Thursday, April 02, 2009

Six year-old boy raped

According to FoxNews:

Corey Deen Saunders pleaded guilty in February to the January 2008 rape of the boy at the New Bedford Public Library.

Prosecutors said Saunders lured the boy into a reading room at the library while the victim's mother worked on a computer only a short distance away. At the time of the attack, Saunders was a convicted sex offender who was on probation after serving four years in prison for the attempted rape of a 7-year-old boy.

A man tries to rape a seven year old boy and he only gets four years and then probation?!!! And now he has destroyed another little boy's life! I wish the judge and/or legislators who made this tragedy possible could be thrown in prison with this sick monster!


SafeLibraries said...

It is also possible the library itself is potentially responsible:

I have a response to "Massachusetts Library Revisits Security after Child Molested," by the ALA, American Libraries, 8 February 2008.

I'm the person from mentioned in the article. I give credit to American Libraries for being the first media report raising the filtering issue, at least that I've noticed.

Regarding Fulchino's statement regarding the existing filtering software being bypassed by the criminal, there are several problems. First, his library's web site states that it does not filter: "The Library cannot control and is not able to monitor any information on the Internet for either content or accuracy." The word "filter" does not even appear on that page ( ). If filtering is being used, it is not mentioned on the library's web site.

Second, the criminal has been described as having a low IQ. One article said he, "has been diagnosed as developmentally disabled and suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder." If a "developmentally disabled" person with a low IQ can "bypass the settings," then it is obvious the filtering software being used, if indeed it is, is not the latest or is not being administered in an effective manner.

Whichever way you look at it, Fulchino's statements indicate a potential serious problem at the library, as if the rape and the "anything goes" Internet policy have not already made that obvious.

Thank you to American Libraries for bring his statements to the public's attention. Existing security measures including video cameras were a failure, as Fulchino admits. Should his advice to taken seriously again? If I were a citizen of New Bedford, I would demand a full and public investigation by a disinterested party based on the facts including Fulchino's admissions. The seriousness of the allegations and potential for future harm outweigh the perceived gains of possible coverups.

Now for anyone's interest, here is the letter I sent to the community:

Dear City Council President Jane L. Gonsalves,

The library rape of a six year old children is criminal. At this time, all efforts are concentrated on the victim and the criminal. But you are the city's leader. You have a responsibility to see the bigger picture. In this case, the bigger picture is this type of incident might happen again and again as a direct result of the library's "anything goes" Internet use policy.

Was the criminal using the Internet before the rape to view child p*rnography? The media did not address this. If he did, did the library attempt to stop him? The media did not address this. If not, why not? The media did not address this, but the answer is on the library's own web site, "The New Bedford Free Public Library only provides access to the Internet. The Library cannot control and is not able to monitor any information on the Internet for either content or accuracy."

Did you know that is false? Did you know communities may filter all computers and the US Supreme Court has already found that constitutional? Did you know the ACLU and the courts have found filters so effective that they no longer block out health related web sites?

Worse, it is possible your library's policy has exposed it, its employees, and New Bedford to liability for failure to take action that might have prevented the child rape in the first place. A simple reading of the library policy tells me the child's rape was likely partially the responsibility of the library for having an anything goes policy and the community for failure to control its own library in the legal manner in which it may control its library. Indeed, I urge any legal action brought by the parents to include counts against the library and especially against the city for, among other things, a likely failure to enforce the library's enabling statute that I am sure does not say anything goes. Indeed I will actively attempt to contact the family's attorneys and advise them to consider the theory of liability I have outlined generally.

I thought you should consider this. You have the power to prevent future such instances by using every means possible to get your local library to apply filters to all Internet computers. Warning, the American Library Association is responsible for these anything goes policies, is specifically named by your library as its source for library policy, and will be sure to bring the full weight of its misinformation campaign to you if you do decide to protect your community's children instead of the ALA's policies.

Articles I am reading show the city is obviously thinking of ways to prevent this in the future, but all I see are methods of moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. For example, "privacy screens" do not function as claimed. Internet filters are the most effective means to resolve the situation, and that is precisely why the ALA attempts to convince people not to use them.

I will be happy to explain and source every statement I have made here. You have the legal means to remove the negative influence of the ALA from your library. It's a PUBLIC library, not an ALA library. Please let me know if I may assist.

Dennis said...


As a library director, I fully support your efforts to get libraries to filter their internet access.

The ALA's censorship argument is nonsense. Just because libraries CAN make trash available to their patrons does not mean they must make, or should make trash available!

Libraries did not make smut available before Al Gore invented the internet. Why should they let the internet turn them into XXX rated porn shops?

SafeLibraries said...

And you know what else, Dennis? Oh, thank you for saying that, by the way.

You know what else? Look at the ALA's article on the topic: "Man Gets Life for Molesting Child in a Library. Notice anything? I'm about to blog on this. Here's what I notice. With all those articles about the kid raped in the library, and the rapist getting a life sentence, along comes the ALA and the rape is suddenly downgraded to a molestation.

A molestation could be something as simple as an unwanted touching. A rape is totally different. But the word rape is completely missing from the ALA's story. To me, that looks like a whitewash. What do you think?

Dennis said...

Frankly, I'm almost surprised that they mentioned it at all!

SafeLibraries said...

Thanks for your comments. I just quoted you and linked to your blog here: "ALA Whitewashes Rape and Blames Child; Removes Discussion of ALA's Possible Culpability for Rape." If you like what you see, please consider subscribing to my SafeLibraries blog.

Dennis said...

I added your SafeLibraries site to my blogroll.