(04/17/08 - Initial BBT Report)
Clark Lewing, 24, a former contract drumline teacher at Hudson High School in Lufkin, Texas has been arrested on allegations that he had sex with a 14-year-old female student.
According to the Angelina County Sheriff’s Office, the girl is a Hudson High School student who took private lessons from Lewing.
It is alleged that Lewing said he had known the girl approximately a year before the two had sex, and he knew how old she was. It is further alleged that the girl told investigators that she wanted to have sex with Lewing.
A school district spokesperson says that the school terminated its contract with Lewing earlier this month.
06/19/08 - Grand Jury Indictment
Clark Lewing has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of improper relationship between an educator and a student and on a charge of sexual assault of a child.
Lewing is currently free on bond.
References:
Two East Texas teachers accused of sex with students (06/19/08)
Hudson drumline teacher admits to sex with girl, 14 (04/17/08)
Your IP Address is:
97.81.87.216
Entries (RSS)
June 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
The dissertation that Dr. Tyler has given in support of the alleged perpetrators honorable character, except in lieu of his indictment, faithful family support and acknowledgement to trial officials that he will not do it again with the proper emotional counseling is common. Also, most of the time the families want the perpetrator to return so he can bring food of the table. If we are allowed to conduct an effective psychological evaluation measuring the emotional (social) aspects of this alleged offender, we would find common characteristics of a sex offender i.e. cognitive distortions, narcissitic personality, lacking same peer friendships and relationships etc..Most sex offenders are intelligent rationally, but lack the social intellingence obtain and mantain successful peer group relationships.
In the alleged offense, the perpetrator would have to had time alone with the victim with out any adult supervision or presence. Also, there maybe triggers which may have set him off, such as rejection, abandonment, neglect or discriminination experiences which took him back to his childhood. I would suspect his emotional intelligence is less than his rational intelligence, meaning he may be 24 chronicalogically, however, emotionally, he is 16-18 years of age.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Dr. Debra M. Stewart said…
I am dismayed by Clark’s ostensible failure to take visible proactive steps to meet prospective presentencing demands and to alter the PSI (pre-sentence investigation report) officer’s perspective on him and his future.
He desperately needs to delete his myspace account or alter it drastically. Since he is charged with a sexual assault against a child, he needs to remove all the pictures of anyone under 18 from his myspace site IMMEDIATELY.
My suggestions are based on 30 years of experience as a Clin Psy and Trial Consultant with a wining record of 142/144 trials.
1. Anything he does publically (like maintaining a myspace acct or going out to eat) needs to reflect the discriminate, remorseful, and insightful young man I believe him to be. He has also seemed to be a person of greater depth than one would normally infer from his myspace account.
He really needs to delete it.
He still lists “Silence of the Lambs” as one of his favorite movies. That is not a choice that is likely to curry favor with a PSI officer or a judge or jury.
Myspace is sponsored by something called pimpmyprofile. This is also very unfavorably impressive to a sentencing judge.
I’ve been blasted for thinking his mother or sister might have been behind the negative comments about the girl, but they’ve never denied having made that allegation.
2. I suggested that he cooperate fully with the presentencing officer (PSI) and seek counseling immediately.
3. They’ve written about helping him get away from his problems by going on a little trip. That, of course, reflects either complete disdain or total ignorance of the law.
Clark can’t leave Angelina County without the express permission of the judge via the PSI officer. Such a trip would be illegal, and would imperil not only Clark’s freedom before the case comes to court, but also their own.
4. Since the charges are for SECOND DEGREE FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD, he can’t even legally be around ANY children until his case is resolved with a not guilty verdict.
And his family needs to observe the protocol for someone in his precarious state- that is,of course, if they don’t want to unfavorably impress the judge and reduce the chances of getting him into further trouble.
It is not their prerogative to say, “Oh well, we don’t think he did anything that bad. It’s OK for him to be around our small (under aged 14) children.” Again, they risk his future freedom and, possibly, their own.
It would be reassuring to people who know him and know about this case if these issues were addressed in this, or some other public forum- that he is:
a. getting family counseling with a Clinical Psychologist here in Lufkin.
b. taking any necessary medication to deal with the problem.
c. has gotten rid of, or modified, that wretched myspace acct.
d. has apologized to the girl and her family. To Hudson ISD. To his own family.
