Author's Warning: Right now, before you read too far, let the headline of this week's column warn you this is not a "light reading column." It doesn't involve Clinton, Monica, or even
Elian. It's about an even more serious real-life issue that impacts the lives of many people -- on the Net and off. While the contents of the column contain no harsh language or vivid details, I am warning you now that the subject is deep and
sensitive.
A couple weeks ago, while chatting with a friend in Illinois, I was shocked to learn the family's daughter, who is 13, was the victim of an accused child molester. Not once, mind you, but allegedly many times over an almost three-month period.
Because of personal feelings of shame, intimidation, helplessness, and God only know what other emotions the poor girl was suffering through, she never told her mother or father. Instead, when the girl reached her limit on and decided the molestation had to stop - one way or another - she asked the father of one of her school chums if they could speak privately.
During the conversation, the girl told the friend's father what was happening. According to information obtained from police and court sources, a 62-year-old man, David A. Friedman, of Champaign, Illinois, had smooth-talked his way into getting the girl to do some "housework" for him. The girl said she had to get her mother's approval, but that was the easy part. The girl's mother knew Friedman from the community, as well as his work with the Salvation Army. He seemed to be the kind of person she could trust.
Friedman, you see, was formerly the director of the Salvation Army Men's Homeless Shelter in Champaign. He also led a Sunday School class, and was involved with other things around the kids. His access to children was unrestricted. His reputation, at least the publicly known reputation, was unblemished. But it truly wasn't. You see, police records show Friedman was investigated a few years ago for similar charges. Sure, being investigated doesn't say you are or were guilty of anything. It does cast a long, tall shadow of doubt over any credibility you may have had, however, when a second investigation crops up. It also doesn't help when a victim calls in police, either. The first time the allegations involved a boy. That investigation was dropped. Any thought of possible prosecution was dismissed because the boy was "unable" to cooperate.
When the girl began "cleaning" Friedman's house, the girl's mother stopped over one Saturday to check on things. She walked in the house, which was described to be messy and in need of a tornado to improve the place, and everything seemed fine. The mother and daughter chatted for a few minutes and the mother left.
It wasn't until a few months later, when a Champaign police officer came knocking at the door, saying he needed to speak to the parents about their daughter.
What the police officer had to say was nothing less than devastating, I'm sure. I can imagine how I would have reacted, had I been the one listening to what the police officer said.
According to the information obtained, Friedman is accused of manually and orally manipulating the girl, fondling her breasts, taking lewd pictures of the girl, and possible other acts that are not detailed. Perhaps any other allegations against Friedman are best kept in the deep filing cabinets of the police department.
Well, the police took the girl's statement and investigated the allegations. Based on the girl's statement, the police arrested Friedman and charged him with 21 counts of producing child pornography and 21 counts of possession of child pornography. That's one count for each lewd picture they found of the girl in his possession at the time of his arrest, according to police information. According to information obtained from police and other sources, detectives executed a search warrant on a public storage shed he rented and found an additional 46 lewd pictures of the girl.
When Friedman was released from custody on $10,000 bail. That means he put up a $1,000 bond to walk out of the county jail.
You see, I have a problem with all of this. A major problem - and as I read about similar cases around the country, it's not uncommon. That means my major problem is magnified even more.
The main problem I have is that Friedman is charged with only 21 counts of each charge. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but what about the other 46 pictures that were found? They don't count? That adds up to 67 pictures, which should translate into 67 counts of production of child pornography and 67 counts of possession of child pornography. If charges were filed against Friedman for each of the initial pictures the police discovered, then additional charges should be filed for each new pictures that's discovered, as well. If this was a murder case and police initially found nine bodies carved up by Friedman, he would have been charged with nine counts of murder, right? If an additional seven bodies were found at a later date, don't you think the total murder charges against him would have been increased to 16? I know the additional charges would have been filed. The additional charges should also be filed in this case, as well.
If you were seated on the jury that will hear Friedman's case, and you heard he was charged with 134 counts, all involving child porn what would you think? Now imagine if you are on the same jury, but hear 42 counts. Which is more likely to convince a jury that Friedman should be imprisoned for life - for the benefit of society, 134 counts involving child porn or 42 counts?
The real kicker in the case is the State's Attorney said it might be possible Friedman get off with probation if convicted by a jury.
Probation?
Another real kicker is the State's Attorney feels that if Friedman is convicted, and sentenced to prison, he could get off with as little as a four year sentence, or as long as 15 years, perhaps. The maximum Friedman could get, under law, I learned from speaking with the State's Attorney, is 30 years, which isn't likely, he said.
Let's get real, folks. I hate using the word "allege," "allegation," "accused," and other such words. Instead of speaking about Friedman, let's just talk about pedophiles - nay, child molesters and child pornographers - in general terms. That way I can classify them all into one nice category, lumping them in a pile with pond scum. It doubt the pond scum would hang around for long, as pond scum probably detests these sick perverts, as well.
If an adult, not necessarily a man, as a woman is also capable of these same atrocious, monstrous acts against children. The excuse these sub-human degenerates of the homo sapien persuasion offer is they suffer from mental problems or they were victims of similar abuse as children. Sorry, it doesn't matter to me. Actually, no, I'm not sorry. Their lame excuses do not matter to me. The excuses don't have to matter to me. I'm not their defense attorney who is trying to get them off on probation or a light prison sentence.
It seems when these cancerous, demented criminals want the courts, juries, and the public to have mercy on them when charged for their crimes. Want mercy from me? I have two words of advice for them: kill yourself. As a matter of fact, do it
before you ever touch a child.
So I wouldn't make a very good judge. I shoot from the hip. Judges don't shoot. They pronounce sentences. Perhaps a good sentence for these vulgar castoffs of society would be to sentence them to public castration. The castration would be carried out using a vat of acid. Oh! The perpetrator is a female? That's fine, my method works equally as well. I'm equal opportunity in everything. You see, for the castration to be performed, the person would have to be dipped into a vat of acid. Head and shoulders first. Like I said, it's effective, but probably not legal. What these forsaken criminals did wasn't legal, either. Perhaps they could dip each other, thereby eradicating their crimes and paying their debt to society.
While I was scanning through the newsgroups this week, preparing this column, I came across
alt.abuse.offender.recovery. I found a posting from "Noel," a guy from California, who admitted his perversion, as well as his arrest for possessing and distributing child porn over the Internet. Here's part of his posting from September 24, 2000:
"I am a 77 yr old male and teacher of guitar for 30 years right here in this county in No Calif. My reputation for all those years has been excellent. No, never in my adult life have I ever has any kind of sex with a minor nor have I ever wanted to. I have never molested anyone and have never been charged with the offense," he wrote in his posting to the newsgroup. From what I saw from reading some of the posts, the majority of the people on the list are supportive of those who have been convicted of various crimes, especially when the criminal says they are attempting to "change" their lives.
As the post continues, "Noel" continues his story, telling how he frequented "11 year old sex chat channels," as well as many others along the same child-adult sex channels, saying he found that "this type of material stimulated me much more than the adult sites."
From there, "Noel" continues, telling how he chatted with a person he thought to be a young girl, including trading nude, pornographic pictures of kids having sex with adults. Bear in mind that I am not a prude, and could not be accused of being a prude by any stretch of the imagination. I also am not someone who is addicted to pornography. Crude depictions of nudity or sex acts are my basic, no-frills definition. Anything involving children in nude pictures, other than the bare-bottom pictures parents take of their children (as babies) in the bathtub or kitchen sink. Get into those hard-core pictures of teenagers, children, or God forbid, the sick and demented pictures of **anyone** having sex with a baby, and that, to me, is unspeakable. As a matter of fact, anyone who says they get off on that kind of trash should be tossed into the incinerator or landfill with the rest of the trash.
Back to "Noel" and his confession to the newsgroup.
Noel was caught, you see, and last appeared in court on February 29, having been charged with three felonies, including possession of the pictures and distributing them. He was sentenced to five years probation, but was allowed to keep his computer. That's the first time I ever heard of a judge allowing a convicted sex offender, especially one who was convicted of Internet distribution, being allowed to have access to a computer.
In his posting, Noel said he's been in court-ordered counseling for five months and his probation officer thinks of him as
"the scum of the earth." It seems the probation thinks rather highly of Noel.
Noel has five grown children. Four of them are supportive of him, although reluctantly. His fifth child, Noel said, is involved with the Mormon Church, and is employed as a corrections officer. That child said Noel needs to
"repent and stay away from the family until I can build up trust again." I say it's a good thing that his fifth child has the guts to stand firm, holding fast to his conviction that Noel needs a serious dose of reality.
During his cybersex chats with "SuzyQ," Noel says he used some language that later came back to haunt him - in printed form for the judge, but a copy of the cybersex sessions was also obtained by his fifth child. Because of the chat logs, the Mormon son has "practically banned me from the family." I think it's great! Noel's fifth child, it seems, has some logic and reasoning abilities, I see.
Noel admitted to the newsgroup his perversion, including being stimulated by the images of children involved in various sex acts, but he tries to dismiss that he is anything less than mentally healthy or mentally stable.
"Why am I writing all this to the group? Yes, I masturbated looking at the child-porn images but I have never thought of my young students in the same way. You may find this hard to believe but the children I know do not seem to fall into the same category of objects of sex. Maybe if I had been looking at child-porn sex pictures for many years I would be turned on by children I know but that is certainly not the case," he wrote.
Ah yes, "maybe if I had been looking at child-porn sex pictures for many years…." Noel could have continued that thought, adding something like, "If only I hadn't gotten snagged by the cops, I could have sought to take pictures of my own, using some child." Another possibility he could have written is, "If only I had thought about these children in the pictures and shot myself before getting excited by the images."
His last paragraph is simply outstanding! It's makes the perfect point for things I've said previously in this column. He proves that these demented monsters actually think the children are willing, consenting, self-giving participants.
Noel wrote: "Through many of the messages here I have learned how much pain can be caused to chidden [sp] who are molested and I feel that my downloading images has proliferated that pain." Yes, Noel, the children were molested - by the people who participated in the events in the pictures, but also by the people taking the pictures." Oh, wait a minute, Noel. You also molested them. You are just as bad, as sick, as demented as the people involved in the actual act. You see, children are the innocent ones in this folly that helped you get your jolly. They are the ones who blindly follow, much like the mice with that piper fellow.
The charm and wit of Noel's posting came next. He wrote: "I can think back on all the pictures I have seen and realize that these children were actually being betrayed by the adults they were having sex with...no matter how lovingly they gave of themselves. My therapist has told me the same thing but reading so many accounts here of the abuse is much more powerful."
Oh, Noel, you proved the point about child porn and the molesters perfectly. Thank you, Noel. Your own words were:
"… no matter how lovingly they gave of themselves." For being 77 years old, Noel, you are truly clueless, brainless, amoral, immoral, and idiotic. What child would
"lovingly they [give] of themselves" without adult manipulation, intimidation, or other persuasion? Most teens that engage in sex do so with fellow teens, such as classmates, friends from the neighborhood, or from other social settings. Not many teenagers actively go out seeking sex with adults. I don't even think that many voyeuristic teens would seek out sex with adults to have pictures taken during a sex act.
How about just scratching the surface on an even more sensitive point from the last comment that Noel made? Let's talk about children and sex. For the purpose of this column, child is to be seen and used as defining any person between the ages of three to 12, as 13 is view as a teenager in society.
Thinking in a serious mode, how many children do you know that seek out sex? How many children do you know seek out sex with an adult? How many children do you know that seek to have their bodies exposed and photographed? How many?
As I ready the acid vats, we have time for one last question this week.
How many babies do you know that actively seek out sex with anyone?
|
"Public Castration by Acid Dips for Pedophiles?"
