If Michael Howard had still been Tory leader he would have called for Ruth Kelly's resignation by now. Not being leader hasn't actually stopped Mr Howard from making the resignation demand but his successor has wisely chosen a less politically confrontational path.
In a pitch perfect performance on yesterday's Sunday AM (the kind of performance that first attracted ConservativeHome's admiration last July) David Cameron said that it was "untenable for the inquiry to be led by ministers" but he didn't seek a political scalp. In doing so he appeared to be more interested in putting a terrible sequence of events right - and not in politicising the affair.
The failure of the Department for Education to ensure adequate protection of schoolchildren has been scrutinised expertly by the Tory team. A clearly concerned David Willetts has been all over the media but always measured in tone. Schools minister Nick Gibb has also been practising the 'new politics' - less adversarial, more constructive - that he has long recommended to the Conservative Party.
The only misstep, in my opinion, from the Tory team has been the suggestion that these decisions about sex offenders be taken out of the hands of politicians like Ruth Kelly. I would always prefer a publicly elected and accountable politician to make these sorts of decisions than a backroom 'expert'.
Happy Birthday to me, happy birthday to me ... I have an INKLING that I might be able to report later about a certain leader's speech on policing from the centre of blessed old Hackney. On my birthday! See, it really is a nicer party these days.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | January 16, 2006 at 07:22
I thnk we should also be pushing for a reform to the sex offenders register itself. The more rabid knee-jerk types have been calling for a blanket ban on anyone on the SOR working in schools, but while the register contains people whose crimes range from the most serious and deviant sexual offences through to drunken revellers convicted of mooning police officers the need for some leeway is necessary.
A more realistic approach to certain laws regarding sex with minors would also make the register more credible as a total blacklist. What I mean by that it is surely unreasonable to treat a 17 yr old found guilty of having sex with a 15 year old in quite the same way as a man of 25 or 40.
Surely this level of criminalization and career-wrecking stigma also drives up the incidence of young fathers abandoning pregnant girlfriends. Maybe we could take a leaf from the US, where in some states at least, the seriousness of this is on a sliding scale depending on the ages of the parties involved. This would represent a more realistic approach to this matter, whilst reserving serious punishment (statutory rape in some cases) for those cleary abusing the vulnerability of people much younger than them, without the danger of giving teenagers a criminal record for serious sexual crimes for doing what comes naturally.
Once we are confident that the register is actually doing what it was intended to do, and tracking potentially dangerous sexual deviants rather than everyone from hormonal teenagers to drunk rugby players mooning through the coach window, then it becomes a simple matter to say that the register is a straight-forward blacklist.
If the register does contain only those who have committed genuine sex offences, then it should be a blacklist. Splitting hairs about whether the crime makes the person a danger to children isn't relevant in my mind.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 08:36
Well said Mike.
I am also uncomfortable with any decisions being transferred to an 'expert'.
Let's do as Mike says and reform the list to include real sexual offenders (whether cautioned or convicted) then make it a total ban with no need, or room for any discretion on anyone's part.
I would like to see the day when a Minister can stand up and be able to reassure parents by being able to unequivocally state that there is not one single teacher in any school that is or has ever appeared on a sex offenders list.
Posted by: Chad | January 16, 2006 at 09:13
"What I mean by that it is surely unreasonable to treat a 17 yr old found guilty of having sex with a 15 year old in quite the same way as a man of 25 or 40."
I dont find the distinction...In both cases its having underage sex and is illegal even if consensual sex.
I would rather not have a list just for those who are definite risks. Anyone who has done a sexual offence should be on the list and disqualified from teaching. The idea above is a risky idea and wont relieve the public of its concerns.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 09:58
However we administer the blacklist, there's always a point where someone has to make a judgement call. If the judgement call is going to be fair, we have to allow for errors.
The problem with creating this type of scandal out of relatively few and minor errors is that the process will become unfair. The elected minister will become risk-averse and unfairly bias towards the blacklist.
