The indictment charges that in April of this year, the man — the adult son of convicted sex offender Baruch Lebovits, who was sentenced in April to 10 to 32 years in prison for sexually abusing a 16-year-old boy — was approached by a member of his Hasidic community, who told him that he would report the son to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and claim that he sexually abused Taub’s son, unless Lebovits’ son paid Taub the exorbitant amount of money.
Lebovits’ son contacted the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, which opened an investigation that included recording phone calls between the son and Taub, during which the son arranged to pay the fee in five installments. After the son made the first $75,000 payment on July 7, the District Attorney’s detective investigators arrested and charged Taub.
Taub is charged with attempted grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree. If convicted, he will face up to seven years in prison.
Link:
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=39316
Posts
20 comments:
"he threatened to bring false sexual assault charges against the son of a pederast, unless the man paid Taub $250,000"
This is yet another example of the financial motivation behind some FRA’s.
This one demanded an exorbitant amount, which is likely why the target went instead to the police.
But, most threatened FRA’s, false child abuse, and false DV claims likely seek substantially less from their targets (like the woman who demanded only beer, up through custody of children, etc.), and are thus more likely to never have the police involved (of course, until the target refuses, and the woman follows through with her threat (beer woman, and Dave Copperfield’s accuser, for example).
I think many guy’s fail to consider what is at stake for them when a woman announces her intention to falsely accuse them lest they meet some (simple) demands.
And, I wonder how many men do know what’s at stake, realize that they will have no exculpatory evidence, and that the legal fees alone would devastate them, and simply decide to capitulate to the demand.
I wonder just how many guy’s have found themselves in such a situation. Perhaps it’s not uncommon for a guy’s “hook-up” to demand some relatively small amount of cash to “buy her off” from claiming that their sex was rape.
If one considers the potential legal costs to successfully defend against a false charge (which would be difficult or impossible to disprove) it may present a situation much like what is seem with many frivolous lawsuits – being cheaper in the long run to settle than to fight.
I recall Ben Roethlisberger’s first accuser seemed to be doing something along these lines.
Now, I’m left wondering if this isn’t something that’s actually fairly common – but, typically unreported.
/
(which would be difficult or impossible to disprove)
This is where the legal process is flawed. What happened to all the crap about being innocent until proven guilty. The Government should be paying to defend but as we all know, if you don't have money to defend you will be going to prison.
American Express is accepted here, should be posted under the judges name plate.
The attorneys are getting rich all the while mens lives are being destroyed.
I will say the cops did a great job in this case.
"American Express is accepted here, should be posted under the judges name plate."
The victims money ends up going to the defense attorneys, much the way that divorce lawyers are the ones who end up making the real money from divorces. Judges and prosecutors are salaried and make the same no matter what they prosecute, or chose not to prosecute. The reason most of them dread having to do rape cases is that rape cases (even the real ones) are typically hard to get a jury to convict in unless there is compelling evidence (like DNA).
The problem becomes that it is usually just as difficult to prove that nothing did happen, so if the accuser persists, the case will likely go to a jury, and cost the accused a considerable bit more.
But, even if the case is dismissed early on, simply having to retain a lawyer can cost a guy quite a bit.
If some woman demand that a guy give her a couple hundred bucks for her not claiming he raped her, he might end up calculating that a couple hundred is easier to part with than several hundred in lawyer fees and the possibility of being outed as a rapist by the press. That later damage could be far far more expensive in the long run.
Such a guy would be well advised to keep a personal recording device with him at all times, and to try to record her making her demands. It's likely the only way he can completely clear his name should he refuse to pay-up, and she follows through with her threat.
I have a fairly inexpensive Sony PX820, which is small and fits easily into a pocket, yet has great microphone pickup and can record with good clarity trough the clothing concealing it, even from across a room.
One never knows what they might face. This is especially true when dealing with women who one can not fully trust.
This would hold true in, for instance, child custody cases where a woman might tell a man that if he doesn't "roll-over" and give her all that she wants that she's going to get him sent to prison for attempted murder (or serious neck scratching, as the case may be).
Plus, if he doesn't feel that he can trust the local police, he can also give the recording to the press, post it on the web, ask friends to share it with everyone, etc.
False Rape Society usually only deals with one small facet of the false accusation pie.
False domestic abuse accusations and false child sexual abuse accusations are just as prevalent, but with higher conviction rates.
I cannot speak for false DV accusations, but if you are falsely accused of child sexual abuse, the conviction rates are in the 90%, with 90% going to plea bargains before the inevitable conviction.