These things aren’t idle time killers: they’re critical ways to indicate that he’s receptive to therapeutic suggestion and will be compliant to ALL court orders.
For anyone to think that no one would know we were related, so, therefore, there was no damage to our extended family is crazy. Only an egregiously (and, certainly, classically) narcissistic and incredibly socially myopic individual could think this.
In a town of 35,000, or so, where our family has lived for 50 + years and is well known in academic, social, civic, and church circles, of course, people know. Where his mother and daddy (and grandparents) and all of their sibs and 1st cousins went to school, of course, people know us.
In the surounding counties where we and all of our other relatives have lived for about 170 years, they all know us and know very well that we are kin to him.
Yes, you bet this is well known.
I have not, and I will not, disown Clark.
I have clearly stated my name. No one in my family has disowned him. I offered to help from the minute I heard of this when I called his grandmother (my aunt) and told her that. If she failed to pass that on, then she did him a disservice.
I am not aware of his own parents, grandparents, aunt or uncles, sibs, or 1st cousins doing anything particularly proactive. If they have, they’ve remained remarkably under the radar.
If he did what he allegedly said he did, his family needs to behave proactively, humbly, and intelligently, to minimize the deleterious effects of the situation in order to help him get a lighter sentence.
Certainly, expressing anger at people who rationally and objectively state the truth will not help him get one.
Nor should it.
Clark should be given the same sentence any other privileged young man who knowingly commits such a crime should be given.
He is privileged.
He’s had great male role models. Our wonderfully attentive and demonstrative male relatives did not teach him or condone this kind of behavior.
He has never gone a single moment without knowing how much he is loved. His relatives and their friends were, and are, kind and tender.
He grew up in church, in band, playing baseball, and playing in The Lufkin Crimestoppers Band. Oh no, he wasn’t neglected. He wasn’t marginally or developmentally delayed. He wasn’t isolated and disenfranchised.
Regardless of ineffectual denials to the contrary, if the tides were turned, and someone else had committed the same act with one of his younger siblings, I guarantee you his belligerent family would be out for blood. There wouldn’t be any penalty great enough.
So, as an impartial and objective CHILD ADVOCATE, I have to think of her welfare first.
Principles aren’t principles if you only use them to apply to other people’s behavior. Sometimes good people do bad things. I hope that this is an isolated case of a bad behavior in an otherwise good man.
Despite the norm, I really want to believe it is.
Statistics don’t give me too much hope- especially when his family’s humiliation is translated into anger, and their morals are suspended for the sake of expediency.
And as a child advocate, I have to remind everyone that she is still too young to consent and will be for another 3 years! It doesn’t matter what she thought she wanted then, or even now.
On the other hand, I can, and would, stand up beside Clark and say that if he has been evaluated as being nonsociopathic, and, therefore, potentially rehabilitatible, then I think that might could be accomplished in the community.
I would hope for the maximum time allowable on probation (10 years, I think), and I would be able to truthfully state the following mitigating factors: the-
1. constant presence of an extended and loving family with excellent male role models to guide him.
2. availability of local community mental health resources with court-ordered counseling by a psychologist of the probation department’s choosing.
3. his native intelligence, poise, and musical talents.
4. his history as being a generally decent, reliable, kind, nice person.
I would recommend that Clark:
1. be mandated to speak at junior and senior high schools with the CONSTANT SUPERVISION of a bonded person acceptable to the probation dept about the:
a. dangers of acceding to the desire for instant gratification
b.the laws regarding sexual contact between minors and adults and the penalties for breaking those laws,
c. affect it’s had on him, his family, and his life.
2. continue to play in the Crimestoppers Band if they will allow him to do so or perform some other lengthy and intensive community service that will be of a personal nature- not just picking up trash.
3. not be allowed to travel outside the area with a band bec he has already shown too little impulse control for the time being.
4. participate in a 12 step program to help him work through any compulsiveness re: this behavior.
5. participate in court ordered therapy until the psychologist and the court see no need for further regular therapy.
6. discontinue any website that he currently has and that he not be allowed to maintain any other while on probation.
7. have no unsupervised contact with anyone under 16 until he’s completed all of the above (even nieces and nephews).
