Hey, there! Log in / Register

Convicted rapist released last month on bail for additional rape charges arrested yesterday on charges he raped a woman at knifepoint in Dorchester

McClinton

Boston Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office report the arrest of a Level 3 sex offender on charges that after an evening with a woman he met in Quincy and then took to Dorchester, he refused to let he leave the next morning and raped her at knifepoint.

Shawn McClinton, 39, had been released on $15,000 bail on July 15 after more than two years in jail while awaiting charges of aggravated rape (two counts), assault and battery and a kidnapping for an incident in 2018. He was released after the Massachusetts Bail Fund put up his bail, the DA's office reports.

Authorities say McClinton and his victim met in Quincy Tuesday night before driving to the area of Blue Hill Ave and Wales Street in Dorchester. According to the DA's office:

When the victim attempted to leave on Wednesday morning, McClinton allegedly held the victim against her will and raped her at knife point. The victim suffered injuries, including lacerations and bruising, in the attack but was able to flee. A concerned passerby observed her injuries and called 911.

The DA's office reports that at his arraignment a judge in Dorchester Municipal Court revoked his bail on the 2018 charges and ordered bail of $250,000 on the new charges.

In 2007, McClinton was sentenced to 8 to 10 years in state prison following his conviction for raping a woman in Fall River.

Police say McClinton is a Dorchester resident, although the Massachusetts Sexual Offender Registry Board lists him as homeless, with his address given as the Pine Street Inn on Harrison Avenue.

DA Rachael Rollins expressed outrage at the bail fund:

According to its website, the Massachusetts Bail Fund’s stated mission is to 'Free Them All' and provide bails of up to $2,000 in Essex, Suffolk and Worcester Counties. These bails are often posted for low-level, misdemeanor offenses which end up punishing poor people and not serving any legal or public safety purpose. However, aggravated rape, kidnapping for the purpose of sexual assault, strangulation and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon are not low-level misdemeanors. They are violent felonies. And the person they bailed out is a sexual predator that hurts and rapes women and children. The Bail Fund posted $15,000 and set McClinton loose on our community. They don't care that he is a Level 3 sex offender. They don't care that he has raped women and children before. They have no responsibility to or compassion for the victims and survivors of his crimes, or the families that he has destroyed. I do. And my office will do the hard work of getting his latest victim all of the treatment and services she needs. We will be with her throughout the entire legal process and beyond.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The DA's comments here are wildly disingenuous.

Why blame the bail fund? Would it somehow have been better if a rich friend paid his bail, rather than a non-profit? If she dislikes cash bail so much, why not campaign to end it?

For the charges he was awaiting trial for, he was incarcerated without a trial for over two years. Does she think if it had been his money he would not have reoffended? I get the impression she thinks he should not have been released before his trial at all. If that's the case, then he shouldn't have had a cash bail set.

Also, he shouldn't have had to wait two years for a trial.

I hope his victim is able to get the help she needs, but I'm skeptical that the DA's office will really provide that.

up
Voting closed 26

That Shawn McClinton deserves to be put behind bars for a long time, before he rapes, injures, or possibly kills another human being. He doesn't deserve to go free, and he shouldn't.

up
Voting closed 7

Wouldn't he have been in prison if there had been a speedy trial, instead of two years in jail awaiting charges? Who approved his release on bail? Why was he released on bail again instead of being held for a dangerousness hearing?
Isn't some of this is on Rollins too and on the failure of our judicial system to get people to trial?

up
Voting closed 26

Exactly, there is blame all around.

The bail fund should vet it's recipients better. This was not a low level misdemeanor.

The judge should have set bail higher, but based on the fact he was homeless/indigent, probably the judge didnt think he could make 15000, Nd it was as good as 1 million.

But really, this guy should have been tried Nd sentenced within 2 years, not just thrown away because he was too poor to pay bail and never given trial.

If he had a trial and was a 3 time violent offender, he should have been put away for a long time and not eligible for bail anymore.

up
Voting closed 5

If I were the victim, I would seriously consider suing the Mass Bail Fund. Would they have any recourse to do so?

And if I were you, conservative or liberal, I would never donate another cent to them. This is HORRIFIC.

up
Voting closed 18

You wouldn't have a legal basis to stand on. The bail fund followed the exact rules they should have. If the justice system didn't want the guy to get out on bail they shouldn't have set a cash bail.

up
Voting closed 19

He's been convicted twice of rape - 1994 and 2007.

Edit: Just looked up his record on the Sex Offender Registry - the 1994 conviction was rape/abuse of a child.

No one from Mass Bail Fund was available for comment.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08/06/metro/sex-offender-just-set-free-...

up
Voting closed 72

Looks like the joke's on us taxpayers, again...

The Mass Bail Fund, as AG says,"posts 'up to $2000' " posted $15K for this serial rapist.

FT website, "The Massachusetts Bail Fund is registered 501(c)(3) and therefore your generous donation is tax-deductible the extent allowed by law. EIN 82-4924766

https://www.massbailfund.org/donate.html

Hey, Martha, where the hell are you when someone (a real rape victim, not someone that doesn't like Mobil/Exxon) needs you? This bail scam need investigating.

up
Voting closed 64

Maura?

up
Voting closed 22

There's literally nothing to investigate here. The organization is operating per it's stated purpose. Unless you were talking about investigating our corrupt cash bail system in this country...

up
Voting closed 26

" The organization is operating per it's stated purpose."

https://www.massbailfund.org/

"The Massachusetts Bail Fund posts bails of up to $2000 in Essex, Suffolk, & Worcester Counties in Massachusetts."

It categorically is NOT operating within its stated purpose. It claims 'up to $2K' for bail. The implication is that it'll be used for not-too-serious crimes, like stealing two purses and nineteen sunglasses from a store.

Then they post a $15K bail for a person that has already been convicted (and did time) for prior offenses.

Maybe their Executive Director can explain this matter to the public, the IRS or even better, to Mr. McClinton's latest victim, after he was charged with ' kidnapping and aggravated rape'.

up
Voting closed 47

They say on their website now up to $5,000, but that's not that point. Their mission is to post bail for anyone who can't afford it because they feel the cash bail system is discriminatory. They clearly state this. As others have said, this man should've have been subject to a hearing on whether it was safe to release him, instead of prosecutors just assuming he was going to continue to rot for 2+ years pre-trial because he was poor and couldn't scrounge a loan for $15,000.

This was a bad PR move with bad consequences they should've considered, obviously, but it was in-line within the group's stated purpose,

up
Voting closed 21

Maura.
Believe it or not, an honest mistake. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

So, Maura...is lying on their website grounds to start an investigation?

up
Voting closed 22

15,000 for kidnapping, sexual assault etc, was far too f'ing low in the first place.

up
Voting closed 7

Rape is not a crime that is taken very seriously because it mostly happens to women.

A story like this comes out and everyone goes, "my gosh! how could this happen!" but at every level, no one took his numerous rapes seriously at all and at no point did this guy stop and think, "maybe I should try not to rape" because all along the way, he's found that no one cares as much as they pretend when they issue press statements.

up
Voting closed 8

The Massachusetts Bail Funds mission to free them all has failed to protect the poor and the vulnerable in society.

up
Voting closed 13

Why was he waiting more than two years in jail? Why did MBF bail out a LEVEL THREE sex offender....and pay $15,000 to do so when they claim their cap is much lower?

up
Voting closed 26

Ok so know that everyone is informed of Operation Bail Fail, what will be done to fix it?

up
Voting closed 10

Am I reading correctly? Has he been awaiting trial for 2 years? Is that the courts fault? Or Rollins office?

The Bail Fund should be proud of themselves for accomplishing one thing. They just wrote a great pro-Trump commercial.

. Shawn McClinton, 39, had been released on $15,000 bail on July 15 after more than two years in jail while awaiting charges of aggravated rape (two counts), assault and battery and a kidnapping for an incident in 2018.

up
Voting closed 16

Either he's dangerous or he's not. Would it have changed anything if he posted $500,000 instead of $15k?

up
Voting closed 46

I wonder why the DA didn't request a dangerousness hearing. Bail does not exist to keep dangerous people off the streets, it exists to ensure their appearance at trial.

up
Voting closed 68

Dangerousness hearings have a number of limitations and complicating factors that are not well understood.

First, is only holds a defendant for 120 days, at the end of that period, bail kicks in anyway.

Second, if a defendant is found dangerous, the case must go to trial within that 120 days. That's not possible in the MA system for complex cases.

Third, the hearing is evidentiary, meaning the victim has to testify. Placing a victim of trauma in a position to testify and be cross examined, in front of their attacker, hours after the attack, is a horrific experience for that person. Everything the world understands about trauma says this is a bad idea.

Fourth, complex investigations take time to complete. All of the information is not yet available for a hearing hours after an attack.

Dangerousness hearings as an idea may be a better approach than bail, but the limitations of the dangerousness statute make it tough to implement currently.

up
Voting closed 15

it is staffing and jurors. Right now we can't even create a fair jury that would be safe from covid. It is the number of cases, not the time involved in preparing for an individual trial.

up
Voting closed 9

But without jurors, the case could end up dismissed under speedy trial rules.

up
Voting closed 12

This isn’t stupid.

This is a story about a woman who was RAPED (FUCKING RAPED, MAN) by a guy who has previously committed multiple rapes and was released by a group of white women who are now refusing to comment about it.

