Sex-crimes statutes of limitations: Why?

by Diane Dimond 

Sometimes the most simple-sounding questions spark the most profound discussion.

What’s our purpose on earth?

Why is the sky blue?

Why do we have a statute of limitations on sex crimes?

I mean, really, why give the criminal any break at all? By placing a limit on how far back the prosecutor can go to punish a sexual predator, aren’t we telling countless victims that the justice system doesn’t apply to them?

Experts in the medical and law enforcement fields will tell you the career sex offender has probably committed dozens of attacks over a long period of time before they’re ever caught. An FBI profiler once told me the Bureau stopped a serial molester who was in his 90s. Imagine how many victims he’d left in his wake.

Let’s say a career sex offender – maybe a priest, a teacher or a family member – routinely molests children and tricks them into staying silent for 10 years. (Statutes of limitations vary from state to state.) When the offender is finally brought to trial, the prosecutor is often barred from telling the jury about his past pattern of bad behavior, not even if a dozen others come forward to claim the defendant did the same thing to them. Too bad, the law says, it doesn’t matter anymore.

That’s a horrible thing to tell victims, that what happened to them doesn’t matter, that they can't get justice. 

I know a lot of people who work in the justice system, so I called them to pose the question, “Why is there a statute of limitations on sex crimes?”

Mickey Sherman (right) is a noted Connecticut based defense lawyer. “The system is designed to protect a defendant’s rights. Every person has a right to be notified in a timely manner as to potential criminal charges against them,” he told me. "It’s just not fair for someone to be able to say, ‘Hey, 26 years ago last Tuesday this man raped me!’”

When I contacted Boston attorney Wendy Murphy, known nationally as an adamant victim’s advocate, she offered a much more sinister assessment of the status quo.

“The way these silly rules work should make any decent person cringe, because limitation periods mean a perp who raped 25 children can, as soon as the clock runs out, walk into the middle of main street and brag about his crimes – and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.”

Many others I contacted didn’t want their names used. Most seemed puzzled when I asked if we could simply do away with the statute of limitations for sex crimes.

A federal prosecutor in New Mexico told me, “that’s what the state legislature wants … (they) determine what S.O.L. will apply to every crime.”

A retired district attorney from California said, “It doesn’t have to be that way … a state legislature could pass a law and change it. Maybe it is time to change some laws.”

I also asked a sex crimes prosecutor, who answered in an exasperated tone of voice, “Why is there a statute of limitation on anything! I guess so the cases don’t linger forever…” And he admitted how tough it is to prove a crime happened years earlier. Details get fuzzy, witnesses move away, evidence can get lost, and defendants have the “right to a speedy trial.”

I came away thinking the real answer as to why we allow this is because that’s the way it has always been done …

That’s not to say that some adjustments haven’t occurred. Some states now allow childhood victims from 30 years to come forward. Some waive the time limitation and start the clock anew if psychiatric treatment has helped a victim recover their memory of abuse, or if DNA evidence from a current attack matches the DNA from a dormant case. Long ago, law enforcement started collecting DNA samples from rape victims, and now forensic matches in current cases are helping past victims find resolution. Finally, they are able to come face to face with the shadowy criminal who stole their dignity.

I like this suggestion by Wendy Murphy (left): “Someone,” she told me, “needs to confront the head of the judiciary committee in (every) state legislature where the time limits are short and ask only one question: “Why do you want a child rapist to EVER stop looking over his shoulder, wondering if the cops have finally caught up with him?”

The truth: there is no constitutional right to stop the clock from running on a crime. The lawmakers in your state have simply failed to act.

There is no statute of limitations for murder or treason, and I would submit sexual assault is just as life-damaging and heinous a crime. Let’s demand we abolish this foolish statute.

Tweet

It Is Happening Today, Robin Sax Releases Second Book

by Women in Crime Ink

Bestselling author, former prosecutor, and Women in Crime Ink contributor Robin Sax has a new book. It Happens Every Day: Inside the World of a Sex Crimes DA is in bookstores now. With a foreword by famed defense attorney Mark Geragos, the book promises to be another big hit for Robin!

According to Department of Justice crime statistics, in 2008, 67 percent of sexual assault victims were juveniles and an astonishing 93 percent knew their attackers. This is far from news to veteran prosecutor Robin Sax. As an attorney who specialized in sex crimes against children, she personally reviewed at least five new cases every day.

What really happens when law enforcement decides to prosecute a child sexual assault case? In this revealing, informative, and disturbing book, Sax shows readers how the criminal justice system works, in terms you rarely hear about on the news. She candidly assesses what’s right about the system and what needs to be changed. Her hope is that, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of our current judicial system, we’ll all be in a better position to protect our children.

Dividing the work into three parts, she begins with “Behind the One-Way Mirror,” which deals with the investigation portion of child sexual assault. She defines exactly what constitutes sexual assault and then presents the ingredients of what makes a case “fileable.” She also explains why some cases never get filed.

In the second part, “Behind the Counsel Table,” Sax sheds light on the whole court process. She discusses a range of issues, including mandatory sentencing, plea bargains, unsupportive parents, using children’s testimony to prosecute the perpetrator, DNA evidence, the importance of corroboration, and the weaknesses of the jury system.

In the final section, “If We Could Change the Law,” she identifies aspects of the criminal justice system that should be changed. Besides her own perspective as a prosecutor, she shares the valuable insights of a detective, a judge, a therapist, a juror, and a victim, to learn how each would legislate if they were judge, jury, and lawmaker.

This gritty, in-depth discussion from an insider on the front lines of law enforcement’s campaign against child sexual assault makes an important contribution toward protecting society’s most vulnerable citizens from a crime that is reaching near-epidemic proportions.

It Happens Every Day is available in bookstores and online. For more of Robin’s books, see her web site.

Tweet

Go Directly to Jail and DON'T Collect $175,000

by Kathryn Casey

Think the system is broken? Tired of hearing about money handed over to the very folks who cause the problems? Okay, picture this: a U.S. district judge is sentenced to 33 months in a federal prison, a stint he began just yesterday. Do you think that judge should be off the federal payroll? Samuel Kent apparently doesn't understand the logic.

Kent's crime? Obstruction of justice, for lying to a judiciary panel about his alleged sexual misconduct. His sentence came down May 11th. In a plea deal, Kent, 59, admitted that he lied about his sexual conduct with two employees. (Kent is the first federal judge in history to be indicted for alleged sexual crimes.) In return, prosecutors dropped five sexual abuse charges. Many argued that the sentence was way lenient. Disappointing but the end of story? It seemed so on June 3rd, when Kent tendered his resignation.

The catch: He wants to be paid for another year..

On what grounds does Kent argue he's entitled to keep collecting his $174,000 a year salary and benefits until June 1, 2010? Because he needs the money and the health insurance. (Like the hundreds of thousands of unemployed and uninsured Americans don't?) And, perhaps more to the point, he figures he can get away with it. Why? Because he hopes it could take that long for Congress to get around to impeaching him.

"Impeachment is going to be brutal. It's going to be ugly, and it's going to be nasty," says well known Houston defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. Kent's attorney, DeGuerin charges that now that Kent has tendered his resignation, the only reason lawmakers could have to move on an impeachment is to get face time on TV and grandstand.

You know, some of us (my hand is raised) disagree. Let's review what Kent is alleged to have done. Consider the testimony of Cathy McBroom, one of two former employees who testified she was harassed by Kent: "He had one arm around my waist and was using the other arm to pull up my blouse and bra, exposing my entire breast. He also tried to force his hand down my skirt." Later, McBroom says a drunk Kent pushed her face toward his crotch and demanded oral sex.

In my humble opinion, it's Kent's behavior that's brutal, ugly, and nasty, not impeachment.

What's happening to Kent is deserved. He's not the victim; he's the perpetrator. Kent admits he tried to force himself on McBroom, a former case manager, and Donna Wilkerson, his secretary. He realizes he's going to serve time. He just doesn't want to give up the cash. (Kudos to McBroom and Wilkerson for having the courage to expose a federal judge. That couldn't have been easy.)

This is Kent's second attempt to stay on the federal dole. Earlier, he requested that he be allowed to retire on disability due to depression and psychiatric issues, which would have ensured him a paycheck for the rest of his life. That, thankfully, was denied.

So, what's to be done? The good news is that it's underway. Spurred by the judge's continued quest to collect a paycheck, on Wednesday, June 3, Congress began hearings that will undoubtedly lead to impeachment.

"This is a clear cut case," Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif, told the Associated Press. Lungren is right. It's a no-brainer. My question is: Why has this taken so long? Kent pleaded guilty in January and was sentenced in May. Notice the photo of Judge Kent at the top, waving? Glad to see him go, but I'm not sure why he thinks we're supposed to subsidize the trip.

Tweet

Teacher Gets an F in Exclusive Interview Trying to Defend Herself of Sex Charges

Hunt for Justice
by Cynthia Hunt

A former Tennessee High School math teacher is hitting the TV news airwaves in Nashville saying she is the victim, not the predator. Sandy Binkley is charged with statutory rape by an authority figure. Investigators say she had sex with one of her students in the classroom during school hours.

In an exclusive interview with the CBS affiliate in Nashville, Binkley says the 17-year-old student sexually assaulted her. "There was one incident with one student who was one month from being 18. He is bigger than me. He forced himself on me." Binkley told NewsChannel 5.

Watch the interview. If you were really raped by a student is that how you would talk about it with a reporter?

The student was a teacher's aid at Portland High School. During a hearing, court transcripts show the student testified, "She laid down on the desk and I began to have intercourse with her...she said her tubes were tied, which is why I didn't wear a condom. She said this isn't what you expected when you signed up for teacher's aid."

A grand jury indicted Binkley after hearing from that student and from investigators. After Binkley was charged, two other students came forward saying they also had sex with her. Binkley says the other students are lying to cover up for their friend. (Binkley's Mug Shot After Arrest in 2008)

What is unusual about this case is that Binkley's attorney is allowing his client to go on TV and defend herself months before her trial. He says he hopes someone in the community knows something about this he-said-she-said case to help clear his client.

As a viewer and a journalist, I watched the first part of the exclusive interview which aired last night. In my opinion, it didn't help the defense. Binkley did not come across as credible. She sat there holding her supportive husband's hand and talking about how this has devastated her life, but she didn't seem upset.

When you compare her interview with the student's testimony in court where the 17-year-old says Binkley told him she had her tubes tied, she looks even worse. Teenage boys just don't talk that way, which immediately leads me to believe she said what he claims she said.

Binkley also distrubed me when she smiled during the interview when saying she doesn't see herself as one of those attractive teachers like Pam Rogers who has victimized students. If she isn't guilty, then her attorneys made a categorically bad decision to let this woman go on TV. She should not smile about anything that relates to teachers molesting students.

Pam Rogers was a former beauty queen turned Tennessee teacher who is in prison after she was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old student in 2006. (Pam Rogers in 2006)

She did make one good point in her disastrous interview. She said people often assume because a teacher is charged that he or she is guilty.

What frustrated me with the reporting on NewsChannel 5 and in The Tennessean newspaper is not one reporter has answered a blaring question: How did police find out about this case? Did Binkley, who says she is the victim, go to the police or did the rumorville around school lead police to investigate if this teacher was molesting her students? I would like to know how this investigation started. I am not saying I believe Binkley is guilty if she did not go to police. Many rape victims do not. However, it certainly hurts her case if she didn't since this does involve a student.

I am glad that Binkley can speak out and defend herself. That's her First Amendment right. I've seen it work well for many defendants, but I don't know what Binkley's attorneys were thinking in this case. I do know I will watch the second story to further test my theory that she isn't telling the truth.

Now it's your turn. Here's the link to her interview, what do you think?

Tweet

PREDATORS AND CHILD MOLESTERS DESCEND ON BOOKSTORES!

There is no other crime—not even murder—that worries and sickens parents more than child sexual abuse. Parents wonder how to protect their children when almost every day the news reports another incident of someone in authority arrested on suspicion of child abuse. Addressing offenders found in clergy and teachers to family members themselves, former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney and WCI contributor Robin Sax answers those terrifying questions that parents are sometimes afraid to ask. Predators and Child Molesters: What Every Parent Needs to Know to Keep Kids Safe, A Sex Crimes DA Answers 100 of the Most Asked Questions is in bookstores now and is a must-have for parents everywhere.

With a foreword by Marc Klaas, founder and president of KlaasKids Foundation, this straightforward and clearly written guidebook answers one hundred of the most asked questions that Robin has encountered in her fifteen years of experience as a sex crimes prosecutor. From the definition of abuse to profiles of predators, to how to report an incident and to whom, Robin provides practical, reassuring, and appropriate information.

