# Pedophile fears 'jail justice'



## PMedMoe (18 Dec 2007)

Sex attacker 'terrified of being sent to the pen'
By AEDAN HELMER, SUN MEDIA
The Ottawa Sun

Article Link

All I can say is  :crybaby:  Tough ****!  

Edit to add another article link.

His lawyer, Daniel Brodsky, argued unsuccessfully that Delorme will be in danger in the prison setting.

"There is no one in the penitentiary who has more to worry about than a serial pedophile because other people in the penitentiary have children and girlfriends," Brodsky said after the ruling. "So lower than a slug is about where he fits."

Delorme himself told the judge he was terrified of going to the penitentiary.

I say again  :crybaby:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Dec 2007)

He'll be fine.......on a range with a whole bunch just like him.
Both him and his lawyer know that.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Dec 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He'll be fine.......on a range with a whole bunch just like him.
> Both him and his lawyer know that.



No doubt.  :  I can't believe they're going for the "sympathy" thing for someone who deserves none.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Dec 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He'll be fine.......on a range with a whole bunch just like him.



That's too bad.


----------



## Rayman (18 Dec 2007)

It states in there he refuses to go through treatments or take any drugs. Hes a repeat offender deemed as a high risk. He better be carefull and not drop the soap. The guy sounds like a total wimp and it clearly states he has no mental illness but a personality disorder. He thinks thats going to get him off easy? Hes forever changed the lives of two young girls for as long as they live. And he just wants to go to some insane ward cause hes scared of jail. Too bad dont do the crime if you cant do the time.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> Hes a repeat offender deemed as a *high risk*.



I don't know if it makes a difference but in the second article link, it states he has been declared a dangerous offender.
But I agree with you.


----------



## Rayman (18 Dec 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I don't know if it makes a difference but in the second article link, it states he has been declared a dangerous offender.
> But I agree with you.



Im going by what the Justice said in the first article link: 



> Among the reasons cited for the decision, Justice Morin said Delorme poses "an extremely high risk to young female children."



Though I guess the two terms can mean different things.


----------



## JBoyd (18 Dec 2007)

I would definatly like to see this guy end up in general pop.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> It states in there he refuses to go through treatments or take any drugs. Hes a repeat offender deemed as a high risk.



Cut off his balls, and that will cure his sex drive.

These rock spiders should be placed in the GP!


They are not fit to breathe the same air as us.


Disgusted,

Wes


----------



## JBoyd (18 Dec 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Cut off his balls, and that will cure his sex drive.
> 
> These rock spiders should be placed in the GP!
> 
> ...



There was a Hells Angels torture I heard once that they would do on any man that apparently would do wrong to their women, it would be appropriate towards this deviant


----------



## medicineman (18 Dec 2007)

Only thing that comes to mind is tough tiddlywinks.  Oh yeah, and it sucks to be him.  I'm sure someone will have plenty of fun at his expense - for a change.

MM


----------



## JAWS228 (19 Dec 2007)

This is bloody ridiculous!!! 
What does this bottom feeder expect, that by crying to the media people are going to think it's alright to let him off a little lighter for molesting little girls!?!  Reality check scumbag!

I hope he ends up as the jailhouse B**** for the rest of his pathetic disgusting life.

Not to mention that lawyer...almost as bad trying to defend that walking piece of garbage.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

The lawyer was doing his job. We may not like it, but that's his job.

I don't like some of the things I have to do in the CF -- but I do 'em anyway because it's part of the job.


----------



## JAWS228 (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The lawyer was doing his job. We may not like it, but that's his job.



OK, fair enough that it's his job, what bugs me is the way he's trying to get the public to feel sorry for the pedophile because he's going to have a "rough time" in jail.  The guy molested 2 children...and he wants people to feel sorry for him?  That just doesn't fly...but that's just my opinion.  

And yes, I suppose there are parts in every job that people don't like.  I just wonder what goes through this guys mind when he goes home knowing he's trying to keep a serial pedophile out of jail.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Listen, believe you me I know where you're coming from. I'd like to exact my own form of punishment on offenders like this guy, but I can seperate the lawyer from the 'perp.' (If you will - I hate that term -- it's so CSI ... )

But, there are some left leaning people in this nation who wonder how people like me (well those on the pointy end) can go home and sleep at night too. Now, you and I would say that those who feel that way about their military are right out of 'er ... but they'd disagree.


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

JAWS228 said:
			
		

> I just wonder what goes through this guys mind when he goes home knowing he's trying to keep a serial pedophile out of jail.



Deciding what hes going to do with the money hes making.

If the pedophile gets put into a prison, chances are hes going to be killed, or stabbed alot. Simple as that. What he did was extremely wrong, hes ruined their lives. But Canada doesn't subject people to death for their crimes, which is pretty much what they'd be doing if they put him in with other prisoners.

They call them goofs in federal prisons, btw


----------



## JAWS228 (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Listen, believe you me I know where you're coming from. I'd like to exact my own form of punishment on offenders like this guy, but I can separate the lawyer from the 'perp.' (If you will - I hate that term -- it's so CSI ... )



I know what you mean...heck maybe this guy feels the same way even.  My point is it just seems low and underhanded to try and give this guy an easier sentence by telling people how scared he is about what's going to happen to him in prison.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, there are some left leaning people in this nation who wonder how people like me (well those on the pointy end) can go home and sleep at night too. Now, you and I would say that those who feel that way about their military are right out of 'er ... but they'd disagree.



Having said that I am definitely glad we're the ones wondering about how the defenders of child molesters sleep at night rather than the defenders of our country.  (apologies for going off topic here)


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

JAWS228 said:
			
		

> I know what you mean...heck maybe this guy feels the same way even.  My point is it just seems low and underhanded to try and give this guy an easier sentence by telling people how scared he is about what's going to happen to him in prison.
> 
> Having said that I am definitely glad we're the ones wondering about how the defenders of child molesters sleep at night rather than the defenders of our country.  (apologies for going off topic here)



Regardless of what he thinks ... his job is to get the offender off. If he can't get him off, then it befalls him to get him the least possible sentence. That is his responsibility as Defense Counsel. That's what he gets paid for.

If he doesn't put forth all this effort (whether we like it or not/agree with it or not) at both obtaining a "not guilty" and, failing that, the least sentence he possibly can, then the defendant has grounds for appeal based on "ineffective" counsel and representation. Then the asshat may possibly go scott-free. I know what I'd prefer.


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/12/18/4729968-sun.html



> In what is arguably a first in Canadian law, a supposedly "insane" pedophile already locked up indefinitely in a maximum-security mental institute was yesterday declared a dangerous offender, a judgment that will see Paul Delorme go from the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre to a *segregated cell* at the Kingston Pen



This snippit from the Toronto Sun clears it up some. If hes in a segregated cell, is the even a risk of him being in the same areas as the rest of the prison population?


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> They call them goofs in federal prisons, btw



Funny, one of my friends used to volunteer at a prison (chats and what not) and told me that "goof" was the worst thing you could say to an inmate.  Now I understand why.  Thanks!


----------



## JBoyd (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/12/18/4729968-sun.html
> 
> This snippit from the Toronto Sun clears it up some. If hes in a segregated cell, is the even a risk of him being in the same areas as the rest of the prison population?



I would venture to say that segregated did not mean solitary, and he may come in contact with members of the general population at certain points. Perhaps there is someone around here that has in-depth knowledge of our correctional system?


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/12/18/4729968-sun.html
> 
> This snippit from the Toronto Sun clears it up some. If hes in a segregated cell, is the even a risk of him being in the same areas as the rest of the prison population?





> In what is arguably a first in Canadian law, a supposedly "insane" pedophile already locked up indefinitely in a maximum-security mental institute was *yesterday* declared a dangerous offender, *a judgment that will see Paul Delorme go * from the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre *to a segregated cell * at the Kingston Pen



Well see, he's now just moving to a segregated cell due to yesterday's "dangerous offender" ruling. That still isn't solitary confinement though.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

hehehe... segregated cells are just terms for delaying the inevitable. People like him disgust me... I should care about their fears because?


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> hehehe... segregated cells are just terms for delaying the inevitable. People like him disgust me... I should care about their fears because?



Excatly...

I could care less if it makes us as a society look cold and callous..... at least if the #$%-pump is dead there is a 0% Chance of him re-offending.

and sure the lawyer may be "just doing his job" but lets not gloss over the fact that alot of these defense lawyers really are slimebags who dont give two craps about their clients.. only the paycheque at the end of the day.

Anyone in Law ive met who still has a strong moral and ethical code usually goes Crown, not Defense. or they stay away from the criminal system all together.

just my .02


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

> I could care less if it makes us as a society look cold and callous..... at least if the #$%-pump is dead there is a 0% Chance of him re-offending.



Are you living in Canada? We do not put people to their deaths. Even if they commit crimes in other countries where the death penelty is legal, Canadians aren't put to death(most cases). Even in USA pedophiles can't be put to death.

Put him in a cell. Give him his 1 hour a day outside in a small enclosed space alone. Feed him his 3 meals a day and leave it at that.


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2007)

Hmmm...
wouldn't it be nice to tie his testicles to a fixture in a woden room.  Give him a knife as a "key" to get out of jail..... and set his cell on fire.

The fella would have a decision to make......


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Are you living in Canada? We do not put people to their deaths. Even if they commit crimes in other countries where the death penelty is legal, Canadians aren't put to death(most cases). Even in USA pedophiles can't be put to death.
> 
> Put him in a cell. Give him his 1 hour a day outside in a small enclosed space alone. Feed him his 3 meals a day and leave it at that.



I sure do live in Canada. Obviously you've never been to a correctional facility or have done anything close to LE. Funny thing with people is that they are very cunning at getting what they want, and that includes those who reside in side those penitentiary walls. If the inmates want to get someone, sometimes despite all the efforts of the Correctional Staff, the inmates will still get them. Welcome to reality. 

No one is putting them to their deaths, the pedophiles, child molesters, sex assaulter, rapists,  and child abusers signed their own death warrants. WE as a society will continue to believe that they'll be rehabilitated and all the BS. I don't buy it, and neither does most people. Most of these people will never show remorse, and sometimes when they do, they are fake and aren't very sincere. 

Sorry if I or Tommy seem a little callous. Oh and another thing, why should I spend my hard earned money to keep him in a segregated cell? Or in a segregated wing? Or have special treatment? Extra staff just so this F^cktard can go about the rest of his miserable life and get out eighter at 1/3 or 2/3 Statutory release?! WAKE UP!


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Are you living in Canada? We do not put people to their deaths. Even if they commit crimes in other countries where the death penelty is legal, Canadians aren't put to death(most cases). Even in USA pedophiles can't be put to death.
> 
> Put him in a cell. Give him his 1 hour a day outside in a small enclosed space alone. Feed him his 3 meals a day and leave it at that.



Would you still feel that way if it was your daughter he raped? what if you were the victim?

ive seen people affected by senseless violence and crime... youre obviously living in dream world if you think these guys can be rehibilitated... and obviously making too much money if youre ok with your tax dollars going towards babysitting this scum.

I never said kill him... (implied maybe....) I just say throw him in general population and let Darwinism sort out the rest.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> I never said kill him... (implied maybe....) I just say throw him in general population and let Darwinism sort out the rest.



Um... no mate... Darwinism is what got us here in the first place...


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

You're right. I doubt I'd feel the same way. If it directly affected me I would have a totally different outlook. Which is why laws are in place.

But, the problem is, any crime done is going to affect somebody in a negative way.

Even 'minor' crimes such as b&e's can potentially ruin peoples lives. They become fearful of anyone around their houses, they become obsessive about security at their homes, they are scared to be alone in their own homes.

I never said that he can be rehabilitated. I said lock him in his own little room away from everyone and have his own little personal time in an enclosed fenced in area.

Why even bring up taxes? This isn't a money issue, its a morality issue. And there are alot worse things that taxes go towards then just the prison system. Like the recent 4% payraises to hundreds of political appointees.



> No one is putting them to their deaths, the pedophiles, child molesters, sex assaulter, rapists,  and child abusers signed their own death warrants.



Why are murderers or gang leaders or any thing else put up there? Is murdering someone not as bad as raping them?

The guy has an obvious problem. He needs to be kept off the streets. Forever. Sending him to his death isn't going to make those little girls any less traumatized.


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Um... no mate... Darwinism is what got us here in the first place...



