|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 26, 2010 6:44:06 GMT -5
My understanding is though you can be only charged with one crime at a time. I think you need to upgrade your understanding. The key to that is realizing that Tas/Vic law regulations would most likely be different then the USA? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 26, 2010 7:38:45 GMT -5
The key to that is realizing that Tas/Vic law regulations would most likely be different then the USA? One of the biggest differences being that in cases of CSA there is no statute of limitations. At the moment, from what WINGS understands about this is: There are 13 known victims who say they were sexually molested by the worker over a period spanning at least 25 years. Many of the friends and/or families know of the details, as do the police. However, at the moment, WINGS is only aware of one victim who has actually taken the step of going to the authorities to press charges. , Because there is no statute of limitations, the other women who have come forward can press charges at any time, and the police are already aware of that possibility happening. Another issue is that there have been other allegations which the authorities have been made aware of during their investigation, and it's likely there are other victims, any of whom may be in contact with Warragul police. Wings is also aware that there are a number of friends that are sympathetic to the worker who has confessed to past abuse. Even with the confession, they simply refuse to believe that he should be prosecuted and are doing their best to shield him from any further charges. Those who care about the victims and preventing more young children from abuse by this worker are very concerned by that attitude. The biggest concern is that those shielding him may actually be enabling him to continue to have contact with children. It is understood that anybody who by their actions allow this to happen may be criminally liable now that the authorities are involved, and since they are aware of his confession and charges against him. The court date for appearance by this worker has been postponed until next year because of the far reaching nature of the investigation. Again, anyone having information to report should contact: Leigh LAMBERT
Det.Sen.Constable 29449
Warragul CIU
PH: 56 227153
FAX: 56 227155
leigh.lambert@police.vic.gov.au Scott 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2010 9:56:32 GMT -5
I think you need to upgrade your understanding. The key to that is realizing that Tas/Vic law regulations would most likely be different then the USA? I think the key is to check the facts before making claims. Did you? Although both Australian states, here are examples of multiple charges from both. From Victoria: Former archdeacon of Seymour’s Anglican Church in Victoria, Alan Sapsford, is charged with gross indecency, indecent assault and committing an indecent act with a child. From Tasmania:
On April 28, 1996, twenty-eight-year-old Martin Bryant entered the Broad Arrow cafeteria in Port Arthur, in the Australian state of Tasmania.
<a lot of details>
On Nov. 22, 1996, Bryant was sentenced to 35 terms of life imprisonment, and to 21 years each on 37 other charges, the terms to run consecutively, and without parole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 10:32:50 GMT -5
A criminal charge is simply a formal accusation against someone that they have committed a criminal offence.
If a person commits 2, 3 or 7 offences then they are likely to face 2, 3, or 7 criminal charges, eg.
Waterguy has taken a loan of Scott Ross's motorbike without his permission (ie stolen it). He drives off on a public road. He has no driving licence or insurance cover.
In Scotland that would be three criminal charges Waterguy would face, i.e. the taking and driving away the motor cycle and having no driving licence and no insurance.
The police would inform him of his right to remain silent and thereafter would charge him with the three charges in turn, giving Waterguy an opportunity to reply to each charge.
A report is compiled and sent to the Procurator Fiscal (prosecutor in Scotland) outlining the details of the Accused, the relevant charges and the circumstances of the matter.
A criminal charge outlines the date of the offence(s), the locus, the name of the Accused (if more than one), briefly how the offence was committed, and the common law offence or statute contravened.
The Procurator Fiscal (whom the police act on behalf of) will consider the circumstances of the report and will issue the Accused with a Copy Complaint if the charges are pertinent to the lower courts, or an Indictment if the charges are to be heard in the solemn courts.
The PF may amend, delete or even add charges as he/she sees fit in the circumstances.
Procedures will vary across the globe. They do very much even in the UK. In Scotland a PF may wish charges stipulated in one form whilst a PF in a neighbouring area may prefer another.
The details of each charge have to be proved in court, unless the Accused plead guilty. A lot of "plea bargaining" goes on between prosecutors and defence lawyers to try and save time with trials etc.
I forgot to mention that Scott Ross would later be charged with "assault!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Oct 26, 2010 10:39:13 GMT -5
Give me something better to steal than a Honda. or does he have a moped?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 26, 2010 11:06:20 GMT -5
Give me something better to steal than a Honda. or does he have a moped? Well...... you could steal my train, but it is kinda scary riding it as you can tell....  Or maybe the mini-bike that we raced at a camp out. Just don't take my monkeys.....   |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 26, 2010 12:55:40 GMT -5
And don't do it in Tasmania or Victoria. There's better things to do there than that.
Not sure about Minnesota. Isn't that the places the guys are all buff, the gals blond and the kids kinda' average, or was it above average?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 26, 2010 14:15:11 GMT -5
"Those who care about the victims and preventing more young children from abuse by this worker are very concerned by that attitude. The biggest concern is that those shielding him may actually be enabling him to continue to have contact with children.
It is understood that anybody who by their actions allow this to happen may be criminally liable now that the authorities are involved, and since they are aware of his confession and charges against him."
It is simply amazing that for some reason there are people who can't believe anything though it's like a sore thumb on their right hand or a mole on the end of their nose!
I hope that some will get legal charges against them if they don't follow the law on this issue...25 yrs. of CSA is a lot of CSA! For shame any who want to take away the legal side of things and rob the victims of their rightful dues.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2010 15:10:19 GMT -5
"Those who care about the victims and preventing more young children from abuse by this worker are very concerned by that attitude. The biggest concern is that those shielding him may actually be enabling him to continue to have contact with children. It is understood that anybody who by their actions allow this to happen may be criminally liable now that the authorities are involved, and since they are aware of his confession and charges against him." This has been the case for many years in many places, TX included. It tends not to change things. Expecting it to bring about changes if like the mantra of those who think a church member CSA representative is a safe choice because they have been mandated. What are their rightful dues? Criminal charges because they failed to report CSA? Or are you saying that they need cash? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 27, 2010 6:46:25 GMT -5
" Those who care about the victims and preventing more young children from abuse by this worker are very concerned by that attitude. The biggest concern is that those shielding him may actually be enabling him to continue to have contact with children.
It is understood that anybody who by their actions allow this to happen may be criminally liable now that the authorities are involved, and since they are aware of his confession and charges against him."; This has been the case for many years in many places, TX included. It tends not to change things. Expecting it to bring about changes if like the mantra of those who think a church member CSA representative is a safe choice because they have been mandated. What are their rightful dues? Criminal charges because they failed to report CSA? Or are you saying that they need cash? Rational, if you want to pick on that quoted statement go to the source, please. I was simply agreeing with it! I think most of us on here agree that when a perpatrator is sentenced by the law that most of the victims feel vindicated...that is their rightful dues......it isn't very much of a due if the perpatrator gets by with years of abuse, now is it? We see that in IH's situation! And how many people feel that there's been any rightful dues out of that? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 27, 2010 7:56:06 GMT -5
Rational, if you want to pick on that quoted statement go to the source, please. Since you provided no link or mention of the source I was unable to do that. I know. And since you posted the unreferenced quote and were agreeing with it I responded to you. And this is the type of thinking that we need to change. If your dog urinates on your feet do you feel vindicated by hitting it in the head? The punishment for committing a crime is not to make the victim feel vindicated, it is punishment for committing the crime How would it be their "rightful due" any more than it is their "rightful due" to hit the dog in the head? Again - punishment for committing a crime is not some repayment to the victim. If payment for having been wronged is what people are looking for they need to file a civil suite. We see that IH was able to continue to abuse children because he was not reported to the authorities but instead to church members who were the "watch guards", all of them "mandated" to report the crime, or even the suspicion of crime, to the authorities. That just didn't work out very well. Of course, now that they have been told they must report I am sure things will change. Humans are like that! Do you think that each of the victims or people who were aware of his activities who did not report IH to the authorities should be held criminally responsible for any successive cases of abuse, cases that would have been prevented had they gone to the authorities? Perhaps you should explain when you mean by rightful dues. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 27, 2010 8:13:06 GMT -5
We see that IH was able to continue to abuse children because he was not reported to the authorities but instead to church members who were the "watch guards", all of them "mandated" to report the crime, or even the suspicion of crime, to the authorities. I am not sure that all of those instances of abuse occurred at a time that ministers were considered to be mandated reporters. That just didn't work out very well. Of course, now that they have been told they must report I am sure things will change. Humans are like that!Now that they know that they are mandated reporters, it is to be hoped that they will follow the law in this regard. They are now aware that as mandated reporters that they can be charged with a crime for not reporting. It was encouraging to read of overseers telling the workers in their fields to report to the authorities rather than to the overseer. Do you think that each of the victims or people who were aware of his activities who did not report IH to the authorities should be held criminally responsible for any successive cases of abuse, cases that would have been prevented had they gone to the authorities? I don't think that those who were ignorant of the law should/would be held accountable. However I would certainly think that now any mandated reporter could/should be held responsible, and criminal charges could be made. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 8:26:38 GMT -5
Scott,
Presumably, the overseer has been telling the workers in his jurisdiction to notify him of any abuse cases as well as notifying the authorities?
I'm assuming they have concerns for the church members in their area as well as wanting to know of any errant deeds by the members of his staff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 27, 2010 10:50:35 GMT -5
Presumably, the overseer has been telling the workers in his jurisdiction to notify him of any abuse cases as well as notifying the authorities?Not sure of that, although it could be PRESUMED that the overseer would want to be told after the authorities are notified. Here is a post from Woody. (who happens to be someone that I would trust to know the information he posted) Woody, I would be interested in hearing a list of what you consider to be "drastic and immediate" changes that are happening right now. . Of course there are those who have stated that the overseer does NOT want to be notified, because that also puts them into the 'mandated reporter' category. Then they would be forced to take some action such as removing the alleged abuser from worker status and explain to others why. (I don't hold to that belief by the way.) Any honest overseer concerned with the friends in his area will immediately take appropriate action upon hearing allegations concerning a worker that he has jurisdiction over. That certainly would include making sure that the worker wasn't placed in situations where he would be staying in homes with children or coming in contact with children, as well as contacting the authorities to offer any assistance, and notifying the friends to also cooperate fully with any investigation. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 11:09:34 GMT -5
Thanks for that Scott. It would only be morally right that an overseer would wish to be notified at an early opportunity by another worker, irrespective of any reporting responsibilities which may be placed upon his shoulders. Surely the worker notifying the overseer would bear the mandatory reporting responsibility, if they became aware of the matter before the overseer?
In any case, it seems prudent to give the benefit of the doubt that the overseer would be notified in any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 27, 2010 12:48:08 GMT -5
We see that IH was able to continue to abuse children because he was not reported to the authorities but instead to church members who were the "watch guards", all of them "mandated" to report the crime, or even the suspicion of crime, to the authorities. I am not sure that all of those instances of abuse occurred at a time that ministers were considered to be mandated reporters. States began instituting mandatory reporting laws 30-35 years ago. Texas was one of the leading states. Hmmm. It is hard to imagine that someone who knew about a child being sexually abused by an adult but did not report it because they did not know they were required by law to do so is going to be swayed by a the law. As they should (and should have been). Ignorance of the law is no excuse. For the victims as will as others who were aware? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 27, 2010 15:22:56 GMT -5
Rational, if you want to pick on that quoted statement go to the source, please. Since you provided no link or mention of the source I was unable to do that. I know. And since you posted the unreferenced quote and were agreeing with it I responded to you. And this is the type of thinking that we need to change. If your dog urinates on your feet do you feel vindicated by hitting it in the head? The punishment for committing a crime is not to make the victim feel vindicated, it is punishment for committing the crime How would it be their "rightful due" any more than it is their "rightful due" to hit the dog in the head? Again - punishment for committing a crime is not some repayment to the victim. If payment for having been wronged is what people are looking for they need to file a civil suite. We see that IH was able to continue to abuse children because he was not reported to the authorities but instead to church members who were the "watch guards", all of them "mandated" to report the crime, or even the suspicion of crime, to the authorities. That just didn't work out very well. Of course, now that they have been told they must report I am sure things will change. Humans are like that! Do you think that each of the victims or people who were aware of his activities who did not report IH to the authorities should be held criminally responsible for any successive cases of abuse, cases that would have been prevented had they gone to the authorities? Perhaps you should explain when you mean by rightful dues. Rational, I have heard from more then one victims of some criminal offense and most the time as law-abiding citizens, when that particular criminal faces legal sentencing for their crime(s)...then the victim feels vindicated for the fact that the criminal didn't just get away with the trespass! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 27, 2010 19:34:58 GMT -5
Rational, I have heard from more then one victims of some criminal offense and most the time as law-abiding citizens, when that particular criminal faces legal sentencing for their crime(s)...then the victim feels vindicated for the fact that the criminal didn't just get away with the trespass! I was not discussing the irrational feelings of the victim but your use of rightful dues.Maybe we are looking at different definitions of vindicated. Which one are you using? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 28, 2010 6:43:12 GMT -5
Rational, I have heard from more then one victims of some criminal offense and most the time as law-abiding citizens, when that particular criminal faces legal sentencing for their crime(s)...then the victim feels vindicated for the fact that the criminal didn't just get away with the trespass! I was not discussing the irrational feelings of the victim but your use of rightful dues.Maybe we are looking at different definitions of vindicated. Which one are you using? Well, I spoke of the victims feeling vindicated!  Rational, it is rational to know that when someone has suffered at the hands of someone else that that can NEVER truly be changed back to what things were before the offense! So it all has to come down to "feelings" most times anyhow! Sheesh! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2010 7:15:16 GMT -5
Sharon. Give up! Stay on planet Earth. Honestly, it's not you!
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 28, 2010 7:27:59 GMT -5
Sharon. Give up! Stay on planet Earth. Honestly, it's not you! Perhaps to give up suddenly would help Rat to sail right on over, eh? Since he seems to want to find someone who's tail he can ride on for days at a time. Sorry, but I have barely enough endurance to walk myself through one day without someone riding piggyback, eh? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2010 7:37:56 GMT -5
Sharon, please. please. please, don't start doubting yourself!
Once you start going round in circles your head starts spinning like a top. It's good to do a compass check every so often. Also remember, YOU ARE NORMAL!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 28, 2010 8:10:24 GMT -5
Sharon, have you been normalized?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2010 8:23:36 GMT -5
Ron, Shaz will be okay once she gets her balance back. You know it does us all good to come up for air now and again.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 28, 2010 8:45:53 GMT -5
I was not discussing the irrational feelings of the victim but your use of rightful dues.Maybe we are looking at different definitions of vindicated. Which one are you using? Well, I spoke of the victims feeling vindicated! And I asked which definition of vindicated you thought they were feeling. Did you mean they had cleared themselves of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt by having the person convicted and jailed? Or did they feel the conviction exacted revenge for the crime? Exactly the point. So the question still is what are these rightful dues? Where do these rights originate? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 28, 2010 8:49:48 GMT -5
Sharon. Give up! Stay on planet Earth. Honestly, it's not you! Perhaps to give up suddenly would help Rat to sail right on over, eh? And a secondary benefit is you do not have to answer the questions! It certainly would be easier if your posts were never questioned. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 29, 2010 6:42:30 GMT -5
Perhaps to give up suddenly would help Rat to sail right on over, eh? And a secondary benefit is you do not have to answer the questions! It certainly would be easier if your posts were never questioned. Rat, I don't mind being questioned...but you, sir, pick it apart word by word! Most people don't even bother to read all of that "questioning"!  |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 29, 2010 9:46:08 GMT -5
And a secondary benefit is you do not have to answer the questions! It certainly would be easier if your posts were never questioned. Rat, I don't mind being questioned...but you, sir, pick it apart word by word! As with any great construction, the foundation is very important. The details as it were. Many wish to build an argument founded on premises that they cannot support but upon which they still construct their conclusion. Applying private definitions is another way to present a premise that most people would not support if they question the meaning used. In a face to face conversation there are many clues for additional information. On this message board there are only the words used. For example, when I asked you which definition of "vindicated" you were using in an attempt to determine exactly what you meant you were piqued. On the other hand I also expect people to challenge errors/ambiguities in my posts. But then - if no one is reading...! Not reading is always an option. Using the ignore button is an option as well. |
|
