Sex Abuse Lawyer

Just another WordPress.com weblog

In the news: rape victims on campus rarely find justice

leave a comment »

NPR is doing an amazing job of highlighting the epidemic of campus rapes.  Today’s story highlights the case of a woman who was raped by a man already well-known to campus police.  She was one of only 5% who were strong enough to report the rape – but tomorrow’s story will highlight the campus response.   From my experience, I don’t think it’s going to be a happy ending.

Written by Shelley Mactyre

February 25, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Posted in Items in the news

The road home

leave a comment »

I have been asked to participate in a panel at my law school.  I’ve done panels before, but I’ve never had to write a short bio before.  This is surprisingly difficult.  So far, this is what I have:

Shelley Mactyre represents survivors of incest, child sex abuse, molestation, and rape in civil cases.  She has a BA with distinction from the University of Nevada and a JD from Lewis and Clark Law School.  She lives in Portland with her husband and daughter.

But this doesn’t explain anything.  It doesn’t explain how I go from not being able to watch Law and Order SVU when I’m at home (something I could do just fine before I had a baby, by the way) to an office where I routinely discuss some of the grossest, nastiest, most horrible things one person could do to another – with other lawyers and with the participants.  At my office, we can talk about how an “ordinary” violent rape is so much easier to handle than a case involving years of child sex abuse. How did I get here?  I mean, I’m the person who hated torts class in 1L because it involved people hurting one another.  I lived for future interests in property!  The Rule in Shelley’s Case – give me that, please, above Palsgraf.

I think I finally understand how I got here, though.  It’s a weird story, not appropriate for a short bio, but it goes like this:

I am the daughter of a minister.  I was privy to secrets.  Bad things happened to parishioners, and I heard my parents talking. A woman in the church, someone well known to me, was raped and murdered brutally. I learned what that meant before I had any right to.  And for other reasons, I had to grow up quickly, understand that people lie for all sorts of reasons, and that weird stuff happens, and that sometimes people don’t do the right things.

Ministers’ families also get pulled into the work: for example, when my father was on active duty in the Navy, he once handed me a phone in a rush and said, “Here.  Keep her on the line until I can find her.”  One of the sailors on his ship was suicidal, and I made small talk (and big talk) with her until Dad tracked her down at a phone booth in a BART station.

And I know, obviously, how churches work.  That makes me a natural, at least for some of our cases.

I like the work.  The legal issues I deal with are pretty routine: statutes of limitations, respondeat superior, successor liability – that sort of stuff.  Oregon has great cases for plaintiffs’ lawyers in that respect.  Mostly, though, I mind our clients – keep track of them, read their records, make sure they understand what’s coming up next, and do a lot of reassuring – that’s maybe half my job.  And sometimes – more often than not, I’m delighted to say – I’m privileged to see them go from complete train wrecks to confident, strong women over the course of the litigation.   That, alone, makes it all worthwhile.

Written by Shelley Mactyre

February 17, 2010 at 12:02 am

The conviction that shouldn’t have been

leave a comment »

KGW reports that attorney Steve Richkind is asking the 9th Circuit to allow him to sue the state over a particularly egregious prosecution.  When Richard Simmons was 18, he was prosecuted and convicted of felony sexual abuse because of his relationship with his 15-year-old girlfriend.   That’s the type of “sex offense” that usually will make me crazy (what a waste of resources to prosecute most of these).  What makes this case particularly bad is that the grand jury returned a no true bill!  But no one seemed to notice, and then after he was indicted, “the judge, prosecutory and defense attorney privately agreed” to nullify the felony convictions – and then the DA filed new misdemeanor charges.

Good luck to Mr. Richkind on this case – this isn’t an easy road (he’s lost at the state and federal district court level).

Written by Shelley Mactyre

February 10, 2010 at 9:49 pm

Oregon parole board may now label inmates “sex offenders” – even if they aren’t serving time for sex crimes.

leave a comment »

I’m often frustrated by the sex offender registry guidelines.  It seems as though it cuts too broadly (for example, requiring registration of those whose only sex crime was being an 18-year-old senior with a 15-year-old sophomore) and other times, not broadly enough (some really dangerous predators may plea down to a level not requiring registration). Sometimes – albeit extremely rarely – sex offenders reform, and there ought to be a mechanism to allow for removal for the registry in those isolated cases….but there isn’t.

That’s why Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole, SC S056741 (2010) is such an interesting case.  The Oregon Supreme Court held that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (“the Board”) could impose sex offender limitations on a parolee, even if his current crime, for which he was being paroled, wasn’t a sex offense!  The Board can consider his individual history and the needs of public safety – and as long as the conditions are related to those two concerns, then the Board is acting within its delegated authority.

Weems had previously been arrested on sex offenses and had pleaded those down to non-sex offenses, but his current crimes for which he was serving time were drug-based offenses.  Based on Weems’s history (and his disclosure that his previous victim had been a 9 or 10 year old boy), the Board ordered that he comply with four requirements usually given to sex offenders (stay away from minors, submit to polygraphs, and go through sex offender treatment).  Weems appealed, based on the fact he’d never been convicted of a sex offense, but the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court disagreed.  The Board had the discretion to order those restrictions because they were related to Weems’s history and the public safety.

The companion case, Roberts, is similar.  Roberts had been serving time for assault and weapons offenses, not a sex offense, although he had been arrested for a number of sex offenses and had been convicted for sexual misconduct.

Both Weems and Roberts argued that “individual circumstances” meant that the Board could consider only the crimes leading to their current incarceration, but the Court disagreed.  The statute says the Board must consider the “individual circumstances of the person.”  The Board should consider “the offender, not the offense.”

I like this decision.  One of the things I’ve found the most frightening in practicing civil sex abuse is that extremely dangerous offenders exist below the sex offender radar.   They may have convictions that don’t reflect their proclivities.  This decision makes it that much more likely that serial abusers will get treatment and be on the public’s radar.

Rants for different days: sex offender treatment and only listing the predatory sex offenders on websites.

Written by Shelley Mactyre

February 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm