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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could this be a fourteenth amendment violation?
a police officer who was fired after wagging his penis
Probably taken out of context. [Wink, Wink!]
Quick, someone go to Laureldale and wave their penis at a cop at the police station and compare/contrast the results with Mr. Wink.
Police are held to higher standards, so...
I've drawn my own conclusions and started stockpiling water and canned beans for the inevitable revolution.
And then there's this.
I've drawn my own conclusions and started stockpiling water and canned beans
Looks like you have the gas covered too. :^)
what these two cases say about proportionality
Cop was awarded seniority, wasn't he?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Professionalism, Baby!
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.
Radley,
Have you ever thought about:
The New Professionalism Report by Radley Balko
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!)
Addendum to previous post: mixed feelings about age of consent somewhere in the teens. Obviously it should cover the pre-pubescent.
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...
I wag my penis in your general direction.
But Mr. Balko, this is an isolated incident.
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.
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.
How am I expected to get through the work day without wagging my penis at people?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Sug, I think you need to ask yourself why you associate that picture with flaccid penises.
Am I supposed to be excited by passed out drunk girls? You Canadians are twisted.
I mean, you said that night was special, is all... is what she might say. And, at least my her ass looks cute.
Who am I kidding? My ass is way better.
You don't have a Panama City License Plate, do you?
Hijinks.
Thank god the union is there to protect those poor, oppressed cops.
Jason Wink
Heh
Lies, damned lies! Cops don't have penises. Everyone knows that. No testicles either.
So, let met get this straight. Wink wiggled his weiner at Link while Pacifico looked on with a leer?
I took a shit in Reading once.
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.
In Soviet Union, penis wags you!
The New Professionalism Report by Radley Balko
No giving him new ideas until Yet Another Isolated Incident gets published.
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.
Indecent exposure, at a minimum.
I resemble that remark!
What should the judge have done?
Resign?
How do you feel about the age of consent being set to whatever age one could bear children?
I think you have a very informative site.
I came across this site that feature some really interesting articles featured by our experts on the bizymoms Reading community experts page.
Michael, the age of consent should probably be at 18 for sex with anyone, and under that it should be a matter of age difference that determines the penalty. Say, no punishment if their both within 3-4 years. It's something of an arbitrary line, yes, but it has to be somewhere.
After that, the sentences should be more and more severe based on the difference in age. At 5 years of difference (Assuming 4 is the legal range), it should be something like a fine and court-ordered psychological evaluation. At 6, half a year in jail along with the bottom, at 7 2 years, at 8 4 years, doubling until it reaches the current maximum sentence.