Finally, some judge got it right...
Man ordered to wear "sex offender" T-shirt
Mon Nov 6, 2006 8:16am ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Delaware judge on Friday ordered a man who twice exposed himself to a 10-year-old girl at his workplace to wear a T-shirt with the words: "I am a registered sex offender" in bold letters, a prosecutor said.
Russell Teeter, 69, who pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent exposure, also was sentenced to 60 days in jail by Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden in Wilmington.
Deputy Attorney General Donald Roberts said he requested the unusual T-shirt punishment because he was concerned about Teeter exposing himself to children at the gardening business he runs with his wife.
"This is a unique way to let his customers know that he is a sex offender," Roberts told Reuters.
Roberts said Teeter had at least 10 prior convictions dating back to 1976 for exposing himself to children and had been diagnosed as a compulsive exhibitionist.
Teeter, who has 30 days to appeal the sentence, will have to wear the T-shirt at work for 22 months after he gets out of jail.
Teeter's attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
I can't believe he wasn't ordered to some sort of counseling sessions.Roberts said Teeter had at least 10 prior convictions dating back to 1976 for exposing himself to children and had been diagnosed as a compulsive exhibitionist.
The t-shirt may be a warning label but, given the man's history, it is still weak as a preventative measure.
That's even better than the pink license plates.
Wearing a shirt everyday for 22 months?
That better be some good cotton to withstand all that washing.
hmm am I the only one here that thinks this is wrong? Don't misunderstand me, I despise sex offenders as much as the next guy but I think we're going a bit over the line here. Next thing we'll see is a judge ordering sex offender tattoos where everyone can see them and .
Weather we like it or not, EVEN sex offenders have rights, they are still human after all... granted very, very, sick and deranged humans, but human none the less.
I think the biggest issue is that this guy runs a business, and having to wear that t-shirt would certainly have an impact on his business, and I guess maybe it should, that's kind of what you get for exposing yourself to little girls, but I'd imagine his lawyer might bring this up...
I think it's a pretty ridiculous sentence. Make him serve his time (more than 60 days definitely), but the shirt idea's over the top.
I could understand the sentence if he'd raped someone, but just for exposing himself?
Hawthorne would be proud.
So.. if it's cold, he wears a jacket... what good does it do? I don't think they thought this out too much.
I feel bad for the wife, though instead of him. She owns/runs the business too, and she has to suffer cus her husband is a sick bas ?
No, people that expose themselves and or do things to children, are not humans and have no rights.hmm am I the only one here that thinks this is wrong? Don't misunderstand me, I despise sex offenders as much as the next guy but I think we're going a bit over the line here. Next thing we'll see is a judge ordering sex offender tattoos where everyone can see them and .
Weather we like it or not, EVEN sex offenders have rights, they are still human after all... granted very, very, sick and deranged humans, but human none the less.
So 100% wrong.
He's had 10 prior convictions and all he gets is a lousy t-shirt???
Sorry, he's a sick bas , and he should take his t-shirt "punishment" and run with it. It's not gonna stop him from exposing himself/wanting to expose himself, but at least any parents that happen to take their kids to his business will be fairly warned.
Will anyone actually take that shirt seriously with all the "funny slogan here" shirts they have these days?
That was my first thought, as well.
No, I agree with you. I don't know that I'd agree that they're human, but they do have rights and in this country, you just can't do this.
But the judge did do this.
And why is nobody saying that in this country you just can't expose yourself (over and over, I might add) to young children and just get away with it? Like it's appalling what the judge has done, but after all, the sick prick that can't keep his wang in his pants, oh, poor thing. He has rights, after all. GMAFB.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
