Scott Brown/Sex Offender Issue Too Important For One-Day Posting

"Don't endanger me, Scott Brown!"

The issue as to whether Senator Scott Brown (D-MA) is willing to reveal the identity of the criminal that molested him as a child is too important to post about for only day.

The talk radio airwaves in Boston were abuzz yesterday with discussion of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). The one-time Tea Party darling who shocked the nation by winning Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in 2010 had been fading from the public spotlight of late. For a short while, Brown was the 41st GOP Senator and consequently, his was the vote that could kill any Democratic Party bills. That all changed last November when the Republicans captured a few more Senate seats and Brown’s vote was no longer so critical. Brown also lost favor with the Tea Baggers when he sided with the Democrats on a number of bills including the financial reform regulation bill. Moreover, his intentional absence from Sarah Palin’s Boston Tea Party rally last April sealed his fate as a Tea Party has-been.

So, why all the recent interest in all things Scott Brown? The reason is simple. He released his memoir on Monday which is titled, “Against All Odds: My Life of Hardship, Fast Breaks, and Second Chances”. Heck, the title alone takes up the first few pages of text. The book itself however, is not what thrust Brown into the limelight once again. Rather, it was the press release which preceded the book last week wherein Brown revealed for the first time that he had been a victim of childhood sexual abuse on at least three occasions and by two different deviants. By including that bit of personal red meat in the pre-publication release, there is no denying that the revelation was intended to launch sales of his book.

Indeed, despite the other stories about a poor childhood, a history of youthful crime, some basketball, the military and his nude modeling, it was the sexual abuse that was the bombshell. Suddenly Brown appeared on Sunday night’s “60 Minutes”, “The View” and of course on “Fox News” and the discussion always turned to the sexual abuse. There are of course, fewer things more personally devastating to a child than sexual molestation and anybody who was subjected to such treatment deserves much sympathy. The fact that Brown not only overcame it, but then excelled at so many things thereafter is an example of true dedication.

Nevertheless, Brown is now unexpectedly receiving a great deal of blow-back in his own backyard. When asked by local television station WBZ if he would pursue his alleged sexual abuser, Brown said, “I have more important things to do… he’s probably in his 70s today.” Brown has even refused to identify the camp counselor that sexually abused him and declined a request by the Cape Cod & Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe to pursue an investigation to find the abuser and stop him. Brown’s post-publication words and actions are not sitting well with his constituents. Nor should they.

Brown has now painted himself into a corner. He had every right to keep his sexual abuse to himself as a matter of personal privacy. Indeed, he admitted last week, that until the release of his book, he never mentioned the molestation to anyone including his mother and wife. That was his prerogative, but as soon as Brown publicized the abuse in his memoir, the rules changed. The criminal allegations have now been made public by Brown and there are resultant ramifications and obligations which must be addressed. Scott Brown now has a moral duty to reveal the identity of his abuser if for no other reason than to prevent this sexual predator from hurting more children. It makes no difference that the criminal is “probably in his 70′s” because there are countless examples of convicted sexual predators in that age range. Additionally, inasmuch as sex offenders tend to repeat their crimes, it is likely that an identification made by a victim with Brown’s stature would urge any other past victims to come forward. Scott Brown’s silence is enabling an alleged child molester to remain on the loose. In short, Brown is personally profiting from his revelations of sexual molestation while doing nothing to prevent other children from suffering the same sexual abuse by the same deviant. That is not the type of leadership we expect from a United States Senator.

All of this also reminds us of Scott Brown’s decision just last autumn to endorse a fellow Republican, state Representative Jeffrey Perry, in his bid to replace Democratic Representative William Delahunt in Congress. During the campaign, it was revealed that Perry, while he was an officer with the Wareham (MA) Police Dept., allegedly covered up the actions of a fellow officer who was eventually found guilty of conducting illegal strip searches of two teen-aged girls allegedly in the presence of Perry. The Boston Globe reported, “One victim, who allowed herself to be identified by her maiden name, Lisa Allen, said in a late-October statement opposing Perry’s election that the then-Wareham sergeant “had to hear me screaming and crying” as Officer Scott Flanagan put his hand down the 14-year-old’s pants and ordered her to lift her bra after he, Perry, and another officer came upon a group of teens suspected of using drugs near a cranberry bog in 1991. Arguing Perry lacked the character to serve in such high office, Allen said: “Perry did not care about protecting teen-aged girls in Wareham from police officer Flanagan. Jeff Perry cared only about protecting police officer Flanagan.” Perry lost the election to Democrat William Delahunt.

Scott Brown endorsed Perry but never directly addressed the former officer’s involvement in the cover-up of the molestation. Rather, he criticized Perry’s opponent for making the subject known. In fact, Brown said, “It’s to the point: ‘Bill, stop with the dirty politics”. Wouldn’t you think that as the result of also having been sexually molested as a child, that Brown would not have considered the female victim’s statements and Delahunt’s criticism as merely “dirty politics”? Wouldn’t Brown have identified with the victim and perhaps second-guessed his endorsement. He did not. Brown simply towed the Republican Party line and supported Perry, and he has now politicized his own sexual molestation and is padding his wallet while doing so. And all this happens while a child molester remains at large because Brown refuses to identify him.

Senator Brown cannot have it both ways. It is morally abhorrent for him to profit by means of publicizing his own childhood sexual molestation and then to claim that he wants to keep the identity of the perpetrator a private matter. His book made this a public matter, and victims may be mounting as Scott Brown selfishly protects a child molester by refusing to identify him.

Scott Brown will need more than the Tea Party to win re-election in 2012. Massachusetts Republicans and Democrats may disagree on many issues, but protecting sexual offenders is not one of them.

SAME POST BUT NEW SONG PARODY!

Please remember to click on the song link below to familiarize yourselves with the tune and to have more fun singing along with today’s topical song parody. Enjoy!

I’M DOWN (ON SCOTT BROWN)

(sung to the Beatles song “I’m Down”)

Scott’s tellin’ lies thinking I can’t see
That nude guy is so blind he can’t see
I’m down (I’m really down)
I’m down (Down on Scott Brown)
I’m down (I’m really down)
Watch as I laugh at that nude Scott Brown
(Watch as I laugh) When we vote him down

We’ll all sing when he’s voted away
Brown’s short fling will be over in days
I’m down (I’m really down)
I’m down (Down on Scott Brown)
I’m down (I’m really down)
Watch as I laugh at that nude Scott Brown
(Watch as I laugh) When we vote him down

Once he’s dethroned, he’ll be all by himself
Scott will moan: “They wanted someone else!”
I’m down (I’m really down)
Let’s vote him down (Vote down Scott Brown)
Scott Brown (He’s goin’ down)
Watch as I laugh at that nude Scott Brown
(Watch as I laugh) When we vote him down

(Wow! Scott’s goin’ down!)

Whoo, baaby!

Oh Scott, you’re soon going down (He’s goin’ down)
I guess your down (He’s really down)
We’re down on Scott Brown (He’s goin’ down)
Scott! Brown! (He’s goin’ down)
Let’s hang him upside down
Oh yeh, yeh, yeh, yeh, yeh, he’s down (He’s really down)
Scott baby you’re down (He’s really down)
Let’s hang him upside down (Let’s watch him frown)
Ooh, that Brown (He’s such a clown)
Scott baby you’re down, yeh
Scott baby you’re down, yeh
Scottie, you’re down (You’re really down)
Scott baby you’re down (You’re goin’ down)
Oh, Scottie, Scottie, Scottie! (You’re goin’ down)
Oh, Scottie you’re down (You’re goin’ down)
You’re down, down, down, down, down, down, down, down,  yeh, whoa!!!

Advertisements

Posted on February 24, 2011, in Scott Brown, Songs and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. Scott is a teabagger.

  2. Just saying, It could be a lie or a huge exageration just to put a little fluff in his book. I had a tiny event in my past as a kid but holy crap, no harm was done, nothing really even happened. But in todays world it would easily be enough to destroy someones life if brought out in public. I’d never ever think of calling this out after all these years and how the hell do you prove it happened?. I know someone who’s life has been destroyed publicly in Calif.

    • My feeling is that if it is a lie or huge exaggeration to sell books, then Brown must fess-up now. He opened up this can of worms by publishing either a lie or he is protecting a criminal. If it truly happened and Brown realized that prosecution would be difficult at this point in time, then he should not have published it and worse yet, he should not have used the molestation as part of his book’s press release. Brown is wrong either way. This guy must go.

      • I agree one hundred percent. He opened his own can of worms. He’s an idiot!

      • Hmm, the real can of worms was having this guy win in MA, emboldening the Teabaggers, and having the Rs use the idiots to win big in the 2010 elections. We are facing the repercussions now. See Madison, WI, the bozos in the House going after Planned Parenthood instead of job creation, the effect on redistricting, etc. Elections matter, unfortunately we are getting a real world dose of what happens when there is corruption that is rampant by looking at the riots around the world as people look for self determination and here in the US, we have complete idiots like the “I am not a Witch O’Donnell and “Don’t breast feed your kid” Bachmann and “I’m a quitting, lying fraud” Palin to add to the idiot R men who have cheated on their wives while sanctimoniously trying to tell women what to do with their uterus. I hate these bastards and know men in their 60s who have said they will never vote for a R again. Welcome to the new world order.

  3. No harm no foul

    Agree with Micky-T: the publisher probably insisted Brown spice up an otherwise pretty dull story- he’s not exactly Winston Churchill.

    And since when do we pay attention to the details in politicians’ memoirs? Rumsfeld has been hawking his memoir, “Not my fault”, in which he claims no responsibility for the Iraq Disaster and nobody’s bothering him!

  4. Against all odds

    One thing that never changes in Washington is the difference in metabolism between the House and Senate. Have you ever watched pet-rehabilitation shows like “The Dog Whisperer”? The House is the deranged Pomeranian that yelps and throws itself against the window and tears up the upholstery 24/7. The Senate, meanwhile, is like a narcoleptic Great Dane you can hardly rouse for dinner.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/opinion/24collins.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

  5. Our site deals with FALSE allegations of child sexual abuse, but clearly, we have no appreciation for anyone who protects a molester. Thus we have reprinted your article in relevant part on our site along with your link and our header: Is Protecting Child Molesters Good Public Policy?

  6. Just a thought, but with the virtual certainty that whoever he named would end up on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life–and no, no proof is needed; an accusation is sufficient for charges to be brought and guilt to be assessed–I would think long and hard about doing that to someone after all of these years. The time to have reported it would have been when it happened, although most children understandably find this very difficult. Once reported, charged, and dealt with in the criminal justice system, this type of offender has an extremely low rate of recidivism. That didn’t happen, but, contrary to comments in the article, the offender’s age does reduce his risk to a significant degree. There is also, as pointed out, the possibility of exaggaration. If there were no public registry, if a first time offender could be charged, dealt with appropriately, and when all conditions were met and finished, be able to reintegrate back into the community just like a person who has committed any other crime on earth and finished his sentence, I truly believe there would be a significant increase in reporting instances of child sexual abuse.

    • Thank you for your insightful comment, but I disagree with you on a number of points.

      First of all, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts no person can be placed on any level of the sex offender registry without either a guilty verdict or a guilty plea. The state’s court system and constitution is much more liberally oriented than most states and consequently there is very little-to-no chance that a defendant could be found guilty merely on an accusation without proof. Indeed, the appeals court would be likely to reverse a verdict from an emotionally enflamed or biased jury.

      Additionally, in Massachusetts the statute of limitations for bringing an action is tolled until a child reaches the age of 18. The system realizes that children might fail to report things for a number of different reasons when they are younger than that age.

      I agree with you that convicted sex offenders have a much lesser rate of recidivism than “other” felony offenders, but it would appear that the conviction is the important variable. In the case of Scott Brown, inasmuch as he failed (and continues to refuse to identify) to report the crime, there was no conviction and consequently the chances for his particular offender to repeat were and remain higher. Additionally, although statistics reveal that advanced age does reduce the chances of repeat sexual crimes, those chances are not reduced to zero. They would be reduced to zero however, while the molester was incarcerated. In Brown’s case there is no incarceration and the offender remains a risk to other children.

      As for your point about the possibility of “exaggeration”, I agree that Brown may have exaggerated the episode. If so, then shame on him. His reckless exaggeration should be exposed by pressure on him to reveal the whole story, in which case, he should be held accountable not only in the voting booth, but also in the court of public opinion.

      I also agree with you that the sex offender registry should be refined. Presently, someone can be labeled a level one offender merely for a conviction of urinating in public.

      Thank you once again for your comment.

  7. And thank you for your courtesy. People do from time to time take issue with my point of view on this subject but never before so politely. I fully agree with your 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs, and I commend you and your state if what you say in the second is true. Sadly, it is not true in all states; too often when the alleged victim is a child or teen, an alleged offender is heavily persuaded–coerced is not too strong a word to use here–into taking a plea. He is convinced that if it goes to trial, the verdict will be guilty and the sentence much more than the plea offer, and he is generally correct. The child or young teen saying, “He touched me,” is more than adequate. The Innocence Project has undertaken and successfully defended individuals who went to prison because they refused to admit to something they did not do, insisted on a jury trial, and were found guilty in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. In more than one case the prosecutors refused to open the case again even after the child “victim,” years later, recanted. That might make an interesting story for you to research and write.
    Thank you for your comments to me.

    • Good point. Even in Massachusetts many year’s ago we had the now infamous Amireault day-care case. In that case the court ruled that the defendants did not have the right to confront their accusers in court. That ruling has now thankfully been reversed by the appeal process and the convictions were overturned after many years. The case was a black mark on Massachusetts jurisprudence for some time.

      The Scott Brown matter however, is not on point. The accuser would no longer be an easily influenced child but rather a middle aged US Senator.

  8. When I first heard this, it sickened me. If he was molested, he is now a grown up and has a responsibility to others. Since he has admitted to it, then he should be protecting other victims. I voted for this man, and if he can’t name the person, and protect future child molestation then…….. Not all sex offenders mostly re-offend. There is an obligation here. But then again there is politics, and sex offender, they kind of go together like taxes and politicians. You think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: