Evangelist Sentenced to 175 Years in Prison

[Aught3]

The wickedness of religion is revealed yet again.

 

[borrofburi]

lol the judge resorted to childish "yah well you'll burn in hell some day!"

 

[WolfAU]

The wickedness of religion is revealed yet again.

Not so much the wickedness of the church, but how easily the bullshit loopholes the church created can be abused by others (ie religious figures using the trust and authority given to them to abuse children).

Example; the church makes a virtue of blind faith and trust and condemns skepticism, which can then be abused by con artists and other unsavoury individuals. This I hold the church partially accountable for, as they have raised generation after generation of people mentally unprepared to deal with the world around them.

 

[TheFearmonger]

GOOD!!! Fucking bastard needs to rot to pieces, the demented waste. Pedophilia, kidnapping, violation of trust, rape,... this mutha fucker should have his dick chewed off by a leopard and then feed him, a little bit each day, to ravenous crows. I wish I was the judge, I would have put the fear of god in his ass, the little bitch. He's lucky he got off so light. And if there is a god, he would obviously base afterlives on morality, as he isn't any of the religions we have today. This guy will get the special treatment, if there is a god somewhere.
...
...
Asshole needs to have his face ripped off and fed to him...

 

[Homunclus]

I'll never understand this 100 and something years of prison sentences...why not just say: "condemned to prison for life"?

 

[TheFearmonger]

I'll never understand this 100 and something years of prison sentences...why not just say: "condemned to prison for life"?

The law will not allow you to use such a vague term such as, "for life". Instead. the person gets an outrageous sentance so they can never work off enough years in their lifetime to get out. Good behavior, ect., is useless to him now, because he will be in until his death. YAAAAAH!!!

 

[Durakken]

On the one hand...good, but on the other hand I'm torn about it. he reason he is going to jail is due to statutory rape which I find is bull and should be done away with...of course then you say he threatened her, but if i mime holding a gun and walk to someone and point an imaginary gun at their head then you can't say you were forced other wise you are working from the basis that there is a gun in my hand that you can't see. So I disagree with the motive for the sentence and the sentencing...

 

[TheFearmonger]

:shock: :evil:
He took kids across state lines to have old men have sex with them! What the fuck do you mean?!
I have no problem with underage people having sex, but someone like this, who uses his leverage as their spiritual advisor to use them for his pleasure and profit, should be killed. SLOWLY.

 

[Durakken]

By mentioning their age and position you are implying that either the kids did not choose, could not choose, or the threat was in some way real. I don't hear one mention of forcing anyone to do anything. What I hear is a supid person got taken be a con man.

 

[Aught3]

statutory rape which I find is bull and should be done away with

So you think it should be legal for an adult to have sex with a child?

 

[TheFearmonger]

By mentioning their age and position you are implying that either the kids did not choose, could not choose, or the threat was in some way real. I don't hear one mention of forcing anyone to do anything. What I hear is a supid person got taken be a con man.

The video says some of the girls were eight. EIGHT, goddamn it! I don't care about whether he got these girls to think it would be fun or not, this person is a sick fuck. Taken acroos state lines inplies some sort of agreement or organization with someone else. This is tantamount to a pedophile ring. These people are disgusting. It's not about statutory rape, whether a 15 or 16 year old had sex with anyone. But EIGHT!?? No. No way.

 

[Durakken]

I'm perfectly fine with anything between consenting individuals. Whether they are a child or an adult makes no difference to me. Consent is based on whether or not the individual is sane and can understand what they are being asked to consent to or not consent to.

Whether the child consented or not or had the ability to is a whole other question.

As far as age is concerned and saying "one was EIGHT!!!!!" well i certainly knew and understand what sex was before I was 8. While I am certain I'm probably ahead of the curve in learning and understanding things so I'm off on what the average person understands at that age I am certain that most 8 year olds do have an understanding of some sort of sex.

 

[TheFearmonger]

I'm perfectly fine with anything between consenting individuals. Whether they are a child or an adult makes no difference to me. Consent is based on whether or not the individual is sane and can understand what they are being asked to consent to or not consent to.

Whether the child consented or not or had the ability to is a whole other question.

As far as age is concerned and saying "one was EIGHT!!!!!" well i certainly knew and understand what sex was before I was 8. While I am certain I'm probably ahead of the curve in learning and understanding things so I'm off on what the average person understands at that age I am certain that most 8 year olds do have an understanding of some sort of sex.

knowing what sex is at whatever age isn't the point. yes, of course people know about sex even earlier, but that doesn't matter here. Old men took children from their sunday school and had sex with them. Do you really believe a child understands sex to the point that they could engage in it? They aren't even in puberty, so they aren't even ready to do the nasty with some fifty year old men. your argument would have some merit with people over, say 13, so they at least won't permanently harm themselves.
Also, not one, it said some were as young as eight, which says more than one, and others were most likely around that area. kids cannot speak for their own interests. If you had a eight-year old girl, who was took across state lines to service adult men, and you asked her beforehand, "Is it ok if your preacher penetrates you?", does it matter at all what she says? I hope not.

 

[Durakken]

You are misplacing the point at where and why something is wrong.

If I had an 8 year old daughter that wanted to go have sex with a 50 year old man I'd sit down and discuss and see if she actually understood what it is she thought. If I found that she understood it then I'd have no problem with it. If not then I wouldn't allow it.

Harming yourself is not a reason enough to tell someone no.
Age is not a reason to tell someone no.

