Judge who called serial burglar 'courageous' refuses to jail a paedophile

[NickNitro]

refused to jail a paedophile for fear he will "have a hard time in prison."

Isn't that the point of putting criminals in jail in the first place? Jesus Christ this is ridiculous

 

[Spider-Aziz]

This judge wants to troll people

So it's okay to preemptively punish somebody for a crime they didn't commit?

That's a reminder why I hate Minority Report

 

[chamber-music]

Meanwhile there is probably a guy sitting in prison for a unpaid parking fine thinking wtf?

I know we don't know the whole case but I find judges who show more sympathy to criminals then the victims annoying. Convicted criminals who pose a treat to the public should be the first to be locked up. Prisons in Britain are full. Instead of locking up people who should be in there we are locking up those that shouldn't be serving custodial sentences.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I know what the guy is going for and what he's doing, but no, just no. It doesn't work that. The judge is clearly incompetent and deserves to be disbarred, especially if the guy commits another crime. He's already commited several.

 

[Destructus86]

If the guy in question has actually abused children himself, then I'd be more inclined to agree. However, in this case I think a distinction between simply downloading images and creating them isn't unreasonable.

The former is obviously reprehensible, but I don't think it should be placed in the same category as the latter (in terms of severity). Granted, what the guy did is quite obviously illegal, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge's reasoning, but people are responding as though this guy has actually gone out and diddled little children, and that doesn't appear to be the case (that we know of).

Is this behavior a cause for concern with regard for the potential of abuse in the future? Absolutely. That's why I'm a bit conflicted about this whole thing.

I was just thinking the same thing. While downloading images is a sign that something is not right with the person, you don't throw them in prison. We have ENOUGH people in prison. We need to stop sweeping stuff under the rug (ie prison) and take care of these issues because it's really an addiction like drugs.

Now if he actually did anything obviously he should go to prison. But let's not use up space in already crowded prisons for people with "potential" to cause problems because then we would all have to go to jail...as we all have the potential for violent acts.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I was just thinking the same thing. While downloading images is a sign that something is not right with the person, you don't throw them in prison. We have ENOUGH people in prison. We need to stop sweeping stuff under the rug (ie prison) and take care of these issues because it's really an addiction like drugs.

Now if he actually did anything obviously he should go to prison. But let's not use up space in already crowded prisons for people with "potential" to cause problems because then we would all have to go to jail...as we all have the potential for violent acts.

I actually think that he probably SHOULD have gone to jail (he's repeatedly broken the law). At the very least, he should be forced into therapy.

What I'm taking issue with are some of the reactions I've been reading. They're acting as though this guy actually went out and raped a bunch of schoolchildren. People hear the word "pedophile" and lose any and all ability to think rationally and critically.

 

[BestGirl]

If the guy in question has actually abused children himself, then I'd be more inclined to agree. However, in this case I think a distinction between simply downloading images and creating them isn't unreasonable.

The former is obviously reprehensible, but I don't think it should be placed in the same category as the latter (in terms of severity). Granted, what the guy did is quite obviously illegal, and I'm not sure I agree with the judge's reasoning, but people are responding as though this guy has actually gone out and diddled little children, and that doesn't appear to be the case (that we know of).

Is this behavior a cause for concern with regard for the potential of abuse in the future? Absolutely. That's why I'm a bit conflicted about this whole thing.

Unless he was downloading cartoon images of children, then yes he was participating in the abuse of children. Some kids were forced to pose for those disgusting photos because sickos like him get off on it. I'd shove the guy into prison and give him therapy there, though I'm not convinced that would do anything.

 

[chamber-music]

I think he should get some sort of therapy in prison as well. If your repeatedly downloading pedo stuff then you already have some weird attraction to kids so its probably only a matter of time until they molest someone. The courts shouldn't be taking a wait and see policy with potential child molesters.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Unless he was downloading cartoon images of children, then yes he was participating in the abuse of children. Some kids were forced to pose for those disgusting photos because sickos like him get off on it. I'd shove the guy into prison and give him therapy there, though I'm not convinced that would do anything.

1) Participating =/= perpetrating. To put them on the same level is asinine, though, again, I agree that acting in either capacity is reprehensible (as I've said before).

2) What are we saying implicitly about these behaviors if we're assuming that therapy will be ineffective? That position seems to suggest that these people have little choice in the matter.

 

[Victarion]

I agree with Rachel; if he was giving a website with that **** hits, he needs to be left in prison. More hits = more of those photos.

