Judge Rollo also noted a psychological report stated the man had shown "huge remorse", that he had no previous convictions, was "prominently" described as someone "of good character" and had contributed to the community both personally and through business.
What. The. Heck?
How can a person that downloads, views, and shares child pornography be described as "of good character" ???
I don't care what this man has done for his community, or about his lack of previous criminal convictions (all that means is that he hasn't been caught). I want to know that i am not dealing with someone who involves himself in the rape of children when i am dealing with any business.
The whole argument surrounding name suppression is that it is to protect the victim. That argument cannot apply here because there is no name that can be put to the faces that this man got off on watching being raped.
I am absolutely disgusted and angered that our judicial system would even consider protecting a predator like this man.
FOUL.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment