Work Release? For Child Molesters???!!!

[awpitt]

Why is work release even an option to begin with? Work release should not be available for sex offenders.

 

[navy0614]

I knew it....

Gifford used to be my next door neighbor. He had a wife and kids and they used to watch me in the mornings. I always knew there was something wrong with that man because one time he got my friend and I alone to show us their pet ferrets and he touched our butts so I hurried up and got us out of that house. How freakin disgusting!

 

[inkah12102]

Gifford used to be my next door neighbor. He had a wife and kids and they used to watch me in the mornings. I always knew there was something wrong with that man because one time he got my friend and I alone to show us their pet ferrets and he touched our butts so I hurried up and got us out of that house. How freakin disgusting!

really? so why didn't you tell someone? maybe you could have saved a lot of heartache for a lot of people?

 

[renfred]

saving heartache

really? so why didn't you tell someone? maybe you could have saved a lot of heartache for a lot of people?

This brings up a good point.

This guy didn't really know what Gifford was up to or capable of doing. He had a mere suspicion. The guy looked at him funny and touched his butt.

Judge Abrams likely heard a ton of testimony regarding this guy. She absolutely knew that they guy molested two different children. In other words, Judge Abrams had a full disclosure of this child sexual predator's crimes, and made the decision to grant him work release. He molested another child while on that work release. Abrams could have prevented Gifford from having any opportunity to molest again, simply by denying the request.

This gentleman whom you ask "so why didn't you tell someone?" is not in the powerful position that Judge Karen H. Abrams is in. Judge Abrams used her position of power to grant work release for a convicted child sexual predator instead of using that same power to enact a severe punishment, and keep him away from any children.

This is another clear deflection away from the person of power, Judge Karen H. Abrams, and on to the predator's neighbor, who did not know that Gifford was a molester. Abrams had the power to stop this sick individual from harming another child, but decided to let him out into the world.

 

[Special_K44]

With due respect SOMDCOP, I disagree. Why would anyone want a child molester, let alone the one that molested my child back on the streets again??? So he could molest another child or my child again??? Why should the victims have to suffer repeatedly because thisl person is let out of prison or on bail to walk the streets free. The family will never recover from this, let alone the child who had to live with being a victim for the rest of their life. So the molester can roam the streets again with no remorse????? I understand from a police officers point of view you have to see it from both sides of the law. But think of the child that is the innocent victim?

 

[inkah12102]

This brings up a good point.

This guy didn't really know what Gifford was up to or capable of doing. He had a mere suspicion. The guy looked at him funny and touched his butt.

Judge Abrams likely heard a ton of testimony regarding this guy. She absolutely knew that they guy molested two different children. In other words, Judge Abrams had a full disclosure of this child sexual predator's crimes, and made the decision to grant him work release. He molested another child while on that work release. Abrams could have prevented Gifford from having any opportunity to molest again, simply by denying the request.

This gentleman whom you ask "so why didn't you tell someone?" is not in the powerful position that Judge Karen H. Abrams is in. Judge Abrams used her position of power to grant work release for a convicted child sexual predator instead of using that same power to enact a severe punishment, and keep him away from any children.

This is another clear deflection away from the person of power, Judge Karen H. Abrams, and on to the predator's neighbor, who did not know that Gifford was a molester. Abrams had the power to stop this sick individual from harming another child, but decided to let him out into the world.

your post reeks of assumptions. newsflash: when a grown man touches a little girl's bottom this way, he has molested the child. it is no longer a "weird vibe". something should have been told. this child who was molested (the neighbor) is no longer a child and has not been for a number of years. at LEAST as an adult, something should have been said.

there are MANY MANY people here who had power in this situation, Abrams is only one of them.

Did you catch my other post? Why do you suppose the child's own parents did not protect her? Expand your horizons, ask more questions. Be willing to apply accountability to anyone who had even a little bit of power to stop this madness.

 

[inkah12102]

With due respect SOMDCOP, I disagree. Why would anyone want a child molester, let alone the one that molested my child back on the streets again??? So he could molest another child or my child again??? Why should the victims have to suffer repeatedly because thisl person is let out of prison or on bail to walk the streets free. The family will never recover from this, let alone the child who had to live with being a victim for the rest of their life. So the molester can roam the streets again with no remorse????? I understand from a police officers point of view you have to see it from both sides of the law. But think of the child that is the innocent victim?

I think it should be important to note (especially for those that have been victims of this type of crime), not to diminish the seriousness of this atrocity, but to instill hope: A child does not have to remain a victim. These children do have hope of living a normal and healthy life. There is nothing that can replace what was lost, and it will be difficult, but there IS hope. These children, no doubt have dedicated parents who love them and are wholly committed to their healing. (I say this because since they were brave enough to step forward in protection of their child, it is easy to assume they are dedicated parents with the best interests of their child at heart).

By the way, why would you assume there is no remorse?

 

[renfred]

Weird Vibe

your post reeks of assumptions. newsflash: when a grown man touches a little girl's bottom this way, he has molested the child. it is no longer a "weird vibe". something should have been told. this child who was molested (the neighbor) is no longer a child and has not been for a number of years. at LEAST as an adult, something should have been said.

there are MANY MANY people here who had power in this situation, Abrams is only one of them.

Did you catch my other post? Why do you suppose the child's own parents did not protect her? Expand your horizons, ask more questions. Be willing to apply accountability to anyone who had even a little bit of power to stop this madness.

I apologize and concede that I completely missed the point that the person writing this post was talking about an occurance that happened when they were a child. I assumed erroneously that this was an adult writing about something that happened to them as an adult. You're completely right in that "when a grown man touches a little girl's bottom this way, he has molested the child. it is no longer a "weird vibe"."

"Did you catch my other post?"

Yes. You made some very valid points in that post as well. And I do agree that it would be great if one were to "Expand your horizons, ask more questions." This especially true with regard to Judge Abrams...many valid questions need to be answered by her.

 

[inkah12102]

I apologize and concede that I completely missed the point that the person writing this post was talking about an occurance that happened when they were a child. I assumed erroneously that this was an adult writing about something that happened to them as an adult. You're completely right in that "when a grown man touches a little girl's bottom this way, he has molested the child. it is no longer a "weird vibe"."

"Did you catch my other post?"

Yes. You made some very valid points in that post as well. And I do agree that it would be great if one were to "Expand your horizons, ask more questions." This especially true with regard to Judge Abrams...many valid questions need to be answered by her.

thanks for the clarification? was the cop right -- are you a lawyer? could your beef be about positions you see for your own future? ARe you really that concerned about this guy's victims (both named and unnamed), his family, or him?

I can understand why the Judge did what she did. I still think that you or I might have done the same had we known all the info she did. What I can't understand is why this little girl's parents let her alone with this man. An even bigger question: How COULD he (the "perp")??????????????

 

[renfred]

Concern About Victims

thanks for the clarification? was the cop right -- are you a lawyer? could your beef be about positions you see for your own future? ARe you really that concerned about this guy's victims (both named and unnamed), his family, or him?

I can understand why the Judge did what she did. I still think that you or I might have done the same had we known all the info she did. What I can't understand is why this little girl's parents let her alone with this man. An even bigger question: How COULD he (the "perp")??????????????

I am very concerned about the victims. It makes me sick to my stomach, and genuinely angry as heck that a child sexual predator who was convicted of not one but two offenses on two different children, was granted work release by Abrams. I strongly feel that if she had children of her own, she would not have granted the work release. It is my opinion that Abrams is more concerned with legislating from the bench, than keeping a molester off the street.

Judge Karen H. Abrams granting work release for the child sexual predator is a manifestation of the administration of justice being improperly carried out. If Abrams did not have Annapolis on lock, she wouldn't feel so emboldened, to treat her position on the bench with such disrespect.

I am not at all concerned about the child sexual predator. I think life in prison with castration is more than appropriate for this individual.

"I can understand why the Judge did what she did."

I cannot. I think any excuse for giving a child molester work release is just that, an excuse. This is also a manifestation of weak leadership in my opinion.

 

[inkah12102]

I am very concerned about the victims. It makes me sick to my stomach, and genuinely angry as heck that a child sexual predator who was convicted of not one but two offenses on two different children, was granted work release by Abrams. I strongly feel that if she had children of her own, she would not have granted the work release. It is my opinion that Abrams is more concerned with legislating from the bench, than keeping a molester off the street.

Judge Karen H. Abrams granting work release for the child sexual predator is a manifestation of the administration of justice being improperly carried out. If Abrams did not have Annapolis on lock, she wouldn't feel so emboldened, to treat her position on the bench with such disrespect.

I am not at all concerned about the child sexual predator. I think life in prison with castration is more than appropriate for this individual.

