Attack on children should be dealt with


View Poll Results: Should child molesters and child pornographers be placed in category with dangerous offenders?
Yes (They should be jailed indefinitely) 6 85.71%
No (They should receive psychiaytic treatment) 1 14.29%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Retired_Can_Soldier
#1
The recent, but certainly not the last child porn ring bust has further reinforced that our laws in Canada are lenient and out of date.

Why is it in a Country as progressive as ours that we can work to protect gays and minorities against crimes of hate, but we cannot find the importance of protecting children against pedophilia?

One of the Canadians who was caught in the latest sting has just been sentenced to 3 1/2 years. A small price to pay when you consider the residual effects put upon a sexually abused child.

We need to toughen sentences and bring the hammer down on these predators.

Best
M
 
Sassylassie
#2
We treat these abhorant bastards better than we treat the victims. Once they are imprisoned they are keep in a segregated section of a prison that houses only convicted rapest, child molestors and other sex crime offenders. God forbid one of them suffers any harm in "General Population" . We coddle these scum suckers, and once out of prison they are back in business. There is no treatment for these preditors, none-nil zip.
 
justfred
#3
I really wonder if we need to increase the sentences that the judges CAN give out or increase the sentences that the judges DO give out? I think that the public are not aware of what appears to be a hidden agenda by all levels of government.
The justice system in Canada is like fishing. They have the “Catch and Release” program in effect now. The police catch the criminals and the justice system releases them. Why? I think that we have too many lawyers fighting for their clients, who have a ton of money at their disposal and will appeal any long term sentence. The criminals have likely not paid any tax on their illegal gotten money and continue to operate their businesses from jail, if they are detained.
Also, I am told that the jails are too full now, but is that because there is too many people being caught or because they do not build more jails to house the crooks? There is a cost to house the crooks, and are we, as Canadians, willing to pay that price? From what we see the people are not prepared to pay now, but prepared to pay with the lives and futures of the children affected.
Solution: What would be the reaction in the courts, if a large group of people were to picket the law courts building where the judge gave the light sentence to this guy? Yell at the judge for letting this guy away with only 3.5 years in jail. Put up a picket line in front of her/his personal home. Have these pickets make sure that they yell at the judge when they are going and coming from work. Have the pickets go to each and every trial that that judge is presiding over and lobby for them to impose higher penalties. Also follow them like a bull dog, make their lives public and get the government to fire or terminate the soft judges.
Also picket they personal homes and the offices of the defense lawyers that are so adapt at getting their clients lighter sentences. Maybe what would bring the lawyers home would be if the public were to insure that their children were molested by the public, and then ask them to defend the public for doing such a thing. I am sure that a lawyer would not want his/her place of work picketed, be followed like a bird dog and hounded if and when he goes to a football game, hockey game, lunch or supper with his/her spouse. Make them know that the public is mad. Do not give them 10 minutes rest.
Also, what about lobbying the government to get after the judges. If the judge does not enforce the laws, but decide that he/she is now in charge of making the laws, fire them on the spot, no recourse. Picket the personal house of the MLA’s, makes sure that the media are there to film all pickets and demonstrations.

Joe Red Neck
 
FiveParadox
#4
justfred , I think that your "idea" would set a very dangerous precedent and, therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, the offender was sentenced to only 3.5 years — however, the maximum possible sentence was 5 years. A judge cannot hand out the maximum sentence when someone co-operates with the court and law enforcement agencies — that is reserved for those who attempt to circumvent the law. Again, he only received eighteen months less than the maximum.

As for your suggestion that we should "hound" these judges to give out tougher sentences, they cannot give out sentences that would contravene the Criminal Code of Canada; it is not possible. If we want tougher sentences, then they must be legislated, not shouted to the bench. The independence of the judiciary must be maintained.
 
Johnny Utah
#5
The Death Penalty should be applied to a Child Killer who rapes then Murders a Child. Since in Canada that will never Bloody happen the best solution is to send anyone who hurts or kills a Child to the toughest prison into general population, Justice would be served.


Guilty verdict in 'Punky' murder trial
Last Updated Wed, 25 May 2005 18:02:13 EDT
CBC News
EDMONTON - Clifford Sleigh has been found guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated assault and kidnapping in the death of six-year-old Edmonton girl Corrine (Punky) Gustavson.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ct_050525.html

The Murderer of Punky Gustavson should have faced the Death Penalty.
 