For ease of use, the book is organized into six major sections:

• Recognizing Predators: Molesters, Pedophiles, and Opportunists
• Talking to Kids About Risks and Identifying Potential Problems
• Recognizing Abuse
• Reporting Sexual Abuse
• Going to Court
• Healing and Moving On

Predators and Child Molesters is already debuting to rave reviews:

“Finally! A hard-hitting Q&A on predators and child molesters. Sax's book is a must read for anyone concerned about the safety and well being of America's children. As a former felony prosecutor of crimes on children, this is Crime & Prevention 101 . . .”
Nancy Grace, host of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace

"Child Molesters and Predators" answers everything you wanted to ask and tells everything you need to know to prevent your worst nightmare and possible lifelong torment for your child. Sax writes in an easy to read format providing practical answers for keeping youngsters safe. This is a must read for every parent or anyone who cares for kids.
Mark Goulston, Huffington Post

Robin Sax makes it clear that prosecuting children against possible sexual assault begins with every parent in the home. Teaching preventative measures should be as important as teaching children to dial 911.

Predators and Child Molesters is available in bookstores now and online. Robin Sax can be seen frequently as a legal commentator on CNN’s Nancy Grace, Larry King Live, and Fox News covering criminal cases and trials. You can also hear her weekly on Justice Interrupted Blogtalk Radio where she covers the latest news in crime with WCI contributors Susan Murphy-Milano and Stacy Dittrich. Robin Sax resides in California with her husband and three children.

Also out this month: Reaching The Bar: Stories of Women at All Stages of Their Law Career. A comprehensive look into the lives of women lawyers, each chapter is introduced by Robin Sax, who also edited Reaching the Bar.

Congratulations, Robin!

Tweet

Forensic Psychology and Dangerous Women

by Larry A. Morris, Ph.D.

When I was approached by my agent, Claire Gerus, to write a book about women who commit violent crimes, I spent a long time considering her proposal. I had concerns. Sure I had been working as a clinical and forensic psychologist for over three decades and had lots of experience with women who murder, maim, and molest. But most people think of men, not women, when they think of violent criminals.

Even though a couple of my previous books, Males at Risks: The Other Side of Child Sexual Abuse (1989, with co-authors Bolton and MacEachron) and The Heterosexual Male: Lust in His Loins, Sin in His Soul? (1997), explored issues of interpersonal violence from a male’s perspective, the controversial finding that males can be victims of child sexual abuse and other violence perpetrated by females was also examined.

Over the years I received both praise and condemnation for suggesting that girls and women sexually abuse children, especially boys, at a rate much higher than “official” reporting statistics documented. The voices of condemnation were the loudest and most persistent.

Even now, with the media full of stories about attractive female teachers molesting grade-school boys, I am dismayed by the number of voices who try to minimize the rape of male children by female teachers by calling it something else—an affair. Even some of my male friends and colleagues joined the chorus of gender-biased sexual expectations with a refrain straight from the male socialization hymnbook: “Oh Lord! Where in the hell were these women when I was in grade school?”

If I decided to write a book about mothers, sisters, and daughters who assault, commit murder, and sexually abuse children, I knew I would be sticking my neck out again, even further this time, by exposing the darkest of the dark side of femininity. I knew I again would be faced with proponents of the pervasive cultural stereotype that women are victims, not perpetrators, of interpersonal violence. The voices of dissent would be back. In force. And, as my thirty years of experience as a clinical and forensic psychologist taught me, some women can be very dangerous.

One of my colleagues, a victim of a female stalker, suggested I should pack “heat” like she does, if I decided to write the book and make public appearances. “Don’t leave home without it,” she quipped. “And wear your body armor,” she added.

As a forensic psychologist, I have evaluated hundreds of violent criminals and testified in court numerous times. The most frequent cases involve questions about the defendant’s competency to stand trial and/or issues of insanity. Competency generally refers to an accused’s ability to understand legal proceedings and to assist legal counsel in his or her own defense. While most people think insanity is a mental-health term, it is a legal term in the courtroom and, in most states, is defined by an individual’s ability to know the difference between right and wrong at the time he or she committed the crime.

For example, a murderous mother could suffer from a serious mental illness, but if she knew what she was doing when she killed her children was wrong, she is not insane according to the law.

