Join the discussion below, or Read more at Evening Sun.
#21 Jan 25, 2008
Quit defending the sick, disgusting, perverted men AND women in this society - you obviously do not have children. I sympathize with what our children face in today's society. The odds of innocent people being punished for crimes they did not commit is far less then the odds of a guilty person being left free to cause more destruction in our society!
#22 Jan 25, 2008
Ok gburg mom and MEgo - here's a point for both of you. I don't think MEgo's points are over anyone's head, I think there's 2 points being fought that are very different. Gburg mom is concerned with the welfare of all these precious little children being harmed by these sick people - can't fault her for that. MEgo - you're defending the system and that's fine but I think you are at a step before what "we the people" are fighting against. No one is saying let's take away "innocent until proven guilty" - the evidence is this case is quite apparant. I myself have written to the state representatives for tougher child abuse laws and you know the response? Nothing, not even a courtisy thank you for the email! We want tougher laws for convited criminals that are slapped on the wrist and thrown back out for us to deal with! It does ALL start with the parents, but sadly enough, not all parents are cautious enough to keep these sickos away - they even find a way to get to the cautious ones - that's why they are sick!
#23 Jan 27, 2008
I do not disagree with most of what you wrote, except the 1 sentence above. The original debate had to do with allowing a separate person to go free before trial.
His case was reviewed and the system determined to allow him freedom till trial. If you disagree with the decision we cannot cry to change the system. However, we are lucky to live where we can change our judges. Of course that requires adults to vote at local elections, which they never do.
In this case the man is probably guilty, should be locked up forever since he is not curable, but that has nothing to do with my points in this debate.
You state the evidence is apparent, and he should be locked up. Our system requires 'real' evidence not apparent evidence. Look at the real situation here- A man went to a diner, he had no illegal contents in his possession, he did not approach any children in the diner, he did not participate in any lude public behavior. Until they prove he is the man on the other end of the computer (which I am sure they will) they technically have no reason to hold him. Even after they prove he was the man on the other end of the computer, they still only have 'intent' to commit a crime. Yes, we do arrest on intent, but the standard for imprisonment is the same as if there was a real victim. At this point there is no victim in this crime, and arresting / holding a citizen on purely apparent evidence and intent is the same slippery slope the 'witch hunters' found themselves at the bottom of, 400 years ago. Of course they stood in circles, with their children, watching a human being be burned alive, based purely on 'apparent' evidence. Humans have not evolved much from that point, but we are lucky our form of government has evolved forcing the witch hunters to be kept in check.
I have faith our system will work, and this man will be punished, but it will be on real evidence, presented in an open trial.
Add your comments below
|Morton PA Post Office||May '16||Fed-Up USPS Morto...||1|
|Glenolden Pathmark SOLD to Collins ShopRite (Jun '12)||Apr '16||Collingdale||8|
|Debate: Obama-Marriage - Glenolden, PA (May '12)||Mar '16||Anna||6|
|what is going up next to glenolden cvs? (Nov '15)||Feb '16||dmt||2|
|A Movie Theater That Did It Right (May '06)||Jan '16||Goobers||27|
|Group considers appealing Corry charter decision (Oct '15)||Oct '15||Watch dawg||1|
Find what you want!
Search Ridley Park Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC