AUBURN, Maine — A worker at a food pantry has been charged with having sexual contact with a child at his home.
Police say Jonathan Dubay, 41, of Gray was arrested Monday at the Good Shepherd Food-Bank in Auburn, where he is manager of safety and facilities.
Authorities say he is charged with unlawful sexual contact for an alleged incident involving a child under the age of 12 at his home on Christmas Day. Police began investigating on New Year’s Eve after getting a report from the Department of Health and Human Services.
He was jailed overnight and is expected to appear in court in Portland on Tuesday.
It was unclear if he had a lawyer.
I still say that the perp’s name shouldn’t be published until they’re convicted. No need to brand someone if he’s innocent. It has happened many times.
I disagree strongly. By publishing his/her name this allows the public notice to watch out for these people.If they are found innocent then the public can be notified. The problem with sex offenders is that some not all re-offend.
The sad thing about that is when the persons name is published and people “watch out for” these people – People don’t forget that and rumers still go around as if they are still guilty – even if its published later on that thet are found innocent.
It’s sad if the person is innocent but, if it saves one more child from going through the pain of being molested it’s worth it!
I, too, disagree strongly. People will only remember the accusation, not the retraction. You and I both know that that’s the way people are.
As far as ‘protecting’ goes, you’ll find that many/most will not chance doing it again (if they did in fact do it) while awaiting trial especially if there’s an order to stay away from juveniles until the case has been adjudicated.
You wrote–As far as ‘protecting’ goes, you’ll find that many/most will not chance doing it again—-I strongly disagree!!
As usual, you took it out of the context of the rest of the sentence.
Of COURSE a pedophile won’t stop until he’s castrated, but all I’m saying is he hasn’t been convicted yet!! SHEESH
sorry, but you are so wrong about “will not do it again”…. statistically speaking, what you wrote is a pile of garbage
I’m starting to believe that you have a problem with reading comprehension/selective reading. Go back and read my first, then subsequent posts including all the red herring hypothetical questions thrown at me.
And we never should have published Casey Anthony or OJ’s name since they were found not guilty?
Good examples. But:
We have branded them guilty for all time even though they were exonerated because the media circus has let everyone become judge and jury.
Having been on a jury twice (in Mass), I can say that there’s a lot of info that the media doesn’t report to the masses. Also, while sitting in judgment, I’ve thought someone to be probably guilty but according to the law, there was enough reasonable doubt that I had to make a not guilty vote. That was the right thing to do that day, but he still lost his job and family. That is wrong!
We have branded them guilty for all time because they are guilty, regardless of what sleezebag lawyer they got to get them off.
As long as we are talking about jury. These two were guilty, they know it, everyone knows it. But the desire of a jury to make a controversial decision to be on the TV talk shows caused two killers to go free.
Ya, lawyers many times do what appear to be sleazy things, but they’re really just doing their job.
As to Anthony, as distasteful as she is, they had no definitive proof. She has gone on to continue embarrassing herself, though.
OJ? That decision was just ridiculous in my opinion, gut I wasn’t there. From where I sit, I believe them both to be guilty, but that’s only an opinion, not proof. But that also shows that if they hadn’t been publicly accused, they would’ve walked without the guilty brand to follow them forever which was what I tried to convey in my first post.
Buzlno, you have managed to be both the pot AND the kettle in the same posting…
Ya, Johnny, Life and feelings are full of contradictions.
All I said was that the the name of the accused shouldn’t be put out there until he’s convicted. Then everybody went off on a tangent with a bunch of hypothetical questions that I should’ve avoided. But hey! I like the banter (until it gets stupidly way off track).
Let me pose a hypothetical. Your 5 year old is in day care 8 hours a day with a person who is accused of having sexual relations with the other 5 kids in the daycare with your kid. Do you still think protecting the name of the person takes precedence over keeping those children safe?
How about if you were thinking of enrolling your child in that daycare? Wouldn’t you want to know?
That’s simple!
The suspect wouldn’t be working there if he’d been charged, now would he?
Incorrect. If his name was withheld how would his employer know.
Hey, all I said was his name shouldn’t be published. When they would take the obvious action of informing his employer, then only the employer would be in the know (unless he blabbed it all over town). See? Simple.
Yes ok Lawyers are doing their job, but the person releasing the information is also doing their job uner the Right to Know Law. If you don’t like it, then work to get the law changed!
Doesn’t seem like a day that goes by that some young child is sexually assaulted by an adult.
So now a child under the age of 12 must go through life remembering Christmas Day as the day he/she was assaulted by a Good Shepherd employee. Hope that this child can come through this without the life-long scars.
Mr. DuBay: No excuse is acceptable for your behavior and No punishment will be too much for your sorry butt.
“There is a Special place in Hell for those who harm Children or Animals.”