April 30th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Among the reasons this rips me completely the wrong way, is the fact that molesting a 5 year old and getting a 5 1/2 year sentence means that he will be getting out right as this young girl heads into puberty. An already defining time in a woman's sexual development, it is going to be overshadowed by reminders of what her father did to her. One would think given his attempts to rationalize his reasons for doing this, and to blame his daughter (read the article if you want to find out his wording regarding that... don't read it if you want to feel like the world is a decent place today), would be indicative of a definite likelihood of a repeat offense when someone one else at a later date catches his fancy.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
An Edmonton man convicted of sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter and who claimed he was "helping the child with her sexual education" has been put behind bars.
The 44-year-old molester, who appeared in court wearing an army fatigue jacket and carrying a Bible, kept his head bowed as he was given a 5 1/2-year prison term yesterday.
He can't be named to protect the identity of the victim.
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Mary Moreau called the repeated sex acts by a father with his own "extremely young" daughter "the highest form of breach of trust."
The judge ordered the man placed on the national sex offender registry for 20 years upon release and banned him from working or volunteering with anyone under 14.
For the full story from the Edmonton Sun...
Among the reasons this rips me completely the wrong way, is the fact that molesting a 5 year old and getting a 5 1/2 year sentence means that he will be getting out right as this young girl heads into puberty. An already defining time in a woman's sexual development, it is going to be overshadowed by reminders of what her father did to her. One would think given his attempts to rationalize his reasons for doing this, and to blame his daughter (read the article if you want to find out his wording regarding that... don't read it if you want to feel like the world is a decent place today), would be indicative of a definite likelihood of a repeat offense when someone one else at a later date catches his fancy.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
An Edmonton man convicted of sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter and who claimed he was "helping the child with her sexual education" has been put behind bars.
The 44-year-old molester, who appeared in court wearing an army fatigue jacket and carrying a Bible, kept his head bowed as he was given a 5 1/2-year prison term yesterday.
He can't be named to protect the identity of the victim.
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Mary Moreau called the repeated sex acts by a father with his own "extremely young" daughter "the highest form of breach of trust."
The judge ordered the man placed on the national sex offender registry for 20 years upon release and banned him from working or volunteering with anyone under 14.
For the full story from the Edmonton Sun...
World Police
Posts: 4,438 
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 30th, 2008, 08:59 AM
He should be serving 20+ years for a crime like that, our penalties for this sort of a crime are a joke.
He should be serving 20+ years for a crime like that, our penalties for this sort of a crime are a joke.
April 30th, 2008, 09:06 AM
"Oh, but he only touched her"... give me a break.
Quoting DurkaDurka
I guess the law makes a distinction between 'touching' and 'assault'. Therein lies the problem when it comes to parents. Parents have all sorts of time and proximity to blur the lines of acceptable touching, and to do more damage than a random assault from a stranger could.
He should be serving 20+ years for a crime like that, our penalties for this sort of a crime are a joke.
"Oh, but he only touched her"... give me a break.
World Police
Posts: 4,438
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 30th, 2008, 09:10 AM
from the article:
"The man told police his daughter "initiated the sexual acts" in the bedroom and in the shower and, in his apology letter, he asks her forgiveness for him "not showing better judgment" and not stopping her more forcibly. "I only wanted to show her that I loved her and that some things would have to wait for her to grow up, but to give knowledge of what to expect," he said in the letter."
That right there shows the guy to be an unremorseful sociopath, that should be grounds for a dangerous offender proceedings.
from the article:
"The man told police his daughter "initiated the sexual acts" in the bedroom and in the shower and, in his apology letter, he asks her forgiveness for him "not showing better judgment" and not stopping her more forcibly. "I only wanted to show her that I loved her and that some things would have to wait for her to grow up, but to give knowledge of what to expect," he said in the letter."
That right there shows the guy to be an unremorseful sociopath, that should be grounds for a dangerous offender proceedings.
April 30th, 2008, 09:24 AM
Quoting DurkaDurka
exactly Durka. That's a symptom of a much larger problem.
That right there shows the guy to be an unremorseful sociopath, that should be grounds for a dangerous offender proceedings.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,093
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
April 30th, 2008, 09:27 AM
He's a sick, twisted, ****!!
20 years in general population would be good.
He might make a year, or until the others were through "abusing" him. Then........g'day eh.
"But warden, he INITIATED the bungholing,(so I'm told by someone I never saw),in the shower of all places..........Where did all the blood come from??.......Sorry warden, dunno. I just came in. Seems like he ain't breathin. Awwwwwww." ...........fade to black, roll credits.
hope.
He's a sick, twisted, ****!!20 years in general population would be good.
He might make a year, or until the others were through "abusing" him. Then........g'day eh.
"But warden, he INITIATED the bungholing,(so I'm told by someone I never saw),in the shower of all places..........Where did all the blood come from??.......Sorry warden, dunno. I just came in. Seems like he ain't breathin. Awwwwwww." ...........fade to black, roll credits.
hope.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,766
Location: in town
Location: in town
April 30th, 2008, 11:54 AM
Maybe the little girl just wanted to touch and feel and see how this "thing" worked? Why not show her?
Little loon never got a sex education from her parents... they never showed themselves naked!! She finally found out from her husband what that "thing" felt like and what it all could do!!!!
Result? She got five kids from the "thing"!!!
Maybe the little girl just wanted to touch and feel and see how this "thing" worked? Why not show her?Little loon never got a sex education from her parents... they never showed themselves naked!! She finally found out from her husband what that "thing" felt like and what it all could do!!!!
Result? She got five kids from the "thing"!!!
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,736
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 30th, 2008, 02:16 PM
This topic seems to be easily taken out of context, esspecially with the limited information provied in the case. Granted I am by no means trying to defend the guy and his actions, but seriously look at what has been provided in what seems to be a clearly biased news report:
We've already had plenty of debates in regards to how slack sexual education can be in school and by parents... I myself have also been in a few debates on when parents should or shouldn't be teaching their kids about these things. How young is too young? Who has the right to determine this for everybody? What can and can not be taught? How to teach them?
But see, we can't answer this question either because we don't even know what was actually done in the first place.
Like I said, I'm not taking the guy's side on this, cuz chances are he may have done all kinds of things above and beyond what I would personally considder acceptable when it comes to educating your children on sexual matters..... but I have seen the gray line for parents come up time and time again when it comes to things sexual in nature towards their children.
• Some will take pictures of their infants in black and white poses, naked and exposing their asses to the camera and most considder that a form of art and to show how tiny and innocent their kids were at one time..... other's think they're sexual exploitation and offensive.
• Some parents will still take baths/showers with their kids to teach them how to properly clean themselves, how to properly dry off afterwards. Some would considdered that offensive and disgusting.
I mean until I hear in detail what actions were really done, I can't determine one way or another my opinions on this situation.
Oh and from what I read, he was in no way attempting to place blame on his daughter, he was explaining the situation and pointing out where he made his error in judgement. From what I read, his daughter had some questions which I am assuming related to our sexual anatomy and he answered them (In what fashion I don't know)
I mean, we all keep hearing about having to educate your children on certain things before they learn them from their friends or on the street, like drugs and sex, so most parents will claim they would rather them learn this stuff from them and thus they would know what they're children are being taught...... but then where is the line in this case being drawn?
We can't tell by the supplied information. Did he just expose and show her the parts of a boy and a girl and left it at that ~ Perhaps pointing or expressing what occurs, or did he go much farther?
The report sure makes him sound like one sick perv who didn't know when to draw the line...... but is this all swayed towards the mother's perspective to make him out to be some freak child perv because she wasn't willing for her child to know about these things just yet AKA: blown out of porpotion?
I have more to post, but I'll leave it at that for the time being..... once again, I'm neutral on this topic until I hear more information as to what crimes were commited.
"unlawful sexual touching of a person under 14" ~ Doesn't tell a person anything. Hypothetically if I decided to point with one finger to identify what the testicle is or what the clitoris is and I accidentally make contact.... since we are talking about sexual education, would that be considdered unlawful sexual touching? ~ I guess that depends on who's interpreting the situation.
Then again, that is also why I'd most likely be explaining things via a book and illustrations..... I mean, I know I'm not all that hedious, but I know my body isn't the most stellar diagram of the human anatomy.
But does anybody see where I am going with parents' thin lines they have to tip toe around when it comes to teaching sexual education to their kids?
One reason why I think this was blown out of porpotion is:
"...... that some things would have to wait for her to grow up, but to give knowledge of what to expect,"
Being the devil's advocate here, that to me sounds like he knew where a line was to be drawn and he didn't do or tell her everything there was to know or do in sex, but "To Give her Knowlege of what to Expect." ~ to me it seems like he's perhaps not a child preditor or closet molester, but he was ignorant on what society deems appropreate information for a child her age and ignorant on the approach to this knowlege.
Then again, maybe he knew very well what he was doing and he's one sick little puppy..... once again, not enough information for me to judge.
The rest of what I plan on adding is in regards to when he gets out of jail..... but one thing at a time.
This topic seems to be easily taken out of context, esspecially with the limited information provied in the case. Granted I am by no means trying to defend the guy and his actions, but seriously look at what has been provided in what seems to be a clearly biased news report:
Quote:
Ok, what are they claiming are "initiated sexual acts?" In the bedroom? The shower? No, I don't need someone trying to tell me what they think is the obvious as to what those acts were, because you and I don't know..... for all we know he could have pointed and explained in a very mature manner, which perhaps some uptights might find offensive. Then again, he could have grabbed and jerked off right in front of her..... we don't know given the provided information.
.....The judge also referred to a letter of apology by the man in which he appeared to be blaming the little girl.
The man told police his daughter "initiated the sexual acts" in the bedroom and in the shower and, in his apology letter, he asks her forgiveness for him "not showing better judgment" and not stopping her more forcibly.
The man told police his daughter "initiated the sexual acts" in the bedroom and in the shower and, in his apology letter, he asks her forgiveness for him "not showing better judgment" and not stopping her more forcibly.
Quote:
If I want to express my "love" for my children, it certainly won't be anything sexual in nature, that's for damn sure, but how many parents here have had their children come to them and ask them something in regards to their body, or what does this do, or how come I have this, etc.?
"I only wanted to show her that I loved her and that some things would have to wait for her to grow up, but to give knowledge of what to expect," he said in the letter.
We've already had plenty of debates in regards to how slack sexual education can be in school and by parents... I myself have also been in a few debates on when parents should or shouldn't be teaching their kids about these things. How young is too young? Who has the right to determine this for everybody? What can and can not be taught? How to teach them?
Quote:
That sounds pretty sickly mind you, which seems to express a level of guilt in his actions.... but is that influenced guilt in people telling him what he did was wrong, or does he actually reflect back and understand it to be wrong?
"I had only wanted to answer your questions as best as I could. I know that showing you was not the way and giving in to you was wrong. I didn't want you hating daddy because I wouldn't tell you what you wanted to know."
But see, we can't answer this question either because we don't even know what was actually done in the first place.
Quote:
So what the hell is wrong with explaining to your child about what orgasms are? They're going to figure it out one way or another. And what did they mean by her telling her mom that he was touching her sexually? Was she crying and feeling completely violated and needed to turn to her mom in order for it to stop, or did she just blurt something out she learned from her father, didn't think it was a big deal and then her mom blew the whole damn thing out of perspective?
The man, who earlier pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual touching of a person under 14, ended the letter by asking the girl's mom if he could still say goodnight to the child.
According to agreed facts, the man is the biological father of the victim, who recently turned eight, and was separated from the girl's mother during the 2005 offences.
The girl's mother called police after the girl revealed her father was touching her sexually. During one of the incidents, the man was talking to his daughter about women having orgasms, according to the agreed facts.
According to agreed facts, the man is the biological father of the victim, who recently turned eight, and was separated from the girl's mother during the 2005 offences.
The girl's mother called police after the girl revealed her father was touching her sexually. During one of the incidents, the man was talking to his daughter about women having orgasms, according to the agreed facts.
Like I said, I'm not taking the guy's side on this, cuz chances are he may have done all kinds of things above and beyond what I would personally considder acceptable when it comes to educating your children on sexual matters..... but I have seen the gray line for parents come up time and time again when it comes to things sexual in nature towards their children.
• Some will take pictures of their infants in black and white poses, naked and exposing their asses to the camera and most considder that a form of art and to show how tiny and innocent their kids were at one time..... other's think they're sexual exploitation and offensive.
• Some parents will still take baths/showers with their kids to teach them how to properly clean themselves, how to properly dry off afterwards. Some would considdered that offensive and disgusting.
I mean until I hear in detail what actions were really done, I can't determine one way or another my opinions on this situation.
Oh and from what I read, he was in no way attempting to place blame on his daughter, he was explaining the situation and pointing out where he made his error in judgement. From what I read, his daughter had some questions which I am assuming related to our sexual anatomy and he answered them (In what fashion I don't know)
I mean, we all keep hearing about having to educate your children on certain things before they learn them from their friends or on the street, like drugs and sex, so most parents will claim they would rather them learn this stuff from them and thus they would know what they're children are being taught...... but then where is the line in this case being drawn?
We can't tell by the supplied information. Did he just expose and show her the parts of a boy and a girl and left it at that ~ Perhaps pointing or expressing what occurs, or did he go much farther?
The report sure makes him sound like one sick perv who didn't know when to draw the line...... but is this all swayed towards the mother's perspective to make him out to be some freak child perv because she wasn't willing for her child to know about these things just yet AKA: blown out of porpotion?
I have more to post, but I'll leave it at that for the time being..... once again, I'm neutral on this topic until I hear more information as to what crimes were commited.
"unlawful sexual touching of a person under 14" ~ Doesn't tell a person anything. Hypothetically if I decided to point with one finger to identify what the testicle is or what the clitoris is and I accidentally make contact.... since we are talking about sexual education, would that be considdered unlawful sexual touching? ~ I guess that depends on who's interpreting the situation.
Then again, that is also why I'd most likely be explaining things via a book and illustrations..... I mean, I know I'm not all that hedious, but I know my body isn't the most stellar diagram of the human anatomy.
But does anybody see where I am going with parents' thin lines they have to tip toe around when it comes to teaching sexual education to their kids?
One reason why I think this was blown out of porpotion is:
"...... that some things would have to wait for her to grow up, but to give knowledge of what to expect,"
Being the devil's advocate here, that to me sounds like he knew where a line was to be drawn and he didn't do or tell her everything there was to know or do in sex, but "To Give her Knowlege of what to Expect." ~ to me it seems like he's perhaps not a child preditor or closet molester, but he was ignorant on what society deems appropreate information for a child her age and ignorant on the approach to this knowlege.
Then again, maybe he knew very well what he was doing and he's one sick little puppy..... once again, not enough information for me to judge.
The rest of what I plan on adding is in regards to when he gets out of jail..... but one thing at a time.
World Police
Posts: 4,438
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 30th, 2008, 02:23 PM
Praxius, the fact that he was found guilty of mollesting the girl would make any debate regarding his intentions moot.
Come on Praxius, this guy knew exactly what he was doing, you don't molest children by accident or because you don't under stand norms in society.
Praxius, the fact that he was found guilty of mollesting the girl would make any debate regarding his intentions moot.
Come on Praxius, this guy knew exactly what he was doing, you don't molest children by accident or because you don't under stand norms in society.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,736
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 30th, 2008, 03:04 PM
I'm not about to jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon until I know why I'm jumping on. Laws are worded in such wonderful ways that they can sometimes go beyond their original intentions or create a crime where there wasn't one to begin with due to various interpretations.
Then again looking back on this, his intentions may actually have an important factor in the future in determining if he will be a repeat offender, if he finds some uncontrolable pleasure in doing this, or he was just completely stupid and made an error in judgement which put him in the position he's in now.
In other words, his intentions determine his chances of being a repeat offender. Based on the details not given in the report and not knowing about the full story due to youth protection, etc..... he could be another Witmore or Joseph F., or he could have learned from his mistakes. It may seem like a no-brainer to you and I on what is accepted and what isn't when it comes to teaching our children about sex, but unfortunatly not everybody is on par with our level of understanding.
Knowing about how this situation came to be and where the father's frame of mind was, will help base a foundation on whether or not he may repeat in the future or is he aware and embarassed about his mistake.
There's not enough info that I see, therefore I'm not about to say he should have his balls cut off just yet.
Quoting DurkaDurka
I don't care about intentions, I am asking about what actually happened to come to the determination that is was unlawful sexual touching of a person under 14.
Praxius, the fact that he was found guilty of mollesting the girl would make any debate regarding his intentions moot.
Come on Praxius, this guy knew exactly what he was doing, you don't molest children by accident or because you don't under stand norms in society.
Come on Praxius, this guy knew exactly what he was doing, you don't molest children by accident or because you don't under stand norms in society.
I'm not about to jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon until I know why I'm jumping on. Laws are worded in such wonderful ways that they can sometimes go beyond their original intentions or create a crime where there wasn't one to begin with due to various interpretations.
Then again looking back on this, his intentions may actually have an important factor in the future in determining if he will be a repeat offender, if he finds some uncontrolable pleasure in doing this, or he was just completely stupid and made an error in judgement which put him in the position he's in now.
In other words, his intentions determine his chances of being a repeat offender. Based on the details not given in the report and not knowing about the full story due to youth protection, etc..... he could be another Witmore or Joseph F., or he could have learned from his mistakes. It may seem like a no-brainer to you and I on what is accepted and what isn't when it comes to teaching our children about sex, but unfortunatly not everybody is on par with our level of understanding.
Knowing about how this situation came to be and where the father's frame of mind was, will help base a foundation on whether or not he may repeat in the future or is he aware and embarassed about his mistake.
There's not enough info that I see, therefore I'm not about to say he should have his balls cut off just yet.
April 30th, 2008, 03:09 PM
To me Prax the key factors in play would be the 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have given in to you' (given in... think about that statement), and the combined statements that he was teaching her about orgasm and touching her unlawfully. I know you need to fill the rest in, because they aren't about to write it all out in an article... "and then he stroked her to show her what an orgasm was..." Frankly I'd be disgusted if the article was anymore descriptive than it is. The guilty verdict, and his letter, speak volumes.
To me Prax the key factors in play would be the 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have given in to you' (given in... think about that statement), and the combined statements that he was teaching her about orgasm and touching her unlawfully. I know you need to fill the rest in, because they aren't about to write it all out in an article... "and then he stroked her to show her what an orgasm was..." Frankly I'd be disgusted if the article was anymore descriptive than it is. The guilty verdict, and his letter, speak volumes.
April 30th, 2008, 03:17 PM
That being said Prax, to your discussion of what is/isn't appropriate.
Once my kids were walking and able (three or so) to bathe themselves, I would watch and make sure they washed themselves, but, short of them having some medical issue, I don't touch their genitalia at all. There's no reason. They read books which explain the parts, the importance of keeping them clean. They see drawing and read descriptions. That's plenty. There's no need for a manual tutorial (especially given that a girl can't easily see what you might be pointing to anyway). Good old fashioned time (and inevitable masturbation) are perfectly natural ways that kids about their bodies, without the all mighty adults needing to meddle and fuss and cross lines like that.
That being said Prax, to your discussion of what is/isn't appropriate.
Once my kids were walking and able (three or so) to bathe themselves, I would watch and make sure they washed themselves, but, short of them having some medical issue, I don't touch their genitalia at all. There's no reason. They read books which explain the parts, the importance of keeping them clean. They see drawing and read descriptions. That's plenty. There's no need for a manual tutorial (especially given that a girl can't easily see what you might be pointing to anyway). Good old fashioned time (and inevitable masturbation) are perfectly natural ways that kids about their bodies, without the all mighty adults needing to meddle and fuss and cross lines like that.
World Police
Posts: 4,438
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 30th, 2008, 03:19 PM
The girl was 5 years old, Praxius, there is no reason for a child that age to be taught about sex nor is there any way one can confuse what he did as a moment of stupidity.
The girl was 5 years old, Praxius, there is no reason for a child that age to be taught about sex nor is there any way one can confuse what he did as a moment of stupidity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,464
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 30th, 2008, 06:34 PM
Quoting Praxius
I'm not about to jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon until I know why I'm jumping on.
Good job. If that bandwagon had many more jumpers it'd break an axle. the press nowadays have got the whole population so fired up about this kind of thing objectivity is impossible.
I'm not about to jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon until I know why I'm jumping on.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,484
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
April 30th, 2008, 06:40 PM
Woof!
Quoting hermanntrude
It's probably safe to say, in this case, the hunt is over. What's so wrong about the press being all over it? The legal system isn't dispensing any justice as far as I can see. Maybe some public knowledge of what these "people" are all about might keep them on the straight and narrow.
Good job. If that bandwagon had many more jumpers it'd break an axle. the press nowadays have got the whole population so fired up about this kind of thing objectivity is impossible.
Woof!
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,736
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 30th, 2008, 08:38 PM
Quoting karrie
Well like I said from what I read, and the part I seen was the bottom where it said they talked about orgasms, but nothing about those details.... I must have jumped a paragraph or something when I switched back, I stand corrected.
To me Prax the key factors in play would be the 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have given in to you' (given in... think about that statement), and the combined statements that he was teaching her about orgasm and touching her unlawfully. I know you need to fill the rest in, because they aren't about to write it all out in an article... "and then he stroked her to show her what an orgasm was..." Frankly I'd be disgusted if the article was anymore descriptive than it is. The guilty verdict, and his letter, speak volumes.
