Plea bargain to lead to difficult term of probation

What caused the injury to a child – the inability - for life - to trust?

Waco – The little girl was only 9 years of age when the well-respected, wealthy business man persuaded her it would be all right to perform for him – to dance naked while he made photographs of her with his cell phone.

Then he raped the little girl, according to a criminal complaint.

Authorities released him on $l.5 million bond following his arrest in February, 2010.

In a multi-count indictment, prosecutors outlined a case in which the alleged offender, a former financial adviser, was to be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, sexual performance of a child, criminal solicitation of a minor, and possession of child pornography.

He was then re-indicted for two counts of sexual performance by a child and three counts of indecency with a child by contact.

That's when John Thomas Bauer, 41, destroyed his cell phone in an attempt to destroy the digital photographic and video evidence of the alleged crimes. He admitted to Woodway police officers that he did so.

His defense attorney arranged a plea bargain. Bill Johnston struck a deal with Prosecutor Michelle Voirin, who recommended that Mr. Bauer should be placed on regular felony probation for 10 years – the maximum amount of time a person may be placed on felony adult commuity supervision – for the crimes of third-degree felony tampering with physical evidence and injury to a child.

In the agreement, Mr. Bauer waived his right to indictment by a Grand Jury for the offense of injury to a child. He elected to plead guilty to charges outlined by “information.”

According to expert witnesses, a child's ability to ever trust another human being – an adult male or female, child or adolescent – is in most cases permanently affected by such treatment. This constitutes a mental injury of a permanent nature.

District Attorney Abel Reyna stepped in and modified the structure of the deal. He changed the recommendation of the sentence to an offer of deferred adjudication in return for a guilty plea and 10 years of probation to be served under terms and conditions which include the stipulation that law enforcement authorities must be kept informed of Mr. Bauer's whereabouts during the entire 10 years.

State Criminal 19th District Judge Ralph Strother accepted the guilty plea yesterday, which removes all burden of proof from the State of Texas by Mr. Bauer's own admission of guilt.

Now the Court must pass sentence – an event that is scheduled for June 25. If Mr. Bauer completes the full 10 years of probation with no violation, there will be no permeanent record of his conviction.

There is a catch.

Should probation authorities find reason to “violate” Mr. Bauer's deferred adjudication probation, he will be subject to the full array of punishment when he is returned to the Court to proceed to original sentencing.

That includes a sentence of anywhere from 5 to 99 years, or life behind bars, on a sentence of deferred adjudication for the offenses for which Mr. Bauer has plead guilty. Deferred adjudication is not the same as regular probation. If he successfully completes the term, he will never have to register as a sex offender.

The Judge is to study a forthcoming pre-sentence investigation report from the Adult Probation Department in order to make up his mind.

Living up to the terms of the agreement won't be easy, according to Mr. Reyna, the District Attorney.

He told a journalist that “I would much rather him face life if he violated than 10 years. As for commenting on the rest of the case, I would rather wait until the sentence is handed down.”

What kind of persons typically commit such offenses against the very young in our society?

Doctors call them sociopaths, though the term has by and large been replaced by the description of one who is suffering from “antisocial personality disorder.”

Writing in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” Fourth Edition (1994), David Lykken describes the findings of Dr. Robert Hare as having been created by ineffective parenting and inadequate socialization during childhood and adolescence.

There are four types identified by experts.

Common Sociopaths are created by poor parenting and develop a lack of remorse and shame, a willingness to consistently break the rules of society.

Alienated Sociopaths do not develop the capacity to love or form attachments with others, and it creates a person that lacks empathy and can be quite callous with victims.
Aggressive Sociopaths are dangerous individuals who enjoy hurting others and can often be described as sadistic. Dominance and control are at the heart of the psychological needs, which are fulfilled by developing and maintaining traditional psychopathic traits as a means to obtain, degrade, hurt and sometimes kill victims.

Dyssocial Sociopaths would not normally be a sociopath or psychopath, but found themselves involved with, relating to, and loyal to other sociopathic or psychopathic individuals, a loyalty which influenced their own development of belief systems and they became sociopath due to assimilation of beliefs.

How do sociopathic individuals persuade their child victims to cooperate with their desires?

They don't do it through intimidation and threats, or with physical violence, according to experts. They first establish an atmosphere of trust through rewards and grooming. They use deception and enticement within the terms of a long and on-going relationship with the child.

Ninety percent of men who commit sex offenses know their victims well. They are just about always of the same race as the victim.

More than physical injury, the violation of trust that accompanies most sexual assaults has been shown to dramatically increase the level of trauma the victim suffers. Emotional and psychological injuries cause harm that can last much longer than physical wounds.

It's a silent form of suffering, this travail of the little ones so abused.

They don't tell about their misery for a variety of reasons, including the offender's threats to hurt or kill loved ones, or out of shame, embarrassment, wanting to protect the offender, feelings of love for the offender, fear of being held responsible or being punished, fear of being disbelieved, and fear of losing the offender, who may be very important to the child, or the child's only family.