I disagree.... My personal veiw is that we are not letting Dawinism work anymore.... too many stupid people out there getting babied and spoon fed everything. it feels like we as a society have gone too soft and too far to the left... I have no intention of wanting a police state, but I do think the pendulim needs to swing back to the center at least...

and yes. Ixium, obviously all crimes are negative....
but it costs more as i understand it to isolate inmates then it does to just throw em in general population.
hence why should my tax dollars go towards fixing these lost causes when it could be going to much better expenses in society, ie public health care, education, community safety etc....

i have no problem paying for us to have places to put people away. but it should never be a place that someone wants to go... it should be a kind of place where even hardened criminals should fear going....  no more of this minimum security country club garbage. 
but, im getting out of my lanes here... im sure Mr Monkhouse could enlighten us with the reality of the ontario correctional system... and probabbly give us an idea as to how the federal one works too.

either way, i say when you violate the laws of the land. and have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. you forfeit most of the rights afforded to you by civil society.

the thing with Gang members, is although they do commit crime everywhere, they tend to take care of each other... bloods and crips etc will just kill eachother off... the problem with letting them do this, is that innocents will get caught in the crossfire.
Like Jane Creba the 15 year old shot dead on boxing day outside the eatons center...

We make crime tougher and clamp down on these slimebags then there will be less willingness to commit the crime.


----------



## Roy Harding (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> ...
> The guy has an obvious problem. He *needs to be kept off the streets. Forever*. Sending him to his death isn't going to make those little girls any less traumatized.



Seems to me that capital punishment would satisfy that need quite handily.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Excatly...
> 
> I could care less if it makes us as a society look cold and callous..... at least if the #$%-pump is dead there is a 0% Chance of him re-offending.
> 
> ...



I feel really sad for you, and your attitude.

Right now, right here in Canada, someone is thinking your a slimebag by the virtue of the fact you're in the military. Some of those people are indeed law-abiding & upstanding citizens.

Hopefully, you never find yourself wrongfully accused of a crime for which you need defending, by your own words we should just be callous and say "fuck you" ... you can rot. No trial for you ... nada ... because defense lawyers are mostly slimebags.

Here's to you ... glad you have nothing to do with our justice system.

 :cheers:

 :


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Seems to me that capital punishment would satisfy that need quite handily.



Wouldn't happen even in countries where capital punishment exists. And even if it was punishable by death there would be many years of appeals which would still waste everyones money and time.

Having someone die from another prisoner is not justice. Especially when everyone knows that its going to happen.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Why even bring up taxes? This isn't a money issue, its a morality issue. And there are alot worse things that taxes go towards then just the prison system. Like the recent 4% payraises to hundreds of political appointees.



Sure is a money issue to me. I'd rather my tax dollar go towards Child Care, strengthening the CF, and a variety of other great things to do with my tax dollars. Morality? How do you speak of morales for someone who obviously has none? That's what got him in this bind in the first place no?



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Why are murderers or gang leaders or any thing else put up there? Is murdering someone not as bad as raping them?



Nope I'm not saying that at all. But if you look at it from a truly dark point of you, if you're dead, you're dead. Nothing comes afterwards for YOU. You rape, sexually assault or even attempt to do so... you leave a lasting effect, which would cause the victims to affect someone elese the vicious cycle continues...



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> The guy has an obvious problem. He needs to be kept off the streets. Forever. Sending him to his death isn't going to make those little girls any less traumatized.



You're contradicting yourself here man. No one is advocating for the death sentence... however, if they've perished, they won't be hurting anyone else now would they? Sure it won't lessen the trauma for the victims, but at least they can breath a bit easier knowing that the person who did this to them won't be doing it to anyone else... or them EVER again.


----------



## Roy Harding (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Wouldn't happen even in countries where capital punishment exists. And even if it was punishable by death there would be many years of appeals which would still waste everyones money and time.
> 
> Having someone die from another prisoner is not justice. Especially when everyone knows that its going to happen.



I didn't say it would happen, nor did I advocate having him killed by fellow inmates.

I simply stated that capital punishment would satisfy the "need" that YOU articulated regarding keeping him of the streets.


----------



## JBoyd (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Having someone die from another prisoner is not justice. Especially when everyone knows that its going to happen.



Even if he survives prison and is ever released he will be placed on the national sex offender registry, and I dont suspect he would last long in the public either.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Would you still feel that way if it was your daughter he raped? what if you were the victim?
> 
> ive seen people affected by senseless violence and crime... youre obviously living in dream world if you think these guys can be rehibilitated... and obviously making too much money if youre ok with your tax dollars going towards babysitting this scum.
> 
> I never said kill him... (implied maybe....) I just say throw him in general population and let Darwinism sort out the rest.



Someone else besides a defense lawyer is now a scumbag because they don't mind seeing their tax dollars go towards "babysitting" this scum?

You are right the fuck out of it.

The choice you've given that person was "death" or babysitting" -- it sure as hell wasn't "freedom" or "babysitting" -- anyone in their right fucking mind would choose "babysitting" over freedom.

Like it or not, this IS Canada and we DON'T have the death penalty (and doubt we would for rape/child molestation -- that tends to be a punishment reserved for those who kill someone) ... so the ONLY choice is "babysitting." Keep your scumbag comments to yourself.

BTW, the death penalty debate is happening in another thread.

Eerily, as you mention daughters ... there is another thread going on right now where a female teacher slept with one her 14 year old male students. There are actually people in there asking why the teacher's being punished as this would be "every adult male's dream" to be seduced by their teacher and that the student is probably the 'hero' of all his friends.  :  

Funny that, "what would you say if the teacher were male and the student your 14 year old daughter" was exactly what I wanted to type in response to that little bit of bullshit.

LAWS are applicable ALL the time, how dare you infer that someone is "making way too much money" if they agree with rapists & child molestors being "babysat." That's the ONLY choice we have here besides them being free.

Apparently, according to you -- we are only worthy of making money (or of not being labelled as scumbags along with the defense lawyers) if we advocate purposefully and with intent --- sending them into general population knowing that their death would occur as a result. 
You are a troll.


----------



## Roy Harding (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> BTW, the death penalty debate is happening in another thread.
> ...



Good point.  You can find that debate here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/37722.0.html

I'll restrict my death penalty remarks to that thread, and stop hijacking this one.


Roy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Dec 2007)

Quote,
_In one court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, for example, Dr. Stephen Hucker, one of the province's top forensic psychiatrists, wrote that he found "no evidence of any current major mental illness" when it came to Delorme, and that it was "clear" to him, and to other psychiatrists, that Delorme had "gained little or nothing" from all the therapeutic attempts that had been made with him over the years. _ 

Here's a secret the "reabilitation" industry doesn't want you to know...................." therapeutic attempts" do not work.

This is his sexual orientation, now ask yourself; do you think taking a course could ever change you from straight to gay or visa versa??   I thought not.......


----------



## ixium (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Sure is a money issue to me. I'd rather my tax dollar go towards Child Care, strengthening the CF, and a variety of other great things to do with my tax dollars. Morality? How do you speak of morales for someone who obviously has none? That's what got him in this bind in the first place no?