"I can understand why the Judge did what she did."

I cannot. I think any excuse for giving a child molester work release is just that, an excuse. This is also a manifestation of weak leadership in my opinion.

thanks for clarifying your opinion about the molester and the victim, but what about the family of the molester

the cop mentioned that it is often on behalf of a criminal's family that work release is granted, and the neighbor mentioned a wife and kids....were they worth it? I would wager a guess that while you may not be concerned about the guy, disgusting as his crime may be, perhaps there are other innocents out there who ARE concerned about him?

 

[smcop]

With due respect SOMDCOP, I disagree. Why would anyone want a child molester, let alone the one that molested my child back on the streets again??? So he could molest another child or my child again??? Why should the victims have to suffer repeatedly because thisl person is let out of prison or on bail to walk the streets free. The family will never recover from this, let alone the child who had to live with being a victim for the rest of their life. So the molester can roam the streets again with no remorse????? I understand from a police officers point of view you have to see it from both sides of the law. But think of the child that is the innocent victim?

Please re-read my post. I am in no way endorsing allowing child molesters out on work release. I was merely pointing out that "people" on work release are not adding to the coffers of county govt or the county sheriff's dept.

I am not offering an opinion as to whether its right or wrong to allow offenders on work release. I merely pointed out it was incorrect that the work release program was some sort of money making scheme for the county as presented by the poster.

 

[inkah12102]

Please re-read my post. I am in no way endorsing allowing child molesters out on work release. I was merely pointing out that "people" on work release are not adding to the coffers of county govt or the county sheriff's dept.

it must be at least one of the reasons in all fairness. after all there is at least some recoup on funds spent on housing these people. I think it is about 25,000 a year to house a Maryland State Prison inmate -- any idea what it costs the county per inmate per year? Local work release inmates pay for thier keep -- any idea what that is per week?

surely you don't expect folks to believe that the county is not operating on smart business sense here at least a little bit?

I did hear you mention that the two officers who are supposedly keeping an eye on the work release operation are worth more that what inmates pay on a weekly basis. Ok, but those 2 officers are in charge of keeping track of how many wr inmates? And do they have any other job responsibilities?

certainly we can agree that money may not be the only motivation for allowing someone work release, but hopefully you can agree that it must play some part...

 

[smcop]

it must be at least one of the reasons in all fairness. after all there is at least some recoup on funds spent on housing these people. I think it is about 25,000 a year to house a Maryland State Prison inmate -- any idea what it costs the county per inmate per year? Local work release inmates pay for thier keep -- any idea what that is per week?

surely you don't expect folks to believe that the county is not operating on smart business sense here at least a little bit?

I did hear you mention that the two officers who are supposedly keeping an eye on the work release operation are worth more that what inmates pay on a weekly basis. Ok, but those 2 officers are in charge of keeping track of how many wr inmates? And do they have any other job responsibilities?

certainly we can agree that money may not be the only motivation for allowing someone work release, but hopefully you can agree that it must play some part...

It isn't about smart business. The Sheriff's office is not about being a business. If we were we would loose evertime, because you can't account for the human factor of our job.

Now again, I am not condoning or condemning the practice of allowing anyone on work release. I disagree with you that money is part of the motivation. The money coming in from the work release inmates does notexceed the salaries of those who are charged with supervising the program. This is their job, community supervision. They also have clerical staff, which I did not include because the clerical staff does have additional responsibilities, unlike the community supervision officers.

I also take exception with the use of the word supposedly. I don't think you understand how the system works. By using that word, you insinuate the officers aren't doing their job which is not true. The two people who offended were in the place where they were supposed to be, meaning the officers are doing what they are supposed to do!

 

[inkah12102]

It isn't about smart business. The Sheriff's office is not about being a business. If we were we would loose evertime, because you can't account for the human factor of our job.

Now again, I am not condoning or condemning the practice of allowing anyone on work release. I disagree with you that money is part of the motivation. The money coming in from the work release inmates does notexceed the salaries of those who are charged with supervising the program. This is their job, community supervision. They also have clerical staff, which I did not include because the clerical staff does have additional responsibilities, unlike the community supervision officers.

I also take exception with the use of the word supposedly. I don't think you understand how the system works. By using that word, you insinuate the officers aren't doing their job which is not true. The two people who offended were in the place where they were supposed to be, meaning the officers are doing what they are supposed to do!

