Absurd US sentencing as man gets 200 years for porn charges

[Bodhi]

As a tax payer, I resent the fact that my tax contribution is paid to monitor people like this man who have commited such hideous crimes.

In the UK each prisoner costs approx ?400.00 per week ($750) to keep locked-up. In my opinion The death penalty should be much more widely used. A sex offender/murderer/rapist/peodphiles sentence serving a 30 year sentence costs the state ?6,420.000 ($11,610.000) surely even on a financial footing there is a case to execute the filth...

Those crimes I mentioned above are all surely worthy of receiving the death sentence. I hope that there isnt anyone that will try and defend these animals.

it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison for life......strange but true

[Izzy]

When the justice system makes u feel sorry for the guilty then something has gone badly wrong...

[SLCPUNK]

Then shouldn't all adults be locked up? I mean, by accident or by design we all may harm children. Following your logic; shouldn't we arrest anyone who is proven to have downloaded pornography,  as they may choose to sexually abuse the objects of their own peculiar desires.

You have a hard time grasping "logic"...

He should be imprisoned because his actions condoned and contributed to the sexual abuse of a child (in the porn.) It also is a proven fact that these sickos can not be rehabilitated-the continue to abuse children. Keeping him in jail keeps him away from kids simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he "might" do in the future, although I suspect that if you are watching child porn you certainly are more likely willing to act on that urge, if you have not already.

As far as I'm concerned people who create these movies should get life in prison.

Lock them the hell up.

[freedom78]

When the justice system makes u feel sorry for the guilty then something has gone badly wrong...

I think you're missing the point that a lot of people are making. 

I do NOT feel sorry for the "guilty," in this case.  I do NOT support child porn or anything that could be associated with it.   I DO feel horribly for the abused children, who are probably locked away in some cage in Thailand, and I DESPISE those who are taking advantage of this situation to make money.   

However, I think we need to separate our societal desire for justice and/or vengeance from the greater societal need, which is to understand and reduce crime.  If we can USE these individuals, whether they're murders, rapists, or pedophiles, to get to the psychological roots of their actions, we can better treat those roots, before they lead to horrible actions. 

In other words, if we can find the cause of the desire to molest/rape/look at nudie pics of children, then we can better prevent it or treat it in the future.  Perhaps some criminal acts are untreatable or have no such cause...I'm not a psych person, so I do not know.  But using the convicted to study these issues strikes me as a better option than locking them up, away from those who study behavior or biology. 

Also, the REAL question here is whether so called mandatory minimums are a good idea.  Those in favor say it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide on a punishment, without some fairly strong guidelines.  Of course, we have to ask why a politician is a better judge of what such punishments should be than someone who deals with criminal activity day in and day out. 

[Neemo]

see i think that people wanting and willing to pay for the child porn are nearly as bad as those who create it....cuz it is created for them...the kids are molested and abused cuz people buy the porn....anybody involved with the creation and distribution of child porn in any aspect should be locked away IMHO

[freedom78]

see i think that people wanting and willing to pay for the child porn are nearly as bad as those who create it....cuz it is created for them...the kids are molested and abused cuz people buy the porn....anybody involved with the creation and distribution of child porn in any aspect should be locked away IMHO

It really depends...I've heard pedophilic tendencies, from kiddie porn to molestation, described as a "compulsion."  Again, as mentioned above, I don't know if it is.  But, if it stems from what we might call an "illness" of some sort, then I think it's less reprehensible than those who would simply exploit children for money.  Neither is acceptable to me, mind you.  And I DO think people are responsible for their behavior.  I'm simply saying that there may be a compelling reason to forego the desire for vengeance through punishment, in favor of study, observation, and (eventually, I hope) treatment.  Right now, we can only react to a crime, and punish it.  But if various crimes all came with "warning signs," then we'd be able to prevent a greater portion of these crimes.  And, I think, that should be the real goal.   

[25]

You have a hard time grasping "logic"...