 

[Schlosser85]

Um, yea, this guy doesn't need to be a judge.

 

[Sawyer]

How is this even something that needs to be debated? The pedo should be in jail and the judge should be on the ****ing short bus.

 

[Schlosser85]

If he refuses to jail a pedophile, and the guy goes on to rape more children, the judge should bear some responsibility.

 

[Schlosser85]

Also, breaking into someone's home and robbing them is not being "courageous", it's being a piece of trash who steals from other people because he's too much of a ***** to go out and work for anything.

 

[BestGirl]

1) Participating =/= perpetrating. To put them on the same level is asinine, though, again, I agree that acting in either capacity is reprehensible (as I've said before).

I don't agree that it's asinine. He is actively encouraging abuse by participating in it. If there's no demand for child porn, no one will supply it. Even if they aren't on exactly the same level, saying that the photographer and the viewer are somehow really different from one another isn't true. At any rate, there's no reason why viewing child porn shouldn't be a jailable offence, even if his sentence is lesser than the photographer's.

BTW, would any level of participation bother you? What if he were in the room when the pictures were being taken? What if he knew the identity of the photographer, or of the kids being abused?

2) What are we saying implicitly about these behaviors if we're assuming that therapy will be ineffective? That position seems to suggest that these people have little choice in the matter.

If they have no choice in the matter, and have acted on their impulses, then they need to be jailed for the good of society. Again, even assuming therapy does work, there's no reason he can't get the help he needs in prison. At least there it could be guaranteed that he's not still still surfing the web for kiddie porn.

I question how effective therapy would be for pedophiles anyway. I've always heard that they see nothing wrong with their behavior, and it seems to me that therapy would only work if the patient really wanted to be helped.

Also, breaking into someone's home and robbing them is not being "courageous", it's being a piece of trash who steals from other people because he's too much of a ***** to go out and work for anything.

I would also like to know the details behind this story.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I don't agree that it's asinine. He is actively encouraging abuse by participating in it. If there's no demand for child porn, no one will supply it. Even if they aren't on exactly the same level, saying that the photographer and the viewer are somehow really different from one another isn't true. At any rate, there's no reason why viewing child porn shouldn't be a jailable offence, even if his sentence is lesser than the photographer's.

If this didn't make it clear that you missed the point...

BTW, would any level of participation bother you? What if he were in the room when the pictures were being taken? What if he knew the identity of the photographer, or of the kids being abused?

...this did.

If they have no choice in the matter, and have acted on their impulses, then they need to be jailed for the good of society. Again, even assuming therapy does work, there's no reason he can't get the help he needs in prison. At least there it could be guaranteed that he's not still still surfing the web for kiddie porn.

I don't disagree that he should be detained, but I question whether prison is actually appropriate. There are alternatives, such as mental institutions, that would serve just as well, are there not?

I question how effective therapy would be for pedophiles anyway. I've always heard that they see nothing wrong with their behavior, and it seems to me that therapy would only work if the patient really wanted to be helped.

That's a fair point.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject of treating pedophilia:

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2015-treating-pedophiles-therapy-challenge.html

 

[BestGirl]

If this didn't make it clear that you missed the point...

...this did.

I don't disagree that he should be detained, but I question whether prison is actually appropriate. There are alternatives, such as mental institutions, that would serve just as well, are there not?

The only point I've seen you make is that this particular pedophile ought to be imprisoned because he's broken the law numerous times. You never said anything at all about detaining anyone until your most recent post.

That's a fair point.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject of treating pedophilia:

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2015-treating-pedophiles-therapy-challenge.html

Interesting study, though some aspects of it confuse me. For example, Minnesota has a program in which sex offenders can be released after undergoing therapy to prove they're no longer threats to society, but "no person who was civilly committed in the state of Minnesota since its 1994 law has been discharged, according to 2011 reports by the state Office of the Legislative Auditor. Minnesota has one of the highest per capita civil commitment rates: 575 persons committed thus far." And only 30 of 700 Floridians who have been committed under a similar law have been released since 1998. Those aren't optimistic numbers, and don't do much to convince me that pedophiles can be changed. I'm also not encouraged by the fact that a lot of true pedophiles can't have their preferences changed but rather only have their urges suppressed by drugs.

Considering the cost of maintaining these guys in therapy ($120,000 per year per person in Minnesota) maybe it's not all that worthwhile. There was some reduction in sex offenses by those who had received therapy, but they had seemingly received it while in prison.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Ah, never knew you could spell it with an 'a.'