trials of day care providers struck fear in parents from coast to coast. In 1983 in California seven workers at the McMartin preschool were charged with 115 counts of having sexual relations with children as young as two years old. In New Jersey in 1985, kindergarten teacher Margaret Kelly Michaels was accused of forcing more than 20 children to play sex games and penetrating them with knives and forks. In 1995 a pastor and his wife in Wenatchee Washington were accused of being at the center of a sex ring in which children were ritualistically abused and raped. Forty-three adults were accused of being involved in the sex ring, and 29,726 charges of sexual abuse were filed against them.

Many Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Children Were Unfounded

These cases represent only a small sample of an apparent epidemic of sexual abuse that plagued the country. The accusations were marked by lurid details of torture, satanic rituals, and elaborate sexual abuse scenarios. They involved hundreds of children, and led to thousands of charges filed. If the stories seemed to horrifying to be believed, it is because, in many cases, they were not true. The McMartin case wore on for seven years and is the longest and most expensive case in U.S. history. It resulted in no convictions. Margaret Kelly Michaels was convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse and spent five years in prison, before the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned her convictions. The charges in the Wenatachee “sex ring” were deemed entirely untrue, and the case has been described as, “the worst example ever of mental health services being abused by the state …” (“Pastor and wife are acquitted on all charges in sex-abuse case,” New York Times, December 12, 1995.) Certainly some children in some cases had been sexually abused, but research showed that between 23 percent and 33 percent of child sexual abuse cases involved false allegations, between 2 percent and 8 percent of cases involved deliberate lies by children, and the majority of reported cases were unfounded (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003).

Techniques Used to Gather Evidence Are Flawed

Years after these and similar sexual abuse cases the psychiatric and law enforcement communities were left to determine how their systems had led to and perpetuated this modern-day witch hunt. What research in the past decade has indicated is that most interview techniques and assumptions used in the child abuse investigations were seriously flawed. In overturning one conviction, the court of appeals concluded that the alleged victims were subjected to aggressive, highly suggestive questioning. When the children denied being abused, the investigators badgered them until they gave the “right” answer. In addition, “[i]nterviewers were gullible, asked leading questions, conducted multiple interviews that led to delayed disclosures with fantastical details, and failed to consider other explanations for the children’s behaviors.” (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003).

What Caused the Day Care Abuse Hysteria?

The psychiatric community must share the blame with law enforcement. The day care abuse hysteria was partially brought on by the rise of “recovered memories” of sexual abuse. These memories were “recovered” when patients suffering from psychological problems were told by therapists that their symptoms suggested sexual abuse, and could be remembered through the use of suggestive techniques such as hypnotic regression. (“The danger of false accusations,” Boston Globe, April 22, 2002). But these therapists had “confused the absence of memory with repression of a traumatic memory, believed that memories were immutable and could be recalled from birth, and assumed a person who felt abused had indeed been abused.” (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003). Moreover, recent studies by psychologists have demonstrated that traumatic memories can be implanted.

If there is anything positive to be gleaned from the sexual abuse hysteria, it is that many law enforcement agencies have developed standard investigatory protocols designed to avoid contaminating child testimony. These protocols include videotaping the questioning of child accusers in order to document the interview process. In addition, members of the psychiatric community have begun to treat recovered memories with more skepticism. While prosecutions based on false accusations are not completely behind us, there is reason to hope that lessons from the past will prevent mistakes in the future.

Victims of False Sexual Abuse Accusations

To the falsely accused, however, past lessons may be of little comfort. Victims of false accusations face a difficult legal battle and a public presumption of guilt that may be difficult to overcome. Defendants need the assistance of an attorney who understands the legal issues involved, and who has experience in defending the falsely accused. An experienced attorney will investigate the charges, aggressively dispute the allegation, and present an effective case in court. If necessary a defendant’s lawyer will defend him in the press and protect him from mistreatment. A criminal sex conviction can result in significant prison time, and the accusation alone can cause significant emotional damage. A skilled attorney will minimize the damage to the accused both inside and outside the courtroom, and will fight to ensure that justice is done.

Protecting Against False Accusations of Abuse

The Boy Scouts of America prohibit scout leaders from having one-on-one contact with scouts. All trips and outings must be led by at least two adult scout leaders. The Boy Scouts have several other policies designed, not only to protect its youth members from sexual predators and child abusers, but also to protect its adult leaders from false accusations of abuse. On one hand, the Boy Scouts’ policy reflects an awareness of the increasing vulnerability of adult males in positions in which they have contact with children. On the other hand, the policies reflect the growing and unhappy perception that adult males should not be trusted to be alone with our children. This perception has additional support. Child advocate, John Walsh, recently advised parents to never hire a male babysitter. Airlines have begun placing unaccompanied minors with only female passengers. Many soccer leagues are telling male coaches not to touch players.

Concerns Over Threat of Sexual Abuse Common in the U.S.

An unnatural preoccupation with the threat of sexual abuse in not new in this country. In the 1980s the United States faced an epidemic of sexual abuse accusations in day care centers. In high-profile cases across the country prosecutors charged day care providers with hundreds of counts of sexual abuse. In California, the McMartin Preschool trial dragged on for seven years, included accusations by hundreds of children, and resulted in not a single conviction. In New Jersey, a child care provider at the Wee School Nursery School was convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse. Her conviction was overturned, but not until she had served five years in prison. A combination of questionable witness interviewing methods and general hysteria is now widely blamed on the false accusations and the lives they ruined. What was learned is that children cannot always be trusted to tell the truth, and that adults cannot always be trusted to know when they are lying.

Past Cases of False Sexual Abuse Charges

Despite lessons learned from the sexual abuse witch hunts of the past, false allegations remain a professional hazard for those who work with children in general, and males in particular. Teachers, counselors, coaches, child care providers, and those who participate in volunteer programs such as Big Brother/Big Sisters remain vulnerable to false accusations of abuse. It is a sad truth that, when it comes to accusations of child sexual abuse, defendants are considered guilty until proven innocent. Worse, proving one’s innocence can be a grueling and expensive ordeal. By the time a sexual abuse case goes to trial, the reputation of a defendant has usually already been destroyed. It is no wonder then, that many males have tried to protect themselves against the threat of false accusations.

Male Adults Risk Facing Allegations

In his 2007 Wall Street Journal article, Jeff Zaslow discussed emails he received from men who have grown fearful of encounters with children. One former Boy Scout leader indicated that “Today, I wouldn’t do that job for anything. All it takes is for one kid to get ticked off at you for something and tell his parents you were acting weird on the campout.” Another man indicated that he would not even allow himself to be alone in an elevator with a child for fear of being accused of behaving improperly. Other men are afraid to even make eye contact with unknown children. While these precautions may appear to border on the paranoid, they accurately reflect the climate of fear that currently surrounds adult male/child relationships. It could be argued that, when society as a whole points its finger at men, its children are likely to follow. From that perspective, an abundance of caution appears less paranoid, and more prudent. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.