Professor Jonathan Turley, one of the top legal experts in the US, writes about the Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes' refusal to release the names of arrested haredi pedophiles:
…Assistant District Attorney Morgan Dennehy insisted that the Orthodox Jewish community is “unique” and that the names of the charged would allow the identification of the victims. However, the fact that the community is so tight knit would also presumably mean that the charges against individuals would be known to other people in the community. Moreover, the withholding of the names can endanger other minors who may have contact with them without their parents knowing of the charges. It would also mean that other victims may not learn of the charges and come forward — something that we have seen in other cases.
There appears to be 85 Orthodox Jews arrested on sex charges during the past three years — presumably the community is already aware of many of their identities since they have had to get lawyers and be processed in the criminal justice system.
Dennehy also claimed that revealing the names would undermine the operation of the DA’s special hotline, Kol Tzedek, or Voice of Justice — set up to deal with victims in the Orthodox community. She suggested that it might deter victims from coming forward. Yet, it may also encourage such victims since the Orthodox community has been accused in the past of covering up abuse and harassing victims. Now victims could see actual cases of prosecution and compare their own experiences in light of such charges.
I believe that the preferential treatment given this religious community is deeply disturbing and unjustified. We have previously seen extraordinary measures by city leaders to accommodate the hasidic community in its view of women and clothing styles. It is difficult to explain to other defendants why they are named (and mugshots released) but others are not. It appears that a defendant need only be a member of the Orthodox Jewish community to be able to claim an exemption from public identification. If you are a member of another religion or an atheist, you are out of luck because you are not “unique.” What about insular Muslim or small evangelical communities?
The preferential treatment given this group undermines not only principles of separation of church and state but the public right to know about public charges in the criminal justice system. The media often allows the public to monitor the actions not just of accused persons but the government itself. The Court has stressed that
responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. . . . The press does not simply publish information about trials, but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966).
The decision of the District Attorney in this case in my view is fundamentally at odds with fair and equal treatment in the criminal justice system.
Add to this what Turley doesn't know – that Hynes lied about the number of haredi pedophiles brought in through Kol Tzedek, inflating the number by including cases that were closed (through conviction or a guilty plea) before Kol Tzedek even existed, and including other cases that had absolutely nothing to do with Kol Tzedek.
Hynes is clearly dishonest.
And as Turley points out, he isn't much of a legal scholar, either.
Hynes preferential treatment of haredi pedophiles is violating the civil rights of non-haredi sex offenders and of haredi children who face what appears to be a greater risk of sexual assault because of Hynes' actions.
And that is why more activists are saying that Charles Hynes must go.