Thread: Sup

ROCKFORD, Ill., March 8 (UPI) -- An Illinois man accused of sexually assaulting three children younger than 13 has been given court approval to vacation at Walt Disney World.

United Press International - NewsTrack - Accused molester headed to Disney World

This is just freakin' great. Letting child molesters go to a theme park loaded with kids...WTF are they thinking? This is the kinda crap that shows our judicial system needs a MAJOR overhaul! You can't tell me someone can't put a stop to that trip...seems like they just don't give a damn about our kids anymore. The whole thing is rediculous and makes me mad as hell!!:Pissed:

Originally Posted by SilentHitz

This is just freakin' great. Letting child molesters go to a theme park loaded with kids...WTF are they thinking? This is the kinda crap that shows our judicial system needs a MAJOR overhaul! You can't tell me someone can't put a stop to that trip...seems like they just don't give a damn about our kids anymore. The whole thing is rediculous and makes me mad as hell!!:Pissed:

Our judicial system relies on the belief that someone in innocent until proven guilty. He has only been accused of molestation, not convicted; It is perfectly possible that he is innocent.

Originally Posted by Smitty

Our judicial system relies on the belief that someone in innocent until proven guilty. He has only been accused of molestation, not convicted; It is perfectly possible that he is innocent.

And just as possible he's guilty. The point is he was ORDERED to stay away from children...and the dumbass judge let him go where the law said he's not supposed to....around a bunch of kids! If he's been ordered to stay away from kids, why the hell did the judge ok his trip? Makes no sense what so ever. One of his bail conditions was that he stay away from minor children....last I heard there's a shit load of em' at Disney world. That fact alone speaks for it'self.

Originally Posted by SilentHitz

And just as possible he's guilty. The point is he was ORDERED to stay away from children...and the dumbass judge let him go where the law said he's not supposed to....around a bunch of kids! If he's been ordered to stay away from kids, why the hell did the judge ok his trip? Makes no sense what so ever. One of his bail conditions was that he stay away from minor children....last I heard there's a shit load of em' at Disney world. That fact alone speaks for it'self.

The law takes the view that he is innocent, it really does not matter what you, I nor anyone else thinks until 12 people in a jury box make the decision. He was not ordered to stay away from children, he was ordered not to have contact with children. Now, it is nitpicking I admit, but thats how the law works, and I how think it should work. If something is not spelled out as a law, rule, or regulation then how can you enfore restrictions on a person? Back to my point, I am sure the law (at least this judge's interpretation) sees a difference between being near someone and having contact with someone. How do you keep someone away from kids without jailing him/her? The thing that become questionable here is the number of children he is near. Now, I would be more opposed to this judge's decision if them man was single or traveling alone; He is, however, going to the park with his family (presumably with his own children, but the article does not mention that).

Do I believe that child molesters should be severly punished? Yes, but I believe firmly in mainting the integrity of the law and keeping those who are presumed to be innocent, treated as innocent until it has been proven that they are otherwise.

I agree that he's innocent until proven guilty, but from what little was said in the article, I think the judge used poor judgement...and IMO is letting him break the condition of his bail. If you or I did that, bail would be revoked, and we would sit in a jail cell waiting on our trial date. Whole thing just seems crazy to me.

I suppose they either had strong reasons to believe him innocent, or wanted him to have a good time before jail and thus give more material to his trial. I don't think I like that judge if the latter is the case though...

If he was just accused, there's no moral reason to keep him from going there. America's a free country (in theory).

Innocent until proven guilty, I say. However, if I was the judge, I'd allow it, but strongly reccommend him not to, considering what some people's reactions could be. I am annoyed that people's names are released when they are accused of a crime, even if they aren't guilty, they always have that stigma associated with them.

Just wanna say, im stoked to be a part of BD!!! im looking foward to kicking some ass with you guys

-jeffzilla-

www.myspace.com/xjeffzillax