There's a lot of political hay being made over this and I don't think it's improving justice. Ruth Kelly has her faults and I'd love to see her go, but the current 'scandal' is not worth her head and, for the sake of justice, we should move on.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 09:58
Anyone who lets a paedophile work with children instead of locking them up deserves a bit more than just a tap on the wrist.
She is a typical Labour minister, trying to hold on to her position and throwing integrity to the wind. You can be sure if Michael Howard had been caught out in a similar wrong-doing when he was home secretary, he would have resigned.
Posted by: True Blue | January 16, 2006 at 10:05
One name...William Gibson...Ruth Kelly should go. Simple as that. He was convicted for indecently assaulting a 15 year old girl.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 10:09
"I dont find the distinction...In both cases its having underage sex and is illegal even if consensual sex."
James - Illegal? Yes. A danger to children in the future? No. This list is supposed to be a meaningful way to help keep paedophiles away from children, not just extra penalty on all sex-related crime.
"Let's do as Mike says and reform the list to include real sexual offenders (whether cautioned or convicted) then make it a total ban with no need, or room for any discretion on anyone's part."
This problem with this is that the judgement call is moved to the police who have to choose between similar crime codes. Is there a difference beween sex with a 15 year old who looks 13 and a 15 year old who looks 17? Both are crimes but, in my judgement, one is a serious danger to children and the other is not. You may disagree with my distinction, and that is precisely why the decision has to be in the hands of elected officials.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 10:12
The papers would have a field day with the idea. It says to the country that its OK to do crime because it wont stop you. The Conservatives will look a soft touch.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 10:15
?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 10:17
"I dont find the distinction...In both cases its having underage sex and is illegal even if consensual sex."
The distinction is that one is a teenager dating within his own peer group, the other is a 'dirty old man' preying on they young. As an extreme example, imagine a two couples having sex after a party to celebrate the end of exams, one couple both have birthdays in December and are acting perfectly legally, but in the other couple the girl's birthday isn't until August. Technically illegal for sure, but does the young man involved really belong on a register of sex offenders?
The current scenario is that in the, admittedly unlikely, event of his being prosecuted and convicted, he would be labelled as a sex-offender and put on the register.
Is he really a danger to young girls in the way that a middle-aged man who still desires young girls is? Should he be barred from teaching? Stopped from helping at Scouts?
If we were to say that under-18s did not go on the register for sex with 15 year olds would that really unleash a wave of dangerous paedophiles?
Removing the fear of criminalization could go some way in encouraging girls to seek proper advice and stop young men bolting at the first sign of trouble.
If you honestly think that a 16 or 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old is as much a crime as a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old then you must have led a sheltered life.
Mark, I disagree with your first point, if the blacklist is administered correctly we can remove the need for judgement calls. It may be harsh on the guy that gets his kicks exposing himself to old men, but are we really bothered? Make one judgement call, as to who belongs on the list, then stand by it.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 10:18
On a more precise point. The two cases that have become public should result in sacking.
Whatever my reservations about the register at the moment, whoever decided that a man with a caution for possessing child porn should be a PE teacher of all things should be fired, let alone allowed to resign. As for allowing a man with a conviction for indecent assault of a 15 year old to teach, and describing his act as 'unwise'... it defies description.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 10:22
"The papers would have a field day with the idea. It says to the country that its OK to do crime because it wont stop you. The Conservatives will look a soft touch."
Hardly, not if we were to say that we were going to clamp down, make sure the sex-offenders register was fit for purpose then legislate to ensure that no-one on it was allowed to work with vulnerable people.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 10:32
With children, you should take the precautionary principle. Are there really so few non-paedophiles that we have to use the "not so bad" perverts to teach the children?
If there is any doubt whatsoever, let them choose another line of work.
Posted by: True Blue | January 16, 2006 at 10:33
"Whatever my reservations about the register at the moment, whoever decided that a man with a caution for possessing child porn should be a PE teacher of all things should be fired, let alone allowed to resign"
I'd disagree. From the coverage I've seen Reeve should either never have been on the register in the first place or should have faced trial. I don't think it's satisfactory to put people on the register because of a caution, especially when there's a weight of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the police pressure people into accepting cautions in cases like this to avoid the publicity of a trial (with the CPS thought would have been lost in Reeve's case).
