Added: 2 years ago
From: HraefnFlyht
Views: 23,262
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (161)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • These are techniques at EDMONTON centralized ZEBRA to terrorize children. Abuse is done by use of VOLUNTEERS & non-professionals+ refusal to record disclosures at the site nearby immediately. Suggestive questioning used by offenders at Bosco Homes drugging children and youth & by abusers at VOLUNTEER programs. Children are abused, Isolated told lies to get them to say what they are TOLD TO SAY. Children don't lie INVESTIGATORS DO. They cover up for internal TEAM MEMBER offenders.

  • All nine children testified in a broadly consistent wayThe children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse....The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse.The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testifiedShe made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls.

    commonwealth vs amirault 424 mass 618

  • @stopritualabuse yet why was there NO signs abuse found when the other signs found from the defendants found?

  • Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WSJ 02/24/95

    The three Amiraults...were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts....in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation....

    

  • @stopritualabuse . The Amiraults were kept in prison long after their innocence was established. Coakley and Harshbarger made their political careers on this. 

  • bunch of idiotic Freudian bastards

  • The similarities between this and the Salem Witch hysteria 400 years ago is remarkable.

    Today we look look back on the witchcraft craziness of the 17th century, and smugly congratulate ourselves on how more "civilized" we are today.

    Sadly, I don't think we've progressed as much as we think since the Middle Ages.

  • @zooeyhall exactly

  • How you could be convicted in a 17th century witch trial:

    "Spectral evidence" (something only the witness could see)----

    Judge to 5 year old witness: "Look at the Accused in the dock--do you see anything unusual?"

    Child Witness: "yes sir! I see the Devil standing right next to her!!"

    Leading questions:

    Judge: "So, when did you first become a worshipper of Satan?"

    And they also had their "experts":

    "I examined the Accused, and she has a mole on her back. It's the Devil's mark!!"

  • @zooeyhall exacltly

  • you know what fuck kids!! yeah i hate them and thier the last thing i would ever want to molest or touch!

  • Really?? Seriously?? a 2 Foot Long Butcher Knife That Would Kill someone instantly!!! GROW UP PEOPLE!

  • @1530ZP exactly!! 

  • kids make shit up all the time but i'm guessing the Amiraults pissed someone off really bad.

  • kids make things up, but so do adults.

  • All nine children testified in a broadly consistent wayThe children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse....The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse.The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testifiedShe made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls.

    commonwealth vs amirault 424 mass 618

  • Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WSJ 02/24/95

    The three Amiraults...were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts....in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation....

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 424 Mass. 618

    "These parents also testified to instances of extremely sexualized behavior on the part of the children including masturbation, sexualized play with dolls, boys sticking their tongues in the mouths of their mothers, and the simulation of sexual acts. Many of the children also developed generalized symptoms indicative of trauma such as bedwetting, baby talk, pain in their genital areas, headaches and stomach aches, and fearfulness."

  • @HraefnFlyht careful here, this "stopritualabuse" filthy cunt is one of those paid vigilantes and by disagreeing with the scum you can start to be harassed. These criminals are actually molesters trying to cover their asses. Look for Xavier von Erck or Petra Luna here and you'll see the kind of deranged sexually frustrated shits these crooks are. They are for the money and for the killing of their pedophile desires withing, so they have a motivation you lack.

  • The real question is why one some need to look for any excuse to deny these crimes. Is it their own self denial, their own participation in these crimes, or have they been fooled by these repeated one-sided attacks on the victims of these crimes?

  • What is more stunning is that people could deny that these victims suffered badly as children, even after all of the evidence presented below. The report above is a one-sided attack on the victims in the Amirault case. No one's career "skyrocketed" from this case. These case were difficult to prosecute and regardless of the myths spread by some, there was a lot of evidence behind this and other cases. The parents received a settlement years after the case.

  • It is stunning that anyone could defend these cases. From the start they were the result of prosecutors and "investigators" who wanted to capitalize on sensational cases for their own personal or political gain, knowing that a mere accusation was often all it took to get a conviction in America, the land of sexual paranoia. The secret to their success was their ability to tease any kind of horror story they wanted out of these children.

    They succeeded and their careers skyrocketed.

  • Did you even bother to watch John Stossel's report? There was NO evidence of abuse. NONE. The parents got a lot of money for putting their children up to this. It's a travesty of justice.

  • COMM vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 404 Mass 221 Four of the children who testified in this case were occasionally left behind on field trips.

    children were often removed from their classroom and sent to another less crowded room during nap time. those children were called away by Miss Vi or Miss Cheryl.Each of the children stated that he or she was forced to touch the defendant's penis, to lick food from his penis, or that the defendant touched or put his penis in the child's vagina or rectum.

  • Ok, I do not know the full details of the case; however there are some here that clearly do not understand the court system. Appeals are rarely if ever about facts in regard to the case, they are about procedural violations. If someone is innocent (not making a judgment in this case), he or she is limited on appeal if their were limited procedural errors and/or his or her attorneys did not preserve the client's rights through objection. The appeals court only affirms the game was played right

  • Comment removed

  • Preