Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rooster7

Disturbing News from NY

Recommended Posts

From the NY Post:

 

YEAR IN JAIL FOR SODOMITE SCOUTMASTER

 

By LAURA ITALIANO

 

May 8, 2002 -- The boy-sodomizing scoutmaster of the Upper East Side's Troop 666 fessed up in court yesterday - but was given a summer vacation from prison, to the anger of his victim's family.

 

Under the surprise deal in Manhattan Supreme Court, married, 42-year- old Jerrold Schwartz pleaded guilty to four instances of sodomizing a scout in the fall of 1996. The boy was only 12 when the abuse began, and four other victims have come forward with credible accusations that are too old to take action on, prosecutors said in court papers.

 

Schwartz will serve at least a year in prison, said Justice Charles Solomon. But he won't start until sometime in August, so, as his lawyer put it, he can "attend to his affairs." Schwartz will spend the summer in Colorado, said the lawyer, Robert Fogelnest. Amazingly, Schwartz, who is free on $25,000 bail, continues to own a tour-bus company there that caters to scouting trips.

 

My questions are:

 

1) What happen to Youth Protection in this troop? Why didn't it work?

2) One year for sodomizing a 12-year-old boy? Three months for each incident? Who is sicker - the judge or the scoutmaster?

3) Okay, I know this guy is a pedophile. Neverthelesshow come whenever a story such as this is reported, we're supposed to forget the guy's orientation? *

 

* I think the sexual behavior of a masochist is pretty reprehensible too. However, if it were between a man and a woman, I'd call him/her a heterosexual masochist. If it was between two men, I'd called him a homosexual masochist. Yet, whenever a homosexual commits one of these crimes against our children, we're supposed to pretend that he has no orientation. Or just as bad, if the boy was older - say 15 or 16, the mantra is, "If it's consensual, then no crime has been committed." Homosexual activists would purport, "The boy was discovering his sexuality". Sorry, pet peeve of mineSpin the story to either disassociate the bad behavior from your favorite group, or change the nature of the behavior so it's not considered bad. Any way you look at it, a man who prefers to have sex with a male took advantage of a young child. Don't tell me the "slippery slope" doesn't exist. If a man is unwilling to recognize and/or deal with his moral condition, depravity will lead to more depravity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster, you didn't comment on a part of the story that is equally disturbing - he will be free until August, in Colorado, where he owns a tour bus company that caters to scouting trips, to "attend to his affairs." I assume that his affairs include either winding down the business, or possibly meeting the business' obligations! I hope that there is more to this, and strict rules are imposed to keep him from any involvement with the scouting outings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is as disturbing as the Catholic churches thinking you only remove the ones who are caught "repeatedly". This man should never have contact with children again! He gets time to put his "affairs in order". These children and their families are scarred for life.

 

I did some research online about people believing that pedophiles can be "cured" with cognitive therapy. But what is the risk if their "cure" fails? One child molested is one too many. Therapy only works if you want it to work for you. Also, these people often are top notch manipulators, they will manipulate the therapists into believing they are "cured".

 

I don't know all the story behind this, but it does say the man was married. That doesn't mean he is not homosexual. It shows that you can't judge a book by it's cover.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sad. Obviously this Troop didn't know about youth protection.

 

Rooster7,

The sentence might be what is allowed by the law in NY. Also, I agree this man is a pedophile - a homosexual pedophile.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very disturbing news. Our local TV station is going to do a feature on Cub Scouts and leader security, such as what is done to protect them from abuse. It should be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first. This man is sick and deserves to be incarcerated for a long time. Anyone who sexually abuses a minor, man or woman, whether is happens to a boy or girl, is equally sick and deserves to be incarcerated.

 

Rooster you asked:

"3) Okay, I know this guy is a pedophile. Neverthelesshow come whenever a story such as this is reported, we're supposed to forget the guy's orientation?*"

 

The article stated that he is married. This tells me that he is a hetrosexual. I'm not an expert by any means but I wonder if the crimes that a pediphile commits are based solely on sex or are they more of a "power" or "violence" type crime.

 

If Youth Protection is strictly followed then this would not have happened. It didn't happen just because he "was an homosexual" or it didn't happen because he "was an hetrosexual". It happened because of failure to follow Youth Protection.

 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Paul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an avowed heterosexual.

 

That is to say, I don't go around telling everyone that I'm a heterosexual. Nevertheless, when I have sex with a female (my wife), I'm demonstrating my sexual preference. I'm not saying that all homosexual's are pedophiles, and I'm not saying that all pedophiles are homosexuals. I am saying, this pedophile demonstrated homosexual behavior. It's important that we don't hide the facts. It's important that this kind of information is collected and analyzed. Otherwise, the truth will not be known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster says:

 

I'm not an avowed heterosexual.

 

That is to say, I don't go around telling everyone that I'm a heterosexual.

