Yesterday I wondered why Terapon Dong Adhahn wasn't deported in 1990 after he violently raped a teenaged relative. Today's P-I reports that Adhahn's earlier victim was his half-sister and explains why he avoided deportation:
Initially charged with second-degree rape in 1990, Adhahn agreed to plead guilty and the charge was reduced to first-degree incest. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and ordered to undergo five years of sex-offender treatment, which he completed in 1997That 1990 plea agreement probably seemed like a win-win to the officials who got to avoid the hassle of deportation proceedings. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 14, 2007 10:57 AM | Email This
...
A permanent legal resident can be deported for a single aggravated felony conviction, but not for a crime of moral turpitude. If a permanent resident is convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, however, that immigrant could be deported, said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Adhahn's incest conviction was not an aggravated felony. That's why it wouldn't have triggered deportation proceedings
Interesting that the prosecutor allowed Adhahn to plead to incest (a crime of sex) instead of rape (a crime of violence). We have conclusive proof that he's a violent sex offender, not just a pervert.
The libs are in full compassion mode for the perp. Where is their compassion for the Zina and her family?
Your entire post was one sentence. Not a period until the end. Are you gonna take a breath and post some more?
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2007 01:37 PMMy hunch is that they probably had little evidence and/or were worried about juror sympathy given his past abuse. It is also possible that he was arguing it was consensual and they were worried the jury would by it. Its really impossible to tell without seeing all the evidence but that seems much more likely then a County prosecutor not trying a guy for rape to save the INS some trouble.
You also can't really lay the blame for lax immigration at the feet of liberals. It was Reagen who granted amnesty and conservatives held mostly congress from 94-06 and held the presidency for half of that. Many business, farmers, and others profit a great deal from the cheap labor provided by undocumented immigrants and oppose changes.
Immigration is difficult because it spans normal constituencies and the big funders of both parties aren't really interested in major changes, whether its social justice groups on the left, or business on the right. Not to mention that any solution whether mass deportations, a wall, or amnesty is likely to make a bunch of people really really mad and both parties will suffer from their anger.
Posted by: Giffy on July 14, 2007 02:18 PMHey righties: no. 7 has it right.
Almost ALL charges get plea bargained. Not just this case.
Here the prosecutor might have had a reluctant half sister victim witness, who maybe might have had a risk of backsliding on her testimony. No duh I don't know that -- just pointing out one of the MANY factors including basic RISK OF LOSING that lead prosecutors to compromise as they do in almost ALL cases.
Amd also if you know anything at all, which you all seem to not, 99% of all civil lawsuits are compromised, too. Same reasons.
You righties are just tacking on the immigration point because that is in the news. No one has showed that local prosecutors did anything wrong.
The guy SERVED HIS SENTENCE and it was a plea DEAL-- Don't you believe a deal's a deal?
Duh, uh, if the prosecutor had said "ok here's the plea bargain ummmm, you do time then we will deport you" guess what you righties, he would not have agreed to it.
Now if your point is limited to the fact that our system is deicient because we have plea bargains, say so. Then tell me how you rare going to raise taxes 20# to pay for more cops and more prosecutors and more jails.
Or if you want to say the feds don't talk to the loacls, gee whiz, you're right. They should. News at eleven.
But remember: the feds don't even talk tothe feds, remember that MN FBI woman agent who couldn't get the national fbi to take her complaints seriously?
Were all those FBI agents who blew it liberals too?
OR if your point is the cops suck -- that lots of time the cops just don't go out and arrest people they have reason to arrest -- you're right. EVERY COUNTY HAS THOUSANDS OF WARRANTS FOR ARREST THATR ARE NOT SERVED. They just can't be hassled to actually enforce the laws. This is cops being bad, not lierals bein bad. Go take on the cops.
I certainly agree that if a sex offender is supposed to register and fails to register, the COPS SHOULD GO FIND HIM AND ARREST HIM FOR FAILING TO REGISTER. Duh.
The real question we should be asking, to make it all work better for all of us (remember--"us" as in all of us USA citizaens together? Not just your faction) is HOW MANY OTHER SEX OFFENDERS FAILED TO REGISTER THAT THE COPSCOULD FIND OUT ABOUT AND WHERE THE HELL ARE THE SEX OFENDERS AND WHY THE HELL DON'T THE COPS GO AFTER THEM??
But if you righties just want to go blame leties and liberals for evErything and anything UNDER THE SUN, JUST IGNORE THAT QUESTION, ATTACK ME, BLAME LIBERALS, go right ahead. Let/'s just ignore the fact that we learned that sex offenders fail to register -- and nothing happens. OK? Poof! It's gone . LEt's not talk about THAT. Instead, let's spend our time railing against liberals commies lefties whatever. LEt's go back to calling names and blaming liberals. That FEELS BETTER, doesn't it, because then YOU RIGHTIES HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. No responsibility for acting on what we learned from this case, no respnsibility for sein if the cops ned mor resources to do more work, no responsiility as citizens to actually get sx offenders in places where they can be monitored, it is so much more fun to whine about liberals.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 14, 2007 10:08 PMShow me were INS came to the Pierce County PAO and told them to go easy on the rapist so they could avoid a deportation hearing. Show me that EVER happening. Rape charges are hard to prove, especially in families and especially in immigrant families were family loyalty is at a very high premium. Maybe they should have went for it, but without knowing the facts it hard to say. But I think we can be reasonably sure that immigration was not an issue.
Posted by: Giffy on July 14, 2007 10:27 PMI will use the same argument used on the stupid wiper's libtard blog. You guys are in control here. All decisions made in this FUWA state are under the Moonbat! purview. No laws are made, or enforced unless it's Moonbat! sanctioned. Do you agree?
Now to the issue at hand. It's too bad Zina's family has to deal with this. We are too lenient with sex offenders - PERIOD - end of story. Sex offenders go through treatment? What significant event defines their "cure"? If you watch certain shows, many say even after treatment they still have the urges. That's not a political issue. It has to be a psychological issue. Do you support that?
Regarding going after sex offenders, I'm all for that. Incarcerate their butts if they don't register. It should be a class 1 felony. Do you support that?
I think there should be a national registry for sex offenders. Do you support that?
I believe Jessica's Law should be the law of the land. I believe there are no plea bargains for incest. Do you support that?
Posted by: Puddybud on July 14, 2007 10:27 PMI think that this is the point at which the spittle started blurring SeattleDemocrat's monitor.
"But if you righties just want to go blame leties and liberals for evErything and anything UNDER THE SUN, JUST IGNORE THAT QUESTION, ATTACK ME, BLAME LIBERALS, go right ahead. Let/'s just ignore the fact that we learned that sex offenders fail to register -- and nothing happens. OK? Poof! It's gone . LEt's not talk about THAT."
Yep. "leties" "evErything" "Let/'s" "LEt's"
Just good ahead and refer to Seattle Democrat as Cleve Stockmeyer of Monorail fame. It will put his comments into clear focus.
Posted by: Smokie on July 15, 2007 09:57 AMThis is also a problem as victims get older and consent becomes an issue. While a clear case of abuse against a five year old is a no brainier, a jury might think twice a bout conviction, if the punishment is high, for a 20 year old and a 13 year old. It is wrong and should be illegal, but it was not that long ago when people of those ages were married. Sending a person to prison for many years over that might give a jury second thoughts.
Recidivism rates for sex offenders are also a bit exagerated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender
Personally I am all for throwing the book at someone who abuses a child, but in the real world practical considerations have to be taken in to account.
Posted by: Giffy on July 15, 2007 09:58 AM
But if they are not successful, you will have an opportunity to educate your neighbors or co-workers on how it is the responsiblity of a free society to accept the presence of sex offenders even if they occasionally rape and molest again. You run with that Giffy.
Posted by: Smokie on July 15, 2007 11:53 AMAnd go to the table on page 23. Only 10% of convicted rapists and 15% of sexual assaulters were previously convicted os sex offenses. Somewhere 85% to 90% of the sex-offense convictions were first time.
And the false convictions like Wenatchee ought to disabuse any believer in The Immaculate Conviction. And if those don't what about the death-row folks being released due to DNA evidence not available then? Remember: we are told that the utmost care is taken in capital cases (as opposed to other cases such as sex offenses, where we don't take "the utmost care" -- see Wenatchee again).
But hey, let's just hang all the Duke lacrosse players and let God sort them out, right?
"I'm not sure what deportation would solve in this particular case."
Zina would be alive.
"If he is deported, he may just be dumped on another community, albeit a foreign one, and some other family may suffer from his presence."
Our government's responsibility is to its people, not the people of another country.
"Better to try him and execute him here, to make sure the job is finished."
That's fine, but if he is to be released, it should not be into OUR communities.
Posted by: pudge on July 16, 2007 11:51 AMYes. But what GOOD is a light sentence, at all? For a predator, a couple of months or a few years in prison is almost as useless as no prison at all. I'd rather risk losing the conviction, and then fire the prosectuors if they don't have a high enough conviction rate.
Posted by: pudge on July 16, 2007 12:11 PMYes. But what GOOD is a light sentence, at all? For a predator, a couple of months or a few years in prison is almost as useless as no prison at all. I'd rather risk losing the conviction, and then fire the prosectuors if they don't have a high enough conviction rate.
Posted by: pudge on July 16, 2007 12:12 PM