Well then, lets bring society down to criminals level of morality. Wait, that makes no sense, silly me!



> Nope I'm not saying that at all. But if you look at it from a truly dark point of you, if you're dead, you're dead. Nothing comes afterwards for YOU. You rape, sexually assault or even attempt to do so... you leave a lasting effect, which would cause the victims to affect someone elese the vicious cycle continues...



Just now we're starting to look at a truely dark point? You're practically sending this man to his death by another convicted fellon. We're well past the dark points already.



> You're contradicting yourself here man. No one is advocating for the death sentence... however, if they've perished, they won't be hurting anyone else now would they? Sure it won't lessen the trauma for the victims, but at least they can breath a bit easier knowing that the person who did this to them won't be doing it to anyone else... or them EVER again.



If someone like him was put into a prison, chances are hes going to get hurt. Badly. To the point where he'll likely be killed. You place him there knowing full well what is going to happen. It's like throwing someone into a snake pit and then saying 'well they might not have bitten and poisoned him.'



> I'll restrict my death penalty remarks to that thread, and stop hijacking this one.


My comments weren't to debate capital punishment, but were to point out the fact that as it is right now by law, Canada doesn't support sending people to their deaths for their crimes.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> ...
> My comments weren't to debate capital punishment, but were to point out the fact that as it is right now by law, Canada doesn't support sending people to their deaths for their crimes.
> ...



Roy's comments on the death penalty were in response to my post, not yours.

And my comment was directed at Tommy and his "Darwinism" insinuation that he wasn't saying kill the guy, rather that he was saying "put him in general and let Darwinism take it's course" when he is fully aware what that would lead to.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

ixium, this is my last response to your points. You're just not getting it. We can sit here and argue morality all we want, and neither one of us will be right. I've accepted that through my years of studying and exposure to the LE world, that no two LEOs have the same point of view on crime, but hell most of us will agree that people like that sickens us.  They will get their just dessert. 

So dark the con of man... eh?


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Someone else besides a defense lawyer is now a scumbag because they don't mind seeing their tax dollars go towards "babysitting" this scum?
> 
> You are right the frig out of it...
> 
> ...




I think no matter what, ultimately you and I are going to end up having to agree to disagree...

However, that being said...

Upon reading, and re-reading, and re-re-re-reading you post, and my previous ones, I have allowed personal feeling from my more base instincts to allow my judgement to be clouded... And as such my posts in this thread are reflecting that... I am not making a case in a clear or concise manner, and am speaking before routing said speech through the brain…. 

What would I like to see happen to some of these people? Well I’ve made those statements clear already. What would actually be best for society? Obviously something less severe and more moderate. I still stand by my personal belief that Rapists, Child Molesters and their ilk are the worst of society and serve no real purpose on earth other then to make it worse. But I’ll leave it at that. As far as defence lawyers, and such, you are right…. They do serve a purpose. Ying/Yang if you will… to have peace there must be conflict, to have love there must be hate, and to have good, there must be evil… And in this Country, under the Rights we have, to have a Prosecution, one must have a Defence. And Presumed Innocence.

So I Apologize for allowing my personal feelings dictate my post, I will attempt to refrain from posting such things in the future and simply echo Medtech’s point that those sickos will get what is coming to them eventually… 

As much as I want to carry on this debate, I don’t think I’m in the right mindset for it right now, and am in far too dark a place at the moment to carry on objectively, and corollary to that, it is also somewhat out of my Arcs, and all my comments are going to be opinion based.


      Regards,
              Tommy

Ps. I don’t think I’m a troll… just wasn’t thinking before posting…. And for what it is worth Armyvern, there ARE people in our legal/justice system with much worse school of thought then I. (I’m really not that bad… like I said, I just forgot to engage the thought to speech process… and out came the really dark thoughts... However, I am sure you have your opinion of me, and Im not going to try and change that since, really I cant...) 

Final thought… if Hypothetically I were a member of the legal system, (in my case the Law Enforcement side since I do hope to end up there one day) Regardless of personal feelings, I would still do my job professionally, as I do within the military. Because as much as someone might be a slimeball, if I am in that position, it is my duty to be impartial on a professional level… and do the job required. But on my own time I can still think how I wish. (I will just find more intelligent ways to post my feelings should I choose to do so in the future.)

Cheers.


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Rest assured that your feelings are not far off from those of myself.

It's your insulting of others with the "scumbag" label or "not worth the money they make" if their feelings should happen to contradict yours that I have issues with.

Your opinions are valid -- that doesn't make others' opinions worthless, or them scum, as you indicted.


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Rest assured that your feelings are not far off from those of myself.
> 
> It's your insulting of others with the "scumbag" label or "not worth the money they make" if their feelings should happen to contradict yours that I have issues with.
> 
> Your opinions are valid -- that doesn't make others' opinions worthless, or them scum, as you indicted.



Like i said. I apologize for venting.  its been a rough week personally for me, I wont go into details, but needless to say ive had a few new and rather unpleasant experiances.. but I digress.. I should have the common sense to keep my cool on here and not insult on a personal level...

I simply get very irritated when the rights of convicted criminals come before those of the victims.

Cheers


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Believe you me, I've had a very unpleasant week too.

I'm not understanding where you are coming from on the rights of convicted criminals in this case though. He's guilty. He's in jail. 

What right are you talking about? The right for us to knowingly place him in general pop knowing full well what that would lead to? Or his right to try NOT to have that happen to him? Anybody would fight against such a thing knowing it would possibly lead to their death. That's called survival.

I just don't see how this is trampling on the rights of victims ... he's in jail. Not that I consider jail to be "harsh" by any standard of the imagination for the turd ... but he is there; he isn't free -- he's been convicted.


----------



## Thompson_JM (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Believe you me, I've had a very unpleasant week too.
> 
> I'm not understanding where you are coming from on the rights of convicted criminals in this case though. He's guilty. He's in jail.
> 
> ...



Sorry, Allow me to elaborate, I ment in general when that occurs... in this case I would like to see him thrown into general population... but... I do know that its morally wrong to do so, knowing what would happen....
what angered me was that the lawyer was arguing against Prison as a whole... and saying he should be sent to a psychiatric hospital, which is going to be a bit more comfortable i would imagine.. 

if he argued his client should be in isolation in prison that wouldnt bother me. it was that his lawyer was saying his client was scared of going to jail which made me think he was attempting to weasel out of jail time in favour of confinement in a more comfortable location. And then well.. I kinda flew off the handle from there.....