Because the interface between law and psychology in insanity defense cases is often like a bad marriage, forensic mental health experts often squabble about their differing opinions.

It is also common for forensic mental-health experts to evaluate defendants in order to assess their risk for committing additional violent crimes and the defendant’s chances of responding favorably to psychotherapeutic intervention.

As a clinical and forensic psychologist I have been able to draw from both areas of expertise to address these very important questions.

In spite of society’s tendency to view most female and male criminal behavior differently, I attempt to handle all forensic cases with the same level of objectivity and dedication as any criminal case, regardless of gender. I ask the referral source the same questions about the purpose of the evaluation, review countless documents related to the case, conduct incisive interviews with the defendant, and consult to the referral source about my evaluation findings and opinion about the case. I also interview others related to the case, if appropriate; administer psychological tests, if helpful; write a report, if requested; and testify in court, if summoned.

Some forensic cases require a fairly quick evaluation and a brief interaction with the court. Many require countless hours of work and lengthy adversarial encounters. Case files can fill a warehouse. Interviewing defendants and others associated with a case can go on for hours. Court testimony can stretch into days. Even though forensic work can be grueling, I always look forward to the next interesting and challenging cases.

As a clinical psychologist, I specialized in treating victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence, especially child sexual abuse. My clinical work helps me understand both sides of the tragedy of trauma. Seeing the terrible damage done by childhood abuse, I am not surprised when I find a history of trauma in my forensic cases. And, yes, more women are victims than men.

As I continued to consider my agent’s book proposal, I thought about presenting cases of girls and women who murdered and/or committed sexual crimes with an eye toward understanding and prevention. I opened my forensic files of dangerous women to see what I could find. Their stories were compelling. I decided to write the book. We settled on a title: Dangerous Women: Why Mothers, Daughters, and Sisters Become Stalkers, Molesters, and Murderers. It has been released to the public. Should I strap on a new set of body armor? . . .


Larry A. Morris, Ph.D. is a clinical and forensic psychologist who has been in private practice for more than thirty years. He is the author of four books including The Male Heterosexual, plus book chapters in A New Psychology of Men and Adult Survivors of Sexual Abuse. Dr. Morris lives in Tucson, Arizona.

Tweet

When Cheating Becomes A Crime

by Jenna Jackson

Everyone is talking about Sen. John Edwards this week—but not because he got the VP nomination. He admitted (after several months of denying it) that he had an affair with a woman who did some video work for his campaign, Reille Hunter. He admitted it to his wife a couple of years ago, but had hoped to keep it a private matter. That, of course, is impossible if you’re running for public office. And the newest question is whether Hunter’s child was fathered by Edwards. He is denying—but, of course, his denials don’t carry much weight since he denied the affair for months and then admitted it in installments.

Our blog is about crime, and I know this isn’t a crime—except against his wife and children. Unfortunately, it’s not even that surprising in this day and age. We have come to expect people to cheat—especially men in high-profile positions, it seems. Edwards said he just got to the point of being very narcissistic, so I guess he thought the rules didn’t apply to him.

In a Texas case near the Plano area, a man’s narcissism and tendency to cheat DID rise to the level of a crime—at least according to Collin County prosecutors. Last July, Philippe Padieu, 51, (left) was arrested at an Addison nightclub and charged with four counts of aggravated assault.

His crimes? He was dating several women at the same time—each of the women thinking they were in exclusive relationships. Some of these “relationships” had been going on for years. But as much as most of us women would consider that a crime, legally, it isn’t.

His crime, which his girlfriends/victims discovered over time, was knowingly spreading the HIV virus to each and every one of them, according to his charges.

Padieu tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, in fall 2005, a police sergeant told the local paper. Police said they believe he "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused serious bodily injury by creating a substantial risk of death by the exchange of bodily fluids."

He not only betrayed these women’s confidence and trust—he gave them what amounts to a death sentence. As a 48 Hours producer, I often speak to family members of victims who have been killed. But I’ve never spoken to the victim of a murder (even though it’s not called that legally) before he or she died.

When I first heard about this story, I was very sad for these women—all beautiful, independent professional women. They truly thought they were dating a nice man . . . and were shocked to find out he was cheating. Then imagine when they, one by one, discovered that they each had HIV.

This man has not yet been tried. And he, like everyone else in the country, deserves a fair trial. But I would not want to be him when each of those women likely takes to stand. She’ll describe their relationship, their discovery—and their sentence.

