An open letter to Matisyahu: Rabbi Hoffman

5tjt by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Dear Matisyahu,

The reports, have been a bit devastating. First came the beard. Now, it seems, your appearances are sans Yarmulkah.

What happened?

We were, for a while, so proud of you. Here was a powerful entertainer, filled with talent, and unabashed in his Judaism. Unabashed, as well, in his Hasidic deportment. And filled with a spiritual energy of which the secular world took note.

The beard. The peyos and black Yarmulkah. The tzitzis out and flying as you danced to the tunes that underscored Jewish spirituality.

True, reggae music is not to everyone's tastes, but the gentile world was now exposed to a thinking - a philosophy not heard from before. You had exposed a small, yet discernible, ray of the light of Chassidus to a different world. True, it was a world that had gone mad, but nonetheless, the notion of spreading Hasidic light was, in a sense, coming alive in you.

Your religious fans loved you. Those with a similar physical appearance to you, finally, had recognition. No longer did they receive bizarre looks in the street from those never exposed to such dress. They had a Matisyahu out there. Ambassador to the world. But then, something happened. Something may have changed within you. You went native. [...]

The Emperor has no clothes:Rabbinical infallibility

Outraged wrote demanding I retract my criticism of rabbinic leadership on a previous post Saving-kids:Lashon-harah-high-price-to pay. In one of his many strident criticisms he noted:

I am asking you what it is TODAY that you are criticizing in harsh terms the rabbis on the moetses for currently handling abuse cases wrongly ( i am quite aware that prior to NOW the frum community dealt with these issues internally without ultimately going to the police) I'm not asking for a general repeat of the last 10 years but rather exactly what the moetses is NOW doing that warrants your CURRENT massive criticism of the moetses today. I am not asking about Zweibel now, I am asking only about the moetses. And of course aside from wanting to get to the bottom of what you are mean regarding NOW.

I want to congratulate Outraged for stating two things - 1) That the gedolim and rabbinic leadership have not acted appropriately in the past and have been negligent in protecting our children and communities against child molesters. 2) He wants me to ignore this past and only criticize the present - which I assume he means no further back than a week ago. 

He is outraged that I dared mention past neglect, incompetence and deliberate coverups. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS? He is demanding that we do not hold our rabbinic leadership  accountable. Only we the masses are held accountable if we really messed up an important responsibility. Whenever the rabbinic leadership  botch something up - we are to repress awareness of the mistakes or at least no public acknowledgements) and we are not to expect them to apologize and to promise to try better in the future (teshuva).

This is functional infallibility. Gedolim and religious leaders make no errors and when they do err - we are not allowed to talk about it because they are infallible and thus can't make errors! We saw this happening with the infamous Tropper affair. Tropper bought the attention of the gedolim in America. When this spectacle came to a disgusting end - there was complete silence from the gedolim of America. When Rav Sternbuch told me to publicize that Tropper was guilty I was accused by varioius the rabbis of creating a chillul hashem - because since they weren't talking about it - the only way people would hear about it was because I was publicizing the matter!

I recently received a call from a major askan. He was furious at the language I have used. At my lack of respect for the gedolim. He didn't deny the problems that I have raised. I just wasn't supposed to publicly mention my upset. He had the same complaints against me when I publicized the Tropper affair.

When the Tropper affair ended in a multiple collision disaster - I sent a message to one of the most influential gedolim in  America - that he should at least acknowledge what had happened and condemn Tropper - as the RCA had done. The reply I got back was that the scandal was too big and too many major rabbis had been bought -  so it couldn't even be acknowledged that it occurred.

Pleasure is highly dependent on Seeing - Yoma 74b

Yoma(74b):Who fed you Manna in the wilderness in order to afflict you?(Devarim 8:16). There was a dispute between Rav Ammi and Rav Assi regarding what affliction the Jews suffererd from the Manna? One said [it was because of its transient nature] as we know that one can not compare one who has bread in his basked with one who has none [and is worried where he will get more - Rashi]. The other said [it was because what they ate didn’t look like what they tasted] because there is no comparison between one who sees what he eats and one who doesn’t see [and the Manna tasted like all types of food and yet they only saw the Manna – Rashi]. Rav Yosef said, this alludes to the fact that blind people eat but are not satiated. Abaye replied from this we can conclude that who has a meal should only eat it during the day. R’ Zera asked where this idea is alluded to in the Bible? It is Koheles (6:9), Better is the seeing of the eyes then the wandering of the desire. Reish Lakish concluded from this verse that better is the pleasure of looking at a woman than the act itself[- and therefore it needs to be greatly avoided – Semag].

