Guest Blog: The Other Side of the Story

Followers of the Musings, this guest post is unique but important.

Recently, an article ran in the local newspaper in Racine wrapping up a trial of a man who was found guilty under Wisconsin state law of being a sexually violent person, more likely than not to re-commit a sexually violent crime. The specific conviction allows the offender to be involuntarily committed to a facility (aka, kept off the street).

I'm going to disable comments on this post. It's a topic I don't want to engage in a discussion on.

The original article is linked below (opens in new window):

ARTICLE

I happen to know personally one of the victims, as well as the victim's family. They were more than a little distressed by the article above, and I will let their words explain why. There is an introduction, and then two letters to the editors of the local newspaper published below. These letters as of this date were not published in the newspaper itself, so to help their voices be heard, I offered the Musings as a platform for their side of the story.



I have edited just a small amount of what you will read below to try to maintain anonymity.

**Begin Guest Post**

*Intro from one of the victims*

I am writing on behalf of a recent article in the Racine Journal Times "Sturtevant Man Declared Sexually Violent Ordered Committed."  I was appalled at the article that basically makes the journalist sound as if she sympathizes with the man.  As one of his victims, I can tell you-I have no sympathy whatsoever.  He has hurt many people, stolen childhoods and ruined lives.  There is a part of me that is fairly sure that the journalist wasn't actually sympathizing with him.  Instead she was just lazy, and didn't bother to get a well rounded story.  She ran with the half she had, which consisted of interviews solely resting on the side of the defense.  In her laziness and apparent apathy, I wonder, did she think for a moment how her biased and incomplete article would impact the victims of his heinous crimes?  Apparently not.

*Letter from one of the victims*

I was extremely distressed and disappointed by the lack of objectivity and clear sympathy toward the defense in the article regarding the trial of John W. Sweeney. As one of his victims, having been assaulted around the age of 7, clearly I am biased. But let us not talk about my feelings. Let us talk about the facts.

I was molested, over a period of about a year, in the early 80’s. His daughter was molested for a period of two years in the early 90’s. He was convicted for this in 1995 and sentenced to ten years in prison (legally defining him as a convicted sex offender). While he was on parole in 2003 he assaulted and attempted to rape my cousin, breaking several of her ribs in the process. ALL of this evidence was discussed in testimony at the trial.

The defense and the article attempts to paint a picture of someone who made a few isolated mistakes in his youth. But if you look at the timeline, and can do simple math, you can clearly see a history of deviant sexual behavior and violence that spans more than two decades-from his late teens into his forties. If he were ever allowed freedom there is no question of IF he would hurt someone again, only a question of WHEN.

The last time he was allowed freedom was when he attempted to rape my [relative]. The only reason there are no further reports of sexual violence is because he has been confined pending the outcome of this trial. The defense and the article want you to sympathize with a man who won’t even admit to the horrible crimes he has committed. A man who once bragged to his own brother while he was in prison that the other inmates didn't know why he was there. And for good reason. Even amongst criminals it is frowned upon to
sexually molest children.

As for the remarks about him visiting a nudist camp and not sexually assaulting children; not only am I appalled that he spent time in the presence of naked children, but am completely disgusted by the biased assumption that he didn't molest any of them. How does anyone know that for sure? Was he under surveillance the whole time? Was he ever left alone with any of them? Even for a minute? If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

What was also left out is that his presence at the Nudist Camp was a violation of his parole. Also, while he was there an older couple thought he was acting very strangely and looked him up, found out he was a sex offender and made him leave.

I don’t know what else to say, except- Ask yourself this: would you want to leave him alone with your daughter or niece or granddaughter? Maybe next time the journalist should aim for a more balanced story, and at least talk to someone on the side of the prosecution. This whole sympathy for the devil bit is a waste of print.

*Letter from a member of one of the victim's family*

After reading, with increasing disgust, Kristin Zambo’s recent article about the trial of convicted child molester John W. Sweeney, it was obvious that she and several others missed the whole point of the trial. It was not an attempt to punish him again for the crimes he committed in the past. To put it simply, it was merely to determine if it was safe to let him back into society. Obviously 12 people reached the correct conclusion: it is not.

I also found it sickening that the article was slanted to show sympathy for Sweeney. Really? Did you listen to any of the testimonies? Did you take into account how often, and over how many years, his crimes took place? Does this sound like a person who has been rehabilitated?

There are several questions that I noticed no one asked: What was his status in the court system, and how old was he, the last time he assaulted someone? When he “had contact with minors years later” (direct quote from the article) was he ever alone with them? Has Sweeney shown any remorse for what he has done? And finally, would you leave him alone with your daughter or granddaughter?

**BradK's Closing Comments**

The Musings doesn't pretend to be the bastion of quality journalism that should exist at the local newspaper. I think the biggest lesson to be learned is that presenting the story without reporting on all sides of it not only shows an unbalanced story, it can suggest a bias on the part of the reporter, editors, or the newspaper organization as a whole. As much as that can hurt the reputation of the news gathering and reporting organization, it can have an even worse affect on people. In this case, people who believed they experienced some sense of closure from the outcome of the trial itself had that wound partially ripped open by what appeared to be sympathy for the offender.

I'm not going to say anything more about this, because this posting is truly about the above words of the guest poster, not me.

More Musings coming soon.....