False rape accusations may be "rare",and false DV accusations may be "rare", as well as false child sexual abuse accusations are "rare" - but all these "rarities" are adding up to be one huge stinking pile of male corpses.
Anonymous - "I cannot speak for false DV accusations, but if you are falsely accused of child sexual abuse, the conviction rates are in the 90%, with 90% going to plea bargains before the inevitable conviction."
I've heard otherwise. What I've heard is that it's very hard to get a conviction in those cases because there is often a lack of any real evidence, children make terrible witnesses who are easily confused by cross-examination, and so many of the claims coincide with divorce/custody matters (which can be and are revealed to the juries) that reasonable doubt is hard not to dispel. (I'll see if I can get some hard numbers)
Anyway, your overall point is well taken. In fact, I had intended to include in my earlier post the matter of false sexual harassment charges (on the job) - which are probably the most common mode of extortion via threat there is.
I know several men who've been threatened will sexual harassment claims unless they complied with a woman's demands.
One guy I know pretty well even tells a story about a young woman who worked in the department he managed, and with whom he believed he'd enjoyed a good working and inter-personal relationship.
This young women applied for a position out side his company, and she went to his office to ask for him to give his recommendation. He'd have gladly given it, yet, perhaps merely intending it as a joke, she quipped to him, "recommend me for the job and I won't have to file a sexual harassment charge against you".
He saids she was smiling all the while and laughed about it after the remark, but that it really shook him up that she would even joke about such a thing.
fact is, that was a real eye opener for those around him (early 90's, soon after the Anita Hill stuff) that women could easily wield such power given that the public had been focused on sexual harassment that even an accusation could ruin a man.
I also recall a story related by another poster on Glenn sack's blog a few years back about how once as a teacher, a female high school student threatened to accuse him of a sexual assault if he didn't give her a better grade. that post realized that had it not been for the fortunate coincidence of another (female) teacher arriving at his office door just in time to hear her threat that he'd have been in deep sh*t.
These and other such accounts are why I tell men to carry a small digital recording devise with them, and to be ready to hit the record button when confronted by anyone you may not be able to fully trust.
As with any false accusation, the greatest harm may not be in being convicted or found guilty of an allegation, the costs of defending oneself, and the immeasurable damage done to reputations cannot be avoided even by successfully (legally) defending oneself. Either way, it would seem best to try to head it off by having recorded evidence.
All these attorney sites must be lying.
Everyone states over half of all child molest accusations are false, but have the highest felony conviction rate.
For example:
Let's start at the beginning. According to the National District Attorney's Association there is a conviction rate of over 95% in the cases of this type, and a dismissal rate lower than for most other crimes. Also, in this area there is a much higher rate of plea-bargains. There are lots of reasons this situation occurs. Some of it is the fault of the accused, and much of which is the fault of the legal advice they receive, and the hidden agendas of people in the system. Many accused people fall victim to the "Now is not the time syndrome" which so permeates the practice of law on this kind of case as to be an epidemic. There is an abundance of do nothing lawyers who ask huge fees before the case is tried and lost or worse yet, large fees charged and no work done on the case and at the last minute the client is brow beaten to take a plea bargain. That type of lawyer never makes any real efforts to have the case dismissed early. There is also the fact that 90% of the lawyers who advertise as criminal defense lawyers will never take a case to a successful trial conclusion in their entire careers. Their success is in badgering their clients to accept plea bargains even when totally innocent.
www.a-team.org
www.falselyaccused dad.com
innocencelegalteam.com
winningjustice.net
www.paulstuckle.com
But then what do I know?
Anonymous - "
Let's start at the beginning. According to the National District Attorney's Association there is a conviction rate of over 95% in the cases of this type, and a dismissal rate lower than for most other crimes."
Can you provide a citation?
I search the NDAA site (http://ndaa.org/), and could not find one single published reference to conviction rates for sex crimes involving children (not that they don't exist, but the sites search engine just plain sucks).
Also, none of the sites you posted cite any publication either, and only one seems to make a specific reference as to conviction rate (http://www.a-team.org/false_child_abuse.html) which states the NDAA puts it at 90%. That's such a high rate that it seems rather difficult to believe just because a defense attorney say's that it's so.
I don't have any published stats to refute that rate, but I am told that Colorado's 17th Judical District has a rather high rate of child abuse/sexual abuse cases which are declined for prosecution, and a rate of conviction for sex crimes against children of only about 30%.
Anecdotal, to be sure, but these do seems to contradict the claims made by defense attorney who stand to make money if they can scare accused men into paying top-dollar for their services (not saying that an accused man shouldn't do so; just pointing out that defense attorneys do have a potential profit motive. Which is actually in contrast to prosecutors, who do not - despite what some, who have very little understanding, have claimed).
Still, I'll concede that I do not know what the overall conviction rate is, so that link from you would be very helpful. I find it weird that I can't seem to find anything on these conviction rates- not with Bing, not with Google Scholar, nada.
Is it possible that cases of child molestation are being conflated with all case of child abuse, which have overall higher rates of be accepted for prosecution, plea bargains, and convictions for cases taken to trial (http://www.thecrimereport.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Prosecution-of-child-abuse-a-meta-analysis.pdf). Of course, many abuse cases are misdemeanor charges, and a significant portion are against women (mothers).
One thing I did find, which is of unknown reliability (and also cites no documentation), did have this to say (http://www.enotes.com/child-sexual-article)
"According to the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, “Up to 60% of child sexual abuse reports are not even believed.” The center also rejects the argument that child sexual abuse cases are investigated and prosecuted with excessive zeal. Due to the difficulty in proving such charges, according to the center, “suspects arrested for sexual offenses against children are less likely to be prosecuted than other violent offenders.” In one study of sexual abuse allegations in day care centers, 82 percent of the charges were dismissed, the center reports. The center also notes that those convicted of child sexual abuse are given relatively light sentences; only 19 percent receive sentences of more than one year. "
I'd say the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse's stats are about as truthful and reliable as NOW's "2%".
Are you saying you believe that these "special" cases receiving "special govenment funding" are indeed so poorly pursued and lightly prosecuted?
Cases where one is presumed guilty, "victims" are presumed incapable of lying, where one no longer has the right to face their accuser and public hysteria is at it's height?
You can make a statement like that after witnessing the Michael Jackson witch hunt, or Gerald Amirault's 20 year prison vacation?
False child molest accusations are the #1 game in town for divorce and child custody cases, resulting in the 60% "disbelief" figure.
If you think getting drunk and getting laid results in false accusations, try getting DIVORCED and CUSTODY!
CAPTA: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TgcdnOIUiiQJ:www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta/capta1.htm+Capta+%26+criminal+prosecution&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a .
GRANTS TO STATES FOR PROGRAMS RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES
Sec. 107. [42 U.S.C. 5106c]
1.
GRANTS TO STATES.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, is authorized to make grants to the States for the purpose of assisting States in developing, establishing, and operating programs designed to improve--
1.
the handling of child abuse and neglect cases, particularly cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation, in a manner which limits additional trauma to the child victim;
2.
the handling of cases of suspected child abuse or neglect related fatalities; and
3.
the investigation and prosecution of cases of child abuse and neglect, particularly child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Anonymous - "False child molest accusations are the #1 game in town for divorce and child custody cases, resulting in the 60% "disbelief" figure."
I believe that you complete misunderstand my point.
As I specifically noted of the item I quoted, it is of "unknown reliability", pointing out that it "cites no documentation".
I just pointing out that anyone can posit some random number, claiming it to be known as factual. But, I tend to want to know how someone came up with a given number - especially when a claim seems so far out of line with other associated ones.
To be sure, and am dubious of claims that child molestation charges have such a high rate of pleas of guilty verdicts. I know many prosecutors, and most all have declined to prosecute a number of cases of allege child molestation. In fact, when a case is forwarded to them alleging that a father has molested his own children, the very first thing that they do is to check to see if a divorce of custody battle is also ongoing. They too know that woman routinely take that tactic.
The same goes for DV allegations. If a separation/Divorce/custody battle is involved, it's likely to be declined.
Thing is, (and I've mentioned this before) allegations involving women or children as victims are highly charged, and the police are reluctant to be the ones to drop such cases unless they can absolutely determine a claim to be false. What they routinely do is to pass the case on to a DA to have to "handle" it. Such cases are "hot potatoes" in a socio-political sense. Police, DA's and even judges know that women are using false allegations as tools.
The only ones who don't seem to "get it" are the (anti-)family courts, wherein the any claim by a woman is taken as a proven fact.
Anyway, just as I take information put out by special interest groups such as "child advocacy" agency's, I also treat information from other special interest (such as defense attorney's) with equal suspicion.
