Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Justice in Reading, Pennsylvania
Reader Steven Haver points to two stories from yesterday's Reading Eagle that apparently ran on opposing pages:
The first story is about Jeffrey Madeira, who was convicted and served time for taking explicit photos of a then-17-year-old woman. The woman is now his wife. Madeira failed to notify local authorities when he moved, as he's required to do as a registrant on Pennsylvania's sex offender list. After he was convicted for failing to notify, a judge went "easy" on Madeira, sentencing him to one to three years in prison. An appeals court overruled, and said the judge was mandated by law to sentence Madeira to a minimum of three additional years in prison.
The other story is about Jason Wink, a police officer who was fired after wagging his penis at a superior and in front of another officer. I'm not familiar with Pennsylvania law, but I would think that exposing yourself to co-workers in an office environment would qualify as some sort of crime, likely a sex offense. But Wink was never charged, only fired. This week, an arbitrator ruled Wink must be reinstated with full back pay and seniority. Despite the fact that Wink had prior disciplinary problems, the arbitrator found that "officials did not meet the progressive disciplinary guidelines, which involve a series of verbal and written warnings." Apparently, the first and possibly second penis-waggings are free.
I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about what these two cases say about proportionality, justice, and equal administration of the law.
Rich|9.17.09 @ 1:06PM|#
a police officer who was fired after wagging his
penis
Probably taken out of context. [Wink, Wink!]
WWJGD|9.17.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Quick, someone go to Laureldale and wave their penis at a cop at the police station and compare/contrast the results with Mr. Wink.
Jozef|9.17.09 @ 1:10PM|#
I've drawn my own conclusions and started stockpiling water and canned beans for the inevitable revolution.
|9.17.09 @ 1:12PM|#
I've drawn my own conclusions and started stockpiling water
and canned beans
Looks like you have the gas covered too. :^)
de minimus non curat lex|9.17.09 @ 1:16PM|#
what these two cases say about proportionality
Cop was awarded seniority, wasn't he?
|9.17.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Any cop will tell you that exposing oneself in public is the first step towards being a child molester. That guy really should be on a list somewhere.
|9.17.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about what these two cases say about proportionality, justice, and equal administration of the law.
They confirm three things I already knew.
America has a problem acknowledging the fact that teenagers are
sexual beings.
America can't differetiate between pedophilia and sex with sexually
mature minors.
America has a cop fetish that borders on pathological.
|9.17.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Was the cop wearing a kilt? If so, I don't see the problem,
especially if he had war paint on.
As for that jerk that just couldn't wait to take pictures of his
future wife until she was old enough, well, he got what was coming
to him! The state has every right to take his freedom for filing to
fill out a form.
In other news, I too am preparing for the looming uprising.
tekende|9.17.09 @ 1:32PM|#
In order to properly and fully draw my own conclusions, I'm afraid I'm going to need to inspect those pictures of Jeffrey Madeira's wife.
Abdul|9.17.09 @ 1:47PM|#
You might of have missed this:
Berks Judge Linda K.M. Ludgate sentenced Madeira, [for the
original photos] to nine to 23 months in prison and 11 years of
probation.
I don't have a big problem with photographing 17 year olds nude and
engaged in sex acts being illegal.
However, this guy got a 3 year mandatory sentence for moving
without notifying the police which was four times the minimum
sentence he got for the original sex crime. That's bizzarely
disproportionate.
|9.17.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Radley,
Have you ever thought about:
The New Professionalism Report by Radley Balko
jester|9.17.09 @ 1:51PM|#
I conclude that I should just get it over with and get myself on
the sex offenders list. At least I'll get to keep more Halloween
candy.
Let's face it, more and more people are acquiescing each year. The
only ones up in arms are the racists. Tha Carter said so.
Cal Lipigian|9.17.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Wow, that Madeira case is crazy. It turns out he had pictures of his 17 year old fiance and two of her friends aged 15 and 16. When police got a hold of the pictures, they gave them to another officer who was some relative of Madeira's, who kept it at work (!?) When it was found at this desk, they examined the cop's computer and found more child porn. Madeira and his fiance were brought up on charges as an offshoot of the larger child porn charges against the cop.
|9.17.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Apparently, the first and possibly second penis-waggings are
free.
It's a slightly different application of the same law. For
civilians it's three strikes and you're out. For law enforcement
it's three strokes and you're out.
|9.17.09 @ 1:59PM|#
a police officer who was fired after wagging his penis at a
superior and in front of another officer.
What would have happened to the superior if he had tasered Wink's
winky?
The Angry Optimist|9.17.09 @ 1:59PM|#
I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about what these two cases say about proportionality, justice, and equal administration of the law.
Jack and shit. No, seriously. The Madiera case is an absolute
outrage, but if the police officer exposed himself within the
confines of the office, what charge would you bring against
him?
This is a reach, Radley. Workplace shenanigans, within an office,
that were arbitrated. So it says absolutely *zero* about
proportionality and "equal administration of the law".
Boo.
|9.17.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Judges, other government officials, jury if it was ever involved in the case of ruining Madeira's life are immoral scumbags. They cannot excuse themselves by saying that they were just following the law. You cannot be a decent human being if you let yourself turn into a tool upholding immoral laws.
fyodor|9.17.09 @ 2:02PM|#
I don't have a big problem with photographing 17 year olds
nude and engaged in sex acts being illegal.
