Gillmore - "Free too soon?" ... an abomination

[shesulsa]

It seems Richard Troy Gillmore, a.k.a. The Jogging Rapist, admitted to raping 8 females but was only charged with, tried and convicted for one. Despite being categorized as a danger to the safety of others, he has been released.

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 23, Oregon's state parole board unanimously decided to release her rapist, 47-year-old Richard Troy Gillmore - a man who, after his arrest on the Edens rape charge, eventually confessed to seven other Multnomah County rapes in the late 1970s, including four others that occurred in east Portland.

None of his victims were able to identify Gillmore in the 1970s, when he was known as the "Jogging Rapist" because he selected, stalked and attacked his victims while out jogging.

Gillmore never was tried on the other rapes. Gresham police began talking to him and arrested him weeks after the Edens rape; Gresham police were familiar with Gillmore's name because he was in the process of being hired as a Gresham police officer at the time of the rape.

It was during those interviews in the Edens investigation that Gillmore confessed to the other rapes, according to court records. By that time, the statute of limitations on a rape charge - three years in the late 1980s, six years today - had passed on the rapes.

FULL STORY

I'd like to read the comments of others before I post mine here.

 

[Monadnock]

Catch and Release.

It's what we do best here in the US. We need to be building bigger and better prisons, and dishing out longer/life sentences for violent offenders.

I'm Monadnock, and I approve this message.

 

[JBrainard]

Well, as I live in east Portland, the first thing I did was look him up on the sex offender registry. Unfortunately, he's not on the Registered Offender List as of this time. Great...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

!

 

[Big Don]

Fact is, people have served less time for murders.
This, as in many other cases, is a direct result of the wussification of the American Spirit. The treatment of rapists is one area where Sharia law has it right.

 

[jim777]

So you've got a rapist who would attack someone, wait a year or so, do it again, wait a while, repeat 5 more times covering an 8 year span....and they think he won't rape again? He might even be safer in jail if he can't legally leave the county; there are certainly people who may feel the need to extract their own justice from him. Not a good situation here.

 

[Jai]

This is where I like the old middle east style of justice.

A man steals commits a crime, you cut off the offending member he used to commit the crime with.

Bastard would have a hard time raping anyone after that.


Some say this the cruel, but I say if it will save the many, sacrifice the one, or at least a part of him.

 

[CoryKS]

First, it's a good thing they got him before he was hired as a police officer. God knows what kind of trouble he could have caused in that position.

Second, I think he's going to be astounded by this here interweb, and by how much of his information will be available to those around him. He'd best keep his head down. Way down.

 

[Empty Hands]

He served his time, about 30 years it seems for one convicted rape. He may be a bad guy, but that is how the system works. It would be a greater injustice to decide ex ante that he gets to spend the rest of his life in jail when that is not what his sentence was.

If he really is a danger, then the cops can keep an eye on him. Additional punishment or restrictions would be unconstitutional.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have oddly mixed reactions on a subject like this.

On the one hand, the crimes were committed and the time (a lot by present standards) was served. So, by the tenets of the criminal justice system, the chaps slate should be clean (particularly as, if my maths is right, he was all of seventten/eighteen when he was jailed ).

On the other, if at that young age he had the cunning to 'pace' himself, then as a mature man he could be an even worse 'threat in waiting' as his acts were clearly not ones of impulse back then.

Everyone deserves a second chance but the balancing act for society is ever what the risk or cost of that 'chance' will be for others.

 

[grydth]

He served his time, about 30 years it seems for one convicted rape. He may be a bad guy, but that is how the system works. It would be a greater injustice to decide ex ante that he gets to spend the rest of his life in jail when that is not what his sentence was.

If he really is a danger, then the cops can keep an eye on him. Additional punishment or restrictions would be unconstitutional.

I have to respectfully disagree completely.

This is an example of how the system DOESN'T work.

He was not prosecuted for the multiple other rapes because of a three year statute of limitations. While that period is appropriate for civil lawsuits, it is absurd for violent felonies against children... especially where the attacker takes steps to hide his identity and flee to safety. Six years is not nearly enough of an improvement.

He indeed has NOT served his time. He was freed by a Parole Board. By its very nature, parole frees criminals before the end of their sentence. Justice would be to eliminate parole for violent offenders and child abusers. They call it "Jenna's Law" in New York.

There is no "may" be a bad guy about it - this rapist is a monster. Ask anyone who works with them - cops, lawyers, social workers - the recidivism rate is close to 100% Letting him free shows a respect for his (very alleged) rights - it is also tantamount to a finding that the girls and women of the area have no rights. We have to balance rights in our society - and in my view, having a daughter in the 7th grade, the innocent children should win. Every time.

I disagree as well that further confinement would be unconstitutional, and I would cite civil confinement statutes as but one example.

There simply are not enough police and parole officers to keep track of these monsters all the time... and the police we do have are otherwise occupied. This guy will get another chance to rape, no matter how diligent the police are........ and the overwhelming odds are, he'll do it again.

Who'd like to volunteer to explain THAT outrage to the next kid and her family?

 

[Empty Hands]

Ask anyone who works with them - cops, lawyers, social workers - the recidivism rate is close to 100%.

Uh, no, not even close.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
"Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape...Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."

Like it or not, our system is founded on the notion of rehabilitation. Since there is no way to reliably determine who will and who will not re-offend, then the just outcome is for those convicted to serve their time and be offered another chance. If anything, the data I quoted above would argue that sex offenders should be given more of a chance than non-sex offenders, since they are less likely to re-offend for any crime, not just sex crimes.

I disagree as well that further confinement would be unconstitutional, and I would cite civil confinement statutes as but one example.

Only 19 states even have such laws. At least some of those who do confine it only to cases of mental illness.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2674_130/ai_76550703
"The Kansas Supreme Court had held that such confinement could not be permitted, absent a showing of mental illness."

At the end of the day, hysteria aside, the data just does not support the "implacable monsters" characterization of sex offenders, including rapists. Yes, what they do is horrible - but so is what the arsonist or the murderer does, and they are more likely to re-offend. Deciding a priori that some criminals should be punished beyond their sentences is not just, and sets bad precedents for other areas of criminal justice.

 

[grydth]

Speaking of, "not even close"....

Did you think to mention that other studies have found much higher rates?

Do you think that maybe you should have let on that, since sex offenses are one of the most under reported crimes, those low recidivism rates are very suspect? (Folks, check "Recidivism and Child Molestors" at www.leadershipcouncil.org........ how's that tiny alleged rate look now?)

Did you miss those studies indicating that sex offenders remain at risk for decades after release? How about serial offenders, with children as victims - were those rates a teensy bit higher?

Thanks, but I knew that not all states had Jenna's Laws. I never claimed that all did; I urged enactment of such statutes as a partial solution to this injustice.

I also am not by any means an advocate for the arsonists and murderers you cite being eligible for parole. The arguement that others may offend at a higher rate is disingenuous - nobody wants them back on the street early, either. Violent felons should not be eligible for parole - how clear can I be?

No, rehabilitation is NOT the sole purpose behind the criminal justice system, though some might like us to believe that. Also important - well, to most of us - are quaint notions of punishment and deterrence.

You have every right to assert this guy is not "an implacable monster" - and I can disagree fully.

I see you raised no rebuttal to a number of points.... now, what would that be deemed by law?

 

[Empty Hands]

Did you think to mention that other studies have found much higher rates?

No. I quoted the DOJ stats on the matter, I did not perform a literature review. If you have some other studies or statistics to cite, please do. However, even if the rate were much higher, that does not imply that any particular inmate will re-offend once back on the streets, no more than the higher rate of criminality of young black males implies that any particular young black man is a criminal.

Do you think that maybe you should have let on that, since sex offenses are one of the most under reported crimes, those low recidivism rates are very suspect? (Folks, check "Recidivism and Child Molestors" at www.leadershipcouncil.org........ how's that tiny alleged rate look now?)

Sheesh, angry much? I don't know loads about this topic, I am not nefariously hiding results. I had heard before that sex offenders had lower recidivism rates than other offenders, and I looked through government stats and found some to back that up. Debates being what they are, you are free to bring up countervailing info.

As for your link, I didn't see anything like "Recidivism and Child Molesters" so you will have to provide a more specific link. Clearly however, the org you linked to is a pressure group and would be biased in the matter. That is why I linked to the government stats.

Did you miss those studies indicating that sex offenders remain at risk for decades after release? How about serial offenders, with children as victims - were those rates a teensy bit higher?

Yes, obviously. Show them.

Violent felons should not be eligible for parole - how clear can I be?

Clearer, clearly, since you hadn't made this specific point. Confinement after sentences are complete is not a matter that would make you think you were criticizing parole. Actually though, a criticism of parole would be pretty useless from your viewpoint. If sex offenders are "nearly 100%" repeat offenders as you claim, then it doesn't matter if they are released on parole or after their full sentence is served.