I'm blameing the Season and a lack of CTO Days due to work needing to get done here at the office.... its all good though... two more days and im on leave for two glorious weeks..... I can deal with all my other problems in 2008. failing that, a little moose milk over the holidays never hurt


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> if he argued his client should be in isolation in prison that wouldnt bother me. it was that his lawyer was saying his client was scared of going to jail which made me think he was attempting to weasel out of jail time in favour of confinement in a more comfortable location. And then well.. I kinda flew off the handle from there.....



Thanks for the clarification.  

But, I dunno -- I still think that if I were this molestor -- I'd be scared of going to jail too!!

He knows what's in store for him, as does his lawyer ... looking for more comfortable digs (I suspect) is the least of their worries, rather I suspect he was just doing his utmost to avoid heading to that place where we are all aware he is at a high risk of 'being dealt with appropriately by his fellow cons.'


----------



## Thompson_JM (20 Dec 2007)

lol touche.

i think to me i got po-ed with him trying to avoid prison for a mental hospital rather then argue for isolation in the prison itself... but then again.. its not like these guys (the criminal i mean) really have a well functioning moral compass in the first place.


----------



## Rayman (20 Dec 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> lol touche.
> 
> i think to me i got po-ed with him trying to avoid prison for a mental hospital rather then argue for isolation in the prison itself... but then again.. its not like these guys (the criminal i mean) really have a well functioning moral compass in the first place.



I agree with that. He and other criminals who know right from wrong chose to commit the crimes they did. They should be all punished in my opinion. He is just trying to use a diagnosed behavioural condition as leverage so he doesnt have to go to jail. If he didnt want to go to jail he shouldnt have done what he did in the first place. Wonder if he ever contemplated that one?


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> I agree with that. He and other criminals who know right from wrong chose to commit the crimes they did. They should be all punished in my opinion. He is just trying to use a diagnosed behavioural condition as leverage so he doesnt have to go to jail. If he didnt want to go to jail he shouldnt have done what he did in the first place. Wonder if he ever contemplated that one?



I'm certainly not on the side of the "perp", here - nor am I making excuses for his behaviour.

BUT - it is a fact that the prospect of future punishment does NOT enter into the mind of most "deviant" folk (or "merely" violent folk, for that matter).   Whether one "wants" to go to jail or not is rarely a consideration for most folk committing a criminal act.

Which brings me back to whether "deterrent" should be a consideration in "criminal justice".  

But I made a solemn promise to Vern - and in THIS case, "the prospect of future punishment" is enough to make me shut up.


----------



## Rayman (20 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not on the side of the "perp", here - nor am I making excuses for his behaviour.
> 
> BUT - it is a fact that the prospect of future punishment does NOT enter into the mind of most "deviant" folk (or "merely" violent folk, for that matter).   Whether one "wants" to go to jail or not is rarely a consideration for most folk committing a criminal act.
> 
> ...



I guess you answered my question then. If the thought of being caught and punished isnt deterrent enough you may be on to something about there possibly being a harsher means of deterring someone from doing something. Though im sure Vern and others wont want to hear discussion on that.


----------



## armyvern (20 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> I guess you answered my question then. If the thought of being caught and punished isnt deterrent enough you may be on to something about there possibly being a harsher means of deterring someone from doing something. Though im sure Vern and others wont want to hear discussion on that.



As pointed out already ... there's another thread on that already running.

AND ... just in case you missed it (and obviously you have) ... I'm all for the death penalty, but, also as previously noted, this guy didn't kill anyone -- so even if we had it in this country ... he wouldn't be subject to it.

Nice of you to presume to know my thoughts though.  :


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> I guess you answered my question then. If the thought of being caught and punished isnt deterrent enough you may be on to something about there possibly being a harsher means of deterring someone from doing something. Though im sure Vern and others wont want to hear discussion on that.



Actually - for most "serious" crimes, I don't believe there exists a "deterrent".  "Deterrence" MAY work for "minor" crimes - but I'm not sure.

I'm a believer in properly orchestrated "natural justice" - deterrence has nothing to do with it; rightful vengeance retribution has EVERYTHING to do with it.

In deference to Vern and others, we can start our own thread - although I do believe I posted a link to such a thread earlier.

Edited to add:  Vern was posting as I was typing.


----------



## eurowing (20 Dec 2007)

Just look at all the people that cheat.  The cost of a divorce apparently isn't a deterrent either.  The pleasure must be worth the risk of the future "punishment" of normal folk too.  


Vern, I can't find that thread about the teacher?  That has been water cooler talk at work too.


----------



## armyvern (20 Dec 2007)

eurowing said:
			
		

> ...
> Vern, I can't find that thread about the teacher?  That has been water cooler talk at work too.
> ...



Wait one, over.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2007)

Grave


----------



## armyvern (20 Dec 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Grave



Well ... so it is!! No wonder I couldn't find it!  


 ;D


----------



## sober_ruski (20 Dec 2007)

yeah, but who's bringing cheese?  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Dec 2007)

Deterrence is a myth.  If it existed, nobody would ever light up a cigarette, as they know they will eventually kill them.  Nobody would ever drink a beer or two and then get behind the wheel,  I could go on and on.  We are a species who require immediate gratification, consequences be buggered.


----------



## geo (20 Dec 2007)

Deterrence a myth?

You make the punishment draconic enough & spend the money to enforce the laws and deterrence might very well work.


----------



## armyvern (20 Dec 2007)

Unless, of course, you are a narcissist and honestly believe that you are smarter than the LEOs and thus will never be caught, so you don't worry about what the punishment will be.


----------



## geo (20 Dec 2007)

True Vern....

At which point I invite the LEOs to come down on him like a ton of bricks.

People spend a ton of money on Locks.... but when you figure it out - locks keep honest people out.  the dishonest ones won't let a lousy little lock stop them.  So, why buy locks?... to keep the honest people out


----------



## Rayman (21 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Deterrence a myth?
> 
> You make the punishment draconic enough & spend the money to enforce the laws and deterrence might very well work.



Except for the fact that most people will protest that something like this is barbaric and primitive in a Western civilization. I forget which country it is but ive heard some punish stealing with the removing of the offenders hands. That might work well....

However lets say its decided that offenders that commit crimes of the sexual nature have to be castrated. People will cry that denies them of ever being able to reproduce (yeah...like who would want a child with a rapist or what have you) and is inhumane. Though I, with many im sure would support something in a scenario like this....it just wont ever happen.


----------



## chrisf (21 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> People spend a ton of money on Locks.... but when you figure it out - locks keep honest people out.  the dishonest ones won't let a lousy little lock stop them.  So, why buy locks?... to keep the honest people out



I don't know if it keeps the honest people OUT so much as it keeps them HONEST...


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2007)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I don't know if it keeps the honest people OUT so much as it keeps them HONEST...



Your point being?


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that most people will protest that something like this is barbaric and primitive in a Western civilization. I forget which country it is but ive heard some punish stealing with the removing of the offenders hands. That might work well....
> 
> However lets say its decided that offenders that commit crimes of the sexual nature have to be castrated. People will cry that denies them of ever being able to reproduce (yeah...like who would want a child with a rapist or what have you) and is inhumane. Though I, with many im sure would support something in a scenario like this....it just wont ever happen.


There are places that require sexual offenders to be chemicaly castrated as a preconditino for their release.
Works for me!...


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> There are places that require sexual offenders to be chemicaly castrated as a preconditino for their release.
> Works for me!...



Unfortunately, most sex offender's (not sure about pedophiles) acts have nothing to do with sexual desire and everything to do with power over their victim.  If castrated (chemically or otherwise) they will merely find another tool to use, so to speak.


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2007)

Well... no one is doing anything with Han Island IIRC


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Well... no one is doing anything with Han Island IIRC



Good idea!!


----------



## medaid (21 Dec 2007)

I'd say shoot drunk drivers on sight! That's a pretty good deterrent considering how many drunk drivers kill people right? 

Benefits:

1) Won't kill anyone again if they have
2) Won't kill anyone if they haven't 
3) NO one will drink and drive again
4) Makes streets allot safer no?

Cons:

Can't think of any...

Apply same law to Street Racers, Drug Dealers, rapists, pedophiles....


Society would be a better place.  













 ;D J/K guys and gals, J/K  :warstory:


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Dec 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, most sex offender's (not sure about pedophiles) acts have nothing to do with sexual desire and everything to do with power over their victim.  If castrated (chemically or otherwise) they will merely find another tool to use, so to speak.



Well it "may" work (chemical castration) on a true pedophile, which is someone who's sexual preference/orientation is for kids, however there have been instances where those who where put on Depo-Prevera (chem castration), just started taking steroids to counter act the effects.  But you are right PMed, in the case of sex offenders (including child sex offenders), whose M.O. is based on power/domination/control chem castration will do very little.


----------



## Rayman (21 Dec 2007)

You know I know this borders on acceptable, but if these sterilizers can be countered by stereroids it might just make their day. Not sure if this is fact or fiction but chemical castration renders the victim unable to produce sperm right? IF the stereroids can counter the effect it has on drive we may essentially see perps who cannot impregnate their victims. That to me sounds like it may just encourage them to go out and re-offend.


----------



## sober_ruski (21 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I'd say shoot drunk drivers on sight! That's a pretty good deterrent considering how many drunk drivers kill people right?
> 
> Benefits:
> 
> ...



I know there's the j/k part, buuuut

shooting isnt someone for something they *might* do is kinda... taking it a bit far? Might as well shoot the babies as soon as they are born, since that baby *might* be a mass murderer when it grows up.

Judge Dred, anyone? Bueller?


----------



## medaid (21 Dec 2007)

Come on Judge Dred was a pretty cool movie! ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> You know I know this borders on acceptable, but if these sterilizers can be countered by stereroids it might just make their day. Not sure if this is fact or fiction but chemical castration renders the victim unable to produce sperm right? IF the stereroids can counter the effect it has on drive we may essentially see perps who cannot impregnate their victims. That to me sounds like it may just encourage them to go out and re-offend.



Well considering alot of their victims haven't reached puberty yet, I don't pregnancy is big concern.  And fyi depo-prevera doesn't sterilize those its used on,  it birth control (ie estrogen/progesterone), when males take it surpresses the production of testosterone (ie the hormone responsible for ones sex drive).  The roids just return the testosterone back to normal levels.  Now SURGICAL castration is not so easily reversed.


----------



## medaid (21 Dec 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't pregnancy is big concern.



Women are born with all the eggs they are going to have in their life time. This also means that they can and may get pregnant at anytime. Nothing to do with puberty...


----------



## ixium (21 Dec 2007)

Youngest girl that was pregnant was 5 

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Women are born with all the eggs they are going to have in their life time. This also means that they can and may get pregnant at anytime. Nothing to do with puberty...


  
 ???
So every biology, and health education class I have ever taken was wrong I guess :.  Not talking about women, talking about kids


----------



## medaid (21 Dec 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ???
> So every biology, and health education class I have ever taken was wrong I guess :.  Not talking about women, talking about kids



Didn't I just say that?


----------



## Rayman (22 Dec 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well considering alot of their victims haven't reached puberty yet, I don't pregnancy is big concern.  And fyi depo-prevera doesn't sterilize those its used on,  it birth control (ie estrogen/progesterone), when males take it surpresses the production of testosterone (ie the hormone responsible for ones sex drive).  The roids just return the testosterone back to normal levels.  Now SURGICAL castration is not so easily reversed.



Vasectomys may ruin the perps chances of ever reproducing. Though I can see that back firing and hitting us in the face for the fact that if they cannot reproduce these offenders may be more inclined to re-offend though I dout they worry about impregenating their victims in the first place as its been said by a few people in the discussion jail and that sort of thing are proven to not enter a criminals mind while commiting the crime. Case and point harsher deterances may work, but to take a look at the other side of the coin and seeing the problems that may arise (just as Isaac Newton in his three laws of motion stated "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") may be worthwhile. HOWEVER the case im using right now is rather specific and not general. You think junior might try and steal a chocolate bar from the local sick and quick if he knew he was going to lose his hands if convicted? I dout he will then....but there will still be people that for whatever reason will do it. Of course ive never stolen anything in my life, never plan to. 

Though one idea I will bring to the table while off topic is with regards to drunk drivers. If caught they can never get a license or car or be in possession of a motor vehicle (of any kind even a freakin moped) again in their lives. Street racers? If caught their ride gets taken away, destroyed (no chance to save that little 300 dollar crappy tire deck) and they are limited to operating a personal vehicle limited to no more than 130 horses (basically Saturns, Cavaliers, Festivas) and if they need a vehicle with more horsepower for say a commercial purpose I would say oh well should have thought of that before racing. Though that could go either way with me.

In any case really to raise the bar while it may deter people from offending, it wil occur. As citizens we are used to our legal system and im sure anyone who got slapped heavily with the law will be all over the evening news, have the opposition government arguring his side in parliment. Though im sure some people will agree that to toughen the system it may deter and deliver more just punishment. Thats just living in a democratic society for ya....


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2007)

Rayman

Did you really give this much thought?



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> Vasectomys may ruin the perps chances of ever reproducing. Though I can see that back firing and hitting us in the face for the fact that if they cannot reproduce these offenders may be more inclined to re-offend though I dout they worry about impregenating their victims in the first place as its been said by a few people in the discussion jail and that sort of thing are proven to not enter a criminals mind while commiting the crime.



Have you ever had sex?  Did you have sex or impregnation on your mind?

This following statement could be right out of the Dark Ages:



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> Case and point harsher deterances may work, but to take a look at the other side of the coin and seeing the problems that may arise (just as Isaac Newton in his three laws of motion stated "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") may be worthwhile. HOWEVER the case im using right now is rather specific and not general. You think junior might try and steal a chocolate bar from the local sick and quick if he knew he was going to lose his hands if convicted? I dout he will then....but there will still be people that for whatever reason will do it. Of course ive never stolen anything in my life, never plan to.



As would these statements, which have some conflicting logic:



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> Though one idea I will bring to the table while off topic is with regards to drunk drivers. If caught they can never get a license or car or be in possession of a motor vehicle (of any kind even a freakin moped) again in their lives. Street racers? If caught their ride gets taken away, destroyed (no chance to save that little 300 dollar crappy tire deck) and they are limited to operating a personal vehicle limited to no more than 130 horses (basically Saturns, Cavaliers, Festivas) and if they need a vehicle with more horsepower for say a commercial purpose I would say oh well should have thought of that before racing. Though that could go either way with me.



Seems a lot of Street Racers are driving the little Saturns, Cavaliers, Festivas, Corrolas, Civics, etc.  Cheap cars, pimped out.



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> In any case really to raise the bar while it may deter people from offending, it wil occur. As citizens we are used to our legal system and im sure anyone who got slapped heavily with the law will be all over the evening news, have the opposition government arguring his side in parliment. Though im sure some people will agree that to toughen the system it may deter and deliver more just punishment. Thats just living in a democratic society for ya....



Do you really think more legislation is need or more enforcement?


----------



## ixium (22 Dec 2007)

Did you just suggest that a kid's hand should be chopped off for stealing a candy bar?


----------



## Rayman (22 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Rayman
> 
> Did you really give this much thought?
> 
> ...



Ner dont have have it on my mind... and what exactly are you trying to get at with asking if ever done it or not? Thats a pretty personal question if you ask me. WRT to that im saying that while im for giving these guys harsher punishments and maybe use them as deterance, theres always going to be a side with downfalls that should be assessd to see if it wont cause more harm in the long run. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Not sticking up for these @$$hats by any means nor would I. Yes a lot of kids are driving those little sewing machines on wheels but a dyno will easily show a cars horsepower. So what they should join the drunk drivers club and lose the right to own a vehicle too? If thats the general opinion that would work too. THAT would require more legislation, as well as enforcement. 

Ixium, in Canada they would never allow such a thing to be done as punishment. What I was stating is that if that were the case do you think people would still try it? Yes. But how many exactly? Less?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2007)

Rayman

Put a little more EFFORT into your posts.  They are hard to read and in some cases unintelligible.  Your posts may be taken with more credibility if you would post using better grammar and sentence structure.  Also, Spell Check is included on this site for a very good reason.


----------



## ixium (22 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> Ixium, in Canada they would never allow such a thing to be done as punishment. What I was stating is that if that were the case do you think people would still try it? Yes. But how many exactly? Less?



Well then since we're talking hypothetical...Why not have the punishment for jay-walking be death. Heck, people would stop doing it, right?


----------



## Rayman (22 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Well then since we're talking hypothetical...Why not have the punishment for jay-walking be death. Heck, people would stop doing it, right?



Well you can't do much if you are dead. Though I see your point. You see all this as an extreme answer. Obviously if we told drivers that they do not have to slow down or stop for pedestrians those who chose to jay-walk may very well end up dead. However do you think people will then jay-walk? 

I do not think however that the punishment you have mentioned is suitable for such an action. I do see how you are saying that in referance to my comment.


----------



## JBoyd (23 Dec 2007)

On the subject of Jay-walking, If it was actively enforced (I say this because I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for Jay-walking) I am sure more people would start abiding by it, although there would still be those who did not give a damn, much like those that continue to not wear a seat-belt even when it is for their own safety.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Dec 2007)

With the current system of police reaction in place, jay-walking is almost impossible to actually enforce.  

"Its more of a guideline than a rule" as the famous saying goes...


----------



## JBoyd (23 Dec 2007)

ah well that would explain why I have not really ever heard of it being enforced. However, personally When I have the kids out with me I will walk the extra bit to a crosswalk with lights, too many stupid drivers on the road to chance it.


----------



## sober_ruski (23 Dec 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> On the subject of Jay-walking, If it was actively enforced (I say this because I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for Jay-walking) I am sure more people would start abiding by it, although there would still be those who did not give a damn, much like those that continue to not wear a seat-belt even when *it is for their own safety.*



When I hear that from any government, it makes me cringe.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Dec 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> With the current system of police reaction in place, jaywalking is almost impossible to actually enforce.
> 
> "Its more of a guideline than a rule" as the famous saying goes...



That's why we need Claymores on the streets...  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (23 Dec 2007)

Knecht Ruprecht said:
			
		

> That's why we need Claymores on the streets...  ;D



V.1) Yes, a bunch of sharp swords sticking out of the street would work well, except for all the punctured tires...

V.2) Yes, a bunch of explosive boobytraps would work well, except for the exploding cars...


----------



## axeman (23 Dec 2007)

well its not so much as jaywalking but morons trying to throw themselves under my car .. ;D


----------



## armyvern (23 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Someone else besides a defense lawyer is now a scumbag because they don't mind seeing their tax dollars go towards "babysitting" this scum?
> 
> You are right the fuck out of it.
> 
> ...



Just a point of note now that this (which is what my above reponse was to) has hit somewhat close to home:

Quote from: Tommy on December 19, 2007, 12:36:36


> Would you still feel that way if it was your daughter he raped? what if you were the victim?
> 
> ive seen people affected by senseless violence and crime... youre obviously living in dream world if you think these guys can be rehibilitated... and obviously making too much money if youre ok with your tax dollars going towards babysitting this scum.
> 
> I never said kill him... (implied maybe....) I just say throw him in general population and let Darwinism sort out the rest.



