Judge Gives Man 5 Days for Child Porn, Rails Against Harsh Sentences

This article makes me cringe. We have a 53 yr old man with 5 children. He is engaged in sending and receiving child porn. This is not normal behavior. I am shocked the judge wrote a 98 page doc. On WHY he decided NOT to lock this pedafile up....

What say you ATS? Are you ok with this? Is this ok, or am just old fashioned? I think he deserves a good 15yrs or so in the pen

I'm not good w/this. He was already engaged in this discusting activity in the past.

The judge noted that the man was undergoing sex offender treatment and was deemed unlikely to relapse and that a psychiatrist testified he was not a danger to his own or other children.

A Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge who sharply criticized punishment guidelines for failing to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who pose little threat.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision explaining why he bypassed the guidelines and chose not to put the man in prison for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

"Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials.

L I N K

a reply to: ReadLeader

Unbelievable!

This:

for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

Wouldn't he be "dangerous" just by nature of his appetites?
Doesn't supply and demand indicate that HE is part of the bigger picture and his "needs" "demands" create danger for the children that are being assaulted, exploited, and degraded to serve his sick twisted fetish?
Feed him to the wolves! OR better yet, drop him off up here on the mountain!

Are his children living with him?! Who makes babies with these people?!

Sorry, I'll go back and read the link now, just venting!

OMG!!
From the link!

"It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model

ROLE MODEL!!!! Ha!


One more thing!
He states (the offender)

But he added, "I would never physically do anything. I never had even a thought of it."

BUT...he's currently in "treatment" so...doesn't that indicate that he DID do something in the past?!
I don't get it!


And couldn't this same thing be said of folks who get caught with "personal consumption" amounts of Mary Jane, pills, you know, petty crimes?

That man said that he had done something wrong and was ashamed of it but that locking him up would not have served any purpose and would have "put my family living out on the street."

a reply to: TNMockingbird

He should rot in hell, or a corner in the local pen.... sickening and he reproduced

Go Dad!!! Imagine what his childrens past was like. They will also be messes up..

a reply to: ReadLeader

I'd chop his balls off... No questions asked. He'd lose his gonads permanently.

originally posted by: ReadLeader
This article makes me cringe. We have a 53 yr old man with 5 children. He is engaged in sending and receiving child porn. This is not normal behavior. I am shocked the judge wrote a 98 page doc. On WHY he decided NOT to lock this pedafile up....

What say you ATS? Are you ok with this? Is this ok, or am just old fashioned? I think he deserves a good 15yrs or so in the pen

I'm not good w/this. He was already engaged in this discusting activity in the past.

The judge noted that the man was undergoing sex offender treatment and was deemed unlikely to relapse and that a psychiatrist testified he was not a danger to his own or other children.

A Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge who sharply criticized punishment guidelines for failing to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who pose little threat.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision explaining why he bypassed the guidelines and chose not to put the man in prison for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

"Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials.

L I N K

He was looking at PICTURES! When are you people finally realize that it was the very so called "Child-Porn" scare that had all run and cry for help for better "Online Policing"! And yet the same people who complain against Government snooping still want to see a guy in jail for PICTURES! This is the disgusting part of you! Either you want FREEDOM or you want none, but you can't just "chose" what pictures are OK to look at and what are not and need "policing".

a reply to: Guenter

Are you telling us your pro pedo? Disgusting.. Can i Vomit in your general direction?

too late..

a reply to: Guenter

With all due respect,
Did you read the link?

for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

Why, just asking, would someone choose to look at photos of 3 YEAR OLD CHILDREN being RAPED?

He is a convicted sex offender!

WHY is looking at CHILDREN BEING RAPED considered part of a treatment plan?

Just trying to figure out where you are coming from...

I want freedom for people who do NOT think that RAPING children is okay.

Either you want FREEDOM or you want none

a reply to: TNMockingbird

Only a Pedo would try to demean a child. I'm sick of this world, it's getting worse by the day. Now we have protect children from Adults who think it's normal to do this EVIL sh*t. If one more person stands up for this type of behaviour being 'ok' or 'PC' i'm going to turn to dark magic and cast an evil spell on them, maybe one that magically castrates a'holes....

a reply to: ReadLeader

Sounds like to me someone should look into this judge. Maybe he has something he's hiding.

At least he's consistent!

From October 31, 2015,

6,600 federal inmates to be released this weekend

Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein, who presided over thousands of hearings, said he looked at the facts of the criminal's behavior, the inmate's behavior in prison and their family support while assessing whether an offender would be a danger to the community.