Sassylassie
#6
Yep, put those sickos into the general population and may they feel the pain of those that have suffered by their hands. I don't care what happens to these men they aren't worthy of compassion. To victims "Justice" means Just us alone and ignored by the system.
 
justfred
#7
FiveParadox It seems that the judges are hypocrites, when they can make new laws when they want to, (or the governments refuse to) and they cannot (different than don't want to) give longer sentences.
Maybe what we need to do is get rid of the surplus of lawyers.
 
Jersay
#8
The judges don't make the law, they try to follow the law. Now I don't mind an overhaul for the justice system but it isn't mostly the justices fault.

They are given a sentence structure to follow and watching this case, for this man this was the highest a criminal has received for this kind of crime and helped the Canadian police forces.

And to Johnny Utah;

How do figure if a man or a woman is quilty or not? How can you 100% find out the truth in 100% of the cases. You can't even with the best DNA evidence people will always make mistakes, tamper with evidence, contaminate the crime scene.

And that is what makes Canada great getting rid of something like the death penalty where who knows how many innocent men and women have been executed in Canada or the United States and doesn't act as a detterent at all because if it did, you wouldn't have crimes like that in AMerica. Simply, the death penalty doesn't work and in a 'civilized' society an eye for an eye is barbaric.

Now putting them into General population isn't a bad idea.
 
Sassylassie
#9
It is not a justice system it's a joke. Move them it and move them out. Prisons cost money and government want to save this money so they can re-direct it to their special interest groups like ACOA. Less lawyers would just free up the ones that are practicing to become Politicians. That's a scary thought.
 
orpheus
#10
Quote:

FiveParadox It seems that the judges are hypocrites, when they can make new laws when they want to, (or the governments refuse to) and they cannot (different that don't want to) give longer sentences.
Maybe what we need to do is get rid of the surplus of lawyers.

You have a very odd definition of hypocrisy, JustFred.

The poll is too simplisitc. And as such, I couldn't possibly answer that. It depends on how the crime was commited, on the person it was commited by, if they really do have a disease etc. etc. etc.
Often people are so ready to call these people "sickos" and the like to de-humanize them. Justice is not found when someone is biased. And I am only glad that the people who accuse them as being "scum bags" etc. do not work in the legal system. How can justice be blind if we label them before they are tried?
 
Jersay
#11
Agreed, if you have a bias to them, and say they are innocent, for example an operation in 1999 that netted hundreds of innocent people as well as dozens of pedophiles, resulted in the sucicides of at least 1 Canadian and many more in Britain and America.

Having this bias until all facts are told isn't healthy, and especially when we are talking about a potentially innocent man's future.
 
Sassylassie
#12
Yes these innocent men had hundreds yes hundreds of pictures showing female babies as young as six month and grown men having sex with them. Yes I'm biased what the puck would you need pictures like that for? But then again most of the victims were females.
 
FiveParadox
#13
The assertion that judges legislate from the bench is completely absurd , and an insult to the administration of justice in Canada. Judges cannot legislate from the bench — have you ever seen a judge mosy on down to the House of Commons , and go "Mr. Speaker, I move that ..." — No.

Judges rule based on the law — the laws handed to them by the Parliament Assembled of Canada . If ever the Courts make a determination based on the law, they can only strike down laws — never create them, except insofar as they believe that a law has evolved (for example, the Court's incorporation of sexual orientation into the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Criminal Code of Canada, a decision I entirely agree with).

And if Parliament ever thinks that the Court has overstepped its bounds, then the House of Commons can use its sweeping power to proceed notwithstanding a decision of the Courts, to overturn a decision of the Courts, or if they saw entirely appropriate, invoke their parliamentary right to convict someone through the House of Commons rather than a courtroom.

Revision : Corrected a typo.
 
Jersay
#14
You are not paying attention. Now this was a chat room yes. It is well known that people have been caught up, innocent people in cases like this and they have been villified when they had nothing to do with it.

And keeping unbiased opinions until the case isd heard, and other cases in the future is heard that ensures that innocent people aren't wrongly convicted.