If anybody has a discernible financial stake in getting people to believe their (extreme) stats, I prefer to see the source before I'll buy into it.
I don't doubt that many men are falsely accused of molestation. I don't doubt that there is a high conviction rate for those cases that do go to trial (I just find 95% hard to believe). And, I'm sure that many men are duped into taking pleas (but this falls on the guidance from their attorneys in many cases).
On the other hand, there are also a lot of cases of actual molestation. I can't say much about it as it is still ongoing, but my wife has a case in which a mother was found (caught in the act) of sexual molesting her own young sons. Given eye-witness statements, she'll likely take a plea deal for less jail time, and she might even have to agree to the termination of her parental rights (although, more likely she'll do less time than would a man, and get treatment so as to get her kids back [P*ssy Passes are issued from the bench, often against the advisement for the prosecutor]. Like many who do commit such offenses, she certainly doesn't want to have to face a jury and have the details made public.
Just as with rape vs false rape, the issue is complected by the fact that some do commit horrible offense, juxtaposed to the fact that others will try to take advantage of the existence of real crimes to try to benefit themselves.
I'm just not going to buy into anyones notion that any thing is all "one way", all the time.
Still if you do know where to get the conviction rate information from the NDAA, I'd love to see it. I'm not afraid of finding out that I'm wrong (it has happened a time or two), and I'd like to be able to relate accurate defensible information myself. If it relay is 95%, I'll happily relay that number in any subsequent discussion. (fair enough?)
Anonymous - "False child molest accusations are the #1 game in town for divorce and child custody cases, resulting in the 60% "disbelief" figure."
I believe that you complete misunderstand my point.
As I specifically noted of the item I quoted, it is of "unknown reliability", pointing out that it "cites no documentation".
I just pointing out that anyone can posit some random number, claiming it to be known as factual. But, I tend to want to know how someone came up with a given number - especially when a claim seems so far out of line with other associated ones.
To be sure, and am dubious of claims that child molestation charges have such a high rate of pleas of guilty verdicts. I know many prosecutors, and most all have declined to prosecute a number of cases of allege child molestation. In fact, when a case is forwarded to them alleging that a father has molested his own children, the very first thing that they do is to check to see if a divorce of custody battle is also ongoing. They too know that woman routinely take that tactic.
The same goes for DV allegations. If a separation/Divorce/custody battle is involved, it's likely to be declined.
Thing is, (and I've mentioned this before) allegations involving women or children as victims are highly charged, and the police are reluctant to be the ones to drop such cases unless they can absolutely determine a claim to be false. What they routinely do is to pass the case on to a DA to have to "handle" it. Such cases are "hot potatoes" in a socio-political sense. Police, DA's and even judges know that women are using false allegations as tools.
The only ones who don't seem to "get it" are the (anti-)family courts, wherein the any claim by a woman is taken as a proven fact.
Anyway, just as I take information put out by special interest groups such as "child advocacy" agency's, I also treat information from other special interest (such as defense attorney's) with equal suspicion.
If anybody has a discernible financial stake in getting people to believe their (extreme) stats, I prefer to see the source before I'll buy into it.
I don't doubt that many men are falsely accused of molestation. I don't doubt that there is a high conviction rate for those cases that do go to trial (I just find 95% hard to believe). And, I'm sure that many men are duped into taking pleas (but this falls on the guidance from their attorneys in many cases).
On the other hand, there are also a lot of cases of actual molestation. I can't say much about it as it is still ongoing, but my wife has a case in which a mother was found (caught in the act) of sexual molesting her own young sons. Given eye-witness statements, she'll likely take a plea deal for less jail time, and she might even have to agree to the termination of her parental rights (although, more likely she'll do less time than would a man, and get treatment so as to get her kids back [P*ssy Passes are issued from the bench, often against the advisement for the prosecutor]. Like many who do commit such offenses, she certainly doesn't want to have to face a jury and have the details made public.
Just as with rape vs false rape, the issue is complicated by the fact that some do commit horrible offense, juxtaposed to the fact that others will try to take advantage of the existence of real crimes to try to benefit themselves.
I'm just not going to buy into anyone’s notion that any thing is all "one way", all the time.
Still if you do know where to get the conviction rate information from the NDAA, I'd love to see it. I'm not afraid of finding out that I'm wrong (it has happened a time or two), and I'd like to be able to relate accurate defensible information myself. If it relay is 95%, I'll happily relay that number in any subsequent discussion. (fair enough?)
Again with Blogger eating my posts.
