As a newspaper reader I want to know, right away, when a horrific crime is committed, what is the sentencing range if the accused were to be convicted? Very, very basic stuff: crime and punishment; actions, consequences. Republicans, Democrats? Gee, I dunno, I hope not that last part. But I wonder.
Here's another example of liberal bias in Seattle's daily newspapers. In this case due to total lack of information on the prison sentence for which an accused assaulter and rapist would be eligible, if he is eventually convicted after his arrest Monday. He is also a recently-released, registered Level Three sex offender.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today on a horrid incident in Kent Monday, which has resulted in charges of second-degree assault, and first-degree rape, against Sajahklan Shawn Hatfield, 18. Monday in Kent, the victim told police, she was walking early in the morning along Kent-Kangley Road when she passed a man walking a pit bull. They spoke briefly and moved on, then moments later she was attacked from behind, punched in the face, and had her coat pulled over her head. She glimpsed the face of the man she'd just seen before, then was punched twice in the head and raped for up to 30 minutes. Hatfield was arrested later that day. Of course, he is only charged, not convicted.
According to court documents, Hatfield initially denied any contact with the woman, then later admitted to beating her and having sex with her. The man reportedly told detectives "the woman was 'iffy' on having sex with him but he was 'pretty sure' she wanted to have sex," according to the documents. The woman was left with a broken jaw and other injuries attributed to the attack.
He was so sure she wanted outdoor sex with a stranger at 5 a.m. in Kent that he beat her up to seal the deal? Yes, sentencing range matters, and it needs to be worked into any report of an arrest in a serious crime. This used to be standard journalisitic procedure. Hatfield might face life on the second-degree assault charge if convicted, because if there is a finding of a "sexual motivation," the Class B felony becomes a Class A felony, which is punishable by a sentence "not to exceed" life in prison. And it certainly sounds as if the alleged assault was sexually motivated. In addition, the story ought to have addressed the sentencing range for a first-degree rape by an adult Level Three sex offender, with a juvenile conviction on indecent liberties.
From the outset of reporting on violent crime, white collar crime, any kind of crime....readers and citizens deserve to know what the maximum PENALTY can be, so that if and when a conviction results, we can put the subsequent sentencing in context. Did the judge or jury apply the maximum? A fraction thereof? Exactly why? News editors and crime reporters at Seattle's metro dailies must always include these basics in post-arrest, pre-trial reports. Assuming that they are at all interested in accused criminals, judges and juries actually being held accountable.
Today's glaring oversight is yet another example of why the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times each need a full-fledged, fully independent, full-time ombudsman; not an invisible and neutered "reader representative," or a high-ranking editor who publicly dons the "institutional introspection" sweater once for every 12 fulsome print paeans to his employer. The Internet and news search engines are one reason the newspaper industry is in a rathole. Eroding credibility and formulaic pap are two more.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 17, 2005 01:27 PM | Email ThisThese offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs.
From The Washington State Sex Offender Information Center
If as they State says, "These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity." The state knows they are a risk, why are they released if they are a known risk? Shouldn't Level III offenses be 1 strike offenses?
Posted by: JCM on November 17, 2005 01:57 PMThis creep wasted NO time re-offending! When I read his perverse *logic* for raping this woman I have to question how and why in the Hell this guy was ever released in the first place? He broke this woman's jaw and still tried to twist his story to say she was a willing participant??
The news today states there is yet another level 3 sex offender being released to the Maple Vally area! This one likes children!
A concealed weapons permit cost $60.00 in Kent and is for 5 years. Go to your local Police Department to apply for one. You fill out a background application for the FBI and you get fingerprinted...The permit comes in the mail fairly quickly. Buy a gun. Then you go to your nearest shooting range and sign up for gun safety and shooting courses...It is your right to protect yourself and your loved ones when the state is sending these monsters into your neighborhoods.
Enough already!
Posted by: Deborah on November 17, 2005 02:14 PMPublic square hangings at high-noon have a deterrent effect freaks like the Thurston Co. Prosecutor don't even comprehend. Because in my opinion, he's sick too. (Reference: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/pao/)
Posted by: hang'em high on November 17, 2005 02:36 PMBut in a mafia neighborhood, this dirtbag wouldn't have been arrested... he wouldn't have made it that far.
Posted by: TB on November 17, 2005 03:47 PMSteve, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. In all cases it's easy enough to state at the outset AND later, but even more important in this case is that the accused could actually face a life sentence. When a just-released, registered Level Three sex offender allegedly commits a brutal rape and assault, the potential consequences are, or should be, a big part of the story right from the git-go. This aspect of the story just doesn't rate a "whatever, later" from me. A laser-like focus on the punishment piece for a crime such as this is rather central to our society's moral code, or what's left of it, anyway.....Plus it's just basic good reporting to include that information in the first post-arrest story. It's J-school 101, and they flubbed it.
Readers and citizens deserve to know the penalty? Of course, but the paper isn't KEEPING it from them, only failing to add it in. Again, it's public information.
There's enough legitimate things the papers get wrong. Don't whine about stupid public information you can get on your own.
Posted by: BMack on November 17, 2005 08:55 PMI guess you weren't reading very carefully. I did include that information in my post, and links to the RCWs, but that doesn't excuse the paper from failing to include the key element of specific punishment possibilities for the crime, in their story. Crime and punishment, you see, need to go together, very closely. That has something very much to do with the "personal responsibility" of which you speak.
I included the information in the graf after the pull quote, where I stated the accused could face a life sentence, and explained why, and included links to RCWs.
To point it out when newspapers fall short in this way is not whining, but a matter of accountability. The prospective punishments for heinous crimes are central to the story's presentation to the public in the newspaper, as opposed to "stupid public information you can get on your own," as you put it.
Posted by: Matt R. on November 17, 2005 09:16 PMo.k.--watch what happens when one of these 'misguided citizens' wind up in (seattle) Mayor Nickels' back yard--kid gloves? I wonder...nightstick? tazer? maybe; 0.38 caliber? definitely yes;
you citizens--by the way--are encouraged to "be tolerant;"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on November 17, 2005 09:31 PMThat's where you're wrong.
"Deserve" is a very strong word, Matt.
Readers, who are paying for the service the paper provides, don't deserve specific information from the paper any more than consumers deserve salt on the tops of their saltines or extra stain-fighting power in their laundry detergents.
These are products, not something we deserve. If you don't like what you're buying, stop buying it; don't complain that consumers 'deserve' to get something they're not getting when they buy the product.
That said, I think it would be a service if the papers did in fact provide this information. So if you want to say that the papers 'should' provide that information that's great and I wholeheartedly agree. But the paper doesn't owe anyone anything. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
That's a slipper slope...and if you really think about it, you don't sound too far from Ralph Nader who complains that other corporations owe other citizens other perceived goods. That's not their jobs - their job is to put a product on the market. If they've done it well, they will make a profit and I'll be happy I bought it. If they've done it poorly, the may in fact go out of business.
Kudos to you though, for providing the information.
It's helpful.
It just isn't owed to me by you or by anyone else.
Posted by: BMack on November 22, 2005 10:49 PM