Child Molester at Work

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Apples to Oranges? Maybe, in the fact that touching the kid is MUCH more serious than soliciting for sex. Evidence does NOT determine the sentence. You are either guilty or NOT guilty. You aren't a little guilty because there is a not as much evidence as there might be in another case.

So, you believe that with solid evidence a judge/jury let this guy go with 90 days for both counts? No, evidence does not determine the sentance. But it does go towards what the Crown would be willing to offer in a plea bargain.

Are you telling me that you have never seen a weak case be offered a lower sentance for a plea?

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If he is innocent, then don't plead guilty. If he didn't plead guilty and was found guilty, then that is what our court system if for. Are we to start questioning every guilty determination now because there is that 5% chance out of the beyond a reasonable doubt that he may be innocent?

Innocent people are in our prisons. That's a fact; one that we see now with DNA being used to exhonourate (sp?) people convicted years ago. I know if I was faced with 5 or 10 years in jail, and a weekend sentance I might be inclined to plead guilty to something I didn't commit.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

A child, on the other hand, cannot consent to a sex act. Pedophilia ALWAYS hurts children. Hurting children is not okay. Whether it's being "sick" or being "sexually oriented" that way is completely irrelevant. It would be like saying serial killers have a "murderous orientation." It doesn't--and shouldn't matter in the eyes of the law. What matters is the actions people take and the consequences of those actions on others. Comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is therefore completely specious in my view.

Can it be treated? Can these people be rehabilitated? I have no idea--no personal basis on which to make a judgement. On one hand, I can see the logic in allowing offenders who've served their time and been released to integrate themselves into society. On the other hand, I'm a parent--and I expect the legal system to help me to protect my daughter from monsters like this by at least keeping them away from playgrounds and schools and places where children congregate. I guess you could say I'm of two minds...

I don't think anyone here is proposing that pedophilia be viewed as a sexual orientation for the purposes of promoting it as a legit and valid lifestyle.. only for the purposes of trying to understand why someone does something to begin with.

Of course it's not a good thing and should be addressed by the laws.

Comparing it to homo or hetro-sexuality is just trying to put the person's desires in a context more people could understand, not an attempt to legitimize it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think anyone here is proposing that pedophilia be viewed as a sexual orientation for the purposes of promoting it as a legit and valid lifestyle.. only for the purposes of trying to understand why someone does something to begin with.

Of course it's not a good thing and should be addressed by the laws.

Comparing it to homo or hetro-sexuality is just trying to put the person's desires in a context more people could understand, not an attempt to legitimize it.

Fair enough. And if understanding can lead to prevention, I'm all for it. I guess I was responding to Fozzie and CaptainCrunch on the previous page--and CC noted the implications of calling pedophilia a sexual orientation in this way:

One of the nightmare scenarios that I've heard about is that someday somehow, a judge might be convinced of the above, that Pedophelia is a sexual orientation. I'm actually amazed that some defendant hasn't challenged this as a point of defense. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy and a gay life style were part of the criminal code.

I just don't think pedophilia and homosexuality are all that comparable. To me a better comparable would be a pedophile and a sociopath--who we could also understand as sick or demented or needing help. But in the meantime he's hurting people. That's all I was saying.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, you believe that with solid evidence a judge/jury let this guy go with 90 days for both counts? No, evidence does not determine the sentance. But it does go towards what the Crown would be willing to offer in a plea bargain.

If this guy actually did go to court, he probably decide with a trial by judge alone. And I can completely see a 90 day sentence being handed down by a Canadian Judge. Especially if the judge made remarks that he needs to support his wife and kids. What? Support his wife and kids? The probability of him molesting his kids are pretty high, so how is that supporting them? Wouldn't the be best support with him removed from the picture?

Sure, sure, not everyone re-offends, but lets be honest without selves.

Are you telling me that you have never seen a weak case be offered a lower sentance for a plea?

Sure I have, but your comments are that because the child is 5 years old, the evidence cannot be trusted. The evidence must be weighed depending on the circumstances and if the judge deems that it is sufficent to prove guilt, then so be it. That is why we have a judicial system. To provide procedural fairness, a balanced approach and to prevent arbitrary decisions. If the guy was found guilty, he was found guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Do mistakes happen? Yes, the system is ran by human's thus, there are inherent flaws. That does not mean we decide that we can no longer trust the decisions made in the judicial system as far as guilty or not guilty. Some people that are inoccent are found guilty. It sucks and in a perfect world should not happen. But we have many appeal levels and checks and balances to help prevent and limit as much as possible errors that happen in law.


