So ... lets get this straight - they want to alter the defendants rights (laid out in numerous laws and the Constitution) to only apply to one group of crimes? Are they serious????

Yes Advocate they are serious, and they make no apologies for wanting to single out a specific class of defendants for such due process deprivations or abridgments. They don't care about the law, court rules, or anything else and they want politicians to enact Gestapo type of laws to further their political agenda.

One word-DAMN!

I wish there was a push for mental health services for those who are charged and convicted as well as the children. What the public doesn't seem to understand is that many of the perpetrators of these offenses were oftentimes victims themselves.

People, the more we educate our families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc, the more the stigma will be removed, which will result in less irrational fear, which is what a lot of these children's advocacy groups operate under.

We are just too reactionary as a society.

So, this evening I received an email from this advocacy group that wants to restrict defense attorney access to and use of videotape evidence where a child of an alleged sex crime gives a statement. Below is the email I sent in response:

Mrs. Emily van Schenkhof,

I want to thank you for sending me your responding email below and sharing your views about what I wrote in my email to Senator Dixon and Representative Haefner. However, I am afraid that you misunderstand and mischaracterize my position and beliefs.

To begin with, I am not opposed to protecting the identity of children from being publicized on the Internet and with students in an educational setting. To the contrary, as I strongly believe that such indeed needs to be done. However, as I wrote in my responding email, where you and I differ in what you advocate is that I oppose restricting defense attorneys from having access to and use of the videotaped statements of children who have allegedly been victimized. I believe there are better solutions than what you want in the proposed legislation, which will achieve the same end result of protecting their identity.

There is a sizable difference between advocating that such evidence not be accessible for publication of any kind beyond that of the court room, and that of your advocating that we disadvantage defendants by impinging upon their due process rights so we can tilt the scales of justice against them by imposing undue burdens on their defense attorneys. The fact that I am a survivor of childhood sexual crimes does not in any way mean that I am willing or going to abolish the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, nor court rules, for the sake of playing out some revenge tactic here. It is wrong for you to assume that because I am a survivor of childhood sex crimes I am going to blank check to treat others however one wants.

Honestly, to achieve your desired goal of protecting the identities of children, the judge need only place the evidence under seal of the court and issue orders that prohibits the court clerk and everyone else from making the videotape available for publication whether directly or indirectly, without first obtaining countervailing orders from the court. But this is not what you are advocating, as you want a law passed that serves to clearly disadvantage defendants by impinging upon their civil rights of due process and thereby tilt the scales of justice against them so it is easier to secure a conviction -- even of those who are innocent of the alleged crime.

What is reported in the news article is that you propose a defense attorney review the videotape in the prosecutors office and I personally find this insulting to defense attorneys because it presupposes they are untrustworthy simply because of the title they hold rather than because they have demonstrated conduct warranting a lack of trust. Well, a great many people would also say the same about prosecutors given the incidents of prosecutorial misconduct that involves concealing evidence, and convictions that turn out to have been false. What do you propose we do with prosecutors? If there is an attorney who would publicize the videotape on the Internet or give it to a group of students, then deal with that attorney instead of trying to invoke and impose a group punishment upon all defense attorneys and defendants.

Insofar as your assertion that I do not support believing children, you mischaracterize my position. The fact is, there are those current and former wives who use their child to make false allegations of sex crimes against a current or former male spouse. The fact the child is on a videotape does not translate to it being impossible for their statement to be the end result of threats, intimidation, or coercion, or implanted in them by others. Thus, we must scrutinize not only the child but everyone involved with that child, to ensure that no innocent man is convicted of a crime and scared for life by their new found title of sex offender.

Here is what I know: The overwhelming vast majority of times laws are passed out of and to perpetuate fear and hate against those accused of and those convicted of sex crimes rather than applying a strategic approach in enacting laws that are fact based. These laws grossly fail to prevent any sex crime from being committed, and yet, they greatly serve to unduly cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money. They also put the safety of everyone involved at substantial risk, they increase unemployment and homeless rates, increase dependency upon welfare, they use institutions as death camps, and they completely destroy entire family units -- traumatizing children for years by forcibly separating them from their parent.

