Angry residents say child killer must go

[The Spartan]

MSNBC.com

Angry residents say child killer must go
60-year-old living in N.H. town after 35 years behind bars
The Associated Press
updated 8:23 a.m. CT, Wed., March. 18, 2009
CHICHESTER, N.H. - Angry residents of a small central New Hampshire town are demanding that authorities remove a convicted child killer from their community.

More than 200 residents of Chichester packed a town selectmen's meeting Tuesday, most of them calling for Raymond Guay's removal during about two hours of emotional testimony. Many parents said their children can't sleep and are afraid to play outside.

"I do not feel safe enough to walk to the mailbox, to allow my children to walk to the mailbox," said resident Darlene Phelps.

Guay pleaded guilty to murdering a 12-year-old Nashua boy in 1973. Police found the boy's body clad in just socks and undershorts, and glasses and a watch.

After 35 years behind bars, Guay was released in September and ordered to serve his parole in New Hampshire. Guay's release followed a failed attempt by state officials to keep him incarcerated as a dangerous sexual predator under federal law.

Guay went instead to a halfway house in Connecticut, but was returned to New Hampshire last week, where Concord residents loudly protested plans to put him there.

Pastor takes him in
The Rev. David Pinckney, pastor of River of Grace Church in Concord, took Guay into his Chichester home this weekend after meeting him through a prison chaplain.

Pinckney did not attend the meeting or return calls but wrote in an open letter published Monday that Guay poses no threat and never leaves the house without adult supervision.

Authorities are advising Guay not to comment. He did not attend the meeting Tuesday.

Pinckney's wife and four of his children, ages 13 to 18, live in the house. His oldest son is away at college, and Guay has to leave in two months to make room for his return.

Pinckney has reported hearing gunshots outside his house, and one neighbor threatened to burn it down.

The selectmen voted 3-0 Tuesday to ask state and federal officials to boot Guay.

'Inflammatory' media
Federal parole officer Thomas Tarr said he can't legally remove Guay from Pinckney's home if he meets his probation requirements.


Tarr said two rooming houses in Concord rejected Guay last week after "inflammatory" media reports. He had to stay in a Concord hotel at a cost of $100 a day on the federal dime. Tarr would not disclose the hotel.

He told residents Tuesday that Guay has voluntarily agreed to wear a monitoring bracelet, but several parents said they doubted the bracelet would make them any safer.

Tarr conceded that while Pinckney and Guay have agreed to a 60-day time limit, authorities could not enforce that agreement. But Tarr said his office has begun scouting two or three new locations for Guay outside Chichester. He did not elaborate.

I read this and it occurs to me, what do we do with someone in these circumstances? Many, if not most people will object to him being anywhere near them, not entirely unjustifiably. On the other hand, unless we intend to incarcerate all of them for life (or execute them all) we have to do something with them.

[Darth Wong]

This is the problem with "get tough on crime" policies: they never consider what will happen to the community the person is eventually released into. In my opinion harsh justice is fine for people who will remain behind bars for the rest of their lives, but for people who will someday be released, we have to adopt a more nurturing and rehabilitative role. That my rub a lot of people the wrong way, but as I said, they are failing to consider the communities which will have to deal with these people some day.

In this particular guy's case, I think he should have fallen into the "harsh justice + life behind bars" category.

[Alyeska]

To reiterate what Mike said. If you aren't going to execute them or lock them up for life, you have to do something different. Punishing them for breaking the law seems nice and all that, but what the hell are you going to do once the person gets out of prison? You want to do what you can to minimize the likely hood that they will recitative. We are talking about justice, not vengeance. Vengeance just makes matters worse. Their prison sentence is supposed to be punishment in itself. But once inside prison there should be systems in place to try and stop the cycle of violence. For starters, the more education a prisoner gets while in prison reduces the likely hood they will go back to a life of crime. Any program that can show a drop in recidivism is a good thing to consider. On the other hand violent offenders who aren't likely to be rehabilitated need to be addressed. If child predators have a 90% chance of going back to crime, you have a problem. But you don't just kick them out of a community or lock them up again after they already served their sentence. The law needs to reflect our improving knowledge of crime and how to prevent recidivism.

[Kanastrous]

From a simple safety standpoint it wouldn't be too surprising if a community member did what you would do with any potentially dangerous predator loose in the neighborhood (and sorry, being under a clergyman's supervision in his home is close enough to 'loose' as to make no difference) - just shoot him.

I'm not particularly advocating that solution, but it wouldn't surprise me is some safety-conscious type decided it was the best answer to the problem. Particularly with passions on the subject running high.

[Solauren]

Question is, could they defend shooting him?

Followed up by; would any of the locals seriously look for the shooter?

[Kanastrous]

Question is, could they defend shooting him?

Legally? I don't see how. Unless he was in the act of doing something criminal at the time.

Followed up by; would any of the locals seriously look for the shooter?

Well...if I happened to be a local, *I* sure wouldn't. But that's just me.

[Superboy]

Is it your opinion that a person who commits a crime like the one commited by this man can never reform?

[General Zod]

Is it your opinion that a person who commits a crime like the one commited by this man can never reform?

At the risk of sounding like a "hurr hurr internet tough guy", child murderers whose guilt has been proven more than beyond a reasonable doubt are precisely the kind of people who the death penalty should apply to.

[Solauren]

Is it your opinion that a person who commits a crime like the one commited by this man can never reform?

Depends on the root cause.

However, given all the information, it sounds like the man might have some serious sexual issues as well.

[Alyeska]

Is it your opinion that a person who commits a crime like the one commited by this man can never reform?

