Military combat veteran avoids jail time on child porn conviction due to PTSD

[medicineman]

Wow...I always found him to be a legend in his own mind and a bit FITH, but I attributed that to him being a juice monkey.  I think the closes thing to combat he likely got was being shot at in Bosnia in '94, as I think he was with the Strat's when I was with 1VP next door in Croatia - I was originally slotted to go with them instead and seem to recall he was with them.

MM

I told an untruth - he went to the first Khandahar rotation with 3VP after 9/11...

MM

 

[Good2Golf]

Re: Infanteer’s #2...having flashbacks to Carla Holmulka...only difference being it was Ms. Y’s child, not sister.  There should be a special place reserved in Hell for such a betrayal of a mother’s bond as that...

 

[Journeyman]

There are two petitions on Change.org regarding this guy: 1) to have the sentence reviewed, and 2) from the BC community in which he's doing his 'house arrest' to move him elsewhere away from the neighborhood kids.

Feel free to jump on the bandwagon as you see fit.

 

[brihard]

There are two petitions on Change.org regarding this guy: 1) to have the sentence reviewed

The only mechanism would be if crown appeals the sentence.

 

[Journeyman]

The only mechanism would be if crown appeals the sentence.

Perhaps the petition is to encourage the Crown to appeal.  :dunno:

Regardless, he's several provinces away from my neighbourhood, and I'm MANY decades past his sexual predatory demographic.

 

[Kilted]

2) from the BC community in which he's doing his 'house arrest' to move him elsewhere away from the neighborhood kids.

I don't think that there is any legal mechanism to do that, especially if he owns his home. If he rents, his landlord could try and have him evicted (I'm not familiar with BC Residential tenancy laws, although I will guess that there are similarities with my province), this however will be difficult, as the conviction itself would not be grounds for eviction.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Besides, like several have mentioned above, it'll be a harder life for him living in the public eye with restrictions then being in a coshy minimum security federal prison with a bunch of other pedophiles talking about their past 'glory'.

 

[Kilted]

Besides, like several have mentioned above, it'll be a harder life for him living in the public eye with restrictions then being in a coshy minimum security federal prison with a bunch of other pedophiles talking about their past 'glory'.

I doubt that he would do very well in General Population, even in jail his type isn't liked very much.

 

[OldSolduer]

I doubt that he would do very well in General Population, even in jail his type isn't liked very much.

Understated. He’d be dead or severely beaten. That’s why they are segregated. And believe it or not there is a hierarchy within sex offenders.
Offences against children are bottom of the barrel.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

While, like everyone else, I hope, I am dismayed and disgusted by the offender's crimes, I read the judge's ruling as well as I think the average laymen can and ...
.
.
.
.
... I find no fault in his reasoning. I may not like what he was told by doctors, physchologsists and both the defence and prosecuting lawyers, but he has to work with what is offered and he was offered a case that said: good man, served his country well adequately, suffers from PTSD as a result of his service and that PTSD constributes to his dreadful predilection. He is, also, physically ill. Given the purposes of sentencing, a custodial sentence will not help and may actually do more harm than good. Therefore a non-custodial sentence with conditions is warranted.

I see that (and why) none of us like it, but the judge is not the problem.

I would argue that the defence lawyer is not the problem either.

We have an adversarial system. It is the defence lawyer's job to defend the scum of the earth and try to present them in the best possible light. The defence lawyer here did his job. It's not like the defence lawyer made stuff up -- it was medical experts who made the prognosis, he just showed that to the judge and made the legal arguments.

A system where there are no defence lawyers would be unimaginably worse than what we have.

If you need to blame someone, blame the psychiatrists who made the diagnosis and correlation between PTSD and pedophilia. Although I'm not a psychiatrist so I have no idea if they're wrong. If they are correct and in good faith, it seems the judge made the right call. Or blame the prosecutor for not undermining the defence evidence and convincing the judge otherwise.

 

[expwor]

What a load of BS.  In a nutshell they're saying PTSD causes pedophilia. I guess by that "logic" if he didn't have PTSD he wouldn't have victimized anyone.
He's just a predator who targeted children, not just the 881 on his computer but the child he and his gf were going to victimize.  And all those pictures on his computer, they were victimized children, not just pictures
What's worse, my gut feeling (based on 29 years in corrections, most of it in a prison housing sex offenders) he likely has more victims, just the authorities haven't found them yet
He's a predator that considering the crime and the number of victims, he got off too easy
Not to mention that his crimes will likely cause his victims to have PTSD maybe worse...such evil depriving a child of his/her childhood

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

Was the claim that PTSD always must cause pedophilia, or that PTSD could sometimes cause pedophilia?  The difference is important.

Is pedophilia a choice, or is there a pedophilia gene?  Or what is the mix of nature and nurture?

Not trying to create sympathy here.  But the ugliness of something shouldn't dictate whether we recognize and adjust for factors beyond reasonable human control, and avoid discrimination and maltreatment where it isn't warranted.

 

[TCM621]

Was the claim that PTSD always must cause pedophilia, or that PTSD could sometimes cause pedophilia?  The difference is important.

Is pedophilia a choice, or is there a pedophilia gene?  Or what is the mix of nature and nurture?

Not trying to create sympathy here.  But the ugliness of something shouldn't dictate whether we recognize and adjust for factors beyond reasonable human control, and avoid discrimination and maltreatment where it isn't warranted.

The claim was that it increases risk seeking behaviour and that this was the issue rather than an actual desire to harm children. I have read maybe 1 or 2 articles on this, so I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that was the reasoning.