Archive for Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Paroled child molester back in custody

August 1, 2012


A recently paroled 54-year-old Lawrence man who was convicted of molesting a Lawrence girl in the 1990s is back in state custody after admitting that he violated the terms of his parole.

Jan Lunsford, a Kansas Department of Corrections spokesman, said Christopher J. Saemisch faced an allegation last week that he viewed pornography. He was prohibited from doing so as a parole condition. Lunsford said he could not release more details about the allegation.

According to KDOC records, Saemisch was brought to the Douglas County Jail on July 26 and taken Tuesday to a correctional facility in Norton.

Lunsford said Saemisch had waived his right to a revocation hearing, essentially admitting to the parole violation. The state’s Prisoner Review Board will make a decision later about how long he must spend in prison for the parole violation. Lunsford said it is common for offenders to be sentenced to serve six months, but it’s at the discretion of the board.

Until February, Saemisch had spent about 13 years in prison after he was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a 5-year-old girl, who also was a subject in dozens of pornographic videotapes he possessed. He also spent time in federal prison.

District Attorney Charles Branson had argued at a trial in February that District Judge Michael Malone should declare Saemisch a “sexually violent predator” so he could receive more treatment in state custody because he was likely to commit another sex offense if released. But Malone found that prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saemisch was likely to reoffend.


somebodynew 5 years, 5 months ago

So.... is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt ?? He obviously need more 'treatment' if he violated parole so quickly. Somehow I think the next time it won't be porno it will be another victim. Keep this......locked up.

amyjones 5 years, 5 months ago

I forgive you for being blind and biased. You are reacting the the article and not truth. The only thing obvious is that this article was poorly written (or brilliantly written as persuasion.) The key to understanding it is the phrase "essentially admitting". The likely reason he waived the right to a hearing, is that he already knew the "system" is hopeless. He has no guilt to admit, and wasn't 'caught' doing anything wrong. He is back in prison because of an allegation, not a real crime. The supposed violation was a likely a mere technicality, but the DOC doesn't care. They are under political pressure to harrass those with labels, like "sex offenders", and they think the public will feel safer. In this case, Mr. Saemisch is the victim. And this wouldn't be the first time Mr. Branson was wrong either. Although it is hard to understand why certain crimes are ever committed, and certainly all children should be valued and protected as much as possible, it is also wrong to assume things about the offenders. Many such people do change, and when they do, should be treated accordingly. Please find out the facts before you judge someone, as did Judge Malone.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 5 months ago

The flaw in your logic is that you ask people not to assume certain things, then you make certain assumptions. "The likely reason he waived the right to a hearing ..." - Your assumption. Now based on that assumption, you make the definitive statement that "Mr. Saemisch is the victim". One assumption built upon another.

So, while we're in the business of making assumptions, here, might I make a couple of my own. I'll assume that you're no disinterested third party, only seeking what is right. I'll assume you have a personal interest in this matter. Maybe you are acquainted with Mr. Saemisch in some way. Friend? Relative? Defense attorney? Whatever. In any of those scenarios, you are being less than objective. And if you are a friend, relative, attorney and you fail to disclose that to we the readers, then you are being less than honest with us.

Frankly, despite being a well written post, I remain unconvinced by your arguments. A sexual predator is back behind bars, where he belongs, removed from society specifically because of his actions.

Shelley Bock 5 years, 5 months ago

The DA's office had the chance to prove "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" at the hearing in February and failed to meet that burden. The Court considers the evidence presented and if that doesn't meet the standard, then the State's effort fails.

This most recent event can be considered as either a failure of probation requirements or as evidence going towards satisfaction of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". To me, it does not seem conclusive of anything, but that he messed up his probation and is returning to custody. How does this violation go towards proving that he is likely to reoffend? The experts would have to provide that information in a Court hearing.

somebodynew 5 years, 5 months ago

Well, guess I touched a few nerves. I would like to say I was sorry, but that would be a lie. Terms of probation are NOT "mere technicalities". They are the basic rules a person agrees to live by for being released from prison. When you purposly violate those rules that is not a technicality - - you are breaking the agreement to keep you out of prison. Sorry, go back to jail.

As for Mr Saemisch being a "victim", well, I don't want to be permanently banned from this site, so I am not going there. amyjones I agree with jhawkinsf - you obviously know this person in some way. Yeah, I do too. I don't share your feelings.

"How does this violation go towards proving that he is likely to reoffend?" Well, let's see - - he went to prison for child porn and child molestation and was released knowing he wasnt' supposed to look at that again. He did in a short time. Leads me to believe he was going to re-offend, but then I am not the judge.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.