Karly
01-15-2004, 12:05 PM
Post what you think of it.
TALKING POINTS: SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
Sympathy for the devil.... a guy who trafficked in child pornography.
That's the subject of tonight's Talking Points Memo.
In today's New York Times, you will find this article on convicted child pornographer Jose Pabon-Cruz... and a federal judge who feels sorry for him (Note to Bill O'Reilly Premium Members: Go here to send a letter or petition to The New York Times about this issue).
I know it's hard to believe, but here's the deal.
Judge Gerald Lynch, who sits here in Manhattan, apparently objected to a mandatory sentence of ten years that he had to give Pabon-Cruz (a 1996 law stipulates that if you are convicted for trafficking in kiddie porn, you MUST receive a ten year jail sentence).
So I'm sitting here reading this and wondering why ANYBODY would object to giving this guy ten years. Here's what he did:
* Operated a sophisticated image exchange device for three months, during which time he sent over 8,000 pictures of children being abused to almost 3,000 perverts.
* He was 18 years old when caught by the feds, and he was actually luring people to his site by advertising on sites like pre-teen-rape-sex.com.
* His trial lasted less than a week.
* He had no defense other than to say he didn't know he was committing a crime. (I would have tacked on another two years if I were the judge for insulting the intelligence of the court.)
Anyway, The New York Times, which has been railing against mandatory sentencing for years, apparently felt profiling THIS case - and the misguided judge - would help its editorial cause.
YOU make the call.
But let me say this: sexually abusing children is like putting a blowtorch to their skin. It scars them emotionally forever. It can easily ruin a child's life.
Society must - I repeat, must - deter people from exploiting children in this manner by punishing them harshly, in every aspect of this vile business.
Judge Gerald Lynch had to be ordered by a higher federal judge to impose the Congressionally mandated sentence on this pervert, and Judge Lynch actually wanted to tell the jury BEFORE they rendered a verdict that he had objections to the mandatory sentence... in the hope the jury would share his sympathies.
For this, Judge Gerald Lynch needs to resign or be replaced. He is a disgrace to the bench.
As for The New York Times, it is enough to know that the paper continues to impose its editorial view on its news pages.
We are living in a time where a federal judge feels that trafficking in child pornography and selling hard drugs are crimes that deserve sympathy.
Of course these actions destroy lives - everybody knows that - yet some judges press on with their misguided beliefs.
That's why Congress passed mandatory sentencing laws. By the way: Pabon-Cruz got off lightly. The new mandatory sentence for what he did is 15 years - which should depress Judge Lynch and The New York Times even more.
And that's the memo.
TALKING POINTS: SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
Sympathy for the devil.... a guy who trafficked in child pornography.
That's the subject of tonight's Talking Points Memo.
In today's New York Times, you will find this article on convicted child pornographer Jose Pabon-Cruz... and a federal judge who feels sorry for him (Note to Bill O'Reilly Premium Members: Go here to send a letter or petition to The New York Times about this issue).
I know it's hard to believe, but here's the deal.
Judge Gerald Lynch, who sits here in Manhattan, apparently objected to a mandatory sentence of ten years that he had to give Pabon-Cruz (a 1996 law stipulates that if you are convicted for trafficking in kiddie porn, you MUST receive a ten year jail sentence).
So I'm sitting here reading this and wondering why ANYBODY would object to giving this guy ten years. Here's what he did:
* Operated a sophisticated image exchange device for three months, during which time he sent over 8,000 pictures of children being abused to almost 3,000 perverts.
* He was 18 years old when caught by the feds, and he was actually luring people to his site by advertising on sites like pre-teen-rape-sex.com.
* His trial lasted less than a week.
* He had no defense other than to say he didn't know he was committing a crime. (I would have tacked on another two years if I were the judge for insulting the intelligence of the court.)
Anyway, The New York Times, which has been railing against mandatory sentencing for years, apparently felt profiling THIS case - and the misguided judge - would help its editorial cause.
YOU make the call.
But let me say this: sexually abusing children is like putting a blowtorch to their skin. It scars them emotionally forever. It can easily ruin a child's life.
Society must - I repeat, must - deter people from exploiting children in this manner by punishing them harshly, in every aspect of this vile business.
Judge Gerald Lynch had to be ordered by a higher federal judge to impose the Congressionally mandated sentence on this pervert, and Judge Lynch actually wanted to tell the jury BEFORE they rendered a verdict that he had objections to the mandatory sentence... in the hope the jury would share his sympathies.
For this, Judge Gerald Lynch needs to resign or be replaced. He is a disgrace to the bench.
As for The New York Times, it is enough to know that the paper continues to impose its editorial view on its news pages.
We are living in a time where a federal judge feels that trafficking in child pornography and selling hard drugs are crimes that deserve sympathy.
Of course these actions destroy lives - everybody knows that - yet some judges press on with their misguided beliefs.
That's why Congress passed mandatory sentencing laws. By the way: Pabon-Cruz got off lightly. The new mandatory sentence for what he did is 15 years - which should depress Judge Lynch and The New York Times even more.
And that's the memo.