8. be required to go back to college to study psychology, sociology, and social work courses in order to better understand the nature, etiology, and ramifications of his actions.
9. make some sort of restitution to the victim.
I think he’ll make it.
Dr. Debra M. Stewart Tyler, TX
May 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Civilization relies on the basic conformity of our species to rules, norms, regulations, and mores. Naturally, everyone deviates from them at one time or another- whether it’s speeding, shoplifting, cheating on a test, tax evasion,or to some degree- even being tactful etc…
Many of these deviations are aberrations that are committed unwillingingly, inadvertantly, or out of the sheer desperation of the individual in question.
But, then, there are those ADULTS who know the LAW and abuse their positions of authority just for the sake of power or immediate gratification.
They, or their codependent enablers, blame it [in this case] first on the underage victim.
When an authority figure exploits an ostensibly willing child, it is NEVER the fault of the child. By law, that child cannot consent.
His or her young emotions are a virtual vortex of confused hope for love and acceptance, expectations of permanent positive change, fear,shame, anxiety, depression, and trauma.
I have never met the young lady in question, and have no idea who she is, or what her family constellation is, but I doubt if it is as supportive as Clark’s is. At the very least, I know she needs counseling and help.
Professionally and personally, socially and morally, I know it is wrong to blame her for the incident.
His immediate family also needs intensive counseling and directive therapy.
Their second predictable, but arguably dysfunctional course of action is to express anger at anyone who agrees with the State of Texas’ intractable perspective that a second degree felonious sexual assault on a child is ILLEGAL, IMPRISONABLE, IMMORAL, and WRONG.
His mother certainly disagrees with the State of Texas. She has written that he simply made a “stupid mistake.” Well, guess what- he didn’t. He committed a crime that will follow him and everyone related to him for the rest of our lives.
Prisons are overflowing with felons whose mothers tell them and others that their children just committed “stupid mistakes” or “got in with the wrong crowd.”
The police don’t buy this vacuous defense. DA’s, judges, and juries, don’t fall for it. Society, Social Services, school districts, and victims despise it. By the way, the Bible, and just basic standards of decency aren’t too keen on it, either.
I’m pretty sure that his maternal grandfather (my uncle), an elementary school principal and a MAN OF PRINCIPLE, would not view this a being simply a “stupid mistake.” He spent his life protecting kids, and in our conversations about Child Protective Services (a very large part of my life’s work!), he never gave me any clue that he could or would ever condone this.
In my mind, Clark’s mother’s white-washed evaluation of this crime as being nothing more than a “stupid mistake” is on a metaphorical par with the actual deed. Given her attitude, no wonder her son had judgment problems.
Incidentally, she is a teacher by profession, as 4 of her 5 siblings are, or were, at one time, or another. I would bet my last dollar that not one of them ever did anything like this. I might be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Also, statistically, the rate of recidivism for this sort of crime is stratospheric especially if the perpetator in question comes from a family who minimizes the devastating effects of the problem.
Make no mistake, Clark is from a family with an impeccable record for many generations. I know he does because he is my cousin, and despite his immediate family’s current denial and excuse making, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He is from a family that has given him the love and training to recognize and resist the glittering seductiveness of temptation. So why didn’t he?
I am willing to stand up in court with him and not disavow him, but I am not willing to pretend that this was not a serious, life-altering crime.
If he did confess to the alleged event (as has been reported in the media), he should be convicted and punished. But, if he is sincerely ashamed of his behavior and the incalculable fallout, and if he asks the forgiveness of both God and everyone affected, then he deserves to be forgiven.
It will be a good start to rehabilitation.
Dr. Debra M. Stewart!, ret Clin Psychologist and Medical Social Worker
April 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
While you are checking out MySpace accounts, check hers out! Just above her STATED age, her quote reads “sexy and very lonely”. While this does not serve as any excuse for anyone, what kind of 14 year old publishes that kind of statement on the internet???!!!!
April 29th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
HELLO PEOPLE! Of course she is not a Hudson High School student! She is freakin 14! She is in Hudson MIDDLE School! This is simply a ploy for Hudson to clear their names! Don’t be fooled! I also know FOR SURE that she was not a private lesson student. Funny how one inaccurate fact can infiltrate a story. Granted, it does not really change things, but I am ALL ABOUT getting the facts straight!