As receipt of a caution does not give rise to criminal record, and is expunged from the police database after five years, it's perhaps understandable that people could be pressured into accepting them.
On the other hand, Gibson clearly poses a danger to children and should not be allowed to work with them.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 16, 2006 at 10:35
I'm uncomfortable with moving the judgement call away from elected to unelected people - OK ministers will be able to say "its not me" but accountability is what the public actually want.
Apparently the people we vote for are no longer able to govern their own standards (so we have an independent standards official), now ministers are incapable of making the final decisions. Accountability matters and thats why we elect our leaders.
On the sex offenders v list 99 discussion - James doesn't seem to recognise that not all offenders on the register are in any way a danger to children, and listing is time limited in some cases. The right of appeal against incorrect verdicts or oppressive sentencing is important - look at the cases of "Satanic Abuse" which resulted in children being taken into care with parents unable to speak about it due to the secrecy surrounding family courts.
I do agree with the overall policy that no-one convicted of a sexual or violent offence involving children should be able to teach but then what about people with convictions for GBH, drugs, theft, murder - which crimes do we say a person cannot reform from?
Posted by: Ted | January 16, 2006 at 10:37
"With children, you should take the precautionary principle."
And it's this mindset that's seen applications from men to become primary school teachers collapse. The hysteria that surrounds the paedophile issue and the number of teachers who have been falsely accused by pupils - and had their careers ruined despite being cleared - only serves to deter capable people from entering the teaching profession.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 16, 2006 at 10:37
Once again, I agree with you James.
If I were innocent, but offered the choice of accepting a Caution, on the one hand, or facing a criminal trial, with 18 months of horrendous publicity, and people arguing "there's no smoke without fire" even after acquittal, I'd be strongly tempted to choose the former.
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 16, 2006 at 10:47
"I don't think it's satisfactory to put people on the register because of a caution, especially when there's a weight of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the police pressure people into accepting cautions in cases like this to avoid the publicity of a trial"
Generally I'd agree, but surely if we are going to have a system which relies on ministerial decisions, one would expect a minister to err on the side of caution when it comes to giving a job to a man with such a caution when the job entails coming into contact with naked children on a daily basis.
Maybe if the DfES were a little more forthcoming about the decision making process then there would be a little more confidence in it.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 10:48
"And it's this mindset that's seen applications from men to become primary school teachers collapse. The hysteria that surrounds the paedophile issue and the number of teachers who have been falsely accused by pupils - and had their careers ruined despite being cleared - only serves to deter capable people from entering the teaching profession."
I can assure you I am not hysterical. If someone has been cautioned for a sex crime, or tried and convicted of one, I'm saying they shouldn't be offered a job which allows them to work with children. Does this sound unreasonable?
Why you have conflated this with the politically correct madness of false accusations flying round in the class room, I don't know.
If teachers were allowed to use appropriate discipline, this wouldn't be an issue. The only solution appears to be CCTV cameras in class rooms, which is a sad inditement of current teaching methods.
Posted by: True Blue | January 16, 2006 at 10:49
"With children, you should take the precautionary principle."
Children inherit caution from their parents and cautious children generally grow up less happy. I hope my children will inherit the ability to decide for themselves which risks are real (e.g. getting in a car), and which risks are false (e.g. paedophile hysteria).
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 10:50
There may well be people who are cautioned for crimes they didn't commit. I trust the police sufficiently to think that the vast majority are cautioned for crimes they did commit. If you have a choice of allowing people cautioned for sex offences to work with children or not, knowing that a proportion of them are in fact guilty, would you allow them to work with children, or stop them? How many people do you think this would affect?
No-one need know. The police could say "if you accept a caution on this offence, you will not be permitted to be employed in a position where you have responsibility for a child"
Posted by: True Blue | January 16, 2006 at 10:53
"one would expect a minister to err on the side of caution when it comes to giving a job to a man with such a caution when the job entails coming into contact with naked children on a daily basis."
