Twenty-three years ago, when Lawrence William Morton was 45 and living on Avalon Avenue in Flagler Beach, he was arrested on several counts of molestation and a count of child rape, later reduced to attempted rape in a plea.
He was in the habit of sidling up to the victims under his roof as they slept. He would then molest them, at times hurting them. Six victims in all–at least six, anyway: those were the victims the child protection team interviewed. One was younger than 12, others a little older. There could have been others.
Avoiding what would have been a life sentence, he pleaded to six counts. He got a 20-year prison sentence, served 15, and was released in 2018 to begin serving 10 years on sex-offender probation. He has been living at 1505 Old Kings Road in Daytona Beach since, a designated predator for life and under electronic surveillance. He was granted permission to have strictly supervised contact with his grandchildren in accordance with a safety plan.
On Monday, he was back before Circuit Judge Terence Perkins, pleading for an early end to his probation. The question was: at what point can what his defense attorney call a “model probationer” consider his debt paid, so he can resume a relatively normal life. The question–and the case–was more broadly illustrative of recurring requests by sex offenders and predators, and dilemmas faced by the court and prosecutors: when is punishment enough, in light of a probationer’s seemingly clean behavior–especially when Florida law explicitly provides for an early end of termination at the halfway point, when all conditions have been followed. It does not make a distinction between sex-crime offenders and other offenders.
Morton has not violated probation in five years. He’s completed all its requirements. That point, his attorney, Richard Zaleski argued, is now, otherwise there’d be no hope for considering a person rehabilitated. “The charges are what the charges are,” Zaleski said. “He did serve his time, he has not had any issue while on probation. He’s completed all special conditions. Will some of the restrictions fall by the wayside? yes, without a doubt.” But he should be free of probation, Zaleski argued.
The prosecutor and the judge disagreed.
As a predator on probation, prohibitions on certain freedoms apply–no contact with children, no living within 1,000 feet of where children congregate (parks, schools, churches, day cares), no work or volunteering in numerous job settings that involve children. He has to keep a driving log, respect a curfew and travel restrictions, and wear a GPS monitoring device. Off probation, those restrictions would be removed.
So would the restriction on contact with children. “If he’s no longer on sex-offender probation, there’s nothing in the sex-predator statute that requires him to stay away from minors,” Assistant State Attorney Melissa Clark said. A probation officer contradicted her during the hearing. The officer was wrong, prompting an impatient response from Clark: “Are you not very familiar with the statute, sir, for registration as a sex predator?”
“I’m familiar the statue for registration, yes,” the probation officer said.
“So you would agree that a sex predator has to notify law enforcement and the DMV of their address, and if they move their address, but nothing in that statute prohibits them from having contact with minors,” Clark said.
“Nothing in the registration statute, no,” the officer conceded. So if Morton were off probation, nothing would prevent him from being around children, unsupervised, again.
“There’s nothing on the books that would prevent him from going to parks or daycares or anything like that either, just because he’s a predator, contrary to what the probation officer may have thought,” Clark said. “That’s incorrect.”
The court file was lacking: much of it had been transferred to Volusia County. The judge had nothing in the file before 2008. He did not know what the allegations were, what the conditions of sex offender probation were. “There’s no way I can find any of that. It’s not in the court file,” Perkins said. “The reason I’m pointing that out to you is, Mr. Zaleski,” the judge told Morton’s defense attorney, “you have the burden of proof in this case.” He anticipated Clark’s argument: “This is a concerning case for which your client received 20 years, followed by probation. And for the reasons that are outlined in that investigation and the report from that, that I should deny the motion because there’s concern in that regard, even though he’s a model probationer by all accounts at this point in time.”
The judge conceded that he was limited to some degree by the lacking court file: he could not determine if the present conditions on Morton apply as standard conditions of his probation, or if some of them were tailored specifically to the offenses he committed. The defense had no answer for that. The prosecution wasn’t going to help the defense in that regard, even though it appeared, from what was available in the court file, that the conditions were not so tailored.
“I bring the motion in good faith. I think he qualifies for the court to grant this without issue. There’d be nothing illegal about the court to grant this. So if you’ve got concerns, and feel that he’s a danger to the community and he should still be held under the most strict restrictions given the nature of the offenses, then that’s the court’s ruling. But I don’t think that there’s anything more that I could bring to the table other than to say, 20 years prison, five and a half years on probation, he’s done everything he’s supposed to.” The court has allowed him access to his grandchildren. There’s been no complaints from the children. His GPS monitor has been a financial burden, Zaleski said, conceding that financial hardships fall low on the list of reasons for relief.
“This is a community safety issues. It’s pretty simple in that regard,” the judge said. “Your argument is that he’s a model probationer and that all of these additional conditions that would drop off if I were to terminate his probation successfully at this point, are not necessary for public safety.”
That was exactly the defense’s argument. And it happens all the time, Zaleski said.
“These motions granted in some way, shape or form for some defendants that are accused of offenses such as these, it’s not unheard of,” Zaleski said.
“Agreed. I’ve done it before,” Perkins said.
“So having done decades in prison without issues in prison, having been the model probationer since then, having gone through all the additional steps to get him the good graces back with his family and been doing everything right, everything right, given the passage of time and the rest, that’s the pitch,” Zaleski said. “What happened back then is not to be refuted. It’s not. It’s just something that in the way of–not water under the bridge, but 25 years plus has passed and so much work has been done and put in by him to make sure that he is not a risk. Really what’s the difference in four years versus four years? (Zaleski was making reference to the four years remaining on Morton’s probation term, which ends on Aug. 21, 2028.)
“I mean, the benefit of the bargain is the benefit of the bargain,” Zaleski continued. “Some incentive for probation is to do right, and to come in and say: look, and not be rewarded for their good behavior, but be recognized for it and be considered for the motion that he’s a good applicant here, and this is not a frivolous motion.”
Clark argued, as expected, that Morton “is a danger to the community. I know that you apparently don’t have access to what this case stems from,” she told the judge, “but I will tell you that these three cases are three different victims. There were minor victims that he engaged in sex acts with.” (The prison cases included all six charges. The probation cases revolve around three of the six victims.) “Yes, he may have been doing well as a probationer, but the minute this is gone, there’s nothing to let the random person at the park with their five year old know what he’s done before. Now he’s had family members that have come forward and said, Please let him have contact with my child. But they know what he’s done. The woman at the park with her five year old has no idea what he’s done. So if he goes to the park and be friends with that little girl or that little boy, there’s nothing for that mom to know what he’s done in the past, and that’s dangerous, judge.”
Perkins denied the motion to end probation early, but opened a door to the defense, essentially inviting Zaleski to present a more complete record next time. “I can’t see the file. I can’t see the allegations. I don’t know how I can I can satisfy myself that those aren’t real concerns,” the judge said. “It’s not that we’re just recognizing his current performance. We’re eliminating future checks and balances on his performance. So it’s one step more, and in order to go there I need to be convinced that there is no danger moving forward. And I don’t know how I do that without knowing the nature of the crime, without the details and specifics. And I don’t have that.”
But Zaleski did not refute any of the facts stated, so the record won’t change his argument.
Morton made bis plea, too, but by then the judge had ruled. “You’re absolutely right. Being a model probationary, that’s a given. If you don’t, you get violated,” Morton told the judge. “I’m not going to downplay my bad behavior, bad choices. I’ve been through all of that counseling and stuff, and it really just comes down to–but I will say: 20 years in a men’s maximum security prison is no picnic for anybody. Unless you’ve been there, you have no clue about what goes on.”
Angela says
The facts prove that child molesters rarely change. If anyone should get their record erased or reconsidered, it is someone who was mistreated by the police and ended up with a record.
MeToo! says
He did the crime. He can do the time….all of it! I wouldn’t want him around my grandchildren. These people do not change!
Samuel says
Once a predator always a predator. I wouldn’t let him near any children.
JOE D says
Unfortunately…”model probationer” or not, as a former Child and Family Nurse Therapist, now retired, sexual predators are not simply something you can “Wait” or “Probation” out of an offender. Had there possibly been only 1 victim, or possibly a 1 time only event….then sex offender treatment MIGHT be successful.
However, with multiple victims, and multiple abuse events, it’s unlikely (despite what the offender and his attorney say) that this man is CURED (now or in the future).
The most successful programs of treatment have been what’s called “Chemical Castration”…repeated scheduled female hormone injections that help (not 100% of the time), to REDUCE the sexual urges to re-offend. The injections are not without side effects. This treatment, combined with the “no contact with minors” probation conditions can prevent future abuse of victims.
The suggestion that the contact and distance restrictions should be removed is ill advised. This is NOT a case of someone “paying their dues”….PEDOPHILIA is a MAJOR MENTAL ILLNESS. Like Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder, it can be treated with medication to control symptoms, but at THIS point in time, there are no CURES.
Given the stakes of the defense attorney being wrong (another child sexual victim)….the courts should not be considering reducing the probation restrictions, and as a mental health professional, I would be extremely worried, if the restrictions totally disappeared even AFTER the formal probation period ends!
Deirdre says
The childhood victims of a sexual predators suffer their entire lives after the molestation.
Research also demonstrates that sexual predators and rapists rarely lose their desire to do this, even given years of counseling etc.
My opinion about this type of criminal is NEVER let them out of jail, and if they are released, they need to be on
Probation for the rest of their lives to protect more children from being victimized.
He was a model prisoner? Good for him, doesn’t change anything for his victims. I think people that victimize innocent children are despicable, in another place and time they would experience death or mutilation if they did that.
I can understand why that would have been an appropriate consequence for destroying a child’s life, they will never be the same.
I hope this guy is on probation for the rest of his life, I wish they would have kept him in prison. I have no sympathy for monsters.
JustBeNice says
The judge aired on the side of caution. Good call Judge Perkins.
Deborah Coffey says
Good call, Judge Perkins. https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-7-effectiveness-treatment-adult-sex-offenders
Eric says
Its clear that all these pedophiles should have these restrictions placed on them for the remainder of their time on earth. The acts that they are found guilty of committing against young innocent children are unfathomable. The emotional trauma and scars that they leave for others to live with do not just go away. Just like the perverted loser in the link below, some of these people dont even get jail time for what they have done.
https://flaglerlive.com/lance-mussack/#gsc.tab=0
Carol says
The judge made the right decision. Ask any sex predator and they will tell you, they can never be rehabilitated. He did the crime, let him do the time. Whats 5 more years of probation when those children he molested will suffer for a lifetime.
R.S. says
Sweden approaches sexual offenses different from our legal system The aim is on treatment, not on punishment, whereby we need to realize that our punitive approach is–quite perversely–thought to remedy. Here’s a quote from sexual-offender-treatment.org:
Treatment for adults are regulated and the same for offenders all over Sweden although treatment in jail or probation is voluntary. Regarding adolescent it varies greatly all over the country and even within the same community. There’s very few outpatient clinics that have the knowledge to risk assess and to offer treatment. Treatment for both adolescents and adults is on the Swedish political agenda right now especially since it’s a year of election. National guidelines for adolescents are being discussed which would make it easier to have mandatory education for the social service and therefore make it possible for adolescents with sexual harmful behavior to be comprehensively assessed including a risk assessment and to receive treatment even if they live in the more rural areas. More research is greatly needed both regarding the population, risk assessment and treatment.
It appears that the recidivism rate is quite low for sex offenders in Sweden; it is about 10 percent. Even here, it is quite incorrect to think “once a predator; always a predator.” I suspect that such a belief is based more on projection than on empirical data. Seems to me that treatment is the route to go eventually; punishment has been shown to fail: it inflicts simply more misery and solves nothing–except perhaps some feel-good pay-off for a sadistic society.
The Sour Kraut says
What if your child was molested by someone in that “relatively low” 10%? Tell me, what is the suicide rate for victims?
Ray W. says
Hello Sour Kraut,
Yours has long been the argument of the fearful among us who seek vengeance in the guise of justice. Our founding fathers rejected such a judicial process. They knew that the fearful among us could seldom reliably apply justice to the many problems of their day, and to the many problems that would exist today. They insisted that our judges be neutral and detached magistrates, not fearful and involved vigilantes. In a just society, your position loses every time; it is bad reasoning. If a proposed juror cannot be fair and impartial, a judge is supposed to strike him or her from a panel, else we have a sham trial. One of our judges announced a number of years ago in writing that he would no longer accept plea bargains in a narrow range of cases that were negotiated without his prior approval. It did not take long for a higher court to order that he stop that policy. It is one thing to subject all cases to prior review; another thing all together to pick and choose.
