The police passed out fliers to neighbors. Sent emails. Held a meeting in a Roseville City gymnasium for residents to express their anger and outrage. Charles Etchison had moved in.
Etchison had a horrible criminal history, ranging from a murder with a meat cleaver when he was 17, to sexually assaulting a minor, to forcing three young women to “orally copulate him,” according to the Roseville Press Tribune. But the day came i 2006 that he walked out of prison. He married. He moved to Roseville. Then all hell broke loose.
On Wednesday, residents expressed outrage that Etchison could be allowed to live so close to local schools and parks.“It’s soccer season – our parks are in maximum use,” said resident John Vertido, a Roseville parks commissioner who urged police to step up their outreach at local parks.
Blair explained Etchison, who is not on parole, faces no restrictions on residency or movement.
That prompted resident Ken Waterhouse to propose the city investigate adopting a citywide ordinance limiting where sex offenders could reside.
“We really have to watch out for someone with violent behavior on top of the sexual assault,” he said. “It’s his right not life here unfortunately but our right to restrict where he goes.”
The Roseville police were caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, had they not engaged in such a massive information campaign to alert the good people of Roseville to the convicted killer and sexual predator in their midst, they would be held accountable should anything happen. On the other hand, they created an atmosphere of mass hysteria.
Etchison says that he has found God, and is no longer a threat to anyone.
The people of Roseville really don’t care enough about Etchison’s welfare to find out whether that’s true. It’s an awful tradeoff, ripe for a witch hunt should anyone be sexually molested or harmed in Roseville. Guess whose door will be the first to feel the rap of a cop’s fist?
Recognizing the fact that the various “Megan’s Laws” that wrap around the country have created a permanent underclass of former convicts who will never find a place in society, even though they have “paid their dues,” it does little to comfort people who fail to see why they should trade the safety of their children for the “rights” of criminals. Once a criminal, always a criminal. Or more to the point, once a criminal, why take a chance.
Given the extensive police “informational” campaign against Etchison, he never stood a chance of living a law-abiding life in Roseville. The residents of Roseville, Etchison excepted, are thankful that they know, though disappointed that there is nothing they can do to make Etchison go very far away.
But there’s no place for Etchison to go. No community welcomes someone like Etchison into its midst.
Whether he has truly turned over a new leaf, escaped his demons, and will live out the remainder of his years as a law-abiding citizen remains to be seen. Whether the good residents of Roseville have been needlessly whipped in a state of fear and paranoia, undermining their peaceful existence, remains to be seen. But this situation offers no comfort to anyone.
Etchison has joined the underclass of people who will never be allowed to escape their past. And we have no place for them in the present. And there is no solution to this part of the problem.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Greenfield, Etchison was released from the California Youth Authority after serving just 2 1/2 years for rape and murder. Then he raped a minor and three women and served a prison term. Now that he has been released again, public safety demands a very high standard of proof that he won’t commit further crimes. What proof can you offer of that? Is your proof strong enough to risk your own life on it? If it is, then let’s make a bargain: If Etchison commits any more violent crimes, you promise to serve a prison sentence equal to his own. Or, if he commits another murder, you agree to kill yourself. If you say he is no threat, back that up by putting yourself at risk just as you expect others to do.
Jack, neither life nor I guarantee you anything. Your position, though presented in the emotional and borderline psychotic way typical of someone whose emotion overwhelms his ability to reason, has some appeal. Why should you or your family assume any risk for Etchison’s benefit?
There are two answers. First, life is fraught with risks. Those you know, like Etchison, and those you don’t, like being struck by the SUV coming down the street. There are no guarantees for either. Second, Etchison is out of prison. You might not like that fact, since his mere freedom presents a threat, but he is. You don’t want him near you. No one else wants him near them either. But the laws of physics require that he be somewhere, and these law cannot be disobeyed. So what will you do about it?
The depth of anger and fear you express makes it sound as if you would rather murder him now the risk the threat of doing harm. That may well be how you feel, even if committing murder isn’t something you would do. But short of that, there are no other choices. You can’t cage forever anyone who you feel is a threat to your safety and security.
Tough issue, to be sure. I’m in the middle of the first and second comments.
We all move into the safest neighborhoods we can afford, thus moving away from people like Charles Etchison. So, in a sense, we *do* make him someone else’s problem. We force him and people like him to remain in poor neighborhoods, while we live in more expensive ones.
Plus, the “life is fraught with risks” is true, but lacks nuance. Yes, it’s far more likely that a child will be molested by a friend or family member than a stranger. So, for many, Etchison is a red herring.
No, this doesn’t mean we don’t do what we can to protect our children from strangers. I wouldn’t want Etchison living next door to me. And if no one else does either, well, maybe Etchison should have thought about that before molesting children.
One thing people want to do is make someone else’s problem, my problem. Nope. I didn’t make Etchison rape anyone. So if he can’t find a place to live, that’s his problem; not mine. And I’m not making it mine out of white guilt, or class guilt, or whatever guilt people are supposed to have.
Also, while life is fraught with risk, I wear a seat belt. I lock my doors. I have health insurance. I do whatever else I can do to manage risk. So we could file under “risk mitigation” getting people like Etchison out of my neighborhood.
This reflects you idea of a solution? Don’t try anything analytical. You’ll hurt yourself.
Greenfield, I proposed that you accept the same risk to your life and freedom that you expect the people of Roseville to accept, the danger that Etchison will rape or murder more victims. You declined to take that risk. Your hypocrisy doesn’t lie in your refusal to take the risk, but in your complaint that the people of Roseville don’t want to take it either.
If no American community is willing to accept a man like Etchison, then he is free to emigrate. But, what if no country is willing to accept him, either? Then the solution is life imprisonment. Had the state of California imposed that on him when he committed murder, three women and one child would have been spared the misery of getting raped by Etchison later.
How do you — or Scott, for that matter — know that there’s no sex offenders in your own neighborhoods? (I know roughly where the registered addresses of the nearest Level III RSOs to me are; there’s six in my zip code, and my kids fit the preference profile of four of them. For various reasons — including the fact that none of them are on my block — I’m not particularly worried about them. That said, were they all to decide to move to Wisconsin, it wouldn’t bother me none. If I were the worrying type, I’d worry more about those who haven’t yet been caught, as I can’t get their names and block addresses from a simple online search.)
Either we’re going to have to give life sentences to all sex offenders or we’re going to have convicted sex offenders living somewhere outside of prison, and that’s what is going to happen. We can’t put them on a boat and ship them off to Botany Bay, after all.
I can understand the folks who wouldn’t want any of them moving into their neighborhood — I’m one of those folks, after all — but Scott’s right: there is no solution to the problem.
(And, by the way, you’ll never get the universal life-without-parole sentences for murder that you want when there’s all that prison space needed for girlfriends of drug dealers who didn’t have anybody to flip on; whether or not such sentences are a good idea is irrelevant.)
Jack, that you propose something silly doesn’t compel me to respond with equal foolishness. I didn’t pick Roseville as the place for Etchison to live, and your demand that I somehow take responsibility for his choice is inane. The fact that you seem to think it perfectly reasonable doesn’t make it any less inane, or me hypocritical. It simply doesn’t follow.
And if you are unwilling to accept a man like Etchison in your community, you are free to emigrate as well. No one is forcing you to stay in Roseville. Don’t like it? Leave. Bye. But that wouldn’t suit your position, since he’s the problem, as far as you’re concerned, and therefore he should leave.
Since you can’t compel the legal system to imprison for life everyone you don’t want around (as in they didn’t make Jack Olson the judge of all people), you’ve created your own untenable situation. Don’t blame me for your situation, and don’t demand that I somehow take responsibility for your situation. Don’t blame Etchison, as he has to live somewhere, and for whatever reason your community lost. Don’t blame the legal system, as they can’t imprison everyone that Jack Olsen fears. Not too many people left to blame, Jack.