One would expect the minister looked at the specifics of the case in question and made their judgement thereon.
The Home Office says:
"A police caution is a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences, such as vandalism or petty theft."
The real scandal is that cautions have been given out for supposedly serious crimes. Either Reeve should have gone to trial, or he shouldn't be on the list.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 16, 2006 at 10:59
The caution was for having pictures of kids on his computer.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 11:00
"Why you have conflated this with the politically correct madness of false accusations flying round in the class room, I don't know."
Because it illustrates the point that going to trial and being proved "not guilty" can still leave someone with a ruined career and life, and thus illustrates the pressure someone could feel to accept a caution as the easy way out.
The police are quite clearly abusing the caution process. Or do you think that using child pornography is a minor crime like petty theft or vandalism? Your reactions here suggests not.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 16, 2006 at 11:01
I dont think its hysteria. One paedophile in the school system is one too many. The system has to err on caution if ever doubt appears. Parents place their children into schools expecting them to be safe. Any hint of that not being the case rightfully worries them. Its not hysteria, its parental concern for the well being of their children.
If someone breaks the law then they must face the law. Sometimes people get convicted for something they didnt do...thats why we have the appeal system. In the schools system, the risk is too much to allow one to go by. Caution has to be the right principle. If in doubt, refuse.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 11:02
"The caution was for having pictures of kids on his computer."
Actually it was for accessing a pornographic website that contained child pornography and adult pornography. No pornography was downloaded to his computer.
If the police really thought he needed restraint, why didn't they send him to court?
Of course, to the police, a caution is 'case solved', whereas a prosecution might not succeed and is far more time intensive. I'm uneasy about many features of this system.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 16, 2006 at 11:04
In Bournemouth Echo there is an interview with the now 59 year old William Gibson - convicted 26 years ago of sex with a 15 year old girl. He subsequently married her and they have three children. He is not on the sex offenders register (presumably because it was so long ago and pre-dated the Act)
While I think he would have been sensible to have changed careers there is no evidence that he has been a danger to children in the intervening years. He has now been badged as a paedophile and is living in fear (not unreasonably considering past public attacks on named paedophiles). He will live with the consequences of this publicity for rest of his life.
I agree with True Blue' sensible take - that a person should if either cautioned or convicted have it made clear to them what the consequences are. Then if they attempt to take a job carrying responsibility for care of children they are aware this will be penalised. But lets not have a witch hunt with red top public burnings.
Posted by: Ted | January 16, 2006 at 11:06
"The real scandal is that cautions have been given out for supposedly serious crimes. Either Reeve should have gone to trial, or he shouldn't be on the list."
Fair point.
Given the publicity a while ago surrounding a high-street photo lab alerting the police to perfectly normal family pictures, I may have been a little quick to condemn. If this man genuinely had child porn he should have been tried in court. However he may have had some harmless pics of his own kids and felt pressured into accepting the caution.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 16, 2006 at 11:16
If they were pictures of his own kids, he should have refused the caution.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 16, 2006 at 11:21
For clarification, Reeve was cautioned for paying to access child porn online, but not prosecuted because he did not download any to his pc.
Posted by: Chad | January 16, 2006 at 11:26
..he was caught in the same operation that trapped Pete Townsend, and as I recall some 7,000 people in the UK alone.
According to the Times today, the number of UK teachers caught in this operation "ran to three figures"
Posted by: Chad | January 16, 2006 at 11:28
There is little I find more depressing than our regular bout of tabloid induced paedophile hysteria. At such times a rational debate is impossible because anyone who doesn't go along with the mob tends to be accused of being sympathetic towards paedophiles.
The reality is that the sex offenders register is a joke. Of course those guilty of serious sexual offences should be on the register and of course they should not be allowed to work with children. The problem is that those guilty of minor offences, which in no way shape or form indicate that they are a danger to children, are also on the list. This is why individual cases need to be looked at and decided on their merits. The assumption that anyone on the register is unfit to work with children is quite obviously not rational.