I believe child molesters have some of the worst recidivism rates. Something like 90%

[Kanastrous]

Is it your opinion that a person who commits a crime like the one commited by this man can never reform?

I'm agnostic as to whether or not such a person can permanently and meaningfully reform.

On the other hand, I think it entirely unreasonable to ask that the larger society and its vulnerable members roll those dice, if that person is to be released into the general public.

[Mr Bean]

Note, Child molesters don't have the highest recidivism rates, but it is one of the highest. This is pure unintended consequences of the child molesters laws which require reporting. Guess what happens when a molester moves in? No one wants to live there. I sure as hell would not and I thoughly understand these people's motivations however....

However....
However.... the convicted child molester is being discriminated against. And it is wrong, even if is child molesters we are talking about. They should not be discriminated against. And if the psychologists can sign off on the fact the molester is not a likely recidivist then they should be allowed to live where he wishes. If he is a likely recidivist, then we have another discussion to have.

[Kanastrous]

However.... the convicted child molester is being discriminated against.

As he should be. He's got a track record of child molestation. Discrimination is not intrinsically a bad thing; sometimes there can be perfectly good reasons to discriminate. Race, gender, sexual identity, religion, no. Forcibly sticking your thing into or otherwise screwing with little kids? Fuck yeah, that's reasonable and fair basis for discrimination.

And it is wrong, even if is child molesters we are talking about.

Tolerating an elevated risk to the safety of the children around him is a greater wrong. He's chosen to take actions with lasting consequences beyond a jail term. They're all on him, so he can take every last imaginable consequence. What right do any of us have, to insist that others should accept any risk where this guy is concerned, at all?

They should not be discriminated against.

Sure they should, as a matter of public safety. You forfeit your right to be free of discrimination, when you molest children. Nobody around you did anything wrong, for which *they* should have to forfeit anything.

And if the psychologists can sign off on the fact the molester is not a likely recidivist then they should be allowed to live where he wishes. If he is a likely recidivist, then we have another discussion to have.

And if the psychologist misses his estimate of "likely?" The consequences for the innocent kid who may be the next victim makes some discomfort and suffering on the molester's part look absolutely inconsequential by comparison.

[Kanastrous]

Child murderer, that is. Somehow we went off in the direction of molestation when the issue at hand is murder. Although I guess there's crossover, in terms of dealing with the perpetrator afterwards.

[Ekiqa]

Studies have shown that convicts are most likely to re-offend when they are stressed and being attacked by the community.

This man served his time, and been punished by society. Let him live in peace, and the chances of him killing again are extremely low.

[Kanastrous]

"Extremely low" is not good enough. If you were a neighbor with a young child, wouldn't you prefer the risk of this individual murdering again to be "none?" How would you explain to your kid that you'll all just have to accept a known threat to his life next door, because, well, you know, "he's served his time?"

[General Zod]

This man served his time, and been punished by society. Let him live in peace, and the chances of him killing again are extremely low.

Based on what? If he'd killed another adult I might be inclined to agree when the motive is very clear and the circumstances are unlikely to repeat, but killing a child, and in the fashion this guy did? How many possible motives can there be that don't depend on some type of criminal insanity?

[Tiriol]

This man served his time, and been punished by society. Let him live in peace, and the chances of him killing again are extremely low.

Based on what? If he'd killed another adult I might be inclined to agree when the motive is very clear and the circumstances are unlikely to repeat, but killing a child, and in the fashion this guy did? How many possible motives can there be that don't depend on some type of criminal insanity?

If he's been released, then he has served out his punishment. If he's criminally insane, then by all means, he should be locked in a psychiatric hospital. However, that would require evidence or a psychologist's consultation, not simply "He'll do it again!" reaction.

By all means, the man SHOULD be monitored, considering the crime he committed; and that he'd have to make regular visits to a mental health professional. However, the issue is that the neighbourhood has decided, not the law. It is mob justice. Where can this man be moved to, then? Should his name be changed for the convenience of others? How would that diminish the risk of him possibly attacking another child or make it easier to keep an eye on him? He can't be returned to jail unless he does something wrong and a mere suspicion that he might do so isn't enough. And his sentence cannot be extended any more.

The choices aren't thrilling, I know. But that's the reality: the law cannot do anything to him unless there is an actual proof of danger and statistics aren't enough, I'm afraid.

[General Zod]

However, that would require evidence or a psychologist's consultation, not simply "He'll do it again!" reaction.

He's already proven he's dangerous. Quite frankly the onus should be on him to show that he's not a threat, not the other way around.

By all means, the man SHOULD be monitored, considering the crime he committed; and that he'd have to make regular visits to a mental health professional. However, the issue is that the neighbourhood has decided, not the law. It is mob justice. Where can this man be moved to, then? Should his name be changed for the convenience of others? How would that diminish the risk of him possibly attacking another child or make it easier to keep an eye on him? He can't be returned to jail unless he does something wrong and a mere suspicion that he might do so isn't enough. And his sentence cannot be extended any more.

Like I already mentioned above, this is precisely the type of instance where the death penalty should apply. Unfortunately for whatever reason it didn't in the original trial.

The choices aren't thrilling, I know. But that's the reality: the law cannot do anything to him unless there is an actual proof of danger and statistics aren't enough, I'm afraid.

I'm inclined to go with the line of thought that the law dropped the ball in this instance.

[Aaron]

He's already proven he's dangerous. Quite frankly the onus should be on him to show that he's not a threat, not the other way around.

That is what the parole board is for, is it not? He has to demonstrate to them that it is safe to release him and he's under supervision right now. I'm not sure how else he's supposed to demonstrate that he isn't a threat. I assume he has to report to a parole officer every few weeks as well.