According to Friday's NY Post Jeffrey Epstein returned to New York City "making wisecracks about his just-ended jail stint for having sex with an underage girl". "I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an 'offender,' " the Wall Street hedge fund manager told The Post. "It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel," said Epstein.
Well that's not exactly the correct analogy...
Not only are Epstein's comments brazen, they are arrogant and self-implicating. By telling a reporter "I'm an offender", he seems to be admitting guilt.
Which brings me to the big question of the day. Why did Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan D.A., allow a Level 3 sex offender (the most dangerous kind) to reside -- even for ten minutes -- in a house that is right next to Central Park and a school? Isn't that unlawful given the housing guidelines for sex offenders?
According to the NYPost, Epstein's Level 3 designation means that he is at "high risk" to repeat his offense and poses "a threat to public safety."
When I rang Vance (twice) to discuss Epstein's residential guidelines he did not take my calls.
According to a few of the attorneys who represented Epstein's victims in the civil cases, the financier never agreed to a psychological evaluation prior to or during his sentence, a requirement of all sexual predators.
While Epstein's self-incriminating statements are published (this week he told the Post "the crime that was supposedly committed in Florida is not a crime in New York" -- an interesting choice of words -- he continues to mock the law that applies to all other sex offenders who are found guilty of the same crime.
Epstein served 13 months in the West Palm Beach Stockade and 18 months under community control (a rather permissive version of house arrest), for 2 Counts of Solicitation of Prostitution with a Minor.
In August of 2010, immediately following his release from "community control", Epstein returned to his $50 million East 71st Street town house given to him by his former client and long time friend Leslie Wexner.
Just in the last few weeks he held a house warming dinner to celebrate his release from jail and reportedly invited television reporters Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulus and his close friend, HRH Prince Andrew, according to the NY Post.
You would think these professional television reporters would have done their homework prior to accepting his invitation no matter how desperate they were to rub elbows with Prince Andrew.
According to a 53-page sealed indictment Epstein was facing 10 years to life on multiple counts of statutory rape, and child sex trafficking.
Court documents in that case claimed he routinely sought out girls as young as 14 and paid them $200 to $1,000 for sexually explicit massages in his homes in Palm Beach, Fla., and Manhattan.
In the New York sex-offender database, Epstein isn't registered under a zip code rather a "name search" option that does not list his New York address.
The reason for this is because Epstein's Upper East Side home is considered "temporary" and by NY state law, he is required to provide only his permanent address to the database.
Epstein is currently listed under his Florida home even though he is no longer a Florida resident either (after his arrest he immediately became a US VI resident), but then again who's keeping count?
Once again these are mere technicalities when it comes to Epstein's sexual predator case. The two most disturbing parts of this story are that this could easily happen again and that once again there will be no justice.
Had Epstein been a caring benefactor contributing to society and these young girl's education and well being then the world would have judged him differently.
What he has done instead is the exact opposite -- causing enormous damage to hundreds of underage girls who could have been sponsored towards a better education.
With respect to Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, I'm confused by his decision to allow this sexual predator to live at his Fifth Avenue house all this time (since August 2010), given his rather tough stance on gun control as witnessed by his testimony in Friday's NYPost when asked about a Florida driver cleared in a Manhattan weapon's charge, "guns brought illegally into New York City" he said, " for any reason violate well established state laws and are a threat to our public safety".
Then wouldn't a registered sex offender living 500 feet from a park (Central Park where young girls congregate), and with resources to spare be an even more dangerous threat to society?
One thing we all must remember: People do change – even former criminals – and especially after receiving punishment for breaking the law. The question I have for any of you is when will our society finally accept its reciprocal responsibility and say to those human beings who have served their time in prison: “you are forgiven, welcome back and how can we help you get back on your feet again?â€. Now that would be a major headline wouldn’t it.
Sounds like you and I are mostly on the same team – and that team would be to protect children. But at the same time, I am not going to promote ANY child’s welfare over that of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Children Be Damned!
If society is so concerned with protecting children then do what the sex offender rehabilitation professionals say: Teach prevention to the children and provide therapy for those inclined to sexually abuse children. Throwing nearly all the accused sex offenders into prison is prosecution and judicial overkill, expensive to taxpayers and reeks of a kind of political persecution hell bent on gaining political points than serving real justice. Seems to me that a stint in the mental ward somewhere would be appropriate for many new to the justice system. But also keep in mind that more than 30% of all sex offenders are teenagers acting out with other teenagers. Do you want to punish them too?? instead of just sentencing these people into a mental health care instead of a year’s long lockup or just set a fine for the really minor cases that are not a threat to the community. That seems reasonable to me.
In your last comment you said: “Perhaps you would feel differentl¬y if you had a daughter or a sister being sexually abused by this man.†Well, I’ll tell you something. I would rather take my chances with all the potential new sex offenders out there than give the federal and state governments more time and power to wipe out what remains of my precious legal rights and whatever freedoms that may still exist.
Thanks to people who are more than happy to ‘save a child at any price’ we have things like the Patriot Act (4th Amendment gone), the Military Commission Act (anyone can be name an enemy combatant and therefore gives us habeas corpus – the right to be charged or let go). There are MANY other examples of “trading essential liberty for a little temporary safety by we “safety†minded Americans. “Save me from the Sex Offenders! Save me from the Terrorists! I’ll give up all of my legal rights – I just want to be safe at any costs!!!†No wonder we live in a police state today. Are you happy now?
Okay so what are the relevant facts in this case: In 2005, Jeffrey Epstein broke a number of sex laws in Florida and as a result of criminal proceedings, went to jail and was granted parole for a number of months after that. Now that he has paid his debt to society (as best as I can determine) why do we continue to pound on people that are no longer criminals? Let this man get on with his life. What is so hard about that? If he breaks the law again then let him suffer the consequences.
Does this American society ever forgive a former criminal?
And for that matter, what on earth are these legal abominations known as registered sex offender laws? Seems like a case of double-jeopardy punishment if you ask me. It seems that the sex offender registry should only be for people that have been deemed likely to commit a new sex crime in the future – and that should be for a limited time only. But even the worst criminals should have a second chance at living a normal life without dying in prison. Isn't that what a “free and just" society is all about?