Finally, we all understand and agree that life would be far better, and safer, if no one ever did what Etchison did, and if we never had anyone like Etchison in our midst. Nobody wants a Jack Etchison next door to them. I don’t want him next to me anymore than you want him next to you. We understand your feelings. But these feelings don’t provide a solution. That’s the problem: There is no solution to this dilemma. You aren’t wrong to feel as you do, but you’re stuck because there is no alternative.
By the way, Jack, I notice that you went from Mr. Greenfield in your first comment, which was unnecessarily formal, to Greenfield in your second, which was unnecessarily rude. I realize that you’re a very emotional fellow, but please try to keep it civil.
I didn’t pick Roseville as the place for Etchison to live, and your demand that I somehow take responsibility for his choice is inane.
So the people of Roseville should take responsibility for his choice to be a rapist/child molester/murderer? Why? Because he moved there?
to Greenfield in your second, which was unnecessarily rude
His comment was not rude. Maybe it just appeared that way because it hit too close to its mark?
And you’re being every bit as emotional as you accuse Mr. Olson of being. And every bit as rude.
In this thread you offered the following:
* “Your position, though presented in the emotional and borderline psychotic way typical of someone whose emotion overwhelms his ability to reason”
* “Don’t try anything analytical. You’ll hurt yourself”
* “Jack, that you propose something silly doesn’t compel me to respond with equal foolishness”
* “your demand that I somehow take responsibility for his choice is inane”
* “I realize that you’re a very emotional fellow, but please try to keep it civil.”
So that’s level-headedness and civility?
I’m a youg single mother living with 2 small children in the same Community as this man. I’m a frightened at night now just knowing someone like this man lives so close. I own my home so I can’t just pick up and leave… I moved to this area for a safer envirnment for my childrean. Why did this man have to move here? Why???
As a lawyer, there’s an expectation that you would demonstrate a better understanding of both language and logic. Both are lacking here. In abundance. Jack is allowed to engage in a purely emotional argument, despite its lack of logic, as he comes as a non-lawyer who is emotionally involved in the topic. You don’t.
How so, you ask?
Take your first point, for example. I’m not demanding that Jack go to jail or be murdered should Etchison commit another crime. He was proposing that of me. That’s the difference. Can you understand that difference?
Take your second point, for example. The quote is about Jack’s addressing me as “Greenfield”, and your reaction is that “his comment was not rude. Maybe it hit too close too home.” The nicest thing to call this is a non-sequitor. There is no connection between my comment and yours, using the standard English language. Can you understand this?
And so it goes. Chill out Mike. This isn’t your best day.
Perhaps the most comforting thing to consider is now that his situation is so well known, to the police, public and media, there is probably no possibility that he would commit another crime, even if he was so inclined, since everyone would immediately look to him. Even if he were to commit another crime, something that is wholly speculative right now, it would be far more likely to happen away from your community so that he would not become the obvious suspect.
In a strange way, all of this attention has likely protected the community from any possibility that Etchison will do harm in Roseville. And then, there is always the possibility that he will never commit another crime and presents no danger at all. Either way, I hope this helps to make you feel better.
SHG, you are imputing a characteristic of analytical ability to an axe murderer who has committed his crimes while his analytical abilities and logical facilities were obviously suppressed during his previous crime sprees.
It is delusional for someone to think and irresponsible for you to persuade others that the prospect of being caught and punished is enough of a deterrent to make it “probably no possibility” when the beast gets its blood lust up.
Perhaps the only effect of the prospect of being caught as deterrent to the beast is that after he commits his next crime, he is more likely to eliminate the witness, as he has done before.
SHG, The possibility that Etchison will drive to a neighboring community to murder his next victim rather than doing it here does this make me feel better about him. The citizens are not comforted by your baseless assurances.
Why do you suppose that my purpose is to assure anyone of anything? Is there something in the water that makes you unable to understand the equation. For better or worse. Etchison is out. For better or worse, he has chosen Roseville to reside. He’s now there.
If he’s a beast or not, he’s still there. What do you propose to do about it? Do you plan to go out and murder him to get him out of your community? If so, then you’re no better than Etchison. If not, then you have to live with it. Government cannot just keep Etchison locked up forever to protect your peace of mind.
There are thousands of Etchisons around this country. They all have to be somewhere. No one wants them, and that’s perfectly understandable. But they must be somewhere. Either your community will explode with anger, or it will come to terms with this situation, be on guard, and move on with your lives.
Please understand that this has made our community angry and frustrated. To have someone with so much potential for harm in our midst has us worried sick. We realize that it’s not your fault, and that you are trying to put this in the context of the bigger picture.
Please understand that we are lashing out because we have no idea what else to do. We don’t want Charles Etchison here. We understand that we can’t stop him, and we are frustrated because we our powerless.
Yes, he has to be somewhere. But why us. And yes, I realize that there’s no answer to this question, but it doesn’t make us feel any better or safer.
So I apologize for my neighbors’ anger and rudeness, and I hope you will understand that right now, we find anyone who tries to explain the situation to be part of the problem and our enemy. And so we get angry with them as well. It’s not about you. I know what you are saying is true, but that doesn’t make it any easier, and if we can’t have a solution, we at least want to hear everyone agree that we are the victims here.
I completely understand. Thanks for your comment, and I do hope the best for Roseville.
I don’t know Scott, I think we’re seeing the “solution” bit by bit every year as people who would normally have been paroled on determinate sentences now have what amount to LWOP and legislators and voters find more and more ways to get to life sentences. Even as the economy crumbles, locking up people who they don’t want living amongst them appears to be something people are still willing to pay for. I don’t know that we want to exacerbate this by trivializing their concerns and telling them to “deal with it.” They will, and our clients will foot the bill.
I don’t see that I’m trivializing it, but it creates an irreconciliable situation. As you can see, there’s little room for discussion, since they are absolute that Etchison is a beast within their community, which results in a bottom line. Frankly, I’m more worried that all of the anticipatory anger will result in a bad situation getting worse.
As for legislators, when haven’t they been happy to throw away the keys on the untouchables of society?
You know, as do I, that no one wants a sex offender in their midst. Do you have a solution? Thus far, no one has offered any answer aside from the residents of Roseville, whose answer is that they want him out. So what do we do with these “beasts”? Do you have anything to offer to help, or just to critique?
Lesson For Lawyers From Roseville
My recent post about the dilemma presented by Charles Etchison, who moved to Roseville, California after his release from prison post-murder, post-child molestation, post-sexual assault, resulted in some disturbing commentary.
Lesson For Lawyers From Roseville
My recent post about the dilemma presented by Charles Etchison, who moved to Roseville, California after his release from prison post-murder, post-child molestation, post-sexual assault, resulted in some disturbing commentary.
Lesson For Lawyers From Roseville
My recent post about the dilemma presented by Charles Etchison, who moved to Roseville, California after his release from prison post-murder, post-child molestation, post-sexual assault, resulted in some disturbing commentary.
Lesson For Lawyers From Roseville
My recent post about the dilemma presented by Charles Etchison, who moved to Roseville, California after his release from prison post-murder, post-child molestation, post-sexual assault, resulted in some disturbing commentary.
My solution is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for those convicted of “special circumstances’ murder. I would propose the prison population caused by this policy be offset or reduced by short terming and releasing non-violent marijuana abusers.
Roseville has very good water quality.
Government can keep criminals like Etchison locked up for life, by not bothering to imprison idiots who abuse “recreational” drugs while committing no other crime. I think the tradeoff in prison time would actually save the taxpayers money.
There is no “better” in your better or worse argument.
I do not have a solution for the individual in question, either. I am a conscientious objector to murdering people, so your suggestion that I kill him myself will have to be declined.
On the other hand, if I am called to Jury duty in the trial of someone who does solve the problem, I will pay rapt and sympathetic attention to the defense attorney’s arguments.
I enjoyed reading this discussion. The response by RealParent was one of the most honest postings I have ever seen on the Internet and I appreciate that honesty.
I disgree that there is no solution to this problem. I believe that residential restrictions, of any type, are a red herring. When a man is sleeping in his home, he is of no danger to anyone (except in those rare cases when he is a sleep-walker). Residential restrictions take the focus away from what a man does to what a man is, and that is error. People are not threatened by the fact that he is a “violent man,” they are threatened by the fact that he might engage in violent behavior. To say that the only way to regulate his behavior is to lock him in prison is a false statement. There can be no solution until you break through the false choice that it’s either no freedom or total freedom.
The community feels powerless because it wants to be powerless. There are many things it can do to lower the risk of him offending again in their community, short of tossing him out. They know that if they are honest. But they honestly don’t want to do it because frankly it doesn’t feel as good as acting wimpy and scared, which is a lot of fun. IMHO, what’s going on in that community is typical American posing. Better to engage in emotional release than concrete action to lower the risk.
Thanks Daniel, both for your thoughtfulness as well as your constructive views. I agree about Real Parent, and could feel his pain. Putting energies into figuring out how to solve this situation rather than lashing out and trying to pin blame is far more useful and productive.
Daniel, you write : “There are many things it can do to lower the risk of him offending again in their community, short of tossing him out”
yet you do not offer us even one of these ideas.
SHG thanked you for your thoughtfulness ( your post and his were mainly to hurl insults at the citizens of Roseville, how thoughtful)
and your constructive views. (Like I said, you did not even leave one itty bitty tiny suggestion.
So how do we “regulate” his behavior to ensure our safety and his liberty?
Do you really have any workable idea, or is that someone else’s department?
You’re still not getting it. Etchison isn’t the problem. He’s done nothing wrong since he was release from prison. He’s done nothing wrong since he moved to Roseville. No matter what he did wrong in the past, he’s done nothing wrong since. You, and those who think like you, and act out of hatred and fear, are now the problem.
Squire Greenfield,
You are correct about only one thing. I am still not getting it.
I don’t get how the law abiding, innocent and vulnerable residents are the problem that need to be “regulated”
I told you that I conscientiously object to murdering Etchison, Therefore, I believe that I am sufficiently self-regulated.
I suspect your contempt for the innocent and vulnerable and your compassion and sympathy for the evil-hearted is posturing for the sake of being provocative.
If you really think the way you write, you would make terrific fodder for wingnuts Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly.
Are you a Fox News caricature of a defense attorney?
And you never will get it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I see it better than you., SHG. Your extreme positions are silly but harmless in of themselves. No,
The greatest harm that you do is to give the Hannity /Limbaugh crowd a real life leftist straw man with crazy ideas to parade about to scare people into siding with the far right.
I think you can make some good money there at Fox News, They need someone like you that can look foolish while spouting crap designed to embarrass the left.
SHG, Hey you can use this thread with me on your application to be a Fox News analyst.
Well, there you go. Now you’ve convinced me that you’re not just an angry, frustrated self-serving ignoramus, but in fact a brilliant and articulate spokesman for innocent victims. And you’ve now convinced me not to be a tool of the radical left to make Hannity look like a genius, but instead be a thoughtful liberal who believes that every person who Jim from Roseville doesn’t like should go to prison for life so that Jim, the innocent victim, doesn’t have to be afraid of anyone ever again.
Yup, you see it much clearer than me, with my extreme, silly (but harmless) positions. Thank you for opening my eyes.
Sorry, I have nothing to add. Just wanted to chuckle out loud at the “contempt for the innocent and vulnerable”.
Such as Etchison. Because right now he is “innocent and vulnerable”. And Scott has shown nothing but sympathy for him in his current predicament, brought upon by other Roseville residents such as yourself.