No, rehabilitation is NOT the sole purpose behind the criminal justice system, though some might like us to believe that. Also important - well, to most of us - are quaint notions of punishment and deterrence.

I didn't say it was the SOLE reason, but clearly it is a primary reason. The question of rehabilitation is moot if every violent felon receives a de facto life sentence as you seem to want. Also, serving a sentence and being released is clearly a punishment, you act as if I don't want the guy to be punished at all.

You have every right to assert this guy is not "an implacable monster" - and I can disagree fully.

I didn't say this man was or wasn't. Neither you nor I know that. What I said is that the data does not support your claim that nearly "100%" of rapists will re-offend. "Implacable monster" is my colorful description of that idea.

I see you raised no rebuttal to a number of points.... now, what would that be deemed by law?

Failure to answer every point with attempt at willful evasion in order to deceive and anger? Look, some of my responses attempted to encapsulate several of your points, and for other of your points, I had no disagreement with, and thus no need to answer. I am not sure what has got you so pissed at me in this matter.

 

[exile]

Folks, there are clearly important questions here about the justice system, and the role and extent of the penalities it imposes that need to be addressed in a careful and well-reasoned way. I'm a little anxious though that the discussion is becoming a bit personal and heated here. My experience is that once that starts, it's very hard to backtrack, and the thread comes under increasingly tight scrutiny. I'd hate to see that chain of events start up here and wind up leading to a very important discussion getting locked...

 

[grydth]

Okay, let's take exile's wise advice and eliminate the personal shots.

While I could not disagree more strongly with empty hands on this, the forum is better - indeed society is better- when people take and advocate unpopular points of view. A few days ago, I myself was doing it on another thread about the NYC shooting. Even though I personally believe the guy wanted the police to kill him (suicide by cop), and that the cops were probably justified, and even though I've worked with police most of my professional life.... I think 20 rounds at an unarmed man needs an investigation. I can't fault empty hands for doing what I just did.... and the day we stop debating these points, it will be Amerika and not what I grew up with.

The Leadership site actually is hard to navigate. Oddly enough, go to "news" and then down to 13 May 2005 to find the study questionning recidivism stats.

Citing Jenna's law, I did indeed originally state that I opposed release for all violent offenders. But Jenna's Law is a New York State statute.... empty hands writes from California. Let's write this particular dispute as one being lost in translation.

We do need to make the distinction, though, between ending parole and and civil confinement. Parole is not continuing to confine felons after the sentence runs - it is letting them out before the end of sentence. Civil confinement is the practice of keeping those still very dangerous felons from getting back on the street after sentence has run. I happen to favor both, but they are different legal processes.

By the way, failing to rebut points is an indicator of concession, not mendacity.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Statistics matter not one whit when you are the whatever "percent".

You do not "rehabilitate" such criminals as this.

You Ventilate them.

 

[Empty Hands]

Statistics matter not one whit when you are the whatever "percent".

You do not "rehabilitate" such criminals as this.

You Ventilate them.

Would you have ventilated these guys?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

 

[Empty Hands]

Okay, let's take exile's wise advice and eliminate the personal shots.

"Let's"? I did not take any personal shots.

The Leadership site actually is hard to navigate. Oddly enough, go to "news" and then down to 13 May 2005 to find the study questionning recidivism stats.

OK, they claim that reporting rates are low. This is probably true, but we still have to make policy decisions with actual data. The data we have so far is 43%, which is consistent with the statements in the article that there is a "continuing risk of recidivism by the offender." I would also note that the studies quoted to prove their points had small sample sizes (like 26 or 115) and one quoted study used polygraphs as a tool to get at the truth, which is methodologically unsound. The validity of polygraphs are under heavy scientific controversy, and many jurisdictions in this country and other countries refuse to allow them as evidence. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unlikely that the average number of victims in a group would be 175 before they get caught?

ETA: Oh, I forgot to mention, the DOJ stats I originally quoted were for being re-arrested for any offense, not convicted. This takes away one of the criticisms in your article about the conviction rate. I am sure the recidivism conviction rate is lower than the DOJ stats for that reason.

 

[Guardian]

Would you have ventilated these guys?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

Unfortunately here, are you trying to portray this innocent victums into the same category as the one who said he did the rapes, there is a difference between being found guilty by a jury of your peers (and being innocent) compared to admitting you did the rapes and due to time constraints, they no longer apply. A big difference in my view.

Unfortunately, my view on the whole thing is, if you rape or molest a child/woman, I concur with ventilation for the most part. Now if you disclaim doing such things, then the law needs to work like it has for those on that list however they came to be innocent.