Posted by: Richard Allen | January 16, 2006 at 11:47
"However we administer the blacklist, there's always a point where someone has to make a judgement call. If the judgement call is going to be fair, we have to allow for errors."
If someone is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence they should be put on a register and banned for life from working with Children, in a school or anywhere. There is no judgement call to be made here it is a simple black and white issue.
Posted by: Richard | January 16, 2006 at 11:51
"If someone is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence they should be put on a register and banned for life from working with Children, in a school or anywhere. There is no judgement call to be made here it is a simple black and white issue."
Which is why I'm glad it's an elected official, and not you, making the decisions.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 12:07
"The problem is that those guilty of minor offences, which in no way shape or form indicate that they are a danger to children, are also on the list."
Which minor offences would they be? Statutory rape? Indecent exposure? Looking at child porn? Assuming you are correct, and the list needs clearing up, then the solution is to clear up the list.
Until that time, I think it's safest for children if people on the list don't work with children. It's not much of an imposition compared with the risks of a mistakes. The Kelly debacle shows you what the risks of "discretion" are.
Looking at the government statistics site it seems to me that there are too few people on the register rather than too many. http://ncis.gov.uk/ukta/2003/threat09.asp
Those 7000 people had subscribed (not just accidentally viewed) a site offering images of child abuse. I don't know about you, but I would prefer that such people did not look after my children. If there is any doubt, look elsewhere for teachers.
After all at an interview you might exclude candidates who you think might not be able to manage the class, might be lazy, might not be able to communicate. I think adding "might abuse children" to that list, even if it's a relatively small chance is reasonable.
We aren't talking about locking people up, here, just stopping them work in a very small number of jobs compared with those avaiable.
Posted by: True Blue | January 16, 2006 at 12:10
In commenting on this subject you might find it useful to look at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm
which is the Sexual Offences Act.
Note that cases of 17 year olds having sex with under 16s doesn't seem to be notifiable - it seems to be 20+ with underage. There is a differnece between committing an offence and whether that then becomes notifiable which is age related.
I think Act was amended to cover reduction in age of homosexual consent so where it refers to 18 I think its now 16.
Posted by: Ted | January 16, 2006 at 12:41
Great link Ted. I was looking for exactly the same thing but all I managed to find was Hansard with some rambling by Lord Thomas...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2006 at 13:13
Those 7000 people had subscribed (not just accidentally viewed) a site offering images of child abuse.
Some people have been prosecuted or cautioned for subscribing to at least one such site with no credible evidence that the site concerned had ever offered child pornography. The site certainly offered adult pornography but only stuff that would get an R18 certificate in this country. The allegation that it offered child pornography came from law enforcement agencies in the USA but they were unable to provide any hard evidence to support this allegation.
Of course, some people may be against adult pornography and may even feel that viewing such material renders one unfit to be a teacher.
Faced with a damaging prosecution with the attendant publicity and risk of conviction, coupled with the difficulty of proving that the site had never carried child pornography, it is not surprising that some people accepted cautions when they were offered by the police.
Posted by: Peter Harrison | January 16, 2006 at 15:05
If some sad creature chooses to look at child porn on his computer and doesn't subsequently make an illegal approach to a child, then surely any prosecution would be for a "thought" crime. It could be argued that his role as a customer would encourage the seller. If that was his only crime, then why not prosecute clients in illegal brothels?
I hate the idea of child sex abuse, but maybe the above sad creature, by watching pornography,is much more likely to abuse himself rather than children. The absence of porn may - I only say may - encourage him to look for the real thing.
"Thought" crime could easily expand. How long before the police become interested in individuals who have, out of curiosity, clicked on to the website of the BNP,or a militant islamic organisation, or a site for making home-made bombs?
William Rees Mogg writes a thoughtful article ("Someone to watch over you") in The Times today about the burgeoning snooping industry.