Uhmmm yeah. This guy ... is/was (?? Can that be revoked) my daughter's Godfather.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/07/04/pf-6070696.html

But, even though I just found out this morning -- I'd still not wish him dead. In jail for the rest of his life (perhaps even with Bruce as a guardian) ... fine by me, but not dead.

And, I hope to hell that you are all having a better year than I - to quote Her Majesty - it has been an "Annus Horribilus".

But still, remember to always try to play nice anyway - despite how bitchy you might feel. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Life's funny that way. And with that final word of advice from me to you -- I'm signing off for a vacation ... keep it in mind as you go about the great site here. Sometimes kindness, rather than bitchiness can go a long way. The person you bitch at today --- may the very one you require assistance from tomorrow.


----------



## Jorkapp (23 Jul 2008)

> Uhmmm yeah. This guy ... is/was (?? Can that be revoked) my daughter's Godfather.


Revokation depends. I asked a friend of mine who's in the know, and here's what I got:

If this guy sponsored your daughter's baptism, then no, he would technically hold the title for life, though you can certainly have him removed from any affiliation and responsibility beyond that (e.g. not on any NOK lists for your daughter).

If your daughter was not baptised and this guy is a godfather by appointment only, then the appointment can be removed no problem.

Regardless, I would ensure that this guy is removed from all NOK lists.



> But, even though I just found out this morning -- I'd still not wish him dead. In jail for the rest of his life ... fine by me.


I wholeheartedly agree. He need not die for his actions, though certainly he deserves to suffer as his victim(s) did.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jul 2008)

Suffer as his victims did. Lets hope he has a cell mate named Bubba....

In this country peophiles et al are separated for safety concerns. They are even looked down upon by other sexual offenders such as men who rape grown women....


----------



## armyvern (23 Jul 2008)

AEC Kapp said:
			
		

> If your daughter was not baptised and this guy is a godfather by appointment only, then the appointment can be removed no problem.



Puuurfect, being the athiest that I am ... this is the sit applicable.

Old solduer ...



> Suffer as his victims did. Lets hope he has a cell mate named Bubba....



If you were a friend of mine on Facebook right this instant and had the "Friends for Sale" application -- you'd see that I "own" my daughter ... her nickname?? "Bubba" as I've called her from day one. Still, you're probably correct ... even though she resmebles me not in the least with her long, straight, jet black hair ... she does have my temperment ... and claws.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jul 2008)

Yikes Vern!!!! You're scarin me!!!


----------



## harry8422 (23 Jul 2008)

the guy should be locked up for along time.  and another thing he said he is scared did he ever think that his victims were scared? put him in jail and throw away they key


----------



## exgunnertdo (23 Jul 2008)

This one was in my neighbourhood - the local "freebie" paper had a big write-up on it.  Printed the victim impact statements (from the parents, little girl was only 5, she was kept out of the courtroom).  Poor little thing is upset, cause the whole thing upset the guy's wife (her babysitter).  For a little girl to have to feel guilty that this happened to her!  But, she sounds like she has a wonderful loving family - hope she'll be OK.


----------



## medaid (24 Jul 2008)

He should also fear street justice when.. And if he makes it out alive. Not that I condone that type of thing. *whistling and loading buck shot into sawed off pump*


----------



## Greymatters (24 Jul 2008)

harry8422 said:
			
		

> the guy should be locked up for along time.  and another thing he said he is scared did he ever think that his victims were scared? put him in jail and throw away they key



I would always supoort that every person deserves a second chance, but christ, some of these guys are a waste of jail rations and will never reform...


----------



## geo (29 Jul 2008)

Oik.... where's a good ditch when you need one.

My condolences Vern - you & your daughter deserve better.


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Jul 2008)

Well if this poor poor serial pedophile does not want to go to jail, we should grant him some leniency and instead throw him down a well where he won't be bullied.


----------



## geo (30 Jul 2008)

well = ditch


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> This one was in my neighbourhood - the local "freebie" paper had a big write-up on it.  Printed the victim impact statements (from the parents, little girl was only 5, she was kept out of the courtroom).  Poor little thing is upset, cause the whole thing upset the guy's wife (her babysitter).  For a little girl to have to feel guilty that this happened to her!  But, she sounds like she has a wonderful loving family - hope she'll be OK.



Then I have been "in" your neighbourhood. Are you close to Mannington?

Actually should have been in your vicintity this weekend while allowing me to get out & about in Ottawa while my daughter got to spend some time with her god-parents. Tragicly (for the 5 year old), circumstances ended up dictating otherwise. I'm actually nauseous just thinking about it. Funny how the victims are always the ones left feeling guilty by sickening crimes. In this case, the child ... and M (his wife) for the child ever being placed in the situation. When I first found out, I also had my "guilt" to deal with ... we actually chose this guy to be our daughter's godfather ... I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with it all - knowing that she was _-this-_ close to a monster - and that I put her there. It's not a nice feeling at all ... and the "what-ifs" are still running through my mind.


----------



## Inspir (16 Aug 2008)

That's what they have PC for. Not like it would do him that good anyhow, even the skinners and didlers have a moral code it seems :
The safest place in prison would be OB

PC= Protective Custody
OB=Observation (ie: wrist slashers, etc)


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

Inspir said:
			
		

> That's what they have PC for. Not like it would do him that good anyhow, even the skinners and didlers have a moral code it seems :
> The safest place in prison would be OB
> 
> PC= Protective Custody
> OB=Observation (ie: wrist slashers, etc)



HIGHJACK -

I'm thinking that I kind of like your avtar pic ... somewhat resembles chaps I'd say; how did I manage to miss it this long?


----------



## danchapps (16 Aug 2008)

Maybe because you went to Sturgis?


As for pedophiles, I have no time for them. They do something like that, yeah, jail justice is fine with me. I had a friend that had something happen when younger, still has to deal with it and it's been about 18 years or so.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> Maybe because you went to Sturgis?
> ... still has to deal with it and it's been about 18 years or so.



Ahhh, Sturgis.  ;D  >

... and your friend ... has a lifetime of it still to go unfortunately.


----------



## danchapps (16 Aug 2008)

It was when they offender returned to the community that hurt the most. My friends mother actually saw the guy, and caused a huge commotion in the store, then reported him to the police. See, it turns out that he wasn't supposed to be near kids, but his new "girlfriend" had a couple of younger children. My friend had to testify in court, which brought bad the bad memories, but seeing the offender get sent back to jail was apparently a priceless sight. I just can see how people can do such sick things. Luckily for my friend there is a 24/7 anytime/anywhere calling policy with me.


----------