One more try:
Anonymous - "False child molest accusations are the #1 game in town for divorce and child custody cases, resulting in the 60% "disbelief" figure."
I believe that you complete misunderstand my point.
As I specifically noted of the item I quoted, it is of "unknown reliability", pointing out that it "cites no documentation".
I just pointing out that anyone can posit some random number, claiming it to be known as factual. But, I tend to want to know how someone came up with a given number - especially when a claim seems so far out of line with other associated ones.
To be sure, and am dubious of claims that child molestation charges have such a high rate of pleas of guilty verdicts. I know many prosecutors, and most all have declined to prosecute a number of cases of allege child molestation. In fact, when a case is forwarded to them alleging that a father has molested his own children, the very first thing that they do is to check to see if a divorce of custody battle is also ongoing. They too know that woman routinely take that tactic.
The same goes for DV allegations. If a separation/Divorce/custody battle is involved, it's likely to be declined.
Thing is, (and I've mentioned this before) allegations involving women or children as victims are highly charged, and the police are reluctant to be the ones to drop such cases unless they can absolutely determine a claim to be false. What they routinely do is to pass the case on to a DA to have to "handle" it. Such cases are "hot potatoes" in a socio-political sense. Police, DA's and even judges know that women are using false allegations as tools.
The only ones who don't seem to "get it" are the (anti-)family courts, wherein the any claim by a woman is taken as a proven fact.
Anyway, just as I take information put out by special interest groups such as "child advocacy" agency's, I also treat information from other special interest (such as defense attorney's) with equal suspicion.
If anybody has a discernible financial stake in getting people to believe their (extreme) stats, I prefer to see the source before I'll buy into it.
I don't doubt that many men are falsely accused of molestation. I don't doubt that there is a high conviction rate for those cases that do go to trial (I just find 95% hard to believe). And, I'm sure that many men are duped into taking pleas (but this falls on the guidance from their attorneys in many cases).
On the other hand, there are also a lot of cases of actual molestation. I can't say much about it as it is still ongoing, but my wife has a case in which a mother was found (caught in the act) of sexual molesting her own young sons. Given eye-witness statements, she'll likely take a plea deal for less jail time, and she might even have to agree to the termination of her parental rights (although, more likely she'll do less time than would a man, and get treatment so as to get her kids back [P*ssy Passes are issued from the bench, often against the advisement for the prosecutor]. Like many who do commit such offenses, she certainly doesn't want to have to face a jury and have the details made public.
Just as with rape vs false rape, the issue is complicated by the fact that some do commit horrible offense, juxtaposed to the fact that others will try to take advantage of the existence of real crimes to try to benefit themselves.
I'm just not going to buy into anyone’s notion that any thing is all "one way", all the time.
Still if you do know where to get the conviction rate information from the NDAA, I'd love to see it. I'm not afraid of finding out that I'm wrong (it has happened a time or two), and I'd like to be able to relate accurate defensible information myself. If it relay is 95%, I'll happily relay that number in any subsequent discussion. (fair enough?)
Well, it looks like Blogger is just going to keep eating them, so I'll wait see if they reappear later.
In the meantime, an interesting and related item;
http://www.shrink4men.com/2010/12/06/the-ultimate-relationship-deal-breaker-for-men-false-allegations-and-threatening-to-call-the-police/
You are right - those once readily available conviction rates have "disappeared" themselves.
Interesting.
I will contact a source I know about this.
In the meantime, I will reserve judgement that defense attorneys are lying about this.
What IS indisputable and undeniable is that CAPTA actually DOES verifiably provide special government mandated funding for successful child abuse prosecutions.
Repeat: there IS government funding for successful prosecution of these cases.
What an incentive! One would be left to wonder why oh why more prosecutors are not taking advantage of that special funding.
Of course, my contention is: they are. Why this fact is being hidden, I cannot explain.
Kinda mirrors false rape accusation stats.
In the early 1970's, hearings were held in Congress regarding the long ignored issue of child abuse. Subsequent to these hearings, Congress enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (see Federal Mandates page) which provided federal funding to states with which to engage in child protection investigation, intervention, and criminal prosecutions. In order to receive this matching and additional federal funding, states had to come into compliance with the federal law, by enacting matching laws that provided for anonymous reporting, mandated reporting, immunity to reporting parties, and additional grants for the 'successful prosecution' of child abusers.