He should be imprisoned because his actions condoned and contributed to the sexual abuse of a child (in the porn.) It also is a proven fact that these sickos can not be rehabilitated-the continue to abuse children.

Your first remark is dubious at best and the second isn't even relevant. In reverse order; The guy wasn't convicted of, nor charged with, child abuse. He was apparently found to be in possession of child pornography, as far as any of us know he never has abused a child, nor can any of us prove his intent to do so. As for contributing to the abuse of a child, well, I have to wonder how someone contributes to anything by viewing records of it after the fact. I have seen hours of footage of the Iraq war on television, can't say I really feel like I have contributed. But if you do want to argue that his viewing child pornography contributes to child abuse in a more general sense, then I ask where exactly you draw the line. Doesn't simply acknowledging that child porn exists contribute to  awareness of it as well as perpetuating the very idea of it?

The perp is in prison because he broke the law. We need no further justification for punishing him. The question at hand is whether the punishment is genuinely fitting. Giving the guy a 200 year sentence might make us all feel better on a gut-level but if maintaining both the policy and the prisoners hurts us in the long run is it a good idea? 

[25]

it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison for life......strange but true

It's bizarre, isn't it? Given that the human body is such a fragile thing, its grasp on life tenuous at the best of times, and that the mechanics of taking a life are very simple in themselves; How did we end up in a situation where a single death sentence ends up costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars?

It is one of the many reasons that I dislike the death penalty. Besides the obvious moral and intellectual complications, the mere financial cost makes the death penalty a punishment shared by everybody.

[25]

Right now, we can only react to a crime, and punish it.  But if various crimes all came with "warning signs," then we'd be able to prevent a greater portion of these crimes.  And, I think, that should be the real goal.   

Yes, that would be great. Then we could just detain people because we thought that they might, possibly, eventually, one day, commit a crime, then we could forcefully rehabilitate them without regard to their human rights or the established legal process! Wouldn't that be peachy?!

(I know that you didn't quite mean that, but doesn't it seem not just likely but inevitable that "preventative law enforcement" would have to work similarly to the above description to be effective in any way?)

[Izzy]

When the justice system makes u feel sorry for the guilty then something has gone badly wrong...

I think you're missing the point that a lot of people are making.?

shut it

200 years for this is outrageous - his human rights have been raped and i am sorry for him as i am sorry for all those who are abused by absurd systems of 'justice'

[Mama Kin]

Right now, we can only react to a crime, and punish it.? But if various crimes all came with "warning signs," then we'd be able to prevent a greater portion of these crimes.? And, I think, that should be the real goal.? ?

Yes, that would be great. Then we could just detain people because we thought that they might, possibly, eventually, one day, commit a crime, then we could forcefully rehabilitate them without regard to their human rights or the established legal process! Wouldn't that be peachy?!

(I know that you didn't quite mean that, but doesn't it seem not just likely but inevitable that "preventative law enforcement" would have to work similarly to the above description to be effective in any way?)

Didn't the Reagan Administration do this? Preventive Detention or something?

[Izzy]

You have a hard time grasping "logic"...

He should be imprisoned because his actions condoned and contributed to the sexual abuse of a child (in the porn.) It also is a proven fact that these sickos can not be rehabilitated-the continue to abuse children.

Your first remark is dubious at best and the second isn't even relevant. In reverse order; The guy wasn't convicted of, nor charged with, child abuse. He was apparently found to be in possession of child pornography, as far as any of us know he never has abused a child, nor can any of us prove his intent to do so. As for contributing to the abuse of a child, well, I have to wonder how someone contributes to anything by viewing records of it after the fact. I have seen hours of footage of the Iraq war on television, can't say I really feel like I have contributed. But if you do want to argue that his viewing child pornography contributes to child abuse in a more general sense, then I ask where exactly you draw the line. Doesn't simply acknowledging that child porn exists contribute to? awareness of it as well as perpetuating the very idea of it?
?