avf - Why Tamar does not have Get

avf previously commented "Young Children After a Divorce Have Nothing More To Do With Their Fathers"

Why Tamar Does Not Have a Get a guest post by Larry Silverstein

Commentator “avf” cuts to the heart of the entire matter - explaining, inadvertently, why Tamar does not have a get.

From the very beginning, Tamar has consistently done what she can, with the encouragement and active assistance of her supporters, to severely limit the child's parenting time with Aharon, seeming to take the position that the child should essentially have little or no day-to-day relationship with Aharon.  [Even the court Order that the child remain in Pennsylvania because Tamar had kept the child there for so long before trial (as a result of Aharon agreeing to jointly cancel an earlier trial to bring the case to Beis Din) concluded that Tamar’s attitude towards the child’s relationship with Aharon was “spiteful.”]  At a a minimum, Tamar devalues that relationship based on the twin, and not coincidentally, convenient for Tamar, beliefs that children are always better off with divorce [if that is what the mother, at any given time, thinks will result in an increase in the mother's happiness], and should subsequently only have one true parent, the mother.  (These beliefs are contrary to halacha or any notion of traditional family values and more accurately described as quasi-theological ideology invented by the 1960’s free love / no-fault divorce movement.)

Tamar has been indoctrinated into this position – by those in Merion/Bala Cynwyd who advised her to leave the marriage with a four-month child and unilaterally relocate the child to Pennsylvania – that, as avf aptly summarized, “with young children after a divorce, they have nothing more to do with their fathers.”

When the mother believes the child should have nothing (or relatively little) more to do with the father, it is hard enough for child and father to have a meaningful relationship.  But it is nearly impossible if the child has been taken hours away (particularly if the parents are Shomer Shabbos), and the child’s spending time with the father involves, as a practical matter, trade-offs that the mother will (placing relatively minimal value on the child spending time with the father) necessarily believe are against the child’s interests, such as traveling and missing school and other activities.  Thus, Tamar told the court that Aharon’s request that the child be allowed to spend allotted time with Aharon in their home would place “an undue burden” on the child and shows that he does not recognize the child’s “need for normalcy and consistency in her routine.”  And this is especially so when the child has been taken to a community that seems to be inculcating Tamar with avf’s attitude, while also poisoning the child against Aharon. 

Sexual abuse at a prep school: Horace Mann

NYTimes   “Guys, I have to tell you something that happened to me when we were at H.M. Do you remember Mr. Wright, the football coach?” Our metal utensils ceased clanking. Speaking calmly and staring into the flames, he told us that when he was in eighth grade, Wright sexually assaulted him. “And not just me,” he added. “There were others.” First Wright befriended him, he said. Then he molested him. Then he pretended nothing happened. 

No one knew what to say, at least at first. But then slowly, the rest of us started telling stories, too. One of the guys talked about a teacher who took him on a field trip, and then invited him into his bed in the hotel room they were sharing. (My friend fled, walking in the rain for hours until the coast seemed clear.) Another told a story about a teacher who got him drunk and naked; that time, no one fled. We talked about the steakhouse dinner, which was a far cry from abuse, but an example of how easy it can be for boundaries to blur and how hard it can be, in the moment, for students to get their bearings. Finally, we all went to sleep.[...]

This was 1978, a different era in terms of public awareness about sexual predators. Today children are taught from a young age that unwelcome touches are not O.K., not their fault and should be reported immediately. But at 13, Andrew hadn’t heard any of those lectures. He didn’t tell his other teachers or his parents. He felt too ashamed to talk about what happened. “What I did do in the immediate aftermath,” he said, “was contribute to the rumors going around that Mark Wright was a child molester, which were pretty rampant at that time. I’d join conversations about it and say that I’d heard he was into boys, etc. But these conversations were always very frustrating, because he had a lot of defenders who would say that people said this about him because they were jealous that he was such a stud.”  [...]

At Horace Mann, students who spoke up at the time and saw quick action from the school seem to have suffered few, if any, ill effects. “I was not traumatized by the experience in the least,” Seth, the student at the center of the John Dorr Nature Lab confrontation with Stan Kops, told me. “In fact, I was just relaying the story to a friend the other day at lunch. I think the school acted swiftly and appropriately.” 

ORA's inconsistencies regarding Aharon Friedman

Guest Post by Larry Silverstein: At an ORA rally against Aharon on December 19, 2010, Rabbi Jeremy Stern complains about having to travel from NYC to Silver Spring for the rally:  "I don't look forward to spending my Sunday morning driving from New York City" to Silver Spring.  He also complains about others having to drive from Philadelphia to Silver Spring for the rally: Youtube at 3:25.  [Never mind that this travel is part of Rabbi Stern's paid job (as defined by him),] Although it is such a huge burden for the demonstrators to have to travel, Rabbi Stern apparently believes that it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect the child to have to travel back and forth from Philadelphia to Silver Spring (generally during peak traffic times) every time the child is to see Aharon.  Any concerns Aharon may have about such an arrangement are entirely unreasonable according to Rabbi Stern (4:00) (commenting on negotiations regarding which ORA maintained that it was unreasonable to even consider that the child return to Silver Spring where the child resided before being unilaterally relocated by Tamar and that it was unreasonable for the child to spend time with Aharon more than every other weekend (excluding summers and holidays).

Other items of note:

Rabbi Stern claims Aharon refuses to go to BD to arbitrate the matter: at 0:49 - although the Baltimore BD (the beis din to which the parties took the case) stated at the time that Friedman had done no wrong and it was for Epstein to bring the case to BD.

Rabbi Stern leads the crowd in jeering the Washington Vaad for not participating in the rally (2:15)

ORA claims that Rabbi Kamenetsky supported the rally (3:05), although the letter Rabbi Kametesky signed mentioning the rally did not actually endorse the rally  http://getora.org/PDF/Letter%20from%20RSK-%20December%208.pdf
====================================

The above post and video link must be a forgery. The entire rally could not possibly have taken place because it was prior to any finding against Friedman by any beis din, or a finding by any beis din that a get was appropriate.  Even according to Rabbi Schachter (ORA's posek), pressure to give a  get may be done only at the direction of a "legitimate" beis din:  Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Options_for_Helping_Agunot#  (40:00).  Even Rabbi Jeremy Stern himself has asserted that is forbidden under halacha to pressure a husband over a get before a beis din has ruled that the husband should give a get:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEi4SXT_fCA (58:00).

"Playing with children" - earliest reference to abuse

This is the earliest reference I have found to child abuse in the Jewish literature. I can not find any elaboration or further discussion of child abuse - until the writings of the  Tzemach Tzedech and Sho'el U'Meishiv in the 19th century.

Nida[1](13b):  Our Rabbis taught: Converts and those that play with children – delay the coming of Moshiach. I can understand the reference to converts as it fits with the view of R’ Chelbo. R’ Chelbo said, Converts are as difficult for the Jews as a irritating scab. However what is the meaning of “those that play with children?” It can’t be referring to those who rape children – because that is punishable by stoning and not merely by delaying Moshiach. It also can’t refer to those who molest children without sodomizing them [but it involves zera l’vatala – Rashi] – because they are deserving of the punishment of bringing a flood to the world. Rather this braissa is referring to those who marry young girls who are not capable of having children yet. This in accord with R’ Yosse who said, The Son of Dovid (Moshiach) will not come until all the souls are born....

---

[1] נדה (יג:): ת"ר: הגרים והמשחקין בתינוקות מעכבין את המשיח. בשלמא גרים - כדר' חלבו, דא"ר חלבו: קשין גרים לישראל כספחת. אלא משחקין בתנוקות מאי היא? אילימא משכב זכור - בני סקילה נינהו! אלא דרך אברים - בני מבול נינהו! אלא דנסיבי קטנות דלאו בנות אולודי נינהו, דא"ר יוסי: אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף,...

Child Abuse: Halacha vs Secular Law - Dr. Resnicoff

SSRN      Download This Paper | Share | Email

Jewish Law and the Tragedy of Sexual Abuse of Children: The Dilemma within the Orthodox Jewish Community

Steven H. Resnicoff

   DePaul University College of Law   June 1, 2012 
Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2012

Jewish law requires a person to exert one’s energies and expend one’s financial resources to prevent the commission of interpersonal crimes and to protect or rescue victims of such crime. By contrast, American law generally permits a person to watch another bleed to death without offering any assistance at all. Most Jewish law courses place great emphasis on this difference, and commentators frequently cite it as proof of Jewish law’s moral superiority.

However, with respect to the tragedy of child sexual abuse, the systems seem to have switched roles. American law imposes a variety of affirmative duties on individuals and organizations to protect prospective victims. These obligations include conducting fingerprint-based criminal background checks on employees and reporting reasonably suspected or reasonably believed child abuse to public authorities.

By contrast, with respect to child sexual abuse, many, although certainly not all, important Orthodox authorities have rejected the ameliorative steps prescribed by secular law. Even more troublingly, they have permitted, and in at least some cases possibly encouraged, reprisals against those who have reported abuse, including victims and their families.

I argue that the problem does not lie in Jewish law. After thoroughly examining the relevant Jewish law doctrines, I conclude that Jewish law not only permits but actually demands that vigorous measures be taken to eradicate child sexual abuse. However, I also acknowledge that the sociological realities of the Orthodox Jewish community seem to have produced a variety of pressures that help perpetuate the status quo. Such factors include conscious or subconscious concerns for the financial viability of important communal institutions and for the community members’ continued fealty to traditional rabbinic authorities. However, I argue that even these concerns could be more successfully addressed if rabbinic authorities would spearhead steps to stamp out child sexual abuse.

Hynes protects a kidnapper - R' Helbrans

NYTimes    The problem, though, is that sometimes, in dealing with the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, it was Mr. Hynes himself who seemed to want these cases to go away. 

In 1994, William Plackenmeyer was a New York Police Department division commander in Borough Park, home to one of the city’s fastest growing ultra-Orthodox communities, and a key voting bloc for Mr. Hynes. 

 

A few years earlier, a charismatic ultra-Orthodox rabbi, Shlomo Helbrans, had agreed to tutor an Israeli couple’s 13-year-old boy, Shai Fhima Reuven, in preparation for his bar mitzvah. 

Instead, the rabbi kidnapped the boy and persuaded him to reject his family and embrace a zealous form of Hasidism. The police had the rabbi cornered. But the Brooklyn district attorney’s office did not want a confrontation; they argued that Shai was just a runaway.  [...]

Within 24 hours of the arrest, the captain said, two assistant district attorneys paid him a visit. They were apologetically emphatic: Your case might be strong, they told him, but our boss, Mr. Hynes, wants you to void the arrest.[...]

Reporting Abuse:At last - R Zwiebel clearly explains the Aguda's view

[This is a an interview I posted a year ago - which has direct relevance to the current interview I just posted- see comments]

[Since this is of great importance for all Jews and since this is the first time the Aguda has clearly stated their position - I am presenting the entire halachically important article from Mishpacha for critical examination and enlightenment]

 A few Minutes With...

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel [pages 30-31 Mishpacha Magazine August, 3 2011] 

Agudath Israel of America recently clarified its position on when one is halachically permitted to or required to report suspicions of any form of child abuse to authorities. That clarification led to further debate on a potential clash between halachah and secular law. Agudah's executive vice president, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, discussed this further with Mishpacha's news editor; Binyamin Rose

Would the Agudah support the formation of or put resources into a hotline or a board of rabbanim with the knowledge and expertise to guide people who suspect abuse?

We are definitely looking into this. I had a discussion with a member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah about how we should be following up. There are some concerns about a hotline in light of the fact that the sensitivity of the issues might require a face-to-face conversation rather than just an anonymous call over the phone. Certainly we believe that in light of everything that's going on in the world today, rabbanim should familiarize themselves with the signs and symptoms of abuse, as well as the issues involved in how and when they should be reported, and to whom. Agudath Israel has organized conferences and seminars for rabbanim and mental health professionals. We feel there is room to expand such forums to include a wider list of rabbanim who would familiarize themselves with all the issues and who would then be qualified and capable of providing guidance to Klal Yisrael who have these kinds of sh'eilos.

 What categories of people are considered by law to be mandated reporters, and what happens if there is a clash between the law of the land and the halachah? Does dina d'malchusa dina prevail?

 This is something that is usually subject to state law jurisdiction, so each state will have its own laws and regulations. The law that applies in New York, in general, lists a dozen or so categories, including teachers, pediatricians, and other health providers, who encounter children in their professional capacities and have reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused. Other people, such as the next-door neighbor, are not mandated reporters under the secular law. They are permitted and maybe even encouraged to report, but there is no New York statute that requires them to do so.

Regarding the second part of your question, I think those clashes will be few and far between. The secular law in New York State mandates you to make a report if you are on their list of categories and have "reasonable cause to suspect." Under the guidelines of Rav Elyashiv shlita and other gedolim, raglayim I'davar comes mighty close to "reasonable cause to suspect." They are so very close in my opinion, that I don't envision frequent clashes between the secular law and the halachah.

Where a conflict could arise would be in a case where a rav says not to report, but the person's lawyer says he must. In that case, I suppose part of the process of the sh'eilah to a rav could also be where the person goes back to the ray and says, "You told me not to report, but my lawyer says I have to, so does that in any way affect your psak?" The moreh hora'ah will then have to decide how that fits in with the overall equation in determining his final answer to the sh'eilah. 

Wouldn't the requirement to consult with rabbanim first delay the reporting process, thus leaving children at greater risk? 

Under secular law you are required to report promptly according to the statute. Even under secular law, if an inexperienced pediatrician sees something that makes him nervous, he may wish to consult with a more experienced doctor. Senior law enforcement officials have told me that such a consultation does not conflict with the law.

Where the process outlined by the gedolim under raglayim I'davar requires consulting with a rav first, a conflict might arise if that consultation would interfere with the immediacy of a report, but it should not delay the process any longer than the length of time it would take for two doctors to discuss the case between themselves. 

Are there efforts underway to reconcile the reported differences on this issue between the Agudah and the Rabbinical Council of America? 

We haven't had formal conversations with the RCA, but there are rabbanim engaged in informal discussions at all times. But I would also like to clarify what we have been referring to as the Agudath Israel position. We don't take positions. AII we did was present the issues at a halachic conference a few months ago and then issue a synopsis of the written teshuvos of gedolei haposkim, mostly in Eretz Yisrael. Not withstanding the very serious prohibition against mesirah, where there is raglayim l'davar, the gedolei haposkim are telling us today that we should report. While this is something very important that we wanted to bring to the community's attention, at the same time, we need to recognize the weightiness of the matter. People should be consulting with a ray who is knowledgeable in this area before coming to conclusions of their own. There is still an attitude that exists in certain quarters of the chareidi world that these matters have to be handled internally and not by the authorities. But today, the mainstream chareidi authorities hold that if there is raglayim I'dav ar, it should be brought to the authorities. In that respect, l don't think the position of the gedolei haposkim is substantively different from that of the RCA. 

People are concerned that incidents of abuse have been swept under the carpet and that victims were even hushed up by prominent community members. Since this feeling has gained validation in people's minds, is there anything in the new Agudah guidelines that alleviates these concerns?

 To the extent that the hushing up that may have taken place was a byproduct of halachic concerns about mesirah, I think the teshuvos of the gedolei haposkim that we brought out in our statement should provide the framework that will at least minimize such instances. We can no longer hide behind a blanket prohibition against reporting to the authorities if the gedolei haposkim are saying you should report to the authorities. That was one of the reasons we decided to publish our statement, even though we knew it would generate some backlash and controversy. 

It is clear that allegations of abuse can destroy a person’s reputation and family forever, and that people have misused the system to exact revenge. ls this due to a flaw in the system, and is it correctible? 

One of the advantages of the raglayim l'davar standard is that the halachic authorities are telling us you need to be very careful before you report. If it is eizeh dimyon, as in the phrase Rav Elyashiv used- mere conjecture – or if you have some vague sense, that's not enough. Part of what Rav Elyashiv and the other poskim are telling us is, this is dinei nefashos on both sides of the equation and we have to find a balance. We are concerned about some of the statements made by a few advocates for the victims, because there seems to be a lack of appreciation that sometimes allegations of this nature can be destructive to people who are entirely innocent. 

