Heimlich’s offense was serious. So was his punishment given that he was underage. He got two years’ probation, with the threat of 40 weeks in detention if he didn’t comply. And he was mandated into sex offender treatment and placed on the sex offender registry.

Oregonian columnist John Canzano called on Heimlich to pull himself out of the team’s College World Series appearance and suggested that his baseball life should be over. (Heimlich has since quit the team, though he might have noted that that Canzano has been about as consistent as the Washington Nationals bullpen when it comes to second chances.) Other commentators piled on. A CBS Sports analyst called Heimlich’s background “sordid” and said felons should never be allowed in college athletics. Eugene Register-Guard columnist Austin Meek blasted the school for signing Heimlich in the first place.

All of them argued that the larger context–Heimlich’s crime–wipes out his right to play baseball.

But every context has its context, as Tony Judt once said. Juveniles and adults convicted of sex crimes have very low re-offense rates. Teens often make bad decisions precisely because they’re still kids—developing brains haven’t formed the powers of judgment that adults have, which is why the juvenile system is designed to rehabilitate, not punish. And a mound of research shows that what keeps ex-offenders on the right track are housing, jobs, and social support—not isolation and public humiliation.

Heimlich went unselected in this week’s Major League draft. His baseball career may be over. The Oregonian’s Heimlich maneuver probably killed it.

The unforgiving rules operating for Heimlich don’t seem to apply to everyone. Take 31-year-old Texas Rangers pitcher Matt Bush. In March 2012, behind the wheel of his SUV while drunk, he hit 72-year-old motorcyclist Anthony Tufano. Then he fled the scene, driving over Tufano’s head in the process. Tufano suffered a brain hemorrhage, a collapsed lung, broken ribs, broken bones in his back. Bush would have killed Tufano had he not been wearing a helmet. It was Bush’s third arrest for a DUI.

Please read the rest of Steven’s posting at Life on the List.

As a teenager, Luke plead guilty for inappropriately touching a 6-year-old he knew. He was sentenced to 40 weeks in a juvenile detention facility, but the sentence was dropped after Luke completed both sex offender treatment and two years of probation. In a statement released Friday, Luke remarked he was “grateful” for the counseling he received.

We ought to accept Luke’s responsibility and calm down. This isn’t an “either.. or” situation. The criminal legal system has a responsibility to both parties. We can be deeply troubled by the harm caused to the 6-year-old, and we shouldn’t minimize the impact of the harm. We should also agree Luke met his legal and moral obligations for his past transgression.

As Oregon State President Ed Ray reiterated, “this case involves a criminal matter that was previously addressed by the judicial system in the state of Washington.” Luke admitted to and took responsibility for his actions. What we shouldn’t agree to is Luke’s endless public flogging.

Please read the remainder of David’s post here.

David Booth is Executive Director of the Sex Law and Policy Center.

Even those who do not appreciate the Biblical reference will have no trouble relating this to the recent comment made in an op-ed written by John Canzano about Luke Heimlich, the standout college baseball pitcher recently “outed” as being on the sex offender registry. In his diatribe against Heimlich, Canzano opens with reminding us of the victim and says that she matters and, in fact, matters more than Luke.

This is the elitist view that has led us to a set of assumptions used to justify the harshest of treatments against those we find morally inferior to ourselves. It is the view that makes it difficult to see the life of a homeless beggar being as valuable as your own. It is the view that has led us to make assumptions about victims that are destructive to their recovery.

“She is ruined forever.” “Her life will never be the same.” “She will never get over this.” Therapists and legitimate victim service providers know this is the opposite of what victims need to hear, but the all-knowing public persists in that belief. Once that belief is accepted, it logically follows that the person who caused the destruction of that life must have his own destroyed. Therefore, nothing that can be done to bring him grief and shame and ostracism is too extreme.

And thus we have a registry that says to the world that those on it have ruined the lives of others and deserve to have their own ruined, and no punishment, consequence, or restriction heaped on the perpetrator is enough to repay the victim for what she has lost.

This works well for revenge. It doesn’t work at all for the well being of society.

With the proper help and sometime with no help but their own inner strength, victims can and do move past their pain, just as we all move past pain and excruciating loss and horrific tragedy.

Those who caused the pain can and do move past what motivated them to act as they did. If society is to benefit, it must do all it can to expedite this. The registry and its subsequent restrictions do the opposite. They keep former offenders from moving past where they were and going forward.

Because Luke was a juvenile when he committed his crime, and because the state he was registered in does not make public the offenders like Luke who are assessed as a very low risk to re-offend, he was doing what benefits society. He was moving forward. He was earning his place in a society that was giving him a second chance.

Now that all hangs in the balance, and, as Mr. Canzano correctly says, public opinion is divided. The outcome and Luke’s future are unsure, but one thing is sure.

The young victim, by all accounts, was moving past her pain to the future, but that has been derailed as well with this dredging up of her past. It is difficult to see how she is being well served.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Luke was doing anything but living a law-abiding, productive life with a bright future. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would ever re-offend. It is very difficult to see how this revelation will benefit anything or anyone.

Yes, victims matter. Those who commit crimes matter. And encouraging and enabling both to be the best they can be matters. Why do we do the opposite?