"The first question the judge asks himself is, 'If I release this person now or shorten the sentence now, will he be a greater danger to the community?' and the statistics say very clearly no," he said.

I can understand that logic used on a case-by-case basis and this is not one of those cases. Even worse,

“But when the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange sued the chemical companies in federal court, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907. Weinstein had reportedly told the chemical companies when they settled the U.S. veterans’ suit that their liability was over and he was making good on his promise. His dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The chemical companies admitted in their filing in the Supreme Court that the harm alleged by the victims was foreseeable although not intended. How can something that is foreseeable be unintended?

Link

I'm leaning towards a possible Freemason connection. I'll see what I can dig up. This judge was appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson, a 33rd Degree Mason at the time. We also need to figure out who this "R.V." person is.

a reply to: awareness10

Do...IT!

Twisted individuals who take "rational" thought and just throw it out the window and try and use "our words" against us to serve their sick wants and desires and then cry "oh you want to take our freedoms away!"...

No, I want people like "you" (not YOU, that guy) to live in a hole in darkness where people don't have to be afraid for their children playing in their yard, walking home from school, or just living a normal life (whatever that is today!).
There was an individual, not far from me, who was convicted of having raped his girlfriend's infant child. I will find the article. THEY WERE AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF is wrong with people?!
Adult porn and TODDLER porn are TWO DIFFERENT things!!!!
Period.
That's it.
Finale.
Spell cast away!!!!!!!!

a reply to: Chance321

Maybe the two are ahgghhmm... Oh nvrmd...

Thanks for posting

a reply to: ReadLeader

If terrorists can be held indefinitely then why can't he? These are children's lives we are talking about.

Finding those who create and distribute child porn is the key and the one man who could help break the child porn ring is free to walk and sound the alarm to others and now the distributors will go into hiding.

Inspector Clusseau was less clumsy than this.

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: awareness10

Do...IT!

Twisted individuals who take "rational" thought and just throw it out the window and try and use "our words" against us to serve their sick wants and desires and then cry "oh you want to take our freedoms away!"...

No, I want people like "you" (not YOU, that guy) to live in a hole in darkness where people don't have to be afraid for their children playing in their yard, walking home from school, or just living a normal life (whatever that is today!).
There was an individual, not far from me, who was convicted of having raped his girlfriend's infant child. I will find the article. THEY WERE AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF is wrong with people?!
Adult porn and TODDLER porn are TWO DIFFERENT things!!!!
Period.
That's it.
Finale.
Spell cast away!!!!!!!!

It's already done sister

These subhumans are evil vile f'cks and they don't deserve to live. Thats my opinion and they will get what they deserve.

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter

With all due respect,
Did you read the link?

for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

Why, just asking, would someone choose to look at photos of 3 YEAR OLD CHILDREN being RAPED?

He is a convicted sex offender!

It is no ones business what one chooses to LOOK at. There are many people who delight in LOOKING at the beheading photos and videos of Saudi Arabia. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of FREEDOM to look!

It is exactly this: "But is is for the Children" arguments that enabled TBTB to make "snooping" in our online activities possible. So tomorrow someone finds the secret "free energy" blueprints of Tesla and post's them and now you will be arrested for LOOKING at them because TBTB don't want you to find out how to get off the grid.

You guys focus on the KIDS, and not at the principle right to LOOK! And that is exactly the trap TPTB set you and you run willingly into! But it's for the Children!

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Yes!

AND, it's not just men...

Sick Woman

a reply to: TNMockingbird

Do you ever feel like were living in the book of Revelations? Nothing is normal anymore, everything is pure crap now. What the hell happened ??

a reply to: eisegesis

Wow. Good dig Eis!! Didn't think of that possibility. ..


Thanks for posting

a reply to: Guenter

I'm trying to understand, and I do, to a degree BUT...

If we "allow" this type of behavior who is going to protect the children's freedom?
This is an honest question!

Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by nature of supply and demand.
Crimes ARE being committed. You can't deny that honestly.

I understand "they are pictures" BUT understand that he has committed a crime of a sexual nature in the past and I believe by his consumption of child porn, today, that it is walking a dangerous tightrope to re-offending.
I believe,
No, I can't prove it.

AND, YES, it IS for the children.

a reply to: awareness10

I don't know where the _____ I am!

What the hell happened ??

Brain rot!