 

First of all, I think sctmom's point was that since the Scoutmaster in question apparently was not an avowed homosexual, the anti-gay policy would not have excluded him. The issue is not whether he is heterosexual, homosexual or something else (and I think experts in the field would mostly vote for something else.) The issue is what he did, and secondarily, why the methods adopted by the BSA to prevent this (which have nothing to do with one's orientation) apparently did not work in this case.

 

Second, the statement you are not an "avowed heterosexual" brings up an interesting issue that I believe I have mentioned somewhere around here once before. Over the years I have asked several openly gay people why it is that many gay people today feel compelled to announce their sexuality. Part of the typical answer is that we heterosexuals are constantly

"announcing" or at least strongly implying our sexuality in ways we usually don't even realize.

 

So, Rooster, since you claim not to be an avowed heterosexual, let me ask you a few questions:

 

Do the members of your family (outside your household) know you are married to a woman?

 

Do your friends know you are married to a woman?

 

Do your co-workers (if any) know you are married to a woman?

 

When you find yourself in a new job situation and one or more of your co-workers asks if you are married, and whether you have children, and their ages and names, do you refuse to answer on the grounds that this is private information?

 

Do you have pictures of your wife and/or children in your office at work (if any)?

 

Have you ever, in your life, held hands with your wife in public? Or made any other "public display of affection"?

 

Now, my answers to these questions are yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, (and yes.) I assume the vast majority of married people (and many non-married heterosexuals in committed relationships) would answer all of these same questions the same way, possibly with some variance as to the handholding/p.d.a. question. The result is that most of us straight people are telling the world almost every day that we are oriented toward the opposite gender. Even more than that, since the vast majority of people are oriented toward the opposite gender, we don't need to make an overt statement. There is a societal assumption that a person is straight unless he/she says otherwise. It is assumed that we are straight unless we say otherwise.

 

And your response can't be that that's ok because being married is different from being gay. The point is that since the vast majority of hetersexuals are in fact avowed, you can't criticize gays for being avowed as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Rooster's original post: I agree that this is a strange-sounding case. In reality it may be a little less strange if, as I suspect, the "at least a year" refers not to his actual sentence but to his earliest parole eligibility date. If this was in New Jersey, and he had been sentenced to 5 years (which is within the range of options for this type of offense), after credits for working in prison and "good time," his first parole eligibility date would be 12 months and about a week (I don't have the chart in front of me.) Also, I don't know what type of facilities they have in New York, but in New Jersey this guy would most likely be put in a place called the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center -- a special prison for sex offenders. The parole rate for ADTC inmates is much lower than for the overall prison population, and if you look only at first-eligible hearings, it is much, much lower. (Some of my work is in this area of the law.) So, if NY is anything like NJ, it is probably unlikely that he will actually get out in a year.

 

Also under New Jersey law, if he were to be denied parole and "max out" on his sentence, he would be considered for indefinite civil committment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. He might be a candidate for this due to the repeated acts for which he was convicted, combined with the other incidents that are not being prosecuted because the accusations are too old. As long as he has one conviction, all of the allegations against him that could be proven to a judge, even those that were not prosecuted, would be taken into account in a SVPA civil committment proceeding. Again, what NY has I am not sure.

 

It is also not unheard of for people who have been sentenced for violent crimes to be allowed to delay their prison time, though this is very rare other than for health reasons. One justification for the "furlough" in this case might be that if he is able to wrap up his business and sell it in an orderly manner, he will have money to pay some restitution to his victim. Obviously that must be closely monitored, both financially and to make sure he has no unsupervised contact with any youth. He should not be driving a bus with Boy Scouts or any other children, and I am not sure from the quote from the story whether he will be allowed to do so. I suspect (and hope) that there is some supervision involved here that is not mentioned in the quoted story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ says And your response can't be that that's ok because being married is different from being gay.

 

Whether you like it or not, there is a HUGE difference between being married and being an avowed homosexual.

 

YIS

Quixote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quixote said:

 

Whether you like it or not, there is a HUGE difference between being married and being an avowed homosexual.

 

Didn't say there wasn't. What I did say is that there is no difference that has anything to do with what I was discussing. And since you have not said anything about the issue I was discussing, you have not really contradicted me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quixote says:

 

One behavior is normal, the other is not. very simple.

 

And that relates to whether someone should be penalized for doing what is not "normal" how, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't believe i said anything about penalizing anybody, what i said was that there is a difference no matter whether you recognize it or not.

 

I understand that you're trying to make some kind of point about homosexuals being subjected to a double standard. While i appreciate the point, that basis it is founded on is flawed because of the fundamental difference you will not allow into the argument.

 

The whole issue as discussed on the last homosexual thread comes down to your viewpoint of whether you think homosexuality is a lifestyle (as homosexuals themselves say it is, which essentially makes it a behaviorial choice) or it is somehow genetic. While I will admit that there may be some genetic factors for a very small portion of the homosexual community, for the most part, it is a behaviorial issue (from my perspective) which agrees with my moral teachings that it is also a sin against God. As such, it is a behavior that should not be rewarded.

 

my $.02 and i will no longer post on the topic (unless i decide otherwise ;)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×