We don't know about the other 26, we don't know if some are innocent and were just using the forum for god knows what, but until that is found out in a court of law, biased opinions of people doesn't help.
 
cortez
#15
I fully agree with you on this issue. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated and remain a danger to society. This MUST be recognized in their sentencing, and they should be jailed for LIFE.
 
FiveParadox
#16
cortez , judges cannot make that decision.

If we want offenders such as these to be imprisoned for life as a sentence for their crime, then that must be brought through the Parliament of Canada — not the judiciary.
 
Sassylassie
#17
Five in the "Real World" our reigning government is useless as tits on a bull. Special interest groups and lobbiest (for industry) run this government. When their not sucking the tit of the tax payers. Cortez thank you, I was begining to feel like I was screaming at myself.
 
cortez
#18
Well, these individuals ARE dangerous offenders. I dont see why the dangerous offender clause cant be invoked to keep them behind bars. Society has to be prepared to spend the money to do so.
 
orpheus
#19
Quote:

Yes these innocent men had hundreds yes hundreds of pictures showing female babies as young as six month and grown men having sex with them. Yes I'm biased what the puck would you need pictures like that for? But then again most of the victims were females.

Then that's your problem. And it's a good thing for this society that you're not a judge. Your emotion gets the better of you.

Quote:

I fully agree with you on this issue. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated and remain a danger to society. This MUST be recognized in their sentencing, and they should be jailed for LIFE.

I don't suppose you're going to try to justify what you've said. Do you have proof that they can't be rehabillitated? I mean, Denmark rehabilitates all the time, and they have the lowest reoffending rate in the world (along with France.)

Quote:

Five in the "Real World" our reigning government is useless as tits on a bull. Special interest groups and lobbiest (for industry) run this government.

That's called Democracy. In the real world if you want your voice heard you have every right to lobby the government so they listen to what you want. That's democracy. The voice of the people is being heard by the government.
 
Sassylassie
#20
Lord love a duck if you have to ask that question you don't have clue what your talking about. The voice of the "People" are heard by lobbyest not the people what is everyone is high school.
 
orpheus
#21
Holy crap, invest in a grammar guide. You made absolutely no sense.
 
Jersay
#22
So lets do it Sassy's way and anyone who is caught up in a pedophile catch should immediately be sent to jail without a trial even if there is a slight possibility that they are innocent.
 
orpheus
#23
That's a brilliant idea!
 
FiveParadox
#24
Sassylassie , I am in high school, and I absolutely refuse to invest any credence in this idea that the world is truly as hollow and bleak as some here would tend to inform me. Yes, I know, I am going to be flamed for this post most assuredly for being some sort of liberal communist, or whatever, but quite frankly, I don't give a damn.

I choose to look upon our system of governance with optimism and fresh ideas. And if it needs to be changed, then God damnit, I am going to be one of the hands that does it.
 
Jersay
#25
Child porn suspects set to be cleared in evidence ‘shambles’
David Leppard





DOZENS of men accused of downloading child pornography from the internet may have been wrongly prosecuted, according to expert prosecution and defence witnesses.

New evidence suggests that Operation Ore, Britain’s biggest child pornography investigation, may have prosecuted innocent men on the basis of discredited American police testimony and questionable forensic methods.

Jim Bates, a computer expert who has served as a witness for the prosecution or the defence in more than 100 child porn cases, says many Ore cases are now likely to collapse or be overturned in the Court of Appeal. “It has been a shambles from the word go,” he said.

The nationwide police investigation was launched three years ago after a list of 7,200 British suspects was supplied to British police by American authorities.

The men on the list stand accused of having used their credit cards to pay for child porn through Landslide, a sex website that operated in Texas from 1996-9.

The accusations have led to 33 suicides, most recently that of Commodore David White, the commander of British forces in Gibraltar. He was found dead in his swimming pool on January 8.

Bates believes records of credit card transactions on the site are unreliable and therefore the names of alleged subscribers cannot be used as evidence.

Thomas Reedy, the man who set up the website, was investigated by the FBI in the 1990s for credit card fraud. “I am convinced that a massive fraud has been perpetrated at Landslide and an unknown number of subscriptions are fake,” said Bates.