Nothing about this is stupid. It’s a fucking nightmare.

You’re stupid.

up
Voting closed 13

and is working within its parameters. A judge imposed bail and set the amount. Blame the judge, and the bail system, and the criminal justice system as it is structured which created this outcome.

How about dangerous people always get held until trial instead of being given the option to buy their way out? And since they are innocent until proven guilty but being held necessarily in the name of public safety; in accordance with the sixth amendment, prioritize these cases. So that the presumed innocent for whom pretrial release isn't possible, wait less than two years for a trial.

Instead, the approximation of justice that this system delivers is to offer repeat rapists that have access to $15000 the potentially multi-year chance to re-offend before trial, and for other accused that can't swing bail, years in jail before having the opportunity to present their defense and win release.

We could let non dangerous people out without having to pay anything unless they are a legitimate flight risk, while we are at it. Impose punishment after conviction instead of release with time already served.

Or we can continue to ignore the glaring flaws with the current system and look for a new scapegoat for every recurring failure.

up
Voting closed 15

And they should crawl away in shame,

up
Voting closed 86

The Massachusetts Bail Fund should disband be investigated.

And they should crawl away in shame handcuffs.

up
Voting closed 87

The bail fund didn't commit any crime. They may say on their website they do bails of up to only $2k, but doing more than that is no crime, even if it goes against their mission statement. It may violate your organizational stakeholders' trust, but that's an ethical issue, not illegal.

I've got 14 years of experience on different small-to-medium non-profit org boards to back me up. You can even read this whole guide from the IRS yourself and see: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf

If someone is thought to be dangerous, the DA should argue that and get a judge to not set bail. It's as simple as that.

up
Voting closed 14

The DA ran on a platform of abolishing cash bail. Getting out of jail (or pre-trial detention) shouldn't depend on how rich you are.

up
Voting closed 41

should be based on the severity of the crime you've been charged with. And your past record regarding similar crimes.

This was a huge fail on the part of everyone involved.

up
Voting closed 53

Have to agree with the commenters reminding us of the purpose of bail. The bail system and the court system are not functioning properly. If he's dangerous, do the work of having a hearing and making it so he can't have bail.

Also, lets remember he was in jail for 2 years and hadn't been convicted of anything. In fact, he still hasn't been convicted of anything since his 2007 conviction, the charges against him are alleged.

To the folks who are angry: You are supposed to be angry. The system needs serious reform. The Mass Bail fund is trying to reform it. What are you doing?

up
Voting closed 60

I’m trying to keep people like this incarcerated and away from you and your family. What are you doing?

- a Boston Cop

up
Voting closed 23

Yes. Let's do what we need to do with him and not punish thousands of other people for his crimes.

Let's know our history and not repeat it. Remember the

up
Voting closed 9

Instead of bailing out criminals and flipping the bird to victims, how about we adequately fund the court system with judges, DAs, and public defenders so that cases can get to trial in a constitutionally speed fashion rather than taking longer than the Red Sox to get a World Series 1918-2004.

up
Voting closed 14

Not raping?

up
Voting closed 14

A lynching of the bail fund. If he was rich he could have paid the bail himself and walked a long time ago. Why did they set bail? If he was potentially dangerous, why didn't they have a dangerousness hearing and keep him in jail without bail? Why couldn't they (the DA) bring the case to a conclusion in the two years and half years he was in jail, knowing that he could pay the bail at any time and get out? And why is everyone, including Rachel Rollins and the Boston Globe, hating on the bail fund? Because the Bail Fund has been outspoken and brave critics of the unjustice system and its chief prosecutor: Rachel Rollins. It's time to have a trial of the system.

up
Voting closed 14

should look into suing the Massachusetts Bail Fund.

up
Voting closed 15

How can you sue an organization for posting bail? They’re literally following the legal process!

up
Voting closed 8

So a 'charitable' organization donated money to free a convicted rapist from jail to rape an innocent woman at gunpoint. Everyone associated with freeing this predator deserves to rot in hell.

up
Voting closed 18

It wasn’t the bail fund’s decision to let him out. That decision was made by a judge.

up
Voting closed 12

For those of you claiming that the bail fund is morally culpable here:

  1. If the suspect had obtained the bail funds by taking out a loan from Bank of America, would you blame Bank of America for the outcome?
  2. if his family had somehow come up with the bail money, would you blame them?

The decision as to whether or not it was ok to let this guy out on bail was made by a judge, not by whoever came up with the bail money. The Massachusetts bail fund does not have any role in deciding who is let out of jail while awaiting trial; all it does is try to erase some of the difference between how poor people and rich people are treated by the court system.

up
Voting closed 12