Jump to content
MercurialCannibal

Debt to Society Paid?: Luke Heimlich

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AverageGuy said:

A registry doesn't make sense to me. I started a topic a few years ago about a tent city growing up under a bridge in Miami because it was literally the only place in the county not near a park, school, etc. It actually led to a rise in parole violations and people falling off the registry. If we can't trust sex offenders to rehabilitate, we should make their sentence mandatory life in prison without possibility of parole.

But a professional baseball player? Lots of people never see those dreams fulfilled. Weighed against a survivor having to see a public figure, my visceral response is, "Tough shit."

"Tough shit" to who? The survivor or the player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had he committed his crime in Oregon, he wouldn't be a student-athlete at OSU. He'd be in prison. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2017/06/clackamas_county_district_atto.html

Quote

"People should know that in Oregon this is a very serious crime," he said. "Molesting a girl or a child of any age, but particularly a young girl over two years makes it even worse. It's not a one-time event. This is significant. This would be a significant crime in our office if we were to receive it and our No. 1 priority would be proportional punishment and working with the victim to make sure there was a sense of justice for the victim.

"We'd take into consideration this young person's age -- this pitcher's age, he was 15 when it started -- but he would go to prison in Oregon. He'd go to the juvenile correctional facility. It's a Measure 11 crime, it carries a mandatory minimum sentence. If he had been sentenced when he was 15 in Oregon, he would still be in prison finishing his sentence. That's how significant it is.

"This is not some little thing. It's easy to diminish this, but our laws and our voters view this as a very serious crime. I don't mean this as any malice toward this young person. That's not what this is about... society views these crimes, especially over an extended period against such a young person, a vulnerable person, as serious. I hope people will talk about this first, especially before baseball."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't much care for the idea that we should seek to control the level of career or financial success this kid might obtain. It seems to me the press and the free market more or less did its' job in that regard, at least insofar as this draft went. I would be cool with a requirement that folks like this should have to dedicate a percentage of their income to some sort of endowment or charitable organization that is dedicated to aiding victims of this sort of abuse. Not sure how that would work, but it seems much more reasonable than saying he can never be an MLB player, or whatever. I think the court of public opinion as well as the MLB will likely sort out the risk/reward of signing someone who has this sort of crime hanging over their head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

 

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I don't much care for the idea that we should seek to control the level of career or financial success this kid might obtain. It seems to me the press and the free market more or less did its' job in that regard, at least insofar as this draft went. I would be cool with a requirement that folks like this should have to dedicate a percentage of their income to some sort of endowment or charitable organization that is dedicated to aiding victims of this sort of abuse. Not sure how that would work, but it seems much more reasonable than saying he can never be an MLB player, or whatever. I think the court of public opinion as well as the MLB will likely sort out the risk/reward of signing someone who has this sort of crime hanging over their head. 

I don't know much about the MLB as an organization, but looking at the NFL, for instance, it's clear to me that the general approach of leaving this to the court of public opinion and a professional sports organization is not going to stop many, many terrible criminals from being celebrated members of said organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

I don't know much about the MLB as an organization, but looking at the NFL, for instance, it's clear to me that the general approach of leaving this to the court of public opinion and a professional sports organization is not going to stop many, many terrible criminals from being celebrated members of said organization. 

Yeah, I think you're right insofar as the NFL is concerned. If this kid was an NFL prospect, I have to believe that he likely would've been drafted. In this particular case though, it does appear that the MLB exercised an acceptable level of moral judgment. By all the metrics supplied by scouts and the like, this kid should've been drafted sometime in the 2nd round. I guess what I'm trying to express here is that there is a risk/reward assessment that these teams do in regards to drafting these types of players. They know that there will be some measure of public backlash and they weigh that against the potential skill of the player. In this case I guess it was fortunate that this story gained some steam prior to the draft. In this case it was an effective counter. As Kair posited earlier, if this fades into the background and this kid has a successful college campaign next season, that could all change. I'm not sure what the answer here is, but the court of public opinion seems to have worked this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I don't much care for the idea that we should seek to control the level of career or financial success this kid might obtain. It seems to me the press and the free market more or less did its' job in that regard, at least insofar as this draft went. I would be cool with a requirement that folks like this should have to dedicate a percentage of their income to some sort of endowment or charitable organization that is dedicated to aiding victims of this sort of abuse. Not sure how that would work, but it seems much more reasonable than saying he can never be an MLB player, or whatever. I think the court of public opinion as well as the MLB will likely sort out the risk/reward of signing someone who has this sort of crime hanging over their head. 

Why does that seem more reasonable? On focusing so much on the rehabilitation of a criminal you forget his victim. What about her? And being confronted with a public person who abused you and likely caused lasting psychological damage 'getting to' be rich and successful ? Why is it more reasonable to let him do whatever he wants than say the best outcome is he lives a quiet life and attempts to help his community. You can argue the large donations would be a help to further victims and help to his community but it seemed like you were putting his rehabitation over the recovery of the victim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Why does that seem more reasonable? On focusing so much on the rehabilitation of a criminal you forget his victim. What about her? And being confronted with a public person who abused you and likely caused lasting psychological damage 'getting to' be rich and successful ? Why is it more reasonable to let him do whatever he wants than say the best outcome is he lives a quiet life and attempts to help his community. You can argue the large donations would be a help to further victims and help to his community but it seemed like you were putting his rehabitation over the recovery of the victim. 

I think we enter risky territory when we start demanding certain people, even criminals, lead a certain kind of life. If he chose to lead a quiet life helping his community that would be great, but demanding he lead that life feels very iffy to me. And nobody here is saying that he deserves to have an MLB career, only that there shouldn't be institutional rules forbidding it. He doesn't "get to" be rich and successful, but he should be allowed to pursue his chosen career, and potential employers should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to employ him. And I am not trying to prioritize his rehabilitation over his victim's recovery; I just think that as a society we can hope for and work towards both. I don't believe it has to be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Why does that seem more reasonable? On focusing so much on the rehabilitation of a criminal you forget his victim. What about her? And being confronted with a public person who abused you and likely caused lasting psychological damage 'getting to' be rich and successful ? Why is it more reasonable to let him do whatever he wants than say the best outcome is he lives a quiet life and attempts to help his community. You can argue the large donations would be a help to further victims and help to his community but it seemed like you were putting his rehabitation over the recovery of the victim. 

I'm not meaning to put his rehab over the victim's recovery. I'm not sure you can really do that in any objective sense.I think the way things shook out was more reasonable than having some sort of law that would bar the perpetrator from being a professional athlete. It was more organic the way things played out. It would make perfect sense to bar him from any job that involved the supervision or teaching of children for sure, but I'm not sure how financial success or prestige plays into this other than not wanting to expose the victim to the perp's success or notoriety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far he is undrafted and on his way to the college world series again. And claiming he never actually did the thing as the draft and CWS approached this year.

https://www.twincities.com/2018/06/04/john-shipley-luke-heimlich-entitled-to-move-on-not-if-his-victim-cant/

May he go undrafted and unsigned and fades into obscurity for the sake of the now 12 year old girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is well phrased:

Quote

You know who deserves to move on? The victim. And she will find it difficult. Every victim of sexual assault does. She has, in fact, been handed a life sentence of struggling to retain her self-esteem, build relationships and trust others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow baseball at all, but I wouldn't want to see a guy like this playing for any of my clubs in other sports I do follow.

The guy is either a despicable human being or he need professional help to overcome his mental health issues. One would make him unworthy of making millions while living his dream, the other would suggest he has bigger fish to fry than playing sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 10:42 PM, Theda Baratheon said:

Why does that seem more reasonable? On focusing so much on the rehabilitation of a criminal you forget his victim.

To some extent, yes. But rehabilitation is really about trying to prevent recidivism. While it seems unfair for a victim that a criminal might carry on their life and find success and happiness, it makes no sense to destroy a criminal's life permanently if that means they become more likely to commit crimes again.
A different way to put it is that society is supposed to ensure someone who has committed a crime is no longer a threat to society. The problem in this case is that letting the criminal become a productive member of society also means that they get wealth and fame ; though since he had to give that up, I'm not sure what the problem here is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In case anyone is interested Sports Illustrated just recently had a cover story about this issue a year later which is here.

There was a reaction piece in Huffington Post here about how media should (or struggle to) handle situations like this.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Triskele said:

In case anyone is interested Sports Illustrated just recently had a cover story about this issue a year later which is here.

There was a reaction piece in Huffington Post here about how media should (or struggle to) handle situations like this.  

Didn’t think much of the HuffPost article. The reason this is a story is the crime and the talent. It’s integral to the story, and the sports illustrated article seems to do well at balancing this. 

I think he should be allowed to play. You either believe in rehabilitation or you don’t. If you do, picking and choosing based on how well they do in society seems wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking News: ants defends admitted kiddie diddler. 

What's next? Gonna point out Woody Allen has been banished from home long enough?

Your laziness and corrupted motivation to argue the point left the only actual defense of the character in question on the cutting room floor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's gone undrafted again. 

The thing is, he went to college so he has his second chance at  a career. If He can take that education and get a job. Professional sports is not a given for anyone. If he didn't pick a worthwhile major and continued to put all his eggs in the mlb basket, that's on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

He's gone undrafted again. 

The thing is, he went to college so he has his second chance at  a career. If He can take that education and get a job. Professional sports is not a given for anyone. If he didn't pick a worthwhile major and continued to put all his eggs in the mlb basket, that's on him. 

So rehabilitation is only your terms?

if he’d done a “worthwhile” major, and become very successful should he be stopped? If he becomes a doctor and writes a paper or invents something which makes him famous, should his doctorate then be revoked? His ideas banned or forced to be anonymous, his money taken from him so he can’t benefit from his success? If he becomes an authour, journalist, screenwriter can he use his own name and keep his money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he should be allowed to play. That doesn't mean however than any teams should/would pick him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×