Officer charged with sexually assaulting a child, for over a decade, placed on paid leave

[Lancero]

A west suburban police officer has been charged with sexually assaulting a child for more than 10 years, officials announced Tuesday.

David L. Wright, a police officer in Elburn since 1991, was charged Tuesday with 10 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault, each a Class X felony; and 11 counts of criminal sexual assault, each a Class One felony, according to the Kane County state’s attorney’s office.

From March 2005 until April 2015, Wright “repeatedly sexually assaulted” a child he knew, a statement from prosecutors said. The child was younger than 13 when the assaults began, the statement said.

...He has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of this investigation, according to Elburn police.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/7/71/558691/elburn-police-officer-charged-sexual-assault-child

Our tax dollars at work folks.

[okaawhatever]

1. While the idea of his being paid until the investigation is over may be hard to understand, the

rules are there to protect good people even if it means less punishment for bad ones. The point is, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. Even for d-bag child molesters. It won't take a trial for the police to have enough evidence to fire him, but there will be an investigation.

Police higher-ups can use "investigations" to force an officer they don't like to quit his job. They continue investigating the officer until he goes broke. At some point that officer will have to get another job to pay his bills. One of the many ways they'd get rid of cops who didn't "play along".

[merrily]

6. Does he have to repay the money if found guilty? If not, this doesn't seem very closely related to

protecting the falsely accused.

[linuxman]

2. And?

What should happen to him until he is actually convicted of a crime, in your opinion?

[Sherman A1]

3. Precisely

I believe the system still is, Innocent until Proven Guilty.

[linuxman]

5. whoops!

I meant to reply to the op

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. That sounds like the correct response.

Obviously, if he's convicted, he should be fired.

But until then, he probably shouldn't be (although I think that the standard of evidence for not being allowed to work as a police officer should be somewhat lower than for being sent to prison, so if there's enough evidence to demonstrate that his guilt is very likely, but not beyond reasonable doubt, then firing him even if he's not convicted may be reasonable).