O'Reilly misrepresented SF Chronicle's objections to sex offender bill
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly falsely portrayed a San Francisco Chronicle editorial -- about California's proposed "Jessica's Law" -- as based only on concerns for the civil rights of sex offenders. In fact, the editorial was strongly in favor of increased child protection but questioned the effectiveness of the proposed law.
Bill O'Reilly quoted a San Francisco Chronicle editorial out of context in order to misrepresent the Chronicle's objections to a child molester bill and to claim that "the protection of children in America" from sexual predators has become "a liberal versus conservative issue." On the January 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly falsely portrayed the Chronicle editorial's criticism of California's proposed "Jessica's Law" -- a mandatory minimum sentencing law for child molesters -- as based only on concerns for the civil rights of sex offenders. In fact, the editorial was strongly in favor of increased child protection but questioned the effectiveness of the proposed Jessica's Law.
O'Reilly claimed during the "Talking Points Memo" portion of the January 19 program that "[v]irtually all opposition to Jessica's Law ... is coming from the left." As an example, he quoted a January 19 editorial from the "liberal" San Francisco Chronicle:
O'REILLY: For example the liberal San Francisco Chronicle today said this, quote, "For parents, no issue is as great as their children's safety. It's time for elected officials to tone down the rhetoric and get to work on an effective alternative to the seriously flawed 'Jessica's Law.' "
He then asserted:
O'REILLY: The Chronicle doesn't like the law because once a sexual predator is released from prison, that person's movements and living quarters would be monitored by the state.
O'Reilly's excerpt was the last sentence of the editorial and omitted any mention of the actual reasons the Chronicle argued against passage of California's version of "Jessica's Law," proposed in both California houses by Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, husband and wife, and recently rejected in committee by both the California Assembly and Senate.
The Chronicle detailed several potential problems with the law. First, it described concern that residency restrictions would force offenders into rural communities, though it did note that Sen. Runner discounted that concern as "totally bogus." Second, the editorial noted that "[a]n 80-page analysis" of the bill "raised myriad other questions about the potential side effects of its extensive rewrite of sentencing laws." From these "potential side effects," the Chronicle wrote specifically of "various problems with satellite tracking of parolees -- including reliability problems that cause law enforcement to chase many false alarms." It is this worry that prompted the Chronicle to state: "There is good reason to question the value of such an extensive monitoring program proposed in the Runners' bills."
The editorial did mention "concerns about its [the bill's] civil-liberties implications," but only in the same sentence as the bill's "great potential for unintended consequences." For these reasons, the Chronicle also wrote that it opposed the Runners' attempt to put the measure on California's public ballot. The Chronicle said that "[t]he ballot box is no place to settle an issue of this complexity and importance to public safety." Rather, the editorial urged legislators to look to alternative bills promoting child safety:
Instead, all legislators committed to being effective against crime should work together for a more targeted measure to reduce the danger to our children. Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has introduced an alternative (AB50) that increases prison terms and parole for certain sex offenses against minors, directs more resources into prevention programs and tightens conditions on parolees -- including restrictions on entering schoolyards, playgrounds, video arcades or other areas frequented by minors. The legislative analysis of AB50 notes that California is one of only 11 states without an in-prison treatment program for sex offenders.
O'Reilly has repeatedly misquoted and falsely attacked newspaper editorials on laws regarding sex offenders. In May 2005, O'Reilly misquoted a Houston Chronicle editorial on a "Jessica's Law" in Florida. O'Reilly falsely claimed that the editorial said the law was "too harsh" on convicted sex offenders; in fact, the editorial questioned the effectiveness of the safeguards put in place once the convicts are released on parole. O'Reilly later apologized for misquoting the editorial but continued to criticize it. In September 2005, O'Reilly falsely characterized a Hartford Courant editorial as opposing mandatory minimum prison sentences for child sex offenders. In fact, the editorial did not take a position on mandatory minimums; rather, it explored proposals for enhancing post-incarceration monitoring of convicted sex offenders' movements.
