Man sentenced to 20 years for pictures on phone and inappropriately touching child

Anyone who touches kids inappropriately and is still breathing got too lenient of a sentence

 

The issue isn't whether he should be punished. The issue is how much prison time, and whether 20 years is a grossly excessive prison sentence for what was actually done.

 

This has been repeated again and again throughout this thread. Yes, he touched her inappropriately, but it was not the extremely obvious form of touching that is completely equivalent to molestation. It did not quite "cross the line".

There were plenty of other witnesses around at that party to see what was happening, and if they had seen anything totally completely obviously wrong, they would have reported it to the police, which they did not.

It does not seem to be a case as simple as just him "fondling" her or "molestation".

For that reason, I am not sure that the reasoning in your logic holds.

 

It is in the United States as well. And as far as these people that pull the pictures off line those websites have to make money somehow to be functional. People would put that stuff online while illegal and all that risk without making something from it. So I tend to agree with you on this one.

 

It was obvious enough for someone to ask multiple times for him to stop. So no, that’s not an excuse at all.

 

That has already been explained in this thread. I'm not going to repeat again.

They probably were not specifically referring to any sexual component of what he was doing when he was asked to stop.

 

Doesn’t matter

No means No

 

I've stated before I don't think his sentence was excessive; were he sentenced to a day for each picture and video, he would be in prison sixty years later, to say nothing of sexual assault on little girl. As it is, I feel he got off rather lightly.

 

Based on what? When a little girl asks you to stop grabbing hr between the legs, that's exactly what you do. You do not remove the ladder of the pool so she can't escape from your continued unwanted attentions. She may not have been able to articulate why what he was doing was wrong, but she knew it was. He for sure knew it was wrong and why. I'm only sorry it took so long to catch him.

 

But it could have been a "No" to something that was non-sexual. In that case it completely changes things, doesn't it?

 

What evidence do you base this claim on?

It really is that simple. It's only you trying to make it complicated. Everyone else gets it.

 

There's probably enough memory space in a typical phone to be able to put someone in prison for 10,000 years.

That doesn't seem like normal justice to put someone in prison for 20 years for gathering illegal pictures. Maybe you feel that is perfectly normal and obvious justice though?

 

No it doesn't. Bottom line, he was fondling A LITTLE GIRL.

 

It wasn't really fondling. As has been explained multiple times so far in this thread, it was not exactly so simple as that.

If he had actually pulled down her underpants and continued to rub her back and forth, that would have been a very different situation.

It seems you are trying to characterize one thing (inappropriate touching) to something else (fondling).

It is not exactly the same thing.

There was not direct skin to skin contact on her genital area, for one thing. And the touching did not appear to be obviously overtly sexual in nature. (I think we can conclude from the story)

 

So he should get credit for all the space that wasn't filled by kiddie porn? What exactly does this have to do with the case?

Actually, in Illinois, the potential sentence is life for one picture or any other crime involving pedophilia. A psychiatrist has to certify the pedophile is unlikely to reoffend before the convict's release. Other states have versions of the same basic law.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that societies defend their children? Societies that fail to do so are doomed.

 

No it hasn't been explained. That is a claim. Made by you. Who didn't read and absorb the article.

You're trying to split hairs. The facts are these:
1.) He grabbed her between the legs. When asked to stop, he did not. Call it fondling or inappropriate touching, it's the same thing and it's illegal.
2.) He removed the pool ladder, which was her means of escape. This strongly suggests he did #1 above more than once.

So that makes it somehow non-sexual?

Based on your not reading the story or apparent inability to remember the facts in it, I'm gonna call BS.

This guy is in prison, where he should be. Our children are safer because of it.

And when someone makes him their b***h in prison, it won't be rape because the anus is not a sexual organ. At least according to you.

 

No means no

 

That's not true. You are mischaracterizing what happened.

Since I've already addressed this very subject multiple times so far in this thread, I will not be wasting any more effort explaining it.

 

That's an opinion only and if you think pedophiles should get light sentences then petition to have laws changed.....I doubt you'll be successful as most people find that to be a heinous crime.

LOL, I bet you do get tired of being stumped all the time

 

No. No I'm not. It is you who are characterizing a sexual assault as play. It is you who are claiming a little girl has no right to say who touches her body and how. Are you denying that she's a person because she's female, or is it because she's a minor?

Your 'explanations' have been full of factual errors, such as where the assault took place (your post #77, where you apparently think he started fondling her outside the pool). The facts of this case are bad for the point you want to make. Had you taken the time to read the article, you would have known that. Instead, you blithely made assumptions about the facts and took for granted that no one else would read the source material. Then, when corrected on your assumptions, you doubled down on them like a Trumper after election day.

 

That is not what I am saying. I am saying, considering all the details and facts of exactly what happened at that pool party, it is more the type of thing that the man should should be punished with 3 months for. Not anything like 20 years.

The fact that no one even felt it was worthy of reporting to police, and the man did not get charged for that for 5 years, is just further evidence of that.

Trying to claim that it was "sexual assault" or "fondling" seems to be a mischaracterization of what happened, and is not exactly precisely accurate. "Inappropriate touching" is a more accurate term.
It probably was not seen as blatantly overtly sexual at the time, but then was seen as probably sexual 5 years later, when new evidence about that man came to light.

 

Was he holding the little girl like this?



Because if he went to jail for that...

 

So we agree it's wrong. you just don't like the sentence. Good luck changing that law or the penalty involved. By the way, 16 of those years were for kiddie porn. only four were for molesting the little girl.

It was reported to the police after the girl told her parents a year later. They failed to act on the complaint. Read the material. You picked the case, you should know this stuff.

Au contraire, my friend, your claim that it was not seems to be wilful denial and/or ignorance of the facts.

By whom? A ten year old might not recognize sexuality as such, let alone perversion. Nor is there evidence in the article that anyone else was present.

Geez, re-examining a crime in light of new evidence! What a concept.

Here's the most damaging fact to your fairy tale: the pedophile confessed and apologized. Had he truly felt he had done nothing wrong, he could have fought. Had he been in the right, he most likely would have won.

 

I guess we disagree on the level to which it is wrong.

To me it is an example of a very unfair sentence and injustice.
There is a lack of logic and emotionalism here.

 

I'm sorry but you're using circular logic there.
What you're actually saying is equivalent to "there was no injustice because if there was, he would have fought and won, because there is no injustice."
You predicate things being fair on the assumption that things are fair in the first place.