Ok, now I have heard it all

Apparently some women was "renting" out her 9 year old daughter to a sexual predator. She charged the man $20 each time he wanted to come over to molest her daughter. She rented her daughter to this man more than 200 times over a 2 year period (9-11). Not only did the women rent her daughter out, at times, she would hold her dauther down so the man could molest her.

If that wasn't sick enough, the judge only gave the woman 10 years in prison. She originally was given 17.5 years (the maximum allowed by federal sentencing guidelines). The woman appealed and the appeals judge gave her 10 years citing mental problems and drug addiction. Luckily, the prosector appealed the 10 year ruling. They are still battling the sentencing in court.

As for the pedophile, well he got 15 years. WHAT!!! You can't be serious on this. 15 years for molesting a child over 200 times. I am sure the man wont come out alive, but 15 years is a little light.

What on earth is going on with people these days?????

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Apparently some women was "renting" out her 9 year old daughter to a sexual predator. She charged the man $20 each time he wanted to come over to molest her daughter. She rented her daughter to this man more than 200 times over a 2 year period (9-11). Not only did the women rent her daughter out, at times, she would hold her dauther down so the man could molest her.

If that wasn't sick enough, the judge only gave the woman 10 years in prison. She originally was given 17.5 years (the maximum allowed by federal sentencing guidelines). The woman appealed and the appeals judge gave her 10 years citing mental problems and drug addiction. Luckily, the prosector appealed the 10 year ruling. They are still battling the sentencing in court.

As for the pedophile, well he got 15 years. WHAT!!! You can't be serious on this. 15 years for molesting a child over 200 times. I am sure the man wont come out alive, but 15 years is a little light.

What on earth is going on with people these days?????

Why is it that whenever somebody does something totally evil,there's a sap of a jurist who takes pity on the miscreant...while minimizing the damage done? I'm with you Euro....it's maddening!

[SniperSB23]

So essentially the message is if you are doing something wrong make sure you also abuse drugs cause then you can get a lesser sentence.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So essentially the message is if you are doing something wrong make sure you also abuse drugs cause then you can get a lesser sentence.

For some reason that made me laugh. But you are so right. It is the philosophy that there is always someone or something else to blame.

[skippy3481]

People like that, very simply, need to be taken out back and shot.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

People like that, very simply, need to be taken out back and shot.

too light...hang the guy that melosted the young girl by his nut sack....God..shi*t like this infuriates me to no end.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So essentially the message is if you are doing something wrong make sure you also abuse drugs cause then you can get a lesser sentence.

three magic words...going to rehab.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

People like that, very simply, need to be taken out back and shot.

jail cell for one year--about 20k or so...
bullet only costs about 50 cents.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

jail cell for one year--about 20k or so...
bullet only costs about 50 cents.

Jail's way more than that!! 38,412....I read somewhere...Maybe thats Cali

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Jail's way more than that!! 38,412....I read somewhere...Maybe thats Cali

I've heard an even higher number than that per person...I guess it all depends on location and level of detention.
but I agree with Zig...bullets would save time and money...and throw in the girl's mother for good measure...sickening what they did to that little girl.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I've heard an even higher number than that per person...I guess it all depends on location and level of detention.
but I agree with Zig...bullets would save time and money...and throw in the girl's mother for good measure...sickening what they did to that little girl.

That's a big 10-4 on that idea!!....would relieve her mental illness from society!

[GenuineRisk]

Guys, I agree the man is worse than scum (and the woman, too), but sometimes these sentences are what they are because the laws stipulate a maximum sentence and the judge and jury don't have the legal right to make it longer (that may not be the case here, but just something to keep in mind). It might be judicial abuse, or the judiciary's hands might be tied and you should be screaming at the legislators.

On the other hand, have you read about the 17-year-old who has been sentenced to a mandatory 10 years in jail because a 15-year-old classmate gave him a bl*w job? Even the judge was unhappy, but he had no choice under the law. The kid would have gotten a lighter sentence if he'd had actual intercourse with the girl-- Georgia laws are harsher on oral sex with minors than intercourse. Here's a link:

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158

Not to say the case isn't sordid but ten years for a hummer? A consensual hummer?

[paisjpq]

GR...don't forget it goes the other way too...last year here in VT a judge gave a child molester 2 months in jail because he said that the man was mentally challenged and wouldn't get proper sex offender treatment in prison. After national outcry the sentence was extended to 3 years i think...but that is no punishment IMO for the years of abuse he and another man did to a child under 10.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ver..._day_sentence/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

GR...don't forget it goes the other way too...last year here in VT a judge gave a child molester 2 months in jail because he said that the man was mentally challenged and wouldn't get proper sex offender treatment in prison. After national outcry the sentence was extended to 3 years i think...but that is no punishment IMO for the years of abuse he and another man did to a child under 10.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ver..._day_sentence/

That was a really interesting article-- I'm of two minds of it (but then, I'm a Libra; I'm often of two minds on things. )

Believe it or not, I understand the judge's line of thinking, which was that as long as the guy is in prison itself, he's not going to be receiving any sort of treatment that would make him less likely to repeat the crime once he's back in the real world. And the judge felt the sooner treatment was started, the better a chance he had for successful treatment (the article stated he had the comprehension of a 12-to-14-year-old). What the article was unclear about was whether there was any sort of treatment mandated by the court or whether it was up to this guy to get it. In-patient treatment would keep him off the streets just as effectively as prison, for example, and he'd be getting treated. So I get what the judge's line of thinking was, but the article wasn't clear about what happens to the guy once prison term is served.