From the January 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Since I am very tired of ideologues on both sides smearing their opponents, I was hoping the protection of children in America would not become a liberal versus conservative issue, but it has. Virtually all opposition to Jessica's Law, which mandates strict prison terms for felony battery on a child, is coming from the left.
For example the liberal San Francisco Chronicle today said this, quote, "For parents, no issue is as great as their children's safety. It's time for elected officials to tone down the rhetoric and get to work on an effective alternative to the seriously flawed 'Jessica's Law.' "
The Chronicle doesn't like the law because once a sexual predator is released from prison, that person's movements and living quarters would be monitored by the state.
Now reasonable people can sharpen any law, but left-wing opposition to drastic punishment for child molesters is misguided.
Hasn't he totally misrepresented this before?
No seriously, this sounds really familiar. Didn't O'Reilly do the same thing about a year ago with another (the same?) editorial?
For certain the winner of 'Most Important Topic' in an election year; as evidenced by the disgusting exploitation of of it by Bill O'Reilly and other such quivering sensationalists such as he.
(Nobody questions why someone would raise this as a topic of conversation?)
Ideologues on both sides? I personally have vowed to protect my child and NEVER let them watch Bill, at a medium pace , O'Rielly.
Fly, don't forget to make certain your kids don't get hold O'Lielly's book, too. God only knows the damage that can inflict on a young person's mind.
No Bill you set out to MAKE things a left vs right issue. Then, in what I'm sure your think is a genius move, you give the right the obviously moral side and tell everyone the left is on the other. Of course you have to lie to do that, but lying isn't immoral, only questioning GOP policy is right?
How anyone can argue against Jessica's law is scary. And it is true that the only ones arguing against the law are on the left. First sexual offense on a child: 25 years to life.
I know that most people who advocate for tougher sentencing have the best intentions (not you, uebermeister, your partisan comment gives you away) but you have to be careful with these laws because they can have the opposite effect you are looking for by making it harder to get a conviction for a number of reasons. I work in the field of child protection, have seen the details of literally hundreds of these cases and have sat in on prosecutor strategy sessions. Believe me, I would love to see these guys get put away for the rest of their lives, but I am too much aware of the realities of the situation to see this as a simple matter.
First hurdle: remember that most perpetrators keep this a secret between them and their victim, so it is basically a he-said, she-said situation - except that the "she" is a child (usually, though it can be reversed or a same-sex situation). So you are very dependent on the child's disclosure of the incident. Most perpetrators are known to the child and are either a friend or a relative. The perpetrator will often remind the child that he could be put in jail for a long time if she tells. Though she may want the molestation to stop, she may find it difficult to disclose if she knows it may mean severe consequences for a family member or friend. If she is older, perhaps pre-teen, she may even think she is in love with him. So she may be less likely to tell.
Second hurdle: if she does tell, she then becomes the most important, perhaps the only, witness for the prosecution. In many cases the goal of prosecutors is to get a good enough disclosure from the victim that they can pressure the perpetrator to confess and plead guilty, thus sparing the victim the trauma of having to testify. However, if the consequences for pleading guilty are severe enough and certain enough because of "get tough" laws and mandatory sentencing, the perpetrator will be more likely to take his chances with a trial in the hopes of getting off. And his attorney will be making every attempt to make the child look like she is lying or fantasizing.
Finally, if the punishment is severe and mandatory and there is no possibility for any kind of treatment of the perpetrator, it may take less effort on the part of the defense attorney to convince the jury that there is a reasonable doubt because of the age of the child and the fact that she is the only witness. These trials are very difficult to prosecute in most cases and very difficult for the child to have to take part in.
Lock em up! Child molesters should get life as far as I am concerned. There are two crimes u can't justify ever. Rape and molestation. Cause there is no reason for it. U can justify murder but not that. Our laws against them are too light. They aint sick. Someone slinging crack gets 30 years. Child rapist gets 30 days. Is this justice?
Okay, maybe I have to take back my statement about most people who want harsher sentences having good intentions. Maybe you just like the appearance of "getting tougher" and don't care what the unintended consequences are.
When you only have a hammer in your toolbox, then every problem becomes a nail. Describes the "lock 'em up" mentality pretty well, I think.