I agree that we need to provide more and better services to victims of child sex crimes.
JimboXYZ says
From what the story indicated, they have been rewarding him for being model inmate & so/sp probationer. Served 15 of the 20 he was sentenced to for prison term incarceration. That’s a reward for reduction of that sentencing. The 10 years probation, they’ve granted him access to blood & marriage relative children in his own family over the 10 years of that. He wants 4 years of the 10 reduced to 6 years probation as time served like the 5 year reduction in a prison. Probation for the most part is a financial hardship for any convicted felon, that’s how the system pulls back a lot of relatively reformed criminals. This all started out as 20/10 incarceration/probation. I presume he would still have to register as a offender/predator for the remainder of his his life after the probation ? Wonder what the decision would’ve been if he had show up with a cash deal for a reduction of the final 4 years to a lesser time for a probation period that is more in line with the 25% reduction of the prison sentence. Maybe split the difference of the 4 years contingent upon the payment for the device & tracking he has to pay for currently. Makes you wonder if that has been inflated/gouged over the last 3+ years like everything else or whether that rate was locked in ? The assigned Probation officer gets paid every month that reporting process happens, like a rent check to a landlord.
Concerned Citizen says
There should have never been a plea. And he certainly doesn’t deserve any chances. His victims got none.
That sentence should have been a lot longer with no probation..
Concerned Citizen says
He’s getting more chance at life than his victims.
He ruined theirs the day he did what he did. He can spend the rest of his life on probation. Or go back. Pedophiles are the worst. And there is no excuse for what they do.
Skibum says
Aside from the punishment vs. treatment issue while a sex offender is incarcerated and serving their actual court ordered sentence, once a pedophile has completed their sentence and released back into society they should have lifetime monitoring by parole authorities. This isn’t rocket science. Anyone who thinks a person who commits a sex crime against a child is able to no longer be sexually aroused when around a child at anytime in the future is making a fool’s bet against the safety and welfare of those who are most vulnerable and least able to protect themselves. It is up to society, and specifically our courts, to ensure that they do what is necessary for the protection of children, and that cannot be accomplished if a judge falls into the trap of allowing a child predator out of court ordered monitoring.
Ray W. says
Hello Skibum.
I don’t disagree that sex offenders can be lifelong risks. I prosecuted enough of them and had to read enough of the pertinent literature on the subject to know that is always a possibility. My addition to this comment thread is based on Florida’s civil commitment act.
According to Mr. Tristam, the defendant was designated a sexual predator at sentencing. It has been some 15 years of so since I read the civil commitment statute, but I recall the existence of a mandatory review process by DOC prior to any sex offender’s release from prison. If an offender fits the definition of a potential reoffender, he or she is supposed to be subjected to civil commitment proceedings, with possible placement in the Arcadia facility if a civil jury finds the offender to be a specific danger to the community. The apparent fact that the State did not initiate civil commitment proceedings against Mr. Morton suggests that either he did not meet civil commitment criteria, or he completed while imprisoned sufficient sex offender treatment options to meet release standards
In my younger years, I prosecuted the first man to be civilly committed to Arcadia after he was released by DOC. When I prosecuted that defendant there was no sex offender statute in Florida. I sought from the court a finding that the defendant met the psychiatric definition of a sexual sadist. After both parties presented evidence and testimony, the judge accepted my argument and added his sexual sadist finding to the sentencing order. After a jury civilly convicted him after his release from prison, the defendant spent an additional 10 years in the commitment facility. As I understand the testimony at his last statutorily mandated periodic review of his commitment status, the treating doctors testified that while the defendant still posed a sexual danger to the community and that, in their opinion, he would never be fully cured, they had to admit that he had successfully completed every treatment option available to the doctors. Since there were zero additional treatment options, the judge had no choice under terms of the statute but to release him.
Since Chapter 948 of Florida’s laws has long permitted any probationary defendant to seek a hearing on a possible early termination of probation, I find nothing wrong with the process that is described in the article. The defendant filed the motion. Judge Perkins set a hearing date and time. The State and the defense presented evidence and arguments. The judge ruled, without prejudice to possible future motions. Seems to me everyone followed the law.
Skibum says
Thanks, Ray. As always, you are a beacon of knowledge.