Ugly Double Standards in IllinoisThe Douglas J. Taube CaseWhat happens when our laws treat children as property? How are children failed when our criminal justice system treats the sexual molestation of children as an illness, rather than a crime? The Illinois case of a man who was allowed to go free after raping two adopted children shines light on the ugly truth. It is clear evidence of why Rep. Joe Dunn's "Protect ALL Children" bill (HB 571) is so important to the children of Illinois. In 1998, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District delivered an opinion in the case of People vs. Taube (No. 3-97-0810). The case concerned an Illinois man who was found guilty of criminal sexual assault against two children, ages 8 and 10. If Taube had raped any other children, he would have faced certain prison time. But since the victims were his "own" adopted children—Illinois law provided for probation and "therapy." Taube not only escaped justice for his unspeakable crimes, but he then took the State of Illinois for quite a ride. He used the court system at least 18 times, saw at least 4 "therapists," took part in at least 2 work-release programs before he finally did jail time for probation violation. According to the court's ruling, Taube pled guilty on January 12, 1995 to two counts of criminal sexual assault (rape) of two adopted children, ages 8 and 10. (He had been initially charged with three additional counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, a Class X felony.) But because his victims were family members Taube was eligible for more lenient punishment. Accordingly, he was given a sentence of "48 months probation; 9 months work release; obtain a sexual offender evaluation and complete all counseling & treatment recommended by Prob Dept. [sic]; ***; any counseling program must be for a minimum of 2 years; ***; no unsupervised contact with [the victims]***; pay costs of any counseling for the victims." But Taube seemed determined to prove the absurdity of this response to the rape of a child. According to the Court, "In a 27-month period ... defendant appeared before the court on 16 separate occasions. These appearances were required by defendant's multiple attempts to modify the terms of his probation and the State's attempts to enforce the original provisions." Taube repeatedly refused to cooperate with "treatment." He objected to tests, and according to one counselor, he "felt that he did not need treatment." He explicitly blamed his victims for his sexual offenses and portrayed himself as the victim. He reportedly showed no remorse, failed to cooperate in group sessions and stated that "he wanted the victims to take responsibility for the abuse." But Taube had his defenders. He called three witnesses, a licensed clinical psychologist and two therapists. The psychologist testified that he treated Taube for "an adjustment disorder" and depression, and that "he found the defendant cooperative and sincere ..." A therapist testified that he had treated Taube for "career stress, divorce adjustment, and the sexual offenses," and that in his opinion Taube was cooperative and "not in denial." The third therapist testified that he found Taube a "candidate for treatment." Taube then testified, blaming others for their failure to tell him he was not in compliance with treatment. The Court ruled that Taube had indeed violated the terms of his probation and that the lower court's finding that his "rehabilitative potential was exhausted" had been established. In accordance with the Trial Court's earlier ruling, Taube was given a sentence of four year's imprisonment for probation violation, with credit for time served in the county jail. Thus, in the Taube case, a convicted child rapist:
All because Illinois law contained two separate standards of justice, one for criminals who sexually prey on our children ... and a lesser one for those who prey on "their own." Illinois Appellate Court Opinion: People v. Taube, No. 3-97-0810 Return to "Illinois to Eliminate Child Sexual Abuse Loophole" |