We need to stop enacting laws out of fear and hate, and start enacting them on a fact-based strategic approach that will actually serve a valid and rational public interest.

Respectfully,

Great response Legal

Thanks.

I understand the need to protect children's identity and I fully agree that we need to do this by not permitting their video statements to be published. However, I do not agree with the solution this advocacy group wants implemented by a state law. Unfortunately, Senator Dixon is just the person to file the Bill because of his overzealous efforts to stick it to SO's at every chance possible.

Many of the victims' advocacy groups have interjected themselves to such an extent in our criminal justice system that the defendant---the accused---is no longer on a level playing field as the prosecution. I have seen this time and time again.

I understand the victims need a voice, but some of these groups want a voice at the expensive of a defendant receiving a fair trial or adjudication of his sentence. Many groups have forgotten to represent each victim as an individual; their "movement" and becoming known is more important than helping little Susie who has been sexually assaulted by an older person.

All too often they do not advocate for the victim, but they advocate for their own "cause." Their movement becomes more important than the victims.

Like so many groups in this country, the victim's movement groups have politicized themselves----or at least allowed themselves to be interjected into politics----and are no longer serving the purpose they should.

I have read and heard of victim's groups complaining that the victim's do not have enough influence at the trial or investigative level. I have some news for those people-----a trial is to determine innocence or guilt and should not address the victim's individual needs. All too often the pain and suffering of a victim---and there is a lot of hurt----is emphasized so much during the investigation that the real reason for an investigation is completely lost, which is should a person be charged and if so, is he guilty???

Victim's rights advocates play more on emotion than facts, which always leads to injustices in our criminal justice system.

Victim's advocates coach witnesses and shape the witness testimony so a conviction is more likely. I saw one victim's statement----a six year old child----who described the actions of the defendant as "he penetrated my 'pussy'", and she kept referring to the defendant's girlfriend as his fiancé. I don't think those words----the "p" word and the word fiancé--- are the words of a normal six year old and I have no doubt that those words were planted in that child's mind----along with a believable story.

And the most unfortunate aspect of some of these victim's rights advocates or movement is that it sometimes encourages a person to be a perpetual victim and to engage in victimhood instead of empowering that person to be a survivor.

The bottom line is this----when the victim's advocates group oversteps their bounds, injustices occur. This Missouri legislation is a perfect example.

rewdiazepam

My follow up email this morning:

Mrs. Emily van Schenkhof,
Missouri Kids First, Inc.
Re: Proposed Legislation Against Defendants of Accused Sex Crimes

Although felonious sex crimes account for the lowest rate of recidivism among all five classes of felonies, there remains an over abundance of myths, hate, and fear for sex offenders that far surpasses animosity for any other class whose crime involves children such as gang violence, illicit drug use, non-sexual child abuse, neglect, and abandonment, and parental kidnapping. While lawmakers are zealous to address sex crimes by enacting laws, lawmakers give virtually no attention to the secondary victimizations that the laws create on the public, families, the sex offender himself or herself, and upon children.

On May 21, 2012, NBC News published a story entitled “Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years”. The article centers on Sylvester Smith, who served 20 years of his life in prison for a sexual assault crime that he did not commit, and was later exonerated of because two witnesses recanted their testimony that aided in Mr. Smith being convicted. According to the article, since 1989, nearly 900 cases have been listed with the National Registry of Exonerations, which tracks cases of incarcerated persons being exonerated of their crimes after being convicted. Our judicial system is far from being a reliable form of justice when innocent people are convicted of crimes that they did not commit, forced to serve time in prison, and branded as a sex offender, and thereby destroying their lives and the lives of their families.