What you don't understand is that consent and understanding is not just "knowing". Most people know for example e=mc^2, but how many people actually understand that the equation means that energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light and further most people don't understand the implication that that statement means...

Knowing is not Understanding and the reverse is true... as well Understanding is not Knowing, but both help each other.


and as far as pushing the "limit" to 13 ...that is just as invalid as any other age.

 

[Fiends]

Obviously you've never had a child because I can promise you that if you had a daughter and she wanted to have sex or was conned into having sex with a 50 year old man you would say absolutely not, whether she understood what sex was or not. Oh, and if you said yes, you would go to jail with the 50 year old.

 

[TheFearmonger]

What you don't understand is that consent and understanding is not just "knowing". Most people know for example e=mc^2, but how many people actually understand that the equation means that energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light and further most people don't understand the implication that that statement means...


and as far as pushing the "limit" to 13 ...that is just as invalid as any other age.

Actually, I do recognize this. But my argument is, do you think an 8-year old girl understands this and could give legitimate consent, especially when the person using her is someone with power over her that has(or rather had) the trust of people?
I attempted to see your point by stretching what I could concievably see as an age for someone to have sex. As far as that goes, I think every one should wait until they are 25, when the brain stops forming and they have "grown up", in a sense. An unpopular opinion, to be sure, but then again, I don't really care. At 10, however, they are starting to form their own mind, their own body, ect. At the very least wait until then. 13 was an indication that they should at least wait until puberty.

 

[Aught3]

Whether the child consented or not or had the ability to is a whole other question.

No, it is the actual question. Society decides that at certain ages a person is granted additional rights, examples are: driving a car, signing contracts, buying alcohol, and sex. Age limits are partially arbitrary but as a matter of practicality they need to be set at a certain point. Below a certain age a child is considered to be unable to give consent for sexual acts, that's why it's called rape.

In the case of the eight year old it is even more disturbing because the child is very unlikely to even understand what sex is and can in no way give their consent.

Obviously you've never had a child because I can promise you that if you had a daughter and she wanted to have sex or was conned into having sex with a 50 year old man you would say absolutely not, whether she understood what sex was or not. Oh, and if you said yes, you would go to jail with the 50 year old.

And it would be extremely satisfying to see such an awful father locked away.

 

[Durakken]

I don't consider arbitrary age restriction laws as valid.

You can make the argument that at that age they couldn't understand but that is nonsense. Different people understand different things at different times. And understanding is a matter of various experiences and knowledge that combine.

The only reason we have arbitrary age laws is because we as a whole are lazy and don't want to explore whether someone can or can't make a decision. It's just a matter of practicality which has made people forget the why of the law. Its the same problem we are seeing in just about every other law out there. People are abusing the laws because the words of the law are being followed and not the meaning of them.


Also it's a shame that no one picked up on it... this is sorta like suicide. Yes, you are in every right able to do it and Im willing to let you if you show me you are sane at the moment... the fact that you want to kill yourself generally indicates you are not sane so you have to give extraordinary evidence you are sane. Same thing. The fact that a child would allow this indicates that there is a lack of understanding in most cases.

Also, someone that commits a crime indicates to me that they are ill in some way. The solution is not to throw them in jail. Its to treat their illness like any other.

 

[TheFearmonger]

I don't consider arbitrary age restriction laws as valid.

You can make the argument that at that age they couldn't understand but that is nonsense. Different people understand different things at different times. And understanding is a matter of various experiences and knowledge that combine.

The only reason we have arbitrary age laws is because we as a whole are lazy and don't want to explore whether someone can or can't make a decision. It's just a matter of practicality which has made people forget the why of the law. Its the same problem we are seeing in just about every other law out there. People are abusing the laws because the words of the law are being followed and not the meaning of them.


Also it's a shame that no one picked up on it... this is sorta like suicide. Yes, you are in every right able to do it and Im willing to let you if you show me you are sane at the moment... the fact that you want to kill yourself generally indicates you are not sane so you have to give extraordinary evidence you are sane. Same thing. The fact that a child would allow this indicates that there is a lack of understanding in most cases.

Also, someone that commits a crime indicates to me that they are ill in some way. The solution is not to throw them in jail. Its to treat their illness like any other.

I understand your argument, and to AN EXTENT, I agree, but it has no place in a case where some of the sex victims were 8, which would put them in third grade. No way they understand this to the degree that they could make a good judgement on it.

And, even better than jail, which costs money, or treatment, which might not work, feed him to zoo animals. Think about it. He won't do it again, this saves money, and if someone at a zoo sees a pedo's carcass being dragged into a cave by a lion, they will be less likely to do his crime. Works out for all involved :mrgreen:

 

[Aught3]

The only reason we have arbitrary age laws is because we as a whole are lazy and don't want to explore whether someone can or can't make a decision. It's just a matter of practicality...

That's the whole point, age restrictions are the most practical way to protect children who cannot make these decisions from those who would take advantage of them. There are plenty of examples of laws that remain in the books but that are not enforced. Blasphemy, smacking, even some instances of statutory rape are not prosecuted when the age of the two people involved are close together. The age limit has to be set somewhere, it's just not sensible to have an individual assessment for every child to determine when they are ready for a particular responsibility.

Also, someone that commits a crime indicates to me that they are ill in some way. The solution is not to throw them in jail. Its to treat their illness like any other.

I disagree, greed can often be a motivating factor for crime and this is not an illness but a healthy part of the human condition. Treatment is also necessary if the person is to re-enter society but a punishment is also needed as a deterrent for others.