This is in response to the VP of Ross Glen Elementary School facing pedophile charges. Like many of you I am a parent of young children, and the very thought of a predator or child abuser in our midst causes a very visceral reaction in me. Is there a more primal and innate instinct in people than to product your own children?
Yet I am challenged by these recent events to examine what I intellectually know to be right. I do not know Gregory Fritzke. I have never met him. I am not involved with his criminal investigation – all I know is the information that has been released to the public about the charges he faces.
I am concerned though that with this particular crime, much more so than even murder there is a stigma and punishment placed on the accused regardless of their guilt.
Consider the discussion going on facebook:
And not to single this individual out specifically – for there are many comments in our community who’s views can be summed up by this:
“Obviously they have enough evidence on a three month ongoing investigation to arrest him. What does that tell you. He is completely guilty. Its disgusting”
I understand where that thinking comes from – but as thinking and rational people I want to challenge us to consider the following.
The Police have screwed this up before: (CBC News)
In one recent example, Toronto police held a news conference as part of Operation Snowball, a Canada-wide investigation into child pornography on the internet. At the April 16, 2003 conference, they announced the arrest of five men accused of using their credit cards to buy child porn. A warrant had been issued for the arrest of a sixth suspect.
The names and ages of all the suspects were released to the media, who turned out in droves for the announcement.
For one of the men named that day, the arrest and public naming and shaming sent him into a tailspin. Although the charges against him were eventually withdrawn, he never recovered from the stigma of being associated with such a despicable crime.
He lost his job, his friends, his reputation – and eventually his will to live.
This particular case involved thousands of suspects from all over the world. Police investigators claimed to have a “smoking gun” to prove guilt. A website was selling child pornography and the police had seized the database with over 8000 credit card numbers.
They named names, they ruined careers and reputations.
Turns out most of those credit card numbers were stolen, and the accused were victims of identity theft. 34 of those accused who turned out to be innocent in the UK have committed suicide.
Being arrested and charged with a crime is MILES away from being proven guilty. In the case of pedophile charges especially the crime is so evil and disgusting that the stain of accusation can never wash off.
Nobody would defend pedophilia or the criminals who abuse children - yet this is exactly why we live by the rule of law. Why the accused are given their day in court. I don’t know if Greg Fritzke is guilty or innocent …All I know is that being charged doesn’t make him guilty, and as a community we should be mindful of the importance of due process. Without it our system of justice holds no justice at all.
But on April 16, 2003, Toronto police named James LeCraw as one of six men charged as a result of Operation Snowball, a Canada-wide investigation into child pornography on the internet. James was charged with using his credit card to download child pornography.
After further investigation, the charges against him were eventually withdrawn, as they were against two other men named that day. A fourth man named was never even charged.
James’s family believes the charges against him were withdrawn because he was completely innocent. But for James it was too late. He never recovered from the stigma of being associated with child porn.
In debt and depressed, 51-year-old James LeCraw killed himself on July 19, 2004.His family holds the police accountable for his suicide. They considered filing a lawsuit, but decided against it because of the cost to the family - both emotionally and financially
I agree DM. but they did go to his house with a search warrant and arrested him after searching. So obviously they found something at his house.
He has also not been at the school for over 4 months, so I wonder if they knew?
A similar process is going on at the CBC site: http://tinyurl.com/9bjxf2. It almost seems that, in cases such as this, the person is “guilty until proven innocent”. This is not to say his is not guilty but the attacks on the school administration for not revealing more about what is going on does not take into account their legal position and the effects on the family and friends.
I challenge the assertion that they obviously found something. The point is, none of us know what they found. They also executed search warrants in the operation snowball investigation and then placed charges. It is the nature of what they found that is the unknown. If the information was so clearly an abuse why did it take 3 months to press charges? Who knows we have no facts to base a decision on.
The only fact we have is that the evidence has not released to the public - I guess we will see that at trial.
We do not know the material he is accused of downloading.
We do not know how they have determined that HE did it.
We do not know that his computer wasnt hacked or controlled by a third party, or that he isnt a victim of identity fraud. Or even if the information traded in this case actually qualifies as child porn.
Nobody defends the abuse of children, but its pretty clear we as a public have no evidence to be presuming that he is guilty - and we do have as a point of law, and a part of community that lives by the rule of law that he is to be given the presumption of innocence…and yet many who comment on this case have already presumed his guilt…and I think that is understandable…but still wrong.
First let me say that I really appreciated the article and there were a number of valid suggestions worth considering.
I now want to add another angle which can explain why what ’sounds’ to be a sure fire case of guilt and deliberate criminal intent may NOT be what it seems:
Suppose I have been a Computer Tech in this city and I know for certain that many many people in this city could (technically speaking) be charged with ‘downloading and sharing’ child pornography?
Suppose I told you that it was hundreds of people?
Technically speaking hundreds of men and women have ‘downloaded and shared’ child pornography and yet most of them don’t even realize it.
BS you say?
Let me give you a real life case but as just one example of many:
Mr.Anyone (not a real name) brings in his computer complaining of slowing speed and pop-ups etc.
First thing I notice is that someone has installed the usual suspect ‘Kazaa’ or whatever P2P file-share deal. Everyone has these now.
Now this thing is running in the background 24/7 and upon a quick look I notice about someone has queried “Britney Spears” or ‘Lord of the Rings’.
Whoever did so also just quick-selected any and all returning matches (about 200) and simply clicked ‘Download’.