I still disagree with it, but for reasons that are my own personal opinions on sex offenders who prey on children, not because it's a law. I don't believe child sex offenders are truly rehabitable, once they've crossed that line from fanstasy to reality. I think we're sexually attracted to who and what we're attracted to and no amount of therapy is going to change that (just ask Ted Haggard!). But just because you're attracted to kids doesn't make it right. I suspect there are probably men (and women) out there who are attracted to kids, but know enough to keep that to themselves. So they marry a childlike-looking spouse, or have a doll obsession or whatever. Which is weird, sure, but not illegal so I have no problem with it. But I don't think any amount of treatment will change what they find attractive, because we don't reason out what we're attracted to. If society changed overnight and suddently homosexuality was considered the majority norm, I wouldn't be able to change my sexual preferences-- it'd still be a cute guy that would make my heart beat faster and my palms sweat. So, I think the only real "treatment" is for someone with an attraction to children to understand that it's not appropriate to act on it, and once a person has acted on it once, I become skeptical that they won't again if the opportunity arises.

Which is depressing, as I do like to think many criminals are rehabilitable, but not so much the ones directly related to sexual attraction. So, while I can understand the judge's wish to see the man rehabilitated, I am skeptical that it's possible.

(Obviously, in my example above about if homosexuality became the social norm, I'm not implying I think there's anything wrong with homosexuality- I think it's perfectly normal. My own personal line in the sand where sex is concerned is "consenting adults." Meet that criteria, and the rest is none of my business.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That was a really interesting article-- I'm of two minds of it (but then, I'm a Libra; I'm often of two minds on things. )

Believe it or not, I understand the judge's line of thinking, which was that as long as the guy is in prison itself, he's not going to be receiving any sort of treatment that would make him less likely to repeat the crime once he's back in the real world. And the judge felt the sooner treatment was started, the better a chance he had for successful treatment (the article stated he had the comprehension of a 12-to-14-year-old). What the article was unclear about was whether there was any sort of treatment mandated by the court or whether it was up to this guy to get it. In-patient treatment would keep him off the streets just as effectively as prison, for example, and he'd be getting treated. So I get what the judge's line of thinking was, but the article wasn't clear about what happens to the guy once prison term is served.

I still disagree with it, but for reasons that are my own personal opinions on sex offenders who prey on children, not because it's a law. I don't believe child sex offenders are truly rehabitable, once they've crossed that line from fanstasy to reality. I think we're sexually attracted to who and what we're attracted to and no amount of therapy is going to change that (just ask Ted Haggard!). But just because you're attracted to kids doesn't make it right. I suspect there are probably men (and women) out there who are attracted to kids, but know enough to keep that to themselves. So they marry a childlike-looking spouse, or have a doll obsession or whatever. Which is weird, sure, but not illegal so I have no problem with it. But I don't think any amount of treatment will change what they find attractive, because we don't reason out what we're attracted to. If society changed overnight and suddently homosexuality was considered the majority norm, I wouldn't be able to change my sexual preferences-- it'd still be a cute guy that would make my heart beat faster and my palms sweat. So, I think the only real "treatment" is for someone with an attraction to children to understand that it's not appropriate to act on it, and once a person has acted on it once, I become skeptical that they won't again if the opportunity arises.

Which is depressing, as I do like to think many criminals are rehabilitable, but not so much the ones directly related to sexual attraction. So, while I can understand the judge's wish to see the man rehabilitated, I am skeptical that it's possible.

(Obviously, in my example above about if homosexuality became the social norm, I'm not implying I think there's anything wrong with homosexuality- I think it's perfectly normal. My own personal line in the sand where sex is concerned is "consenting adults." Meet that criteria, and the rest is none of my business.

well said. and I agree with you.
And again in this case like the one that started the thread you have a mother who was negligent (she knew of his attraction to the child and she knew that he shared a bed with the girl) The parents are as sick as the offenders...side note in this case though...there was another man (of normal intelligence) who also abused the girl...like the first guy he stayed over at the home and the mother knew he was sharing a bed with her 7 year old daughter...in a seperate trial he was recently sentenced to 10 years to life...and Judge Cashman has resigned.
but apart from losing her kid to the state the mother has faced no consequences for her actions (of lack thereof) makes me sick.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

well said. and I agree with you.
And again in this case like the one that started the thread you have a mother who was negligent (she knew of his attraction to the child and she knew that he shared a bed with the girl) The parents are as sick as the offenders...side note in this case though...there was another man (of normal intelligence) who also abused the girl...like the first guy he stayed over at the home and the mother knew he was sharing a bed with her 7 year old daughter...in a seperate trial he was recently sentenced to 10 years to life...and Judge Cashman has resigned.
but apart from losing her kid to the state the mother has faced no consequences for her actions (of lack thereof) makes me sick.

Yeah... one of those eternal unfair things about life-- many people who should never be parents have had and will continue to have kids.

Poor kid. The only innocent one and the biggest loser in the whole mess. As usual.

[Cajungator26]

This makes me sick.

I'll never understand what provokes people to do this... NEVER. Both the predator and the mother deserve to rot in hell for what they did to the little girl.

[timmgirvan]

Still, the judge cut her sentence in half..which is total crap!

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

As for the pedophile, well he got 15 years. WHAT!!! You can't be serious on this. 15 years for molesting a child over 200 times. I am sure the man wont come out alive, but 15 years is a little light.

Yeah, hopefully one of the other inmates will do a 'Geoghan' on that piece of sh*t soon.

Nothing lower than a scumbag who hurts an innocent, defenseless child.


And the so-called 'mother' should be jailed for life, in my opinion.