"After graduating from University of Dayton Law School in 1997, Kirts embarked on a promising legal career that began as an assistant prosecutor for the city of Dayton.
In 2001, Kirts moved back to his home state of Illinois, where he soon became counsel to the state department of commerce and later an attorney for the Republican staff of the Illinois House of Representatives. In January 2009, he became the top attorney for the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. All that would change abruptly in June 2009, when Kirts was arrested in a Springfield, Ill. park restroom for exposing himself and asking for a sexual favor from an undercover police officer while reaching for the officer’s groin. Kirts was arrested and sentenced to a year of supervision for public indecency. In December, Kirts left Illinois and set up private practice in Dayton and began applying for positions with area juvenile courts as a 'guardian ad litem' — a paid court appointee who works with children caught in custody battles or suffering from abuse or neglect."
_________________________
I am a deeply flawed person and a genuinely Bad Lawyer, I am not throwing stones at Mr. Kirts, but I am at a loss as to what filters broke down in Ohio's processing of Mr. Kirt's guardian ad litem application. The whole point of a Guardian ad litem is the state is looking out for the best interest of a child. Talk about child endangerment.
Posts
so, a guy gets caught by a police practice that any objective legal observer recognizes as blatant entrapment, and suddenly he's a "pervert" and a pedophile?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's sad that the man felt the need to go to a park restroom to fulfill his needs as a homosexual, closet homosexual, whatever, but public indecency for approaching a groan man in what probably was a typical setting for such occurrences does not mean he's predisposed to molest or even expose himself to children.
ReplyDeleteHow is it entrapment?? You need to check your definition of that defense. He exposed himself, unless the officer asked him to do so, which there is no indication of in the article, it is not entrapment.
ReplyDeletePolice lead these closeted cruisers on. That's the only way they get the arrests. Do you think someone reaches for another's crotch unless the the other gives indications that he's gay and interested? Or wait, maybe all gay men are just like that, right?
ReplyDeleteI have to chime in on this topic. There are at least two issues being addressed here; entrapment and child molestation, as noted by anonymouses, being conflated.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Police departments all over the place send vice officers into public areas to catch "perverts", often public restrooms a la Larry Craig. They invariably use handsome, attractive men to attract gay guys; I have seen this in action and how they operate. While what they do may not meet the letter of the case law on entrapment, there is no doubt that they are familiar with customs and moves that gay guys make in attempting to connect, and exploit them in order to have the target make the first move that will be adjudicated illegal. As a rule, what is really going on is a negotiation between two people to engage in mutually consenting behavior which would not be illegal if it were not done in a public venue (your tax dollars at work).
I believe one reason people do this is because, despite the progress made in the last few decades, there is still a stigma attached to being gay, and many men cannot come out and thus still seek partners anonymously in public places. The stigma is still, that the men are "perverts", or "queer"; many people can't fathom this and don't like it, and especially get bent out of shape if they think their children might see it or find out about sexuality.
It is fair to assume that in this case, if the guy was arrested for exposing him to a Police officer, that the other party involved was not a juvenile (unless the Police have started recruiting juveniles as bait for these wastes of money and given them status as officers). Now, the connection between being a gay guy and being a pedophile has in fact been studied, and is the same issue that arose in California when the Briggs initiative was instigated in the 1970s. In reality, gays are less likely than straight to be pedophiles, and the Brigg's argument that allowing gays to be teachers was increasing the risk that children would be molested was really hogwash, and basically relied on the distaste and lack of understanding most people have for gays, and their desire to keep their children away from them.
I think this is the same fallacy being used in this post. There is no evidence that this guy is going to molest juveniles, even given that he may have been tricked by a lying police officer into exposing his dick.
I agree with the last anonymous post re: assumptions about gay men and children, entrapment, etc. However, one would hope, in an ideal world, that those responsible for the legal care of children would be above reproach--or at least, not be soliciting sexual favors (gay or straight)in restrooms. I can appreciate that finding a sexual partner may be challenging for some people, and I certainly don't think they should be arrested for responding to an (adult) invitation. But I would hope that the state could find a better legal caretaker for troubled kids.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in the post, my focus is on the process of selecting people to serve children who unquestionably need safe and trustworthy adult professionals. Here is where I think Mr Kirks fails, and it is not the assumption that because he is "gay" he will molest a child. Kirks fails because as a matter of judgement he engaged in highly risky and inherently ridiculous self-seeking behaviors knowing full well the consequence of being caught. Likewise, while it is the Ohio authorities who raised my eyebrows in not screening guardian ad litems--how is it Mr. Kirks, a former prosecutor feels it's appropriate to place himself in this position without first disclosing to program authorities his previous public indecency conviction?
ReplyDeleteNow let me make one further observation, someone caught in this situation, whether you believe it an appropriate expenditure of law enforcement resources or not (I don't particularly)--the person caught doing this act is generally speaking involved in routinely in high risk behaviors that calls into question character issues relevant to whether this person should be working with juveniles, especially troubled juveniles. In other words, because you are caught once doesn't mean you only did the act once, it means you got caught once . . . and your behavior in this situation can speak volumes about your attitude towards appropriate boundaries and the applicability of rules, generally.
BL
What filters broke down? I would say our societal filters. I represented children, parents, and the prosecutor in a clinic in child abuse and neglect in law school, and the most obvious take-away for me is that we woefully underfund the systems we have for dealing with child abuse and neglect. We'll pay billions to Halliburton to provide services for war and offshore oil drilling, but the poor people in charge of dealing with the IMPOSSIBLE issue of how to deal with families dealing with abuse and neglect get, well, the word isn't printable here . . .
ReplyDeletePeter--
ReplyDeleteYou say it all, and you say it well. Thanks for commenting.
BL
"Groan man." That was good.
ReplyDeleteThose friggin' Log Cabin Republicans always want some special treatment for their GOPlogs. wt
ReplyDeleteI am a former student of Kyle Kirts at a community college in Dayton, Ohio, where he taught several paralegal courses in which I was enrolled.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I was beyond stricken when I learned that Mr. Kirts was on probation for sexual misconduct - he seemed like such a nice guy, but then anyone can put on a show! Yes, I am sympathetic to the plight of homosexuals (especially men) who suffer the stigmas attached to their lifestyle choices.
It is unfair and unfortunate that humans have not yet evolved beyond biggotry in so socially sanctioned a manner.However, I must also agree with BL that it is a perfect demonstration of negligence on the part of the Ohio legal system, to have alloweed something of this magnitude slip through the cracks...This is about the charcter and credibility of a man charged with the supervision and protection of innocents, thrown head-first into the cold and inflexible justice system, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN!!!
Kirts is a liar and a sneak, in my opinion. He professed to be an honorable sort; a loving husband and father - not to mention a former prosecutor (whom I derived alot of inspiration from in making some of my own life decisions regarding education and the type of practice I wanted to engage in as an attorney one day), but now that I recall, he mentioned ABSOULTELY NOTHING ABOUT HIS PRACTICE IN CHICAGO.
When asked why he relocated, Kirts merely griped about student loan debt; moving back home with his inlaws and said I shouldn't go to law school if I ever wanted to make any money! I would not want such a man to even babysit my children, much less to be legally responsible for determining the quality of their care; the placement of these children as a matter of legal custody. Would you want an untrustworthy individual to care for your child, in any capacity? I should hope not...
Tina--
ReplyDeleteThank you for your additional insights! Good luck in your career. There are honorable folks out there, that genuinely care about people and principles. I'm sure you are going to be one of those.
BL
?
ReplyDelete