He cites the case of Dr Paul Grout, a senior accident specialist at Hull Royal Infirmary, who was falsely accused of accessing child porn. Grout, who was praised for his help at the 2001 Selby rail crash, lost his £70,000-a-year job because of the allegations. Many of his friends “drifted off” and he and his wife Susie endured huge strains on their marriage.

It was not until his case came to Hull crown court in April last year that the Yorkshire doctor was able to prove his innocence. His lawyers showed that, while Grout had used his credit card to pay for a meal in a restaurant in Yorkshire, someone else had been using it 5,000 miles away in Lake Tahoe, America.

In a case that legal experts believe may prove a landmark judgment, Judge David Bentley threw out the prosecution argument. In his judgment, Bentley dismissed some police evidence as “utter nonsense”. He said the way the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had held back some information vital to Grout’s defence had “stunk of unfairness”.

Another computer user wrongly accused of downloading child pornography was Robert Del Naja, frontman of the group Massive Attack. His arrest in February 2003 was leaked to the media but the case against him was dropped less than a month later.

One police officer, Peter Johnston, became so disillusioned at what he described as the Ore “witch-hunt” that he resigned from his job with Merseyside police.

In a letter to The Sunday Times, Johnston said: “I began to doubt the validity of the evidence surrounding the circumstances of the initial investigation in America . . . I found it difficult to rationalise how offenders had been identified solely on a credit card number.”

Bates believes that evidence, highlighted by Duncan Campbell, an investigative journalist and an expert witness in some Ore cases, could lead to many cases being dropped.

In an article in last week’s Sunday Times, Campbell revealed that sworn statements provided in British courts by two American detectives who initiated Operation Ore could no longer be relied upon.

The two, Dallas detective Steve Nelson and US postal inspector Michael Mead, had claimed that everyone who went to Landslide always did so through a front-page screen button saying “Click Here (for) Child Porn”.

But Campbell has established that the button was never on the website’s front page. Instead it was on an advertisement for another website buried deep in the Landslide website.

That discovery has effectively removed a key plank of many of the Ore prosecutions where no actual child porn was found.

Those prosecutions were based on the assertion that evidence that someone had paid to access Landslide automatically meant that they had paid to access child porn.

Steve Barker, a solicitor who acts for one Operation Ore suspect in a High Court appeal, said that in many prosecutions police were unable to disprove defendants had simply accessed legal adult porn rather than paedophile material. In other cases, child porn might have been accessed accidentally by those looking for adult porn.

The CPS has also disclosed that an internal inquiry has raised serious questions over the evidence provided by Brian Underhill, a key police witness in some 600 Ore cases. The CPS said it would now disclose the doubts raised by its inquiry to defence solicitors before future trials began.

The CPS last week defended its role in the hundreds of successful cases in which defendants had pleaded guilty. A spokeswoman said: “Each case was considered on its own merits and the evidence provided by police has been subject to thorough scrutiny.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...10-523,00.html

Operation Ore is the UK's biggest ever IT crime investigation, but expert witness Duncan Campbell reveals that many prosecutions were founded on falsehoods
They arrive without warning at six in the morning. Drowsily rising, Adam Smith finds two polite, suited men. 'Police. May we come in?'

The scene starts to shift. 'I am arresting you on suspicion of possessing and distributing child pornography. We have a search warrant.' Behind their backs, Smith sees a flurry of others moving in. They are firm but not aggressive - they know they are dealing with a middle-class, educated professional with no criminal history.

A female officer corners his wife and asks her if she knew her husband was a paedophile. Would she please make up an excuse for the kids not going to school today? A family social worker will be coming over to interview them - in case her husband has been abusing his own children.

Politeness is maintained at the police station. Booked in, interviewed. They ask him to confirm his credit card number and the email addresses he used in 1999. They show him a copy of a credit card bill they have already got from his bank. They point to a payment to Landslide Productions. 'You paid for child pornography; that's what that is.' He says 'no' and that he's never heard of that company.

The facts they put so confidently seem to fit, except that Smith has never had any interest in children other than being a good dad.

In one day, for no cause he can understand, Smith has become a pariah, one of the most hated, baited people in the country, a suspected child-molesting paedophile. In the months ahead, it will only get worse.

Even if his computer is eventually found

ADVERTISEMENT

to contain nothing more sexually unusual than the proportions of Samantha Fox, he faces months of fearing trial, stigma and possible jail, accused merely of 'inciting' the sale of child porn, based solely on computer data found years ago in a Texas office block.

Mass arrests

Operation Ore launched on British TV screens on 20 May 2002. The BBC led on 'mass arrests over online child porn'. Thirty-six people were arrested, with promises of thousands more to follow. It made for compelling television, and provoked a rash of tabloid activity, but it also led to increased pressure on the police to bring the remaining thousands to justice.

Unfortunately, not all the evidence presented was quite as clear cut as it seemed. Clearly visible on the bulletin was a computer screen displaying Exhibit One of Operation Ore. In the middle of the screen were the words 'Click Here CHILD PORN'.

According to witness statements sworn by the US detective Steven Nelson and US Postal Inspector Michael Mead, this was the front page of Landslide Productions Inc, a company at the centre of child porn allegations. To go further, they testified, those prosecuted must have clicked on 'Enter'. They would then be taken to a page that proclaimed itself as 'the most controversial site on the Web ... no legal content ... phedophilias [sic]... all sick, all sex maniacs'. Click on and they would be taken to 'Lolita World', and from there, said Nelson, to a host of child porn websites offered by Keyz, a separate service offered by Landslide.

The Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit let the BBC cameras in on the planning process for Operation Ore raids for a series shown a year ago: 'Police Protecting Children'. At the start of the show was a PowerPoint briefing for the raiding teams. Slide 1 showed the 'Click here' banner, with the legend 'First they are into an adult site. And choose to go to a child site'.

To British police and prosecutors, this was killer evidence. It meant everyone who had been to Landslide had knowingly chosen to access child porn. It meant that everyone who had subscribed to the site must automatically be guilty.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/7469...e-exposed.html
 
orpheus
#26
Quote:

Sassylassie, I am in high school, and I absolutely refuse to invest any credence in this idea that the world is truly as hollow and bleak as some here would tend to inform me. Yes, I know, I am going to be flamed for this post most assuredly for being some sort of liberal communist, or whatever, but quite frankly, I don't give a damn.

I choose to look upon our system of governance with optimism and fresh ideas. And if it needs to be changed, then God damnit, I am going to be one of the hands that does it.

I agree with you whole heartedly. And you may be in high school but you are certainly more intelligent than the majority on this forum.

I hate the pessimism that has ran its way through our society. Everyone complains and yet, no one acts upon their irritation. It's absolutely sickening.

And fiveparadox, I'm going to be one of those hands as well.
And jersay ignore that article, let's kill them anyway.
 
cortez
#27
I agree, Orpheus, that clarification is required here. I am discussing the very high risk violent offenders, who have raped, physically harmed or killed children. Studies on recidivism rates are contentious, due to differing definitions, level of followup surveillance, and underreporting of subsequent events. (Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders. Journal of interpersonal Violence, 8, 512-523, Quinsey et al ) I dont feel that the risk to society from these individuals is acceptable.
 
Jersay
#28
It seems to be headed that way orpheus, why don't some of these people come out and say, why do we need judges at all.

Who ever the police arrest must be quilty so lets kill them.
 
FiveParadox
#29
In my opinion, if I were the one drafting the legislation to be used for the administration of justice, I would be far more inclined to legislate based on risk, rather than revenge. Someone who commits tax evasion, or fraud, should never be imprisoned, in my opinion — it is a waste of resources, and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Now, where crimes are committed that relate to violence against a person or living creature, then that is where imprisonment should be considered — we should imprison those who pose a threat to society and, for that reason, would need to be quarantined from the population. Other than imprisoning those who pose a tangible risk to society, imprisonment becomes no more than a waste of resources, and an empty effort to quench the human desire for revenge.
 
FiveParadox
#30
Thank-you for the compliment, orpheus .

By the way, I absolutely adore your signature.
 

Similar Threads

31
An Attack on Israel Attack on Canada, eh?
by darkbeaver | Feb 24th, 2010
5
Our children
by jack.windsor | Nov 12th, 2007
0
Allen Iverson dealt to Nuggets
by CBC News | Dec 19th, 2006