WTF kind of sentence you think you would receive if you embezzled $600,000? How about if you were a corrupt prosecutor who violated the public trust? Prosecutors wield an immense amount of power, often unchecked due to the wide discretion they are accorded in charging decisions and how they prosecute a case. This loser is in the national news. Read the News article and see if any of this makes any sense. Still think your vote for prosecutor or sheriff should be made blindly? Public corruption is an infection that spreads. Enjoy the security system, loser.
Josh Duggar found guilty in child pornography trial.
Thanks to a reader.
Duggar, a 33-year-old “reality TV personality” and hate-mongering anti-LGBTQ activist, was found guilty by a jury on one count each of receiving and possessing child pornography.
I guess the Evangelical/Christian counseling after he molested his younger sisters didn’t take. An investigator for Homeland Security testified that the child porn images confiscated from Duggar’s computer were “in the top five of the worst of the worst that I’ve ever had to examine.”
I’m sure you can find some “Bible time” in prison, Josh–just minus the 12-year-olds. Enjoy “reality” prison, you hateful freak.
He could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison on these charges. Let’s hope it is not another light sentence, because the odds of this guy not victimizing another child physically or by consuming child pornography are exactly zero.
Protecting Pedophiles is always at the expense of victims.
An assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University (VA) has an interesting twist on preventing crime and child advocacy. https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/allyn-walker-says-attraction-to-children-isnt-immoral/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons. Or maybe a twisted interest. Professor Allyn Walker defended their book, A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity, calling for pedophiles who do not act on their desires to be called “MAPs,” because there is nothing immoral about such a sexual attraction absent the commission of a crime on minor, and the word pedophile has become synonymous with sex offender. Due to safety concerns for the professor and the campus, Walker has been placed on administrative leave. https://www.wtkr.com/news/odu-puts-assistant-professor-on-administrative-leave-following-controversial-interview-defending-people-attracted-to-children.
I don’t even know where to start. The fine points about the definition of “pedophelia,” which Miriam-Webster specifically defines as “a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child;” the attempt to give a “nicer” name to those who are sexually attracted to children but do not act on their desires (yet); or the attempt to make me the immoral one for thinking MAPs are still pedophiles and as such ticking time bombs?
Victims of child sexual exploitation/abuse have the sanctity of their bodies, their safety, and their dignity taken away. The entire world crashes down around them because of this heinous, violent and criminal violation and abuse of power disguised as sex acts. Many times they are not even believed by people close to them, or are threatened so they won’t come forward at all, to anyone. If they do, the legal system usually finds a way to re-victimize in one way or many ways. The law in every state dictates that a minor cannot consent, under any circumstance, to sexual contact. Yet society is supposed to give a gold star to people for not acting on their illegal sexual impulses? A special name, a special category? If Professor Walker is serious about child abuse prevention, maybe next they can research how many MAPs remain that way for life and don’t cross into using child pornography or acting on their desires. Compare the studies of how many victims an “offending” pedophile usually has over the course of a lifetime, and how these criminals do not “age out” of their sex crimes. Society deems what is moral and immoral, not the defenders of “harmless” sexual attraction towards minors. How can they defend such a fine and warped line?