He is facing five to 99 years in prison for each count. My guess is the jury will lean toward the high side of those sentences.

Tweet

Should Sex With a Minor Always Be Major?

by Katherine Scardino

Despite the recent controversy over the polygamist sect raid in Eldorado, Texas, pretty much all of us would agree on one thing: fifty-something-year-old men should not be having sex with minors. But what if that male was another teen, who happens to be of "legal" age, say eighteen or nineteen?

In Texas, an individual may be prosecuted for Aggravated Sexual Assault under certain circumstances. One of those reasons is if the victim is under the age of fourteen. There is no "escape" clause; there is no "except for" clause.

For instance, if you are a young man and you have sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual contact with a girl younger than fourteen years, you are strictly liable for that offense.

Try this hypothetical: You are a young man, age nineteen, sleeping in your bed one Saturday morning. Your phone rings. It is a police officer asking you to come to the police station and make a statement. "Why?" you ask. You are then informed that there has been an allegation of aggravated sexual assault against you. Yikes! You say. What in the hell is this all about?

Like most young people today, this 19-year-old has a MySpace page. About a year ago, he received a message from a young girl who, after several back and forth Internet conversations, told him she was sixteen. Even though sixteen years of age is still a minor, our law tells us that it’s OK for a boy to have a relationship with a minor if there is no more than a three-year age difference. Of course, he had no clue about that at that time, but has since learned of this law.

So, after a week or so of chatting on MySpace, a lot of "sex-talk," this 19-year-old makes arrangements with the "16-year-old" to meet at a movie theater in the area where she lives with her parents and sister. They meet and have sex. He goes back to his life. The young girl calls him many times after the meeting to start a "relationship." The boy was not interested. The sexual assault allegation comes next.

Do not misinterpret. Neither I, nor anyone I know, condones young men having sex with young girls. But, we have to be realistic and recognize that, first of all, most 13-year-old girls do not look thirteen years old. They are much more sophisticated than I ever thought about being at the age of thirteen. Most of them wear makeup straight from Neiman Marcus makeup counter (maybe circuitously through their mother’s supply, but nevertheless, adult makeup). And, their attire mimics Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and other Hollywood wannabees. While I certainly sympathize with the parents of a 13-year-old girl--even one who appears at first glance to be older than thirteen--I also sympathize with the parents of this young man. He did not do what I always told my sons to do: When in doubt, ask to see her driver’s license.

The above situation is one of the scariest for any young man. He is technically guilty. Period. If this young man went to trial on the charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault and was found guilty, as he assuredly would be, he would be sentenced to a term in prison, either 5 to 99 years, or for Life. Upon release, he then would have to register as a Sex Offender for the rest of his life.

As a registered sex offender, he would most likely forever be denied employment or the ability to live in an apartment. If he was able to get probation for his "offense," he would still have to register as a lifetime sex offender--same problems. (This is precisely the reason a 17-year-old Atlanta boy chose to do a ten-year sentence rather than plead guilty to an offense consisting of consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old. He was released after serving two years.)

As a defense attorney, I am trying to convince the prosecutor that to ruin this young man’s life based on circumstances similar to the above would not be just. The girl is at fault morally and ethically--but not legally. A "child" is unable to give consent to sexual contact of any kind.

But consent is not all of the issue. It is the world we live in today. We have the Internet where our young people live. They are able to be in constant contact not only with their friends, but with anyone who is also as "Internet active" as they are. Anyone, anytime.

In Texas, the State Legislature almost changed this law during their last session, but a revision of this law did not pass. In my opinion, this is one of the failures of our criminal justice system. This law is just not right.

Tweet

Robin Sax Wows Publishers

by Stacy Dittrich

WCI's Sex-crimes Prosecutor Robin Sax, a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, has wowed the publishing industry over the last six months. With her uber-agent Claire Gerus, Robin has signed three book deals and will write them over the next year, all the while trying to juggle her job prosecuting heinous sex offenders, managing home life as a mom and wife, and fulfilling her many teaching responsibilities.

Robin's two books, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Alpha) and EVERYTHING PARENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PREDATORS AND MOLESTERS (Prometheus) are scheduled for release in Spring 2009. A third book, IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY: INSIDE THE WORLD OF A SEX CRIMES D.A. (Prometheus) will follow in Fall 2009.