Is there any community-wide effort to raise awareness among children and parents, or is this just up to devoted volunteers?

 Over the last number of years, this issue has come out of the closet and has become a part of our community's consciousness. The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah took a step, which would have been unimaginable 10 or 15 years ago, to encourage parents to talk to their children about good touch and bad touch and what to do if someone touches them inappropriately. There are seminars for summer camp personnel on this subject. I don't know that we are where we need to be yet, but I think very meaningful movement has been made, and further steps are under consideration.

Molester Mondrowitz living in Nachlaot

NYPost   Here is Avrohom Mondrowitz, New York’s most notorious child molester — living scot-free in Israel.

Called the “Bin Laden of pedophiles” by one victim, the bogus rabbi and self-proclaimed psychologist fled the United States in 1984 just before cops broke into his Borough Park, Brooklyn, home with a search warrant. They found a cache of kiddie porn and lists of hundreds of names of local boys, most referred to Mondrowitz by Jewish families and child-service agencies for counseling and his yeshiva-style program.

“He was known in the insular community as the go-to therapist, child mentor,” said an outspoken victim, Mark Weiss, whose parents sent him to Mondrowitz at age 13. “He had a certain knack with kids.”

The Post last week spotted Mondrowitz, 64, cloaked in religious garb, in Nachlaot, a hip, Greenwich Village-type neighborhood in central Jerusalem near his apartment on Yizreel Street. He wears a façade of piety and respectability, even leading prayer services at a local synagogue. But documents show he has indulged his penchant for child porn and continued to seek contact with troubled kids.

Abuse:Halachic & Ethical Dilemmas I

Pitputim/Guest post    Consider this scenario

The family of a victim of sexual abuse approaches the abuser and their family. The family of the abused has not yet reported the said abuse to the police; instead they initially confront the abused and their family. The situation becomes complicated and lawyers are brought in. Lawyers for both sides settle on an agreement involving some “compensation.” In return the abuser agrees to plead guilty to a somewhat lesser offence without recording a conviction.

The lawyer of the abuser is under no doubt that her client is a dangerous pedophile. She had a choice. She could have refused to take the case. In the end, whether she was the lawyer who accepted the brief, or a lawyer who turned the case down, she is unable to remove thoughts from her head. She is convinced that the abuser is a dangerous person and that he may continue on his misadventure and sexually abuse others. She is bound by client confidentiality; we understand that

My question relates to the Halachic imperative. Is a lawyer/person in such a case permitted to remain silent? Is there not a real problem of contravening a Torah command: [Click link for rest of post Pitputim ]

Another disgusting abuse case in Brooklyn

WPIX    The family of a Brooklyn man being treated for drug addiction in California traces his problems back to sexual abuse by a yeshiva teacher, when he was just 9 years old. "I do recall the rabbi being over here, trying to hush up my dad," Yosef Werner--the abuse survivor's brother--told PIX 11 Friday.

20 years ago, Daniel "Benji" Werner came home from the Yeshiva of Brooklyn one day and started confiding in his mother at their Midwood home. "He told me the rabbi was touching him," Yehudis Werner told PIX. "And I said, 'What??!!"

Benji Werner told his mother the teacher would call him up to the front of the class, take the boy behind the desk, place Benji on his lap, and then put his hands in the boy's pants and molest him.

Mrs. Werner said she called her husband, Aaron, and he started contacting other parents from Benji's class. She told PIX several parents had heard the same thing from their children. Soon after, she said the family received calls from religious leaders. "They called up my husband and said 'if you continue to call parents, we'll make your name mud.'"

Pedophile released without tracking protocol

Haaretz    Officials in the Israel Prison Service's Unit for Monitoring Sex Offenders claim that due to turf wars among government agencies, a convicted pedophile is to be released from prison on Sunday without arrangements for housing or therapy. They say that makes it very difficult to keep tabs on the man, who is considered highly likely to reoffend. 

The individual served two previous prison terms for sexual offenses against minors. After the second one, as now, he was ordered to remain under supervision following his release but he reoffended, committing sexual crimes against a young boy. 

According to a figure familiar with the case, "In the absence of a supportive environment and with no permanent address, the individual will become even more dangerous while the monitoring capabilities have declined significantly."