Judge says convicted molester can hunt
- Thread starter Dave Davis
- Start date
- Status
SoCalShooter
Member
Medula Oblangata, molestation is not cool and I think we can agree on that had it been my kid that bugger would have met with the wood chipper. I take it very seriously, if he intentionally molested the child repeatedly or even once then yes. Even if it was the first time its not excuseable no matter how petty or heinous.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
guessing
is what most of us are doing. without all the facts here, the facts the judge did have, we are somewhat worse than monday morning quarter backs. i'm a guy with a pretty daughter and all the fear and protectiveness that goes with that. i'm also a guy who's first wife looked(and acted ) 21 when she was 14.Id hesitate to judge this with the paucity of info we have. I'm in my late 40's and do a lil spiel at local schools a couple times a year about wht too much booze and dope is not a good life plan and regularly have girls hit on me there, and not cause i'm looking i make a point outa featuring wife and family as a reward for sucking my head outa my tail. I had a 15 year old girl try to pick me up at a dancei was chaperoning rfecently and be very aggresive.Its strange world out there
is what most of us are doing. without all the facts here, the facts the judge did have, we are somewhat worse than monday morning quarter backs. i'm a guy with a pretty daughter and all the fear and protectiveness that goes with that. i'm also a guy who's first wife looked(and acted ) 21 when she was 14.Id hesitate to judge this with the paucity of info we have. I'm in my late 40's and do a lil spiel at local schools a couple times a year about wht too much booze and dope is not a good life plan and regularly have girls hit on me there, and not cause i'm looking i make a point outa featuring wife and family as a reward for sucking my head outa my tail. I had a 15 year old girl try to pick me up at a dancei was chaperoning rfecently and be very aggresive.Its strange world out there
Orthonym
Member
Methinks some folks doth protest too much. I think of Congressman Foley, who (I think) was instrumental in passing laws forbidding what he was later thought to have done.
She was 14? That was the age of consent in Georgia, back when I used to live there. Being over 50 myself, and my main squeeze being over 40, I kinda yawn at this, but I see the point of gals of that age being at their most sexually attractive. HOWEVER, they are not grown-up enough to have a complete set of wits about them. The kid's parents should say yes or no about this kind of thing, as used to be the case. Loretta Lynn got married at 14 and she seems to have turned out OK.
She was 14? That was the age of consent in Georgia, back when I used to live there. Being over 50 myself, and my main squeeze being over 40, I kinda yawn at this, but I see the point of gals of that age being at their most sexually attractive. HOWEVER, they are not grown-up enough to have a complete set of wits about them. The kid's parents should say yes or no about this kind of thing, as used to be the case. Loretta Lynn got married at 14 and she seems to have turned out OK.
I think there is some misdirected fear around people like the thread subject and other "convicted felons" etc.
I say misdirected because some of these people are dangerous - or might be dangerous. But not because they have some genetic or racial difference from anyone else. They have simply succumbed to some evil impulses for one reason or another - made an irrational and immoral choice for one reason or another.
Anyone who lives in a medium to large city should consider that in any one given period on the street, day or night, in a supermarket, public toilet - they may have stood in close proximity to, talked with, exchanged money for goods with, joked with, a "convicted felon" - perhaps a great number of times in a day. A "convicted rapist", "convicted murderer", "armed robber" etc etc.
The idea that these people - roaming freely in our midst - are all some kind of ever present peril, inherently so because of a past conviction and prison term, is lunacy. Of course there are a great number of loonies who should be under lock and key, and this is the task of the judiciary; to isolate the loonies. Keep them locked up - or bury them. One or the other.
The public at large is no safer from the real loonies whether the real loonies are legally permitted to own firearms or not. What does impact the general public safety is the access of the loonies to the public domain. Anything else is a distraction from that issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
I say misdirected because some of these people are dangerous - or might be dangerous. But not because they have some genetic or racial difference from anyone else. They have simply succumbed to some evil impulses for one reason or another - made an irrational and immoral choice for one reason or another.
Anyone who lives in a medium to large city should consider that in any one given period on the street, day or night, in a supermarket, public toilet - they may have stood in close proximity to, talked with, exchanged money for goods with, joked with, a "convicted felon" - perhaps a great number of times in a day. A "convicted rapist", "convicted murderer", "armed robber" etc etc.
The idea that these people - roaming freely in our midst - are all some kind of ever present peril, inherently so because of a past conviction and prison term, is lunacy. Of course there are a great number of loonies who should be under lock and key, and this is the task of the judiciary; to isolate the loonies. Keep them locked up - or bury them. One or the other.
The public at large is no safer from the real loonies whether the real loonies are legally permitted to own firearms or not. What does impact the general public safety is the access of the loonies to the public domain. Anything else is a distraction from that issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Thin Black Line
Member
These statements are reflective of people who do not understand how the
probation system works. 1) If you are on probation, you are not a "free
man." You are under court orders and the probation dept is in effect the
instrument for carrying out the judge's orders. 2) If you want more jail
space, you have to pay for it. Depending on your location, this may mean
quadrupling or more the cell space in your county. Imagine the millage rate
that would be on the ballot at your next election to expand the jail space
that would then be needed? From my experience with lesser rates, property
owners usually do not approve this for even the initial costs of construction
alone. Year to year expenses for running the facility and housing prisoners
are another matter entirely. The increase in county/city employees to staff
the facilities with their accumulated health and pension plans would also be
a significant budget issue as pensions were tapped over the coming decades.
The gradated LEO retirement system in Detroit immediately comes to mind
in that respect --the older guys have far better benefits coming to them
than the new guys ever will in the future. This was due to projections
showing major problems in a place that already had financial issues. However,
this would be true anywhere over time.
Bottom line is, people won't pay for it and probation (court supervision within
the community) is the only option. Again, my premise is that consequences
and punishment require the continued restriction of rights for someone who
has shown they are not currently capable of handling themselves around
other human beings.
Once again, I am also amazed how people get bent into a pretzel when an
actual bad guy who has not finished completing his criminal sentence
is somehow denied a "right" that he would not have access to had there been
enough jail space in the first place. So again, learn how things work out
in the world.
I would love to approve the millage for just about everything that ever got
proposed in my county, but quite frankly I and the other property owners
can't pay for all of it. We're carrying enough (including a lot of new "residents")
on our backs as it is.
NineseveN
member
Law Dictionary Entry:
probation
n. a chance to remain free (or serve only a short time) given by a judge to a person convicted of a crime instead of being sent to jail or prison, provided the person can be good. Probation is only given under specific court-ordered terms, such as performing public service work, staying away from liquor, paying a fine, maintaining good behavior, getting mental therapy and reporting regularly to a probation officer. Violation of probation terms will usually result in the person being sent to jail for the normal term. Repeat criminals are normally not eligible for probation. Probation is not the same as "parole," which is freedom under certain restrictions given to convicts at the end of their imprisonment.
Law Dictionary Entry
parole
n. 1) the release of a convicted criminal defendant after he/she has completed part of his/her prison sentence, based on the concept that during the period of parole, the released criminal can prove he/she is rehabilitated and can "make good" in society. A parole generally has a specific period and terms such as reporting to a parole officer, not associating with other ex-convicts, and staying out of trouble. Violation of the terms may result in revocation of parole and a return to prison to complete his/her sentence. 2) a promise by a prisoner of war that if released he will not take up arms again.
I think you're the one that has the misunderstanding. When a convict is on Parole, they are still part of the system, and have some pretty strict requirements placed upon them on top of anything that is placed on them by being a convicted felon (i.e. owning firearms). When someone is on probation, they're on probation in lieu of being incarcerated (i.e. felons rarely get probation, and if they do it's under some type of plan like ARD). I think you need to understand the difference between "probation" and "parole", because your arguments would hold water under parole, under probation you're just not cutting it.
Note: Parole is not the same as being released; I doubt many of the people arguing that once one is "released" from prison that they should be afforded their rights back mean to include people on parole because of the differences between parole, incarceration, probation and freedom.
Actually, that’s not quite correct. Part of the issue is that we have people being made into criminals when they do no harm to anyone but maybe themselves. I’m talking about drug users. I don’t do drugs, never have, never will, I despise them, but, someone that gets tossed into the system on drug use charges when they’ve committed no crime against anyone else is a waste of time, space and money; all of which could be reserved for criminals that have harmed another in some form. That would go a long way towards taking care of the issue.
Further from that, making prisons profitable while keeping them secure can help as well. No more cable TV, weight benches basketball time…put them to work. Instead of WalMart buying sweatshop goods from China, they could buy them from the penal systems. There was a prison not too long ago that had a program making denim jeans, if the states were to hire a few top-notch consultants in business and security, I am willing to be that some ingenuity could really make a difference. Will it cover the entire cost? Of course not, but between that and getting rid of ridiculous jail sentences for ridiculous crimes, it’s a huge start in the positive towards this particular problem.
Probation is usually reserved for misdemeanors, (i.e. relatively minor offenses).
Probation is not the same parole, get it through your head please before you start making snarky comments like “learn how things work in the real world”. Parole is a solution to the limited space in jails, probation is a way for someone that has committed a minor crime to make restitution or be taught a lesson. Probation is not given to violent felons or anyone that is normally categorized as a high-risk criminal as they’re usually guilty of misdemeanors and petty crimes. Probation is not meant as a mechanism to remove one’s rights the way incineration is. But thanks for the rant, I enjoyed it.
.
So you are suggesting that you can tank up a child with psychoactive drugs, interrogate him/her at length asking incredibly leading questions, and at the end of it all you won't occasionally get a statement out of the child that has only a passing resemblance to the truth?
Malone LaVeigh
Member
A lot of the emotion that surrounds this issue comes from the feeling we all get when we hear the phrase "child molester." But I think there needs to be some distinction between those who molest preadolescents and those who molest the underage. As disgusting as it may seem to most of us, a 14-year-old was marrying material in most of the world till the 20th century. I don't think you can really say she was irreparably damaged as a younger child would be. I'm not trying to minimize the trauma she might have experienced, but calling for the DP is barbaric.
That being said, a year is still too lenient IMO. Ten years would have been more appropriate.
That being said, a year is still too lenient IMO. Ten years would have been more appropriate.
WayneConrad
Member
"WOW you guys are hard core. I can't believe THR members are so into the RBKA that they would look the other way for a guy that molested a minor."
I think you're amazed that we will look the other way when the man bears arms. Am i right? I don't think even that is true of all of us here: Many here abide by laws they disagree with, and prefer that others do, too. It's part of being... well, law abiding.
I don't think anyone here is saying that they would look the other way over the molestation itself. I hope that's not what you mean, because if it is, I think you've misread us.
In any case, all you gotta do is convince me of two things: That restricting the man's right to keep and bear arms will prevent him from molesting a child, and that restricting that man's right to keep and bear arms will lead to a decrease in the power of government rather than an increase. Can you do that?
I think you're amazed that we will look the other way when the man bears arms. Am i right? I don't think even that is true of all of us here: Many here abide by laws they disagree with, and prefer that others do, too. It's part of being... well, law abiding.
I don't think anyone here is saying that they would look the other way over the molestation itself. I hope that's not what you mean, because if it is, I think you've misread us.
In any case, all you gotta do is convince me of two things: That restricting the man's right to keep and bear arms will prevent him from molesting a child, and that restricting that man's right to keep and bear arms will lead to a decrease in the power of government rather than an increase. Can you do that?
Sean Dempsey
Member
I predict this thread gets locked soon, but at any rate...
I don't know this guy or what he did exactly, other than what the report says, but I am of the opinion that if you are a pedophile, you are neither a "man" nor entirely "human" - you are a pedophile.
And I don't recall the constitution or bill of rights giving rights to pedophiles. Alot of criminals can be rehabilitated, and I don't think that all criminals should be dened their 2A rights. But pedophiles are not criminals - it's almost a sub-species of humanity. Recidivism rates for pedophiles and child molesters is fairly high, and treatment and rehabilitation is mostly about control of behaviors, meaning they still WANT to have sex with children, they just learn not to.
And if you want to have sex with children, even IF you control it and don't do it, means you are pretty mentally ill. Is an adult who is sexually attracted and wants to act on those attractions in their right mind? Are they mentally stable? I'd say it's pretty clear they are not.
If you find that 9 year old sexually attractive - I don't want you having guns because obviously your brain and judgement is compromised. It's not because I think you'll use hunting guns against kids to have sex with them... the sexual attraction is reason enough.
This could be argued all day, there are more than a few organizations that stand up for and support the rights of pedophiles and pederasts. I do not belong to these groups.
And to all the people who are posting about how you'd injure or kill the guy who molested your daughter - no you wouldn't. You wouldn't do jack, just like everyone else. You'd call the cops, they'd drag their heels, and some judge would rule that this guy is not a threat because he "only fondled your 12 year olds breasts" and that he isn't voilent. He'd be released after 4 months and then your daughter would run into him at walmart, and that'd just make her traumatization worse.
But hey, therapists gotta make money somehow. Go go rights for pedophiles!
I don't know this guy or what he did exactly, other than what the report says, but I am of the opinion that if you are a pedophile, you are neither a "man" nor entirely "human" - you are a pedophile.
And I don't recall the constitution or bill of rights giving rights to pedophiles. Alot of criminals can be rehabilitated, and I don't think that all criminals should be dened their 2A rights. But pedophiles are not criminals - it's almost a sub-species of humanity. Recidivism rates for pedophiles and child molesters is fairly high, and treatment and rehabilitation is mostly about control of behaviors, meaning they still WANT to have sex with children, they just learn not to.
And if you want to have sex with children, even IF you control it and don't do it, means you are pretty mentally ill. Is an adult who is sexually attracted and wants to act on those attractions in their right mind? Are they mentally stable? I'd say it's pretty clear they are not.
If you find that 9 year old sexually attractive - I don't want you having guns because obviously your brain and judgement is compromised. It's not because I think you'll use hunting guns against kids to have sex with them... the sexual attraction is reason enough.
This could be argued all day, there are more than a few organizations that stand up for and support the rights of pedophiles and pederasts. I do not belong to these groups.
And to all the people who are posting about how you'd injure or kill the guy who molested your daughter - no you wouldn't. You wouldn't do jack, just like everyone else. You'd call the cops, they'd drag their heels, and some judge would rule that this guy is not a threat because he "only fondled your 12 year olds breasts" and that he isn't voilent. He'd be released after 4 months and then your daughter would run into him at walmart, and that'd just make her traumatization worse.
But hey, therapists gotta make money somehow. Go go rights for pedophiles!
NineseveN
member
In all my years as a Bulls fan, I'd never seen Jordan sink one as beautiful as the one you just did, you nailed it. Good job!
Sean Dempsey
Member
Nice strawman.
You don't restrict his right to keep and bear arms to keep him from molesting a child. Restricting ANYONES right to keep and bear arms doesn't "prevent" anything. Even convicted felons guilty of violent assaults can't be "prevented", no matter what you do, "keep and bear arms" or not.
There you go, pedophiles are not people, and thereby not protected by the 2nd amendment.
As for your second statement, I don't think the purpose of restricting a pedophiles access to guns is to increase/decreaste the power of government, so it's irrelevent.
How many people have actually dealt with pedophiles in clinical situations, heard their motives, watched their rehab (or lack thereof)? I am not a licensed psychologist, but I do have my degree in psych, and interned about 2000 hours in a psycholgists clinic where I dealt with pedophiles and sexual predators on a weekly basis. And 1 fact remains - they are MENTALLY ILL, usually permanently.
I'd let Charles Manson attend my barbacue before I'd let a pedophile, and I'd sooner let someone with advanced, severe, highly delusional schizophrenia go shooting with me before I'd let a pedophile.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
NineseveN
member
Sean Dempsey, you mean like this guy?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45104
What does a gun have to do with this exactly? Is sex with a 16-year old okay? The law says so in many states, so long as they're consenting. Is there a real difference? What real difference is there between 14 and 16? Because the law says there is one? Is that good enough? You're going to cite the law making the guy in this thread, the above story and others sex offenders and support it saying they should not own a gun or have the right to protect themselves in the best manner possible, are you also going to support a 29-year old man having sex with a Sophomore in High School? Because the law says it's okay, so it must be, right? Or is the law only right when it suits your argument?
A 14-year old girl says a grown man touched her (no kid’s ever lied about that right? Get real). What evidence did they have that he truly did so? Basically, in these kinds of touching cases, you have the word of a person that is deemed too young to make their own decisions (a minor) against the word of an adult and you’re going to take their word about what happened? Hey, the guy was convicted by a jury of his peers right, so the case must’ve been airtight, right?
I’m not even sure what the guy in the original story did given the relatively small sentence, but folks want to rush off and condemn him? Maybe most of you are way older or don’t get out much. I’ve bounced a number of bars and I’m young enough that before my current relationship with a 26-year old (that looks like she’s 18 at best), I dated girls in their lowers 20’s (I’m 29) and I’ve had experiences almost being roped in by minors, way younger than most would believe unless it’s happened to them. When I bounced, before the ID scanners came out, I’d see girls get in that were later found out to be as young as 12, only built like college strippers (they used to get into bars with fake ID’s) and I’d see them hit on all kinds of guys while they were in the bar getting free drinks and whatever.
Some kids are not as innocent as their protectors would make them out to be. Now with the ID scanners and some new tricks (and the right to refuse being prominent in most bars these days) it’s not such a big deal…but out in the real world where folks aren’t carded for walking around? Different story. Now, we don’t know what this guy did, but judging by the sentence, he’s either the Mayor’s son or it was relatively minor. Yeah, he’s a sex offender, take his arms away…but you remember that the next time you grab a kid that’s on your property stomping your mailbox or getting ready to run out into traffic. Don’t worry, we’ll feel sorry for you, promise we will Mr. Sex Offender.
In any case, WayneConrad summed it up the best, so maybe I should have left it at that...
NineseveN
member
Well, you did a wonderful job of telling us why you don't restrict their right to keep and bear arms, but you haven't told us why you should, which, as I understand it, is your point anyway. Thanks for the help, but let's hear your reason why, other than your personal feelings.
Please source this legal opinion. if this is not a legal opinion, but your own personal one, well, we don't make law based on how Sean Dempsey feels, sorry pal, them’s the breaks kid.
Again, you're telling what the purpose isn't, not what the purpose is. Care to clarify on what you hope to accomplish by restricting their rights in that manner?
WayneConrad
Member
Why, if it prevents nothing, should we restrict the right to keep and bear arms?
Hardly. The purpose -- the stated intent -- is what's irrelevent. The actual effect of the law is what matters. If a robber relieves you of your wallet but tells you that he wishes to ease your burden in carrying it, does that make it alright? Or is it the actual taking of your wallet, and not his reasons for taking it, that matter?
Sean Dempsey
Member
You didn't address anything in my post, you set up a argument that a guy stopping a girl running into the street is now required to register as a sex offender.
You then said that kids lie, and that maybe most sexual crimes really aren't that bad.
You then told a story about how you used to pick up young women at bars, and that the 12 year olds were built like strippers. Is that the beginning of a "she wanted it" defense, or a "if she didn't want to be raped, why was she dressed so sexy!" defense?
You then implied that if I were to ever touch a child who was "stomping my mailbox", that'd I'd be convicted of a sex crime, and you wouldn't feel bad because I got what I deserved? No judge would take away my rights because I am a sex offender, haven't you been reading this thread? Like they say around Utah, if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed (according to natural selection and/or a Creator, right?).
Nice debate skills.
You then said that kids lie, and that maybe most sexual crimes really aren't that bad.
You then told a story about how you used to pick up young women at bars, and that the 12 year olds were built like strippers. Is that the beginning of a "she wanted it" defense, or a "if she didn't want to be raped, why was she dressed so sexy!" defense?
You then implied that if I were to ever touch a child who was "stomping my mailbox", that'd I'd be convicted of a sex crime, and you wouldn't feel bad because I got what I deserved? No judge would take away my rights because I am a sex offender, haven't you been reading this thread? Like they say around Utah, if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed (according to natural selection and/or a Creator, right?).
Nice debate skills.
NineseveN
member
Sean Dempsey said:
Inferring that I copulate with or am attracted to 12-year old girls was a great debate tactic as well. Perhaps you could read it again and show me where I said "I" was the subject of those thoughts.
Then you equated me with a rapist.
That’s rather despicable of you to do, I think I'm done with you, I don’t associate with your kind if I can help it.
I made it perfectly clear the age of the girls I dated (low 20's sometimes, if you read the post), and I made it perfectly clear that the young girls were bar patrons that looked older and got in with fake ID that we later had to bounce out with the police after the discovery of their age or enough suspicion to warrant it.
I used this example not to give the "she wanted it defense", but to illustrate that not all minors are innocent, sometimes they get in over their heads and witless adults do get brought down by it. I never said most or many sex crimes are exaggerated or made up as you so ineloquently attributed to me, only that yes, it does happen, which is why we need to look at each individual case and dole out adequate punishment (which would not be probation if the person was really a danger or committed a really terrible crime under vile circumstances).
I brought up Barnaby to again illustrate that the label of "sex offender" or even "pedophile" is also not always so black and white, but I think that point is largely lost on you. So be it.
I really think that some people, once they start losing the argument, they try to get the thread locked by tossing about ad hominem attacks (such as remarks insinuating someone is a rapist or child molester when they clearly said nothing even remotely close to that) as a way to shut the thread down. You must be precognitive Mr. Dempsey...
Sean Dempsey said:
Or was that perhaps just a warning?
Last edited:
Sean Dempsey said:
At the time of 2nd amendment adoption, having consentual sex with a 14-year old woman was not considered "pedophilia." In fact many 14-year olds were likely already married.