I am not saying this guy should have been sentenced to 4 years in prison. I do not know all the facts and mitigating factors. All I was doing was pointing out the HUGE discrepancies between sentencing in the USA and Canada. Quite frankly I think the USA is a little to harsh but I also think that Canada is WAY to lenient. A guy puts his hands down a childs pants for sexual gratification twice and receives 90 days jail served on weekends and house arrest. Yet, if you steal money from the tax man you go to jail. This here is just one example of many: The guy defrauds that government of $50,000 and is given 12 months jail sentence.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-rele...cy-875759.html

That is 270 days more in jail for stealing compared to sexual assualt...RAPE.

Innocent people are in our prisons. That's a fact; one that we see now with DNA being used to exhonourate (sp?) people convicted years ago. I know if I was faced with 5 or 10 years in jail, and a weekend sentance I might be inclined to plead guilty to something I didn't commit.

That could be said for any crime.

Addition: It may appear that on one hand I am arguing the the court system needs to be trusted and on the other hand they can't be because of the sentences handed out. These are two different things. Finding guilt is provided beyond a reasonable doubt (being 95% sure) sentencing is much different. The laws are in place to provide the appropriate sentencing but judges for some reason feel compelled to argue why they shouldn't be given a lengthy sentence as apposed to arguing why they should be given a lengthy sentence.

[Devils'Advocate]

FYI - In this particular case, the child told the mother, the mother told the police, the police came calling and the man confessed outright saying that he needs help and couldn't control himself. No coercion required. He has maintained his guilt throughout.

And that's another interesting aspect of the case. His co-workers have said that if the man had plead not guilty, gone through the trial, been convicted, did his time and then came back THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO ACCEPT HIM BACK INTO THE FOLD. Because in that case they could convince themselves that there was a chance that he was one of those innocent people railroaded by the system when faced with false allegations by an overimaginative girl. But since he's said "I definitely did it and I need help" they definitely don't want him back in their section. Which seems really counter-intuitive. An alcoholic that admits he has a problem and wants help is much closer to dealing with his problem than someone that is in constant denial.

As for how I am handling it, it's really nothing more than idle hypothesizing... "what would I do in these folks shoes?". I never met the man, it has no impact on me whatsoever. Save for hearing the opinions of others will help discuss the issue with my friend who does work in that section if he ever did want to talk about it. But we're men so most likely we'll discuss the impact Jason Smith will have on the Senators season than the feelings he's having about the situation.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

FYI - In this particular case, the child told the mother, the mother told the police, the police came calling and the man confessed outright saying that he needs help and couldn't control himself. No coercion required. He has maintained his guilt throughout.

And that's another interesting aspect of the case. His co-workers have said that if the man had plead not guilty, gone through the trial, been convicted, did his time and then came back THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO ACCEPT HIM BACK INTO THE FOLD. Because in that case they could convince themselves that there was a chance that he was one of those innocent people railroaded by the system when faced with false allegations by an overimaginative girl. But since he's said "I definitely did it and I need help" they definitely don't want him back in their section. Which seems really counter-intuitive. An alcoholic that admits he has a problem and wants help is much closer to dealing with his problem than someone that is in constant denial.

As for how I am handling it, it's really nothing more than idle hypothesizing... "what would I do in these folks shoes?". I never met the man, it has no impact on me whatsoever. Save for hearing the opinions of others will help discuss the issue with my friend who does work in that section if he ever did want to talk about it. But we're men so most likely we'll discuss the impact Jason Smith will have on the Senators season than the feelings he's having about the situation.

Well good on him for admiting to it and sparing the child from a trial and I guess it is the first step to get help. But if he was really serious about it, why didn't he seek help BEFORE he commited the offence and possibily scared the child for life? He doesn't get much brownie points or sympothy from me.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well good on him for admiting to it and sparing the child from a trial and I guess it is the first step to get help. But if he was really serious about it, why didn't he seek help BEFORE he commited the offence and possibily scared the child for life? He doesn't get much brownie points or sympothy from me.

Or from me, but the person I'd be really pissed at in this situation is the judge! If someone commits a heinous crime, they don't get special considerations because they happen to be married (for whatever its worth) and kids (whatever they're worth)! The offender forfeits all those things, not gets a light sentence because of them!

THATS WHAT PRISON IS!!! This person is a danger to society regardless of their 'orientation'.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Or from me, but the person I'd be really pissed at in this situation is the judge! If someone commits a heinous crime, they don't get special considerations because they happen to be married (for whatever its worth) and kids (whatever they're worth)! The offender forfeits all those things, not gets a light sentence because of them!

THATS WHAT PRISON IS!!! This person is a danger to society regardless of their 'orientation'.

And the fact that the guy admits that he has a problem....makes me believe that he has been doing this for quite sometime. If he hasn't molested other children I would bet that he has participated obtaining/viewing/and or sharing child porn.

[Howie_16]

This is a real slippery slope we are treading on here. Sure, people get passionate about protecting children, but to actively do anything to harm the offender reeks of vigilantism.

To me, I would put those who would harm the offender in the same boat as a Mississippi lynch mob.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

This is a real slippery slope we are treading on here. Sure, people get passionate about protecting children, but to actively do anything to harm the offender reeks of vigilantism.

To me, I would put those who would harm the offender in the same boat as a Mississippi lynch mob.

I haven't read every post in this thread, I have't seen anyone advocate violence toward the offender. Has somone?

[ken0042]

There was some talk earlier about castration.

[Howie_16]

Doing anything, organizing a staff walkout, etc., is a form of psychological violence.

Bottom line: Don't hire the guy to babysit your kids, and mind your own business.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by ken0042

There was some talk earlier about castration.

Aside from a statement from me earlier in the thread that was taken back, only talk about chemical-castration has been objective and non-offensive.

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Doing anything, organizing a staff walkout, etc., is a form of psychological violence.

Kind of comes with the territory when you sexually assault kids. See how you feel when it's your kid.

Bottom line: Don't hire the guy to babysit your kids, and mind your own business.

Sounds like the place where they work took it upon themselves to make it everyone's business, and so I don't really see how they can simply go on minding their own.

If nothing is to happen then it should have been kept under wraps...just like nothing ever happened. But that is not the case.

[Howie_16]

I never said it was wrong to be angry. It is wrong to act to anger.

I don't need have one of my children sexually assaulted to change my position. I wouldn't be more against drunk driving just because I lost a loved one due to someone else's poor decision.

When someone begins to think of themselves as better than another, then bad things happen. You don't have to be religious to understand the logic behind "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

When someone begins to think of themselves as better than another, then bad things happen. You don't have to be religious to understand the logic behind "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

Nobody is throwing stones.

Its called not allowing a precedent that society will tolerate the actions of pedos in any way, including allowing them to keep their government jobs while a convicted felon. Especially pedos.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of the nightmare scenarios that I've heard about is that someday somehow, a judge might be convinced of the above, that Pedophelia is a sexual orientation. I'm actually amazed that some defendant hasn't challenged this as a point of defense. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy and a gay life style were part of the criminal code.

I mean most of these warped individuals (pedo's) would be content with their condition being classed as a mental illness as it helps them avoid prison, gets them house arrest, or lighter punishment. But there's going to be someone that makes that leap of condition, then all bets are off.

I guess it already happens. Some countries in Europe (Netherlands and France I think) will consider circumstances like age and basically allow this.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Its called not allowing a precedent that society will tolerate the actions of pedos in any way, including allowing them to keep their government jobs while a convicted felon. Especially pedos.

And I am not asking that we decriminalize pedophilia. However, no one has the right to demand that an offender be excluded from society after they have served their sentence.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

And I am not asking that we decriminalize pedophilia. However, no one has the right to demand that an offender be excluded from society after they have served their sentence.

Then why are you objecting to the employees in this government job objecting to having to work with this guy?

By making it everyone's business and then threatening termination if anyone acts on it in anyway, has it not essentially begun to become decriminalized? Protecting the predator when a child is involved is morally repugnant.

The point I wish people would consider more in this whole thing is that it is absolute total madness that he would even think of returning to that job, let alone put the entire office through this whole ass-sordid mess.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Protecting the predator when a child is involved is morally repugnant.

Standing up for the individual rights of other human beings is never morally repugnant.

If this offender does not work directly with kids, then he shouldn't have to answer to you or I at his office. I assume he served his sentence, and I think the person(s) who have been "morally repugnant" and therefore should not be working for the government were those who leaked the info in the first place.

[BuzzardsWife]

I love the lynch mob idea!! I love the castration idea!! I think all Pedo's should be euthanized, but made to suffer greatly beforehand! And I don't care what anyone in the world thinks of my opinion! NUKE them all. They don't belong in your office or on this planet. They should have no rights. They should all die. Can't wait to see what comes after this very honest post!!