Well, Pandora's Box is now officially open.
After seeing this topic, I pulled out my
Sports Illustrated (dated May 21, 2018), and re-read the article on Heimlich; the cover story, written by S.L. Price, is incredibly unnerving, and yet difficult to put down simply because the matter is unprecedented. This is a young man at the beginning of his adult life, vying for a job as a professional athlete, concurrent with the highest level of visibility and scrutiny imaginable.
Anybody wanting to participate in this discussion should read the article first. Make sure you have the facts-don't assume. Conjecture has a way of making these kinds of topics veer out of control.
Firstly, as of the article's publication, Heimlich's records have been sealed, and his rehabilitation has been deemed a success....in the state of Washington, where he is from, and where the crime occurred. The same cannot be said in Oregon, where he goes to school. He is still registered as an offender, and must notify authorities whenever he moves.
It needs to be pointed out that this was not a one time occurrence. While the article does not specify how many times Heimlich assaulted his niece, it first happened when she was four years old (he was thirteen); the last alleged occurrence happened when she was six, and he was fifteen.
I understand the argument that he was still considered a minor, and as such, his brain was still developing. The article in
SI also points out how the juvenile court system has a different motivation than the criminal court system that handles adult cases-juvenile courts attempt to rehabilitate offenders if possible, while the criminal court system handling adult cases seek punitive measures (except for in cases of mental illness). Luke Heimlich was classified as a level 1 sex offender (least likely to repeat his offense); the article states that since he entered the program, he's followed every step required. And statistics show that these sex offenders have an incredibly low rate of recidivism (2.5%).
As far as his pleading guilty, and writing out a confession, he states that he did so to avoid a long trial that would play out in the public. He also didn't want to force his niece to take the stand. The article references multiple legal experts who state this is not uncommon. Heimlich was told that if he completed the five years of probation, and the court-prescribed biweekly counseling, his records would be sealed, and he would no longer need to register as a sex offender. He thought that if he did everything by the book, this would, essentially, be in the past. And it might have been. His arrest was only made public because the state of Oregon issued a citation stating that he failed to properly register; however, he did everything that he was required to do. My understanding is that the citation was essentially due to a clerical error. When a reporter for the local paper in Oregon did a standard background check prior to doing a feature article on Heimlich, the citation showed in public records, and the floodgates opened.
I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a Christian, and believe in forgiving those who are genuinely remorseful for what they've done. And, as previously stated, he's done everything the law has required of him. The state of Washington views it as Heimlich's paying his debt to society in full.
But it's just not that simple. It does boil down to a he said, she said, with the accuser being a young girl. There were no witnesses to the crime, so how can it be proven conclusively that he did what he was accused of? I didn't see (nor do I want to know) if there was any physical proof of the crime. And then there's the very fact that Heimlich states he did not do it. He has
vehemently denied the accusation. The only time he's stated he did it was when accepting a plea deal that threw out the first felony charge (for when his niece was four).
I've tried to put myself in his head. One of the tenets of criminal law in the United States is that the accused is considered "innocent until proven guilty". Well, the court of public opinion is something entirely different. Let's say that he decided to fight the charges. It's easy to say that he should have fought it tooth and nail, professing his innocence from the top of every rooftop. But consider this-once Luke Heimlichs' name is publicly linked to sexually assaulting a minor, there's no turning back. That's a stain on his name forever, even if the court finds that he's innocent of the crime. There will always be people who think he did it. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. I don't think it's at all difficult to understand why he choose to plea out. If he fights the charges in court, he loses no matter what happens. If he wins, even though he's an elite talent, possessing the kind of ability that would likely have had him taken in the first round of the amateur draft, teams still avoid taking a chance on him. Not only is it highly likely he never plays in the Major Leagues, even if he's signed, he can kiss any endorsement deals goodbye. And the stigma of being a sex offender still follows him, regardless of any jurisprudence.
We're likely never going to know for sure what happened. I feel terribly for the little girl. I can't imagine she'd lie, but is it possible? Could a parent have coached her to say what she did? The niece's mother divorced her husband. I'm not going to delve into the possible motivations for coaching her daughter-I want to believe that a mother would not put her own daughter through that. Either alternative is terrible to think of-either the little girl was assaulted by a loved one over the course of two years, or, she was coached into lying. That child is likely scarred for life, and that knowledge makes me incredibly angry.
If I had a young daughter, would I ever let her near this guy? Absolutely not. If I had a young son, how would I react if one day he came home wearing a Luke Heimlich baseball jersey? This whole thing makes my head spin, and my stomach turn.