Needless to say, Robin will be a busy woman over the next year, adding to her already hectic schedule. You can count on Robin rising to the challenge, which she considers another exciting venture in her colorful life. And you can also count on continuing to read Robin's posts here at Women in Crime Ink. Congratulations, Robin!

Tweet

A Double Life, A Single Mission: A True Believing Prosecutor

by Robin Sax

OK, I’ll admit it. My kids know that they can’t pull any of the usual tricks when it comes to their Mom. Why? Because I happen to be a D.A. At the end of the day when I arrive home, my briefcase stuffed with cases of wayward children and adults, I have to shift gears from “Robin Sax, D.A.” to become, simply, “Mom” to three kids, ages 5 through 17.

Except that in some ways, I don’t shift gears.

I guess the force that drives me to be the best I can be at what I do –seeking justice for my clients, L.A. County’s residents—also drives me to be the best (but not perfect, 'cause there is no such thing) parent I can be. After fifteen years on the job, I’ve seen enough examples of flawed parenting and its consequences to have a good idea of what works, and what doesn’t when it comes to kids.

But these flaws don’t just pop up in court—I’ve seen the same mistakes and their outcomes in every community I traverse, regardless of income bracket. And I traverse a lot!

If you follow me after I drop off my kids each morning, you’ll understand why they toe the line –even when they don’t necessarily want to—and show me the love and respect that, as a parent, I deserve, just as you do.

After I leave the kids at school, I head east to L.A.’s Criminal Court Building (the CCB). As I drive, the landscape changes dramatically--Starbucks is replaced by bail bonds shops; billboards shift from English to Korean, to Spanish, to Japanese; people go from waiting at bus stops to being passed out at bus stops. During this ride, I think about how lucky I am that my kids have no concept of the life I am about to enter—that is, assuming I get to court on time!

Few people can wrap their minds around how a Los Angeles west side mom can go downtown, work in the trenches of the Los Angeles crime scene, and come back to “safe territory,” then go back out and do the same thing the next day.

My “co-madres” (other moms) in my personal life cannot picture my court life and my colleagues cannot fathom the details of my private life. And yet, in both of these environments, I find myself dealing with complaints about the growing problems adults are having with kids today. I’ve come to realize that there are far more similarities between these seemingly “polar opposite” worlds than one might imagine.

If you were to take a peek into my kids’ classrooms, you would find that they attend school with the offspring of celebrities, agents, athletes, and other influential folks, including a state senator, a football team owner, and a few highfliers from the Fortune Top 100.

To many of you, this will seem pretty impressive. But parenting these more privileged kids involves dealing with the same types of problems that confront other parents--low self-image, family problems, academic pressures, student rivalries, to name just a few. Walk into my courtroom on any day and you’ll find that these themes—so familiar to every parent--come up in the children’s cases I handle.

Because I work so closely with kids, my family is convinced that somehow I have superpowers that allow me to see things and know things that other parents can’t possibly see or know. They assume I have night vision, surveillance skills--even a built-in lie detector.

The fact is, I don’t have super powers or secret information. Nor do I have night vision or a built-in lie detector--but I love the fact that my kids think I do. My powers come in the form of skills and techniques learned from living in the trenches of the real world of conflict and crime.

As Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County, California, it’s my job to uncover the truth in some of the meanest and messiest situations conceivable and to try to ensure that justice is done. In order to protect the most vulnerable of victims--kids--I interview, investigate, uncover facts, and evaluate evidence.

Sometimes I prosecute, argue, and convict. Sometimes I cut people a break, offering alternatives to jail or fines. Sometimes I simply wait for further developments.

In brief, I live and thrive in a world of investigation, conflict, and resolution. My world is the world of discipline, fairness, and making sure that the best interests of children come first.

When I tell people that I spend my days prosecuting child molesters, a barrage of questions ensues: “How do you do it?” . . . “How do you sleep at night?” . . . “How do you trust anybody with your own kids?” . . . And finally, “I could never do your job.”

But the fact is, I believe that being a D.A. is the greatest job in the world. I love my work and I love that I never need to compromise my values.

So how do I merge both of my worlds? Since I’ve made a career of assessing what is in the best interest of society, It’s only logical that I would extend this theory to how I raise my own children.

Tweet