Sex Offender too short to serve prison time

X-Ray

Ippiki-ookami
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Messages
6,967
Reaction score
8
Points
58
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/

Judge rules sex offender is too short for prison
5-foot-1 man gets 10 years probation for sexual assault of a child


Updated: 5:37 p.m. MT May 25, 2006

SIDNEY, Neb. - A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.

"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.

But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

.....................................................

Only in America :o
 
That's insane.

And it also speaks volumes about the failures of the prison system that a judge would rule a man too small to survive. A person shouldn't have to be well built to survive in prison.
 
would this also make him exempt from pretty much any other crime?

this guy is a walking 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, or at least the height of one...

:o
 
if he breaks probation he should go in solitary.
 
A) Your prison sucks if somebody can't survive because they're too short.
B) So he dies. Big deal. Nobody will miss a man that sexually assaults children.
 
I currently live in Nebraska, and right now, I think the guy'd be safer IN prison. The radio (not talk radio, REAL radio) is blazing with people calling in saying what should be done to this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy "accidentally" gets hurt some night. No one but the damn judge and the offender are happy right now.

The AG actually just came out this morning saying his office would appeal the sentence to the District Court.
 
It makes sense and I think it's step in the right direction. Prisons are not supposed to be lions' dens where men are thrown in and have to fight for their lives or be torn to pieces. I don't care what the crime is, that's not something civilized humans should still be putting other human beings through, even as punishment. A man who's five feet tall wouldn't last two seconds in prison. The man is not a monster or an animal. He's a sick and misguided person, and needs treatment and counseling. He's got a much better chance of changing his ways on the outside with professional help and guidance than in prison. If it fails to work for him, then let him stay in the system forever. But the judicial system should take these kinds of things (stature, age, etc.) into consideration when deciding whether to put someone in a prison.
 
SpiderB said:
It makes sense and I think it's step in the right direction. Prisons are not supposed to be lions' dens where men are thrown in and have to fight for their lives or be torn to pieces. I don't care what the crime is, that's not something civilized humans should still be putting other human beings through, even as punishment. A man who's five feet tall wouldn't last two seconds in prison. The man is not a monster or an animal. He's a sick and misguided person, and needs treatment and counseling. He's got a much better chance of changing his ways on the outside with professional help and guidance than in prison. If it fails to work for him, then let him stay in the system forever. But the judicial system should take these kinds of things (stature, age, etc.) into consideration when deciding whether to put someone in a prison.

Just one thing though. I personally don't want to pay the taxes to treat him. I really don't want to pay the taxes to put him in prison either. Programs should be developed where the perpetrator of a crime has to pay, monetarily, for his own incarceration and any treatment, medical or psychological, that he receives. And if he is let go, and commits the crime again, as so many are often wont to do, then what? Do we chance the future of a small child just because a child molester is too short for the big house? I'd tell him to pack his bags and start working out.

The great irony of the current system is that the families of victims have to pay, with taxes, for the day to day living expensives, including education and recreation, of the criminal who victimized them.
 
Harlekin said:
A) Your prison sucks if somebody can't survive because they're too short.
B) So he dies. Big deal. Nobody will miss a man that sexually assaults children.

:up:
 
rehabilitation of the wayward helps all bill. therefor why shouldn't all pay.
 
SpiderB said:
It makes sense and I think it's step in the right direction. Prisons are not supposed to be lions' dens where men are thrown in and have to fight for their lives or be torn to pieces. I don't care what the crime is, that's not something civilized humans should still be putting other human beings through, even as punishment. A man who's five feet tall wouldn't last two seconds in prison. The man is not a monster or an animal. He's a sick and misguided person, and needs treatment and counseling. He's got a much better chance of changing his ways on the outside with professional help and guidance than in prison. If it fails to work for him, then let him stay in the system forever. But the judicial system should take these kinds of things (stature, age, etc.) into consideration when deciding whether to put someone in a prison.

If you're able to do the crime, you should do the time. Why should anybody get a walk...especially for something as horrible as child molestation. Maybe he shouldn't go to full blown prison, but probation sure as hell isn't the answer either. What does that say to all those people who are fighting to decide if they should/can come out and say they were molested. What's the point if that person is just going to get a slap on the wrist and still be able to walk around because they have a disadvantage (short, wheelchair, fat, whatever)?

That child had a huge disadvantage when they were molested by this monster...why should he get any different treatment?
 
huskerwebhead said:
That child had a huge disadvantage when they were molested by this monster...why should he get any different treatment?

Because the state is not a mentally sick person like the molestor.