It is extremely easy for proponents of sex offender laws to advocate tougher laws, as you advocate for in the proposed legislation that Missouri Kids First wants, in order to disadvantage defendants in sex crime cases by restricting defense attorney access to and use of videotaped statements by children. The focus of such laws has little to do with protecting the identity of children giving statements, because such a goal can be easily achieved by orders issued from a judge that places videotape evidence under seal of the court. Rather, the focus is to target defendants who are accused of sex crimes involving children to make it even easier to secure their conviction of a sex crime at any cost.

However, while those accused of and convicted of sex offense crimes certainly pay a heavy cost because of the deep felt hate among those in government and within society for sex offenders, the costs paid, also affect the children of the sex offender who themselves were not sexually abused. For example, the 2009 research study by Professor Jill Levenson, Ph.D., at Lynn University and Professor Richard Tewksbury, Ph.D., at University of Louisville, entitled Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders points out the enormous secondary victimizations caused by sex offender laws and societal responses to sex offenders, Id at p. 11. If the goal is one of protecting children, then we are clearly failing at this goal because the laws we have enacted has created a new class of victims who are children. Unfortunately, child advocacy groups do not advocate for these children.

So, as I wrote to you in my previous e-mail, the fact I am a survivor of childhood sex crimes does not translate and should not be misinterpreted to be one of translating into a position where I believe or support abolishing the Constitution in order to play out some revenge tactic. Rather, my position is one of enacting laws that are fact-based and have strategic approaches that actually serve a valid and rational public interest, rather than to perpetuate myths, hate, and fear that impacts everyone and serves to create secondary victims and imposes undue and enormous tax revenue expenses.

Respectfully,

Did you get emails from her? If so, they would be interesting to see.

Keep in mind that the news article points out that Missouri Kids First advocates requiring defense attorneys to review the videotape in the prosecutor's office rather than getting a copy of such to review at any time. Naturally, the email puts a spin on things to conceal this fact, just as she attempted to mischaracterize my positions and beliefs. Anyway, below is the only email I have received from her so far:
___________________________

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us. I am puzzled because at this point in my career, I have never might a survivor of sexual abuse that was not supportive of our efforts to protect the confidentiality and privacy rights of children who have been sexually abused. Most survivors also believe with a great deal of passion that it is so important to believe children who disclose, so I also find your statement that children are frequently coached to lie very outside of what I have experienced in my hundreds of conversations with survivors.

We have no desire to impact the due process rights of the accused, but respectfully, forensic interviews have been uploaded to youtube. That is completely inappropriate and how are we wrongfully affecting the due process rights of the accused by saying that should not be permitted? We ask children who have experienced sexual abuse to come in and tell their stories. We give them no "informed consent." We don't tell them that the person who did this to them may be able to view and own a copy of their statement, we don't tell them that their aunt and uncle and cousins could view their statement, we don't tell them their statement may end up being viewed and seen by students. We have no right to ask them to share stories if we don't try to protect their statements and images of their genitals from being seen by individuals who should not see this. Due process requires that the alleged offender and their counsel have a right to view the statement and all evidence; it does not require that alleged offender get a copy of the DVD or a copy of the images or that they can distribute that evidence as they see fit. Also, this only requires that if you want a copy of the interview or photographs that you have to go before a judge and ask for it and the judge must determine that you have a legitimate need for it. Don't we trust our judges to make appropriate decisions about due process rights?

I would also ask that you wait to read the bill before you surmise what is in it or that it is a affront to due process. As you know, the exact language of bills matters greatly, and we are working very, very hard to get the language right so that individuals who need copies of the interviews and photographs can receive them. We have changed the language substantially from last year to address the concerns of the MO Bar. As you will see in the article, no one will say that there is not a legitimate interest in protecting this evidence, in some capacity. It is, however, a matter of ensuring that we do it without affecting due process.

Take care,
Emily

Emily van Schenkhof, MPH
Deputy Director