Pedophile's Release From Jail Puts Moms of Blond-Haired, Blue-Eyed Boys in a Tough Position

sex offenderTom Szad is a sex offender SO dangerous that when Vermont releases him this coming Friday, they are warning parents of blue-eyed, blond-haired boys of 12 or 13 to watch out. Really, Vermont? That's the best you've got?

Many parents have expressed concern in Szad's hometown of Springfield (the place he was originally headed) and even the police chief is warning people to be alert. So, what is a parent supposed to do with this information?

As the mom of a 5-year-old boy (with blond hair and brown eyes), it's hard to know how I might react to a warning like this if it described my son. For one, I might not allow him outside my house without me being right on top of him. But for a 5-year-old, that is pretty much par for the course anyway. But what about a 12- or 13-year-old? There is a whole other level of independence that has just been stolen from them.

It's the job of law enforcement to keep us safe, but the laws in Vermont essentially state that because he has done his time for his original crime (molesting a 13-year-old boy with autism), he is free to go. Just like that.

Vermont, unlike several other states, has no such thing as a "civil commitment" in which sex offenders who are considered a danger to the public are locked up beyond their prison sentences. Is it right? Probably not. But it's the reality. So what hell is a mom of a boy who meets this description supposed to do?

It's hard to even imagine. Short of keeping your son chained to you (and good luck with that at that age), there is very little that can be done. Sure, they can check in when they are out on their bikes or walking to school, but that age is such a vital time for boys (and for girls). It's a time of so much growth and the beginning of real independence.

To take that away from a child -- that sense of independence and vital time of separation -- seems so unfair. What's a mom to do? I have no doubt that there will be a lot of scared parents calling their sons 10 times a day on cellphones and wanting to know their whereabouts constantly. It's hard to imagine that their rights are somehow trumped by the "rights" of this sex offender.

Sure, this is the U.S. and we have to accept these laws, but my heart breaks for every mom who has to lose sleep over this or fear for her child's safety and happiness. This just seems so unfair.

What do you think should be done in this case?


Image via Vermont Department of Corrections



To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar ASH

I would send those vigilantes after him we all just read about hahaha. But no seriously, why would they let him out if it sounds like they REALLY think he is going to be a problem???

socal... socalmommy13

If that couple wasnt locked up.. He would be their next stop!

LeeshaE LeeshaE

The only thing uncommon about this is the press release warning the general public. Any released sex offender is a threat when one third of them re-offend within the first year.

schlis schlis

Lol ASH. I'm tempted to agree.

ruby_... ruby_jewel_04

And WHY can't they change the law to keep assholes like this incarcerated?!

Brain... BrainyMommy

I have to lay some of the blame for the man being released on the parents of the original victim. The article states that he could have received a life sentence but was offered a plea deal to spare the victim from testifying. Sometimes, as difficult as it may be, having the victim testify may be the right thing to do. In this case it may have kept a sexual predator locked up for good. I think the better question is: Should we encourage/pressure victims to testify so that plea deals don't have to be offered?

Craft... CraftyJenna

BrainyMommy- it said his victim was autistic, he may have been incapable of testifing. It's a horrible thing for any child to go threw, let alone one with mental problems. I blame the system, he should have done the whole 20, not 12. 

Chana... Chanandler.Bong

The plea deal to spare the victim from testifying was in the prosecution's best interest. Individuals with autism, while under pressure, sometimes are unable to talk, or exhibit behaviors that are looked down upon by those who are unaware of the complexities of that disorder. It's likely the jury would not be well-versed in autism and the child's testimony would be perceived as conflicting with what the prosecutor is alleging. This happens quite frequently, which is why the blame should lie squarely on the legal system. Pedophiles and other monsters who attack children often prey on the weak for this very reason. It's easier to get away with a crime or get a lighter system when you find someone who is vulnerable to begin with. It's absolutely disgusting.

Senia... Seniahmom

Crimes against children and persons of limited cognitive and/or physical means should equate a life sentence no parole.

Ana Figueroa

I will post him every schools, day-cares and make sure everyone know this. If the vermont police department don't put this sick bastard away. We as parents should make crime watch parents in play grounds and schools, day-cares, after school programs. We need to protect our children at no costs. Have day and night watch in Vermont to New York on this man. Stop him at every turn. Make his life living hell.

1-10 of 111 comments 12345 Last