I detect a bit of sensitivity here -- by the word "supposedly" I only meant that I don't know personally if all police officers are doing their job at all times. I have no knowledge of these two men's performance one way or another. By asking questions, I certainly meant to convey that I don't "know how the system works", so you and I are in agreement there. But out of curiosity, are we talking about police officers or security guards?

Also, I think the best way to tell if work release is profitable would be to know the numbers and not just by relying on the adamant declaration of someone who may be a committed and loyal county employee. Personally, I don't know the numbers yet and can't really make any adamant claim. But by thinking it through, I can certainly make a fair guess that it must is better for the jail, the sheriff's department and the county -- financially at least -- to have a person on work release and paying at least a portion of their upkeep, than it is to house a regular inmate who makes zero financial contribution to their upkeep. Besides, you are a cop, not a judge -- how would you know if the judge considers financial responsibility when they sentence a person to work release?

Don't worry, I am not blaming the officers. I would blame the dad who let the guy around his kid knowing his history before I would blame you or the judge even. And even then, the dad's responsibility in no way matches the offenders responsibility in all this. cheers!

 

[smcop]

I detect a bit of sensitivity here -- by the word "supposedly" I only meant that I don't know personally if all police officers are doing their job at all times. I have no knowledge of these two men's performance one way or another. By asking questions, I certainly meant to convey that I don't "know how the system works", so you and I are in agreement there. But out of curiosity, are we talking about police officers or security guards?

Also, I think the best way to tell if work release is profitable would be to know the numbers and not just by relying on the adamant declaration of someone who may be a committed and loyal county employee. Personally, I don't know the numbers yet and can't really make any adamant claim. But by thinking it through, I can certainly make a fair guess that it must is better for the jail, the sheriff's department and the county -- financially at least -- to have a person on work release and paying at least a portion of their upkeep, than it is to house a regular inmate who makes zero financial contribution to their upkeep. Besides, you are a cop, not a judge -- how would you know if the judge considers financial responsibility when they sentence a person to work release?

Don't worry, I am not blaming the officers. I would blame the dad who let the guy around his kid knowing his history before I would blame you or the judge even. And even then, the dad's responsibility in no way matches the offenders responsibility in all this. cheers!

Your right I am a cop, and not a judge. However, I have a fairly close relationship with these judges, some of them I know socially outside of work. I think when you know someone and have known them for a number of years you know what their philosophy's and motivations are. I can say without much doubt that a financial gain to the county is not a purpose of work release.

These "men" are correctional officers. The men and women correctional officers are in charge of the community supervision program. I am not being sensitive about that word, I completely understood what you were saying. I won't divulge numbers on a forum. That can be done by you doing research or someone requesting public information.

My loyalty is to the Citizens of the county, not county government. I have some loyalty to the police agency who employees me, but more importantly it is to the citizens.

 

[renfred]

Blame Game - Taking Responsibility

Besides, you are a cop, not a judge -- how would you know if the judge considers financial responsibility when they sentence a person to work release?

Don't worry, I am not blaming the officers. I would blame the dad who let the guy around his kid knowing his history before I would blame you or the judge even. And even then, the dad's responsibility in no way matches the offenders responsibility in all this. cheers!

How offensive.

Personally, I don't think Abrams considers much of anything when she makes her decisions. If you've ever watched her in action (and maybe smcop can confirm or contradict this), it is plain to see that most of the attorneys who go before her have a much better grasp of the law, and have more experience than she does...and I'm sure that she knows this.

I think Judge Abrams should be required to "hit the books" before, during and after every trial, sentencing , etc., or at least be required to ask for her husband's advice. That would solve much, if not all of her poor decision making. I just hope that some safeguards are put into place soon to ensure that she does not harm the public in much of the same way that she has done so far. Of course, my opinion is just one perspective. I'm sure that the child predators who have been given light sentences and freedom despite committing heinous crimes would hold a completely different view of the judge.

 

[inkah12102]

Your right I am a cop, and not a judge. However, I have a fairly close relationship with these judges, some of them I know socially outside of work. I think when you know someone and have known them for a number of years you know what their philosophy's and motivations are. I can say without much doubt that a financial gain to the county is not a purpose of work release.

These "men" are correctional officers. The men and women correctional officers are in charge of the community supervision program. I am not being sensitive about that word, I completely understood what you were saying. I won't divulge numbers on a forum. That can be done by you doing research or someone requesting public information.

My loyalty is to the Citizens of the county, not county government. I have some loyalty to the police agency who employees me, but more importantly it is to the citizens.

I certainly appreciate your perspective, but there is no way I can believe that there is NO financial consideration for running our county involved here. I certainly hope it isn't the first consideration (I don't even think that it is) but it would be completely irresponsible for those in power in this county to completely disregard the fact that it takes bucks. I actually think considering the financial perspective is prudent. I realize nobody in their right mind should place financial consideration above a victim, nor do I suggest that our police officers or officers of the court do so. But it has to play some part. No doubt it is a difficult thing to balance.

Thanks for the job you do.

 

[inkah12102]

How offensive.

Personally, I don't think Abrams considers much of anything when she makes her decisions. If you've ever watched her in action (and maybe smcop can confirm or contradict this), it is plain to see that most of the attorneys who go before her have a much better grasp of the law, and have more experience than she does...and I'm sure that she knows this.

I think Judge Abrams should be required to "hit the books" before, during and after every trial, sentencing , etc., or at least be required to ask for her husband's advice. That would solve much, if not all of her poor decision making. I just hope that some safeguards are put into place soon to ensure that she does not harm the public in much of the same way that she has done so far. Of course, my opinion is just one perspective. I'm sure that the child predators who have been given light sentences and freedom despite committing heinous crimes would hold a completely different view of the judge.

I am not sure I understand which part offends you...

I have seen Abrams in action, but I would never presume to know what her level of intelligence is in regards to the law. Also, I doubt you are a reliable "witness" since you carry a personal beef with her.

Undoubtedly every judge in this county, both presently and in the past has made poor decisions at one time or another. That is NEVER an excuse, especially when someone such as an innocent child is wounded. But if you have the source for perfect people, please let us know.

Considering everything that has been brought to light in this thread, I can't imagine how this can all be fixed. Especially for the victims and the offenders families.

I don't mean to be offensive, it just seems to me there is SOOO much more to talk about and consider in these cases than whether or not Judge Abrams made a mistake. I also think that it is irresponsible to be unwilling to consider every angle before making a judgment.

 

[renfred]

V.I.P. Member

I am not sure I understand which part offends you...

I have seen Abrams in action, but I would never presume to know what her level of intelligence is in regards to the law. Also, I doubt you are a reliable "witness" since you carry a personal beef with her.

Undoubtedly every judge in this county, both presently and in the past has made poor decisions at one time or another. That is NEVER an excuse, especially when someone such as an innocent child is wounded. But if you have the source for perfect people, please let us know.

I agree with much of what you've said here. Unfortunately, I was your average naive, unsuspecting, person who had faith in the judicial system when I walked into her courtroom. I was told "she is fair" by several different people who undoubtedly truly thought that she was. When I walked out of her courtroom, I was dumbfounded by what I saw and heard,...so I started researching the law, the system, and the local "legal scene". The more that I have learned, the more clear the picture has become. By all accounts, Abrams not only made a "legal" mistake in my case, but she also made a mockery of judicial ethics as well as condoning egregious unethical conduct by a local attorney. Her blatant disregard for the facts and law, her complacency with unethical conduct, and her obvious admiration of the good ole boys system, create a problem for anyone who conducts legal business in her courtroom.

This carries over to these very serious child sexual offender issues. Although I think that my particular case is very important to me, I am fully aware that it is absolutely nothing compared to the pain and suffering of those affected by these child sexual predators being let out on work release. Abrams, because of her marriage to a well respected appellate judge, is basically immune to any consequences for her "poor decisions". Other judges face the possibility of being overturned by the appellate courts in Annapolis or face sanctions for their conduct. If Abrams makes a mistake, or in my case knowingly omits "key evidence" from her factual findings, the next higher court is willing to not only look the other way, but will act as the "cleanup crew". The "cleanup crew", made up of Abrams and her husband's friends and colleagues, must believe that protecting the reputation and ego of their friends, supercedes the facts, the law, and the proper administration of justice. In my opinion, these percieved judicial powerhouses and scholars, are ethical, legal, and judicial weaklings. Judge Abrams obviously possesses a V.I.P. membership to this unethical judicial clique.

I believe that Judge Karen H. Abrams is brazen and reckless with regard to her judicial decisions, including those relating to work release for child molesters, because her "judicial reality" is materially warped by her judicial immunity.