Adrian Schwartz, Moti Kimche, August 26, 2010.
Adrian Schwartz appearing in court on August 26, 2010. Photo by Moti Kimche
Text size

The state is seeking a nighttime curfew for convicted rapist Adrian Schwartz, due to be released next week after serving 20 years in prison for raping a 10-year-old girl. Schwartz is contesting the release condition, arguing he no longer poses a risk to society and that the curfew would impinge on his ability to lead a normal life.

The prosecution asked the Tel Aviv District Court to limit Schwartz in a number of ways: Imposing a nightly curfew between 9 P.M. and 6 A.M. for the duration of one year; banning him from all contact with minors, including through the Internet; banning him from places where minors are likely to congregate; and banning him from contacting his victim and approaching the area where she lives.

Schwartz is also expected to fully cooperate with a parole officer, whose permission he will need to obtain for any job or volunteer work in which he may wish to engage.

"I accept all the conditions except the curfew," Schwartz told Judge George Karra at the hearing. "It's insensitive and contradicts the state's own position. I'm willing to state here that even if a night curfew is not imposed, I won't go near areas where there are minors and won't try to contact minors."

"I want to live a life filled with culture - theater, basketball, chess and so on... I want to live. I don't want to hurt anyone," said Schwartz, 67.

Schwartz's state-appointed attorney, Ofer Ashkenazi, criticized the prosecution for submitting the requests only last week, even though it had been aware for some time that Schwartz was to be released on September 2. He also protested the fact that the state's estimation of the danger his client posed to the public also relied on prior offenses, committed in the 1960s, rather than only on the offense for which he served his latest prison term.

Ashkenazi pointed out that as the crime for which Schwartz was convicted was carried out in the afternoon, constraining his freedom of movement overnight made little sense.

The state said in response that the level of danger a released prisoner presents needed to be estimated as close to the release date as possible.