If the government can re-define a 14-year old woman into a child and "nothing but gold and silver" into "anything but gold and silver", it can certainly re-define arms into something like rubber-band pistols and outlaw everything else.
miko
WayneConrad
Member
WickedXD said, "...anyone that lets a child molestor have a gun is no better...and anyone that agrees....is sick!"
Please, let's discuss the issue, and not resort to personal attacks. I can understand how emotionally charged this issue is, but ad hominum attacks aren't really going to get us anywhere.
If my arguments revolt you, that's worth discussing. If you explain why, then I can learn something.
Please, let's discuss the issue, and not resort to personal attacks. I can understand how emotionally charged this issue is, but ad hominum attacks aren't really going to get us anywhere.
If my arguments revolt you, that's worth discussing. If you explain why, then I can learn something.
Thin Black Line
Member
+1. In fact, let's issue him a weapon and set him up as a security guard in
front of one of their kid's schools....
Again, it would be good to see some of their hypocrisy kick in and work in a healthy way.
It would be an interesting tangental issue to debate that sentence. Suffice
to say "times were different" for a dispersed, decentralised, agrarian society
who had a very basic education to meet the skills required for jobs at that
time. Keep in mind at the time of the 2A's adoption that the educated
members of society also waited until they were older for marriage.
Jefferson's daughter would be a good example: married at 18 to a man
about 4 years older than herself after both received the equivalent of
today's college education. She had her first child at 19. Do you honestly
believe Jefferson would have had his daughter marry at 14 when he placed
such an emphasis on education? The poor and lesser educated were getting
married (or common-law) and having babies at early ages --nowadays, they
just have babies....and look how our society is reversing itself over the gains
it made in the last 100 years.
NineseveN, "freedom" as meant in your law dictionary is in the sense that
they are not incarcerated in a state facility. It certainly does not mean
"freedom" in the sense that you would have. Someone under a probationary
order can not do what a "free" person can do. If they violate a part of a
probationary order (something which may in fact be legal for someone to do
who is not under such an order), then the court has the option, without
another jury hearing involved, to send them immediately and directly to jail.
I would hope most counties are still noting this condition and consequence on
their probationary orders. Most probationary orders also restrict access to
weapons which is what this guy was petitionting to modify.
The story would go that probation was a nice creation out of our feelings of
humanity and mercy to punish/correct a person without resorting to an
immediate lock-up for that period of time.
Cost was still a major factor --probation is cheaper than jail.
I for one would like to see probation include a longer list of restrictions. And,
my version of incarceration would not include facilities with single rooms,
flush toilets, TV, exercise rooms, and three hot meals --far better accomodations
than what I and the average soldier at FOB Dog Cr@p had in Iraq.
Here's something cost-effective: you violate probation you go to tent city
surrounded by barbed wire and some MREs and bottles of water get tossed in
a couple times/day. I wouldn't keep people there for months --just a cpuple
weeks to remind them they were under a court order and to use that wonderful
opportunity society gave them to use community resources for personal and
spiritual growth
But, fine, I understand some of you guys want to go soft.....
Since we don't really know what happened, only having a snippet from a news report that really says very little, it is hard for me to condemn this guy as a pedophile, and someone who is forever worthless.
IMO, true pedophiles can never be cured. It is a permanent situation that can at best be controlled, and even that is dicey.
These days, a lot of 14 YO girls are very forward, and quite brazen. Many of them dress, act, and look older. It would not excuse his behavior if she were an active participant, but it might give some insight. The people closest to the case, the judge and probation department, probably have a much better handle on this than anyone here that knows almost nothing about it. I have a hard time believing they would have gone along with his request if they thought he was even remotely a threat to anyone.
Keep in mind the guy did not go to court and demand his "rights". He went and asked to have a privilege restored to him, recognizing that in his current status, he no longer had that right.
I just do not see the harm in allowing him to partake of his hobby again.
IMO, true pedophiles can never be cured. It is a permanent situation that can at best be controlled, and even that is dicey.
These days, a lot of 14 YO girls are very forward, and quite brazen. Many of them dress, act, and look older. It would not excuse his behavior if she were an active participant, but it might give some insight. The people closest to the case, the judge and probation department, probably have a much better handle on this than anyone here that knows almost nothing about it. I have a hard time believing they would have gone along with his request if they thought he was even remotely a threat to anyone.
Keep in mind the guy did not go to court and demand his "rights". He went and asked to have a privilege restored to him, recognizing that in his current status, he no longer had that right.
I just do not see the harm in allowing him to partake of his hobby again.
- Status