Posted by: john Skinner | January 16, 2006 at 16:01
John
The EU has agreed to retain records of access so that police can look to see if you have accessed miltant islam or violent sites (at our Govts request) - whats to stop them adding in searches for any sites they want to?
If someone can be investigated for hate crimes for expounding Islam's beliefs on homosexuality on the radio how far are we from criminalising thought?
In case anyone thinks I support Sir Iqbal's philosophy I do not but then is attacking Islamic beliefs also going to be a thought crime under this Gov'ts proposals? Are the Police guilty of inciting religious hatred in investigating him for inciting homophobic hatred?
Posted by: Ted | January 16, 2006 at 16:25
The usual excuses for attacking civil liberties are paedophilia, terrorism and racism. Prepare for more authoritarian legislation!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 17, 2006 at 00:12
Kelly obviously reads the wise words on this blog. All sex offenders to be banned from working with children.
Does this mean that all of you against this measure are soft on crime?
Posted by: True Blue | January 20, 2006 at 09:22
No, it means that we aren't driven by red top hysteria.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 20, 2006 at 09:24
I am immigrant from Russia in USA. Here is my story:
I would like to send you some links to publications about my criminal
case. Would you like to review the materials and give your opinion on
what it is possible for me to do now? The consequences of this are
that it is hard now for me to live. But my case is getting public
attention as an example of a miscarriage of justice. I could not
defend myself, because I did not have enough money for a computer
expert.
Now I have competent computer experts willing to work on a pro bono
basis, who are defeating 75% of the cases they are involved in. This
case may become high profile case. I was forced to confess to the
possession of child porn. My browser was hijacked while I was browsing
the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will. Some
illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.
I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.
This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all
information about case written by Irish writer Brian
Rothery.
http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html
This is publication in Wired news
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html
This is publication in Theregester
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/browser_hijacking_risks/
Article in Globe and Mail newspaper
http://ctv.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040617.gttwhijac17/tech/Technology/techBN/ctv-technology
Article in ZDnet
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5344831.html
This is article in Washington Times, May 22, 2004
There is information about my case.
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/05-30-04.html
Article in Crime research center:
http://www.crime-research.org/news/07.22.2004/506/
Article in Dallas, TX Newspaper
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13614767&BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=528214&rfi=6
Child porn law was declared unconstitutional in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA'
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=11750
"I think the problem with my confession of guilty was that the
prosecutors had pushed case to trial without any thoughts about the
possibility that computer experts might be used to establish whether I
might have suffered hijack or other intrusion. When we did try to
raise that possibility the judge answered NO to all requests. The
prosecutor promised me a couple of years in prison, and then my lawyer
came to me and said "You must decide in the next 5 minutes, because
after that they call the jurors for trial'. It is 100% that you will
get a conviction, be in no doubt about that.
"That meant that I would go to prison for couple years. This was the
opinion of my experienced lawyer. If I went to prison with a child sex
conviction, there the possibilities of being raped, bitten, or even
killed. These were real, very real. So the pressure on me was like
criminals pressing on their victims, a kind of extortion or blackmail.
Do this or else! I am a political refugee from former Soviet Union,
and in my understanding, there are no differences between prosecution,
court, police and criminals.
"So I need to find a good lawyer who wants to make a noise. If you
know this kind lawyer, please let me know. People are silent in this
country because being charged with any crime is very easy, but defence
costs huge money. Most people do not have $15,000 for lawyer, which is
all I paid, but this is not enough. I think $200,000 is not enough to
defend yourself. So the police and prosecution enjoy abuse of power,
like masters over slaves.
"Some people do not understand why I agreed to plea bargaining. They
asking questions like why admit something you are not guilty of. Josef
Stalin's victims admitted to any crime just in exchange for an easy
death. Also you probably read Orwell '1984'.
"I came here to the US as political refugee from the former Soviet
Union, and, now like many other people in the US, I feel shame that
all of this can happen in the US – supposed to be the greatest
democracy in the world."
Posted by: Fima Fimovich | January 28, 2006 at 22:12