Excellent post, and my thoughts exactly

It is patently absurd to blame someone for furthering a wider issue in this instance

Is the local smack head deserving 1000 years in jail for fuelling a drugs industry worth hundreds of billions worldwide?

That industry certainly does exist to service him - by the logic that this teacher is responsible for furthering the creation of child porn, then every drug addict is responsible for the corruption, murder and suffering of the drug industry

These images werent created for him, or any other individual - but for a group - and using those the police catch as scapegoats is just wrong

I am a fan of GNR - but they dont create music for me but i am funding them through ticket sales and buying albums

By the logic this man is responsible for furthering child porn I am responsible for Guns N Roses making music.....

[Surfrider]

You have a hard time grasping "logic"...

He should be imprisoned because his actions condoned and contributed to the sexual abuse of a child (in the porn.) It also is a proven fact that these sickos can not be rehabilitated-the continue to abuse children.

Your first remark is dubious at best and the second isn't even relevant. In reverse order; The guy wasn't convicted of, nor charged with, child abuse. He was apparently found to be in possession of child pornography, as far as any of us know he never has abused a child, nor can any of us prove his intent to do so. As for contributing to the abuse of a child, well, I have to wonder how someone contributes to anything by viewing records of it after the fact. I have seen hours of footage of the Iraq war on television, can't say I really feel like I have contributed. But if you do want to argue that his viewing child pornography contributes to child abuse in a more general sense, then I ask where exactly you draw the line. Doesn't simply acknowledging that child porn exists contribute to? awareness of it as well as perpetuating the very idea of it?
?

Excellent post, and my thoughts exactly

It is patently absurd to blame someone for furthering a wider issue in this instance

Is the local smack head deserving 1000 years in jail for fuelling a drugs industry worth hundreds of billions worldwide?

That industry certainly does exist to service him - by the logic that this teacher is responsible for furthering the creation of child porn, then every drug addict is responsible for the corruption, murder and suffering of the drug industry

These images werent created for him, or any other individual - but for a group - and using those the police catch as scapegoats is just wrong

I am a fan of GNR - but they dont create music for me but i am funding them through ticket sales and buying albums

By the logic this man is responsible for furthering child porn I am responsible for Guns N Roses making music.....

I have to back SLC on this one.  Child pronography is created for a certain audience which purchases it.  Those people that purchase child pornography create demand for it thereby giving people an incentive (money) to make it.  Although drugs are similar in a way, there are important distinctions as well.  Growing drugs doesn't necessarily involve corruption, murder and suffering.  These are the result of their illegality and other factors in the countries in which they are grown.  Conversely, it is not possible to make child pornography without abusing or taking advantage of helpless children.

[freedom78]

I have to back SLC on this one.  Child pronography is created for a certain audience which purchases it.  Those people that purchase child pornography create demand for it thereby giving people an incentive (money) to make it.  Although drugs are similar in a way, there are important distinctions as well.  Growing drugs doesn't necessarily involve corruption, murder and suffering.  These are the result of their illegality and other factors in the countries in which they are grown.  Conversely, it is not possible to make child pornography without abusing or taking advantage of helpless children.

I agree with what you've said, and I'd be happy to see a thread where like minded individuals could try to convince everyone else how wasteful and harmful the "war on drugs" truly is.  My only point is that if pedophilic tendencies are representative of a mental illness, then it better serves a greater good to identify and treat that illness, ideally before it leads to harmful actions, than to punish it after the fact. 

[C0ma]

I have to back SLC on this one.? Child pronography is created for a certain audience which purchases it.? Those people that purchase child pornography create demand for it thereby giving people an incentive (money) to make it.? Although drugs are similar in a way, there are important distinctions as well.? Growing drugs doesn't necessarily involve corruption, murder and suffering.? These are the result of their illegality and other factors in the countries in which they are grown.? Conversely, it is not possible to make child pornography without abusing or taking advantage of helpless children.

I agree with what you've said, and I'd be happy to see a thread where like minded individuals could try to convince everyone else how wasteful and harmful the "war on drugs" truly is.? My only point is that if pedophilic tendencies are representative of a mental illness, then it better serves a greater good to identify and treat that illness, ideally before it leads to harmful actions, than to punish it after the fact.?

While you are trying to identify and treat these people there is a there is a child somewhere being talked into some depraved act that he or she feels they must do because the adult (that they probably trust (or are related to)) might get mad at them. I know how to treat this disease... toss them in guarded "sex offender camps" and let them have all the fun they want with each other. Or if you don't like the idea of locking them away, just "fix" them like I did with my Boston Terrier (now he doesn't hump anything).

[freedom78]

I have to back SLC on this one.  Child pronography is created for a certain audience which purchases it.  Those people that purchase child pornography create demand for it thereby giving people an incentive (money) to make it.  Although drugs are similar in a way, there are important distinctions as well.  Growing drugs doesn't necessarily involve corruption, murder and suffering.  These are the result of their illegality and other factors in the countries in which they are grown.  Conversely, it is not possible to make child pornography without abusing or taking advantage of helpless children.

I agree with what you've said, and I'd be happy to see a thread where like minded individuals could try to convince everyone else how wasteful and harmful the "war on drugs" truly is.  My only point is that if pedophilic tendencies are representative of a mental illness, then it better serves a greater good to identify and treat that illness, ideally before it leads to harmful actions, than to punish it after the fact. 

While you are trying to identify and treat these people there is a there is a child somewhere being talked into some depraved act that he or she feels they must do because the adult (that they probably trust (or are related to)) might get mad at them. I know how to treat this disease... toss them in guarded "sex offender camps" and let them have all the fun they want with each other. Or if you don't like the idea of locking them away, just "fix" them like I did with my Boston Terrier (now he doesn't hump anything).

You're right.  Now that this guy's in jail for 200 years, kiddie porn no longer has a market.  How silly of me for wanting to prevent it from happening again. 

If you know the causes, the God willing you can prevent these things from happening in the first place.  Punishing offenders after the fact does NOTHING to prevent others from doing the same.  Using those same offenders to find the causes of the behavior can help to prevent it in others, assuming it's somehow treatable.  If it's treatable, then you can reduce the "market," thus preventing more kids from being forced to do porn.  I don't mind punishment, but just throwing them in prison is wasting an opportunity.

[C0ma]

I'm just wondering what sort of "testing"  you would like to do to these people to find the curable cause to their perversion. What do you think it is, a bad gene? A chemical imbalance?
So Chester the Molester takes a pill every eight hours and suddenly he sells his Van and Clown Costume?

[freedom78]

I'm just wondering what sort of "testing"  you would like to do to these people to find the curable cause to their perversion. What do you think it is, a bad gene? A chemical imbalance?
So Chester the Molester takes a pill every eight hours and suddenly he sells his Van and Clown Costume?

Hey, if we can boil it down to guys named Chester, with vans and clown costumes, then I'm all for it!   :

Seriously, though, I don't know.  And the reason I don't know is because I'm far from an expert on either psychology or biology.   I'm sure someone is studying this, and locking up CONFIRMED pedophiles, in a prison without psychological study, is wasting a resource.   

IF it's an illness of some sort, then I think it's best to study it, in the hopes of treating it and preventing others from doing these things.  For example, if we can determine some causes, maybe applicants for teaching positions could undergo some testing, to better safeguard the children.   

IF it isn't an illness, then lock the pervs away. 

I don't KNOW that either is established as fact.  People have claimed both, in this thread. 

Think of it this way:  if it IS an illness, and it's treatable, we can prevent some (probably, and sadly, not all) future occurrences. 

If it ISN'T an illness, we can only punish offenders AFTER children have been harmed. 

If it IS an illness, and we DON'T study it, then we're condemning further children to abuse, out of our desire to punish, rather than to learn. 

If it ISN'T an illness, and we study it, all we've done is to waste some time and money.