Unfortunately, there were NO funds made equally available for the defense of the indigent. There was no well-rounded, research based training for those who were to investigate, and all funding was based upon the head-count of children labeled as "abused". Thus at the end of every fiscal year, the numbers of children reported as abused (see Statistics Page) either increases or stays the same, but never decreases. To do so would impact the system for the following year by cutting the head-count basis for annual funding. This would mean cutbacks in personnel.
During this same period of time, the federal government was cutting back on other social services, placing caps on the funding of other branches of social services, but providing unlimited funding for child protection. Immediately we began to see a shifting of social services personnel from food stamps and geriatrics, into the new unlimited offices of child protection.
It is clear that every state and province of the United States has enacted laws that support a child abuse system which matches the standards provided by CAPTA. While the original intent was to protect children from abuse, the result of these laws have been devastating.
Anonymous "What IS indisputable and undeniable is that CAPTA actually DOES verifiably provide special government mandated funding for successful child abuse prosecutions.
Repeat: there IS government funding for successful prosecution of these cases.
What an incentive! One would be left to wonder why oh why more prosecutors are not taking advantage of that special funding.
Of course, my contention is: they are. Why this fact is being hidden, I cannot explain. "
I was unfamiliar with CAPTA prior to you introducing it to me.
I've tried to find out more about it. Like the VAWA, the mechanisms of distribution of monetary awards is shrouded in mystery. And, like VAWA, while it makes reference to funds to aid in prosecutions, it appears as though the money is awarded at the state level to be redistributed (no mention of any oversight as to how it will actually be used). And, again like VAWA, it appears as though the bulk of the funding is targeted for non-LE.
Info is hard to find, but from the 2006 reauthorization request, $143 million was being sought (nowhere near the billions in VAWA):
"we urge for the FY2006 appropriations, increasing CAPTA basic state funding from $27.3 million in FY2005 to $42 million in FY2006 and CAPTA Title II community-based prevention grants funding from $42.9 million in FY2005 to $66 million in FY2006. In addition, we urge funding for the CAPTA discretionary research and demonstration grants at the authorized level of $35 million"
Assuming that they got what they asked for, there is still no detailing of how those funds were to be applied. My best guess is that on the “basic state funding” is available to LE, meaning that less than one million dollars per state would be involved – and only as matching funds – to be divided up between police investigations and prosecutions.
I rather suspect, as is the case with VAWA, a lot of noise is made about funding LE efforts as a means of building support, but in practice, the design is to give the majority of what money is actually made available (a significant amount no doubt first siphoned off for administrative costs) to non-LE agencies in female dominated agencies.
When poster “S” first started his claims that LE was getting rich off of VAWA, I started checking into the actual awards and the mechanisms behind getting money for LE efforts. It turned out that LE got a pittance (despite all the claims that it would fund LE), and even then the process set the bar very high for proposals submitted by LE. In every listing of awards that I showed to S, LE received very few, rather small grants, while other non-LE applicants got 80-90% of all awards (and often for things only tangentially associated with victims services).
While I can understand your concern that taxpayer dollars are being funneled into prosecutorial efforts, as you can see by the actual dollar amount of the Act, when it’s divided up between all out-stretched hands, there isn’t going to be all that much available to any given PD or DA’s office. Like VAWA a lot of fanfare and bluster, but mostly just another mechanism to divert taxpayer money to (mostly) female-dominated concerns.
CAPTA is responsible for changing the entire complection of the Child Saving Industry since it's inception.
Since you are actually a person with an "inquiring mind", I might also direct your attention to Janet Reno, and The Miami Method of chid abuse prosecutions. Frontline did an extremely indepth investigation years ago.
If you read the history of the Bobby Finje and Grant Snowden prosectuions, it puts the WACO Branch Davidian fiasco in a completely different light.
Janet Reno is responsible for countless innocent persons being sent to prison.
Most frightening interesting is that Janet Reno is now a board member of the INNOCENCE PROJECT.
To put that in perspective, that's like George and Jeb Bush being board members of the Abolish Capitol Punishment committee.
This conversation has brought my attention to the fact that conviction rates appear to have been "scrubbed" from the internet.
Much the same as that fact that Mark Lunsford, a celebrity victim dad who advocates for tougher sex offender laws, was found with child porn on his computer during his daughter's disappearance investigation - a well known fact that is now scrubbed from the internet and nowhere to be found.
Simon Taub us still avoiding trial by pulling more tricks, such as framing Samuel Kelner for the same crime, shifting the spotlight. A year has past and he is still out on bail free.
Post a Comment