Then they just started clicking the files (which are now downloaded onto the owners PC) and lets see:
- about 40 of them were exploits (virus, trojans etc)
- About another 40 were ‘adware’ (popups etc),
and,
This will disturb some of you readers but nefarious people will rename child pornography clips to names kids or teens will search for.. in this case renamed to ‘Lord of the Rings’ (the hit teen movie at the time of this example).
So.. suppose we open one of the files and guess what folks - absolutely HORRIFIC and entirely graphic and explicit child pornography.
Now in what would seem to be ‘psychic powers’ I ask ‘Mr.Anyone’ if he might have a teenage Grandson who uses his PC sometimes. “Why yes.. how did you know that?” he asks.
(I assumed Mr.Anyone wasn’t trying to find Britney Spears videos)
So anyways,
The thing you need to know is that technically speaking Mr.Anyone had ‘downloaded’ the child pornography AND because the P2P is by its very design ‘always sharing’ then so be it he has ’shared’ or ‘traded’ or ‘exchanged’ that pornography.
If a Tech had phoned police and turned that PC in then by all legal and technical standards it would be correct to publish his name on the front page with the following:
“Mr.Anyone was charged with downloading and sharing Child Pornography and police have found him in possession of x-many (however many files) of child porn films/pictures”
But I ask you…
..Even though that would be technically true and is not ‘untrue’ do you really think it would be worth destroying the mans entire life and reputation and family when you now see the real story behind it?
Not at all.
Mr.Anyone barely knows how to turn his computer on and needed several lessons on what a ‘browser’ did and wasn’t the foggiest bit sure who or what a ‘Kaaza’ was in the first place.
Further more his goofy Grandson was clearly unaware what and why you should never just click on whatever ‘Britney Spears’ file shows up in P2P but thats just a kid being a dumb kid.
FYI: often these police reports emphasize the person ‘downloaded’ which implies some sort of deliberately chosen action they carried out.
OK,
Well technically ANYTHING you look at online was the result of ‘you downloading it’.
The only reason you can see this page and these words right now is because ‘you downloaded it onto your hard drive’.
If you clicked a pop-up or email spam link that took you to a child porn page then technically ‘you downloaded child porn’ the very second it loaded into your browser.
Note: I am NOT attempting some defense of the person in question here or anyone in particular or making any sort ‘pro or con’ argument for anything.
All I want to do is add to DM’s point that what ’sounds like’ a lock-solid implication of guilt may not be so much what it seems and that there are ‘other explanations’ that can be entirely valid.
Personally, I think these types of charges are unique in that they are something in which just the accusation alone is enough to permanently destroy someones life, career, family, lose their children and have their person safety at risk,
SO,
If I had my way I would suggest a NO PUBLICIZING rule UNTIL a conviction.
If Convicted - then alright then and if they are guilty then they get what they deserve,
BUT,
As DM points out - even IF they are innocent (and many charged have be found out innocent) its still too late and the permanent horror and destruction of their lives is already irreparable.
Again. not speaking specifically about this case other than to say it is true that he is currently innocent until proven guilty.
As I am also a computer tech. I agree with Proximo. There are so many ways someone can innocently end up with such materials on their computers.
As in the case that DM spoke of in the article, it could have been a phishing scam. A webpage made to look like his bank or credit card company’s website. You enter in your username and password and voila, the bad guys have access to your actual account and all the information about you contained in that account.
Again, not defending the accused but just trying to emphasize how easily this stuff can happen to anyone.
As another example of how technological ignorance in law enforcement can lead to problems check out this article about a teacher fired because an infected computer got pornographic popups while she taught a class: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070214-8850.html
Maybe people would be a little less phobic if they knew that when a deviant got caught that the justice system would ensure that they didn’t just skate back into society again…
I agree with that Anarch - it boggles the mind to see how a tax cheat might get 10 years in prison and then you find out that a convicted molester got 3.
Not that other crimes deserve less penalty but these molestation crimes are ‘predatory’ and dangerous crimes that seem to get worse and worse for these types of criminals.
Now here is the next thing to talk about - ‘viewing’ child pornography. Is this a crime? Keep in mind we are talking about ‘viewing’ images here. This is not the same as actually molesting kids.
I wonder about this and for example - yesterday I ‘viewed’ a horrific internet video that was basically security footage of a crime. It was horrific and gory and honestly I was emotionally upset by it. But I did view it.
In reality I have ‘downloaded’ a horrible crime on my computer but what does that mean?
Again, I know it might sound like I’m trying to summon up some defense for this individual but I promise I am not.
I just think its worthwhile to just stop and realize that someone can be innocent until proven guilty and/or we should just wait to see what the circumstances really are.
If he is guilty then I’m going to be as outraged as anyone else.
Until then.. just want to wait before totally destroying the guys life.
There is a definite problem with sentencing in the justice system…
Myself, I agree with the importance of protecting an individuals rights to fairness and the presumption of innocence so as not to unfairly ruin a person life from either a malicious or wrongful prosecution/accusation.
I think a balance must be reached with isolating the accused from the individual(s) / environment where they are accused. I don’t believe the minute to minute coverage of the case evolving into a media circus serves anyones best interest. The details and the results of the case could easily be made available following the conclusion of the case.
[...] Mad Hatters later followed up with a post expressing my sentiments exactly. [...]
Currently I am living out of town for school so this is coming as quite the sudden shock for me. I was taught by this man, and quite honestly am disgusted that such a thing has happened. He always seemed a bit off, but I was taught by this man.
Is anger the right emotion for me to feel or is something stronger worth using?
Its sad that the police will go after someone who transmit over the net kiddie porn. However when child abuse happens at a local daycare, the police and day care officials ignore it or get rid of daycare providers who witness these happenings.
[it means LIBEL]