So ten or twelve years ago the spineless Amherst Town Manager Barry Del Castilho actually showed some backbone when Umass banned a rapist from living on-campus but did not expel him from classes, so naturally he relocated to the People's Republic of Amherst.
Barry did what many highly-paid professional bureaucrats do: he filed a memo/letter of protest, that went nowhere.
Now Umass is once again embroiled in a deja vu controversy mishandling yet again an admitted rapist, allowing him to stay on as a student. But apparently they kicked him off campus.
Amherst currently hosts 3 or 4 "Level Three" sex offenders --meaning the state in their infinite wisdom considers them "likely to reoffend" but they are still free to live and roam where ever they damn well please.
Since this Umass perp was never convicted of the rape allegation that he admitted to, he does not have to register with the local police department as a "Sex Offender."
Thus, local citizens and police have no idea of his current whereabouts.
Amazing that Umass uses the Catholic Church of twenty years ago (also a story broken by the Boston Globe) as a guide for dealing with sex offenders: just quietly ship them off to another unsuspecting community.
The venerable Daily Collegian reports
Throw me a link - I don't know which news report you are getting your facts from, so I can't tell if your criticism is fair.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Collegian, the police declined to press charges. So the admitted rapist went through some sort of administrative procedure, wherein he plead to some sort of lesser charge (I think - the Daily Collegian is quite vague on the legal details).
While I don't doubt that he committed rape, it is not at all clear that what he admitted to was rape.
In any case, the procedure requires review and approval from the Dean of Students to be final. If UMass issued a non-final judgment I don't see why the Dean can't begin the review now and decide what to do. If the admitted rapist does not like this he is welcome to appeal the Dean's action to the Superior Court.
Hey Xenos,
ReplyDeleteYour wish is my command.
Just added link at the bottom of original post.
S.P. Sullivan is probably pretty breathless right about now--just as the crusty Gazette journalists were during the Hamp terrorist serial fire episode.
Larry Kelley wants to protect convicted felons' right of free speech but limit that right to visitors only. Free is important to protect. All the other rights an ex-con has pfft.
ReplyDeleteBeing a tad dense there Anon.
ReplyDeleteYes, I defended the right of a convicted felon--who served his time--to come speak at the University Library (powerfully combining the First Amendment with Academic Freedom) about why he did what he did twenty years ago so maybe, with a little understanding, it would not happen again.
First, he is in Hadley, not Amherst.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Larry, post your email because the one I have doesn't work.
Third, there is a LOT more to this...
Convicted sex offenders that SERVED THEIR TIME. You can't keep people out of your town once they have served their time. They are free citizens at that point.
ReplyDeleteLarry Kelly supports some convicted felon's rights - WHO HAVE SERVED THEIR TIME - some of the time and others not at all.
ReplyDeleteNot only does he not support their rights, he actively advocates against their fundamental rights.
Larry doesn't believe in the rule of law, he believes in the rule of Larry.
Make yourself useful Larry, stalk the dude.
email is amherstac@aol.com--I'm sure it is somewhere on my profile, as I would hate to be confused with, ummm, you know, Anons.
ReplyDeleteYes, Cowardly Anon Nitwit 4:49 PM, I know they have served their time (although maybe they were not given enough "time").
I actually used that on the floor of Town Meeting not long ago when I spoke in favor of allowing Gitmo guys to come here who had been "cleared."
That too pissed off some of my gun toting friends.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteallowing Gitmo guys to come here who had been "cleared."
ReplyDeleteThere is a very big difference between this and what some (perhaps not you) were proposing.
First exactly what right does the Amherst Town Meeting have to deny any lawful citizen from coming here? In order to grant the right you have to first have the authority to deny it. And you don't.
Second, the issue was why they should be entitled to special privleges. That they shouldn't...
"So ten or twelve years ago the spineless Amherst Town Manager Barry Del Castilho"
ReplyDeleteSpineless?!!?
As that all he was?
Shoud be "Is that all he was?"
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that - for some unknown reason beyond mere incompetence - UMass decided to broom this case.
ReplyDeleteIt was reported to the UMPD (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone over there leaked this to the Globe).
And then someone talked the victim into not pursuing it in court but instead going through the Dean's Office because of the dire things that would happen to the perp. Which in any other case would have - they are giving Dif Susp to kids for Constitutionally Protected speech.
And my personal favorite - it was perfectly OK to have him living on campus until the Globe found out about him, at which point they had to remove him for the safety of the community.
Who is this perp and why is he being protected????
Just to check, are we in favor of denying sex offenders an education?
ReplyDeleteLooking for clarification on this