I agree completely with what SpiderB is saying. The ruling makes sense.
 
the state's not perfect. still abit ill as i see it.
 
Danalys said:
the state's not perfect.

The State should have to abide by certain principles of human rights.

The Justice system isn't about revenge, its about prevention and rehabilitation. If someone can't be rehabilitated, then the justice system's responsibility is to keep them seperated from the rest of society. The justice system has no responsiblity to the victim though IMO. That is up to civil courts.
 
huskerwebhead said:
That child had a huge disadvantage when they were molested by this monster...why should he get any different treatment?

That's what the majority of people say, but only because they're blinded by the crime a man committed and it taps into a more primitive part of the mind (wanting to see someone suffer for making others suffer). But "eye for an eye" is a barbaric concept, one that a country as civilized as the U.S. should not practice. Unfortunately that's pretty much how our system works when it comes right down to it. We may be an advanced people, but our system of "justice" is still terribly primitive.
 
It's alright for him to take advantage of someone shorter than he is, but he gets out of jail for being "too short."

That judge should be beaten.
 
Danalys said:
rehabilitation of the wayward helps all bill. therefor why shouldn't all pay.

So if I came over and decided to cut your siblings and/or parents up into little chunks for the fun of it, you're going to want to pay for my food, clothes, books, workout equipment, cable TV, and the hourly wage of the psychiatrist who listens to my problems?
 
everyone else is paying to try to stop stuff like that ever happening again, so why shouldn't i. i wouldn't trust my thoughts when angry either. certainly the conditions of prisoners should be reassessed. there is the problem if there is one. prisoners are ruling the roost with the threat of riot. that needs to be stopped.
 
Superman79 said:
I currently live in Nebraska, and right now, I think the guy'd be safer IN prison.
I think you are right on the money with this one...
 
SpiderB said:
It makes sense and I think it's step in the right direction. Prisons are not supposed to be lions' dens where men are thrown in and have to fight for their lives or be torn to pieces.

Ok, first off, prisons are not lion’s dens. Yes, they can be dangerous, cold, not nice places to be. But guess what? THEY”RE SUPPOSED TO BE!!! It’s called deterrence. If prison is a bad place, then people won’t want to go there, and therefore will not commit crimes (according to the preventionist approach). Even then, they don’t just throw all prisoners together and say ‘here ya go...good luck’. Even then, those on the retributivist side of thinking believe that any kind of justice (even jail house justice, which does exist) is appropriate as the punishment should fit the crime. Here, the punishment clearly does not fit the crime.

SpiderB said:
I don't care what the crime is, that's not something civilized humans should still be putting other human beings through, even as punishment. A man who's five feet tall wouldn't last two seconds in prison.

Bullcrap! A man called into the radio as the matter was being discussed while I was driving to work today. He was a Hispanic gentleman who was around 5 foot tall. He was in prison for 3 years for a felony assault. He is now a productive member of society. He was in a Nebraska prison and he survived. He said himself that height doesn’t matter. And you make prison sound as if they are being flogged daily. They have it much better than you know. High caliber workout facilities, library, better food than we feed to our schoolchildren or college kids, and a chance to earn degrees on the taxpayers dime. Oh yeah, REAL tough life behind bars.

SpiderB said:
The man is not a monster or an animal. He's a sick and misguided person, and needs treatment and counseling.

Treatment and counseling? Tell that to the parents of Jetsetta Gauge in Iowa who’s pedophile killer was given counseling and parole from his previous offenses. Or John Cofee who killed that little girl in Florida, or the other SOB from Minnesota (i believe) who convinced the judge he was not a threat and needed counseling only to go to Montana and kidnap two children, killing one of them. Oh yeah, they need “understanding and counseling”...what they need is a bullet to the head. These men who would rape and kill a CHILD ARE animals and should be treated as such.

SpiderB said:
But the judicial system should take these kinds of things (stature, age, etc.) into consideration when deciding whether to put someone in a prison.

WHAT!?!?!?
The judicial system does not need to take into account height, weight, sexual orientation, favorite color, or even age. It should do what it does, take into account the crime, the victim, and the law. End of story. You get judges weighing all these little factors and the system slows to a halt. The point of prison IS punishment. Justice is blind. You commit the crime, regardless of who you are, and you do the time. That is how a “civilized” society of laws works. None of this crap about lovey dovey feelings. It’s right and wrong, legal and illegal, crime and punishment. Period.

I apologise for going off, but it is seriously that sort of wishy-washy sentiment that puts dangerous people out on the street to harm innocents. Honestly, would you feel this way if it were your daughter/sister/cousin that was molested????
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"