I have mixed feelings about, and thus don't necessarily have a
problem with, there being an age of consent (for sex). But either
18 is the age of consent in PA, which seems distinctly too high, or
else the age at which erotic photography for personal use
is criminalized is set higher than the age of consent, which is
rather, um, fucked. (Or else the guy distributed the photos
commercially? In which case Radley shouldn't have left out that
detail!)
fyodor|9.17.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Addendum to previous post: mixed feelings about age of consent somewhere in the teens. Obviously it should cover the pre-pubescent.
Jozef|9.17.09 @ 2:06PM|#
I've drawn my own conclusions and started stockpiling water
and canned beans
Looks like you have the gas covered too. :^)
Great idea! Now to only figure out how to reach high enough
pressures to liquify methane. I don't think I'd be able to hold it
in for that long...
creech|9.17.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Reading, Pa? Not surprising. Back in the day, a politician had his primary opponent thrown into the local insane asylum. Magically, the day after the election, he was cured.
|9.17.09 @ 2:38PM|#
I guess it's my own fault for not paying attention to the Balko byline before I started reading, but now my blood pressure will be dangerously elevated all afternoon.
|9.17.09 @ 2:41PM|#
How am I expected to get through the work day without wagging my penis at people?
Abdul|9.17.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Fyodor,
State laws vary on age of consent. Federal law on child porn--any
erotic pics of anyone under 18--is uniform. Therefore, you can be
prosecuted for taking pictures of your legal sex acts if you are
under 18.
|9.17.09 @ 2:51PM|#
The Madiera case is an absolute outrage, but if the police
officer exposed himself within the confines of the office, what
charge would you bring against him?
Indecent exposure, at a minimum. Any other charges that you would
bring against a non-cop who waves his tackle in a police department
as well.
fyodor|9.17.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Thank you for the info, Abdul.
But conistent with what I said before, "you can be prosecuted for
taking pictures of your legal sex acts if you are under 18" is
fucked. Even more so if the Feds are inappropriately involved!
|9.17.09 @ 2:58PM|#
How am I expected to get through the work day without
wagging my penis at people?
How indeed. If Winky weren't a cop, I'd say it could be interpreted
as a friendly gesture; a benign wave hello. Flaccidity is not
exactly super threatening.
|9.17.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Fyodor--+1 on that. It makes no sense to have different ages of consent for photographs versus actual sex. For example here in GA the age of consent for sex is 16, but the "sexual exploitation of minors" statue applies to any graphic photos depicting or being furnished to "minors," e.g. anyone under 18. Federal laws regarding graphic pictures and (thanks, Mark Foley) online solicitation also apply to those under 18. So in GA and lots of other states, you can fuck a 16 or 17 year old, just don't take dirty pictures of them or talk dirty to them online.
|9.17.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Dagny, why don't you use a better picture for your Facebook profile? Even I feel a bit embarrassed for you, and I'm a souless creature that's been damned for eternity.
|9.17.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Sug, I think you need to ask yourself why you associate that picture with flaccid penises.
|9.17.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Am I supposed to be excited by passed out drunk girls? You Canadians are twisted.
|9.17.09 @ 3:20PM|#
I mean, you said that night was special, is all... is what she
might say. And, at least my her ass looks cute.
|9.17.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Hijinks.
The decision by arbitrator Lawrence S. Coburn of Delaware County settles an appeal filed against the borough on Wink's behalf by the Laureldale Police Association.
According to the arbitration report, disciplinary action against Wink resulted from a February incident in which Wink was displeased with Cpl. Thomas R. Link's order to use a patrol vehicle Wink did not want to drive.
As Link left the squad room, Wink opened his zipper and exposed himself, the report states. Wink and Officer Vince Pacifico, who was also in the room, laughed.
Two weeks later, Pacifico reported the incident to Link, saying that he was concerned about Wink's emotional state and that Wink's conduct might be considered a crime.
Thank god the union is there to protect those poor, oppressed
cops.
|9.17.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Lies, damned lies! Cops don't have penises. Everyone knows that. No testicles either.
Joette|9.17.09 @ 4:11PM|#
So, let met get this straight. Wink wiggled his weiner at Link while Pacifico looked on with a leer?
T|9.17.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Who am I kidding? My ass is way better.
I don't think you're qualified to make that judgement. You'll need
to post pics and let us decide.
robc|9.17.09 @ 4:33PM|#
The New Professionalism Report by Radley Balko
No giving him new ideas until Yet Another Isolated
Incident gets published.
|9.17.09 @ 4:35PM|#
robc, I was thinking more of a crudely produced all-access cable show. Welch holding up cue cards and Gillespie trying not to bonk him on the head with the microphone.
Michael Ejercito|9.18.09 @ 10:11AM|#
You cannot be a decent human being if you let yourself turn into a tool upholding immoral laws.
What should the judge have done?
Resign?
Addendum to previous post: mixed feelings about age of consent somewhere in the teens. Obviously it should cover the pre-pubescent.
How do you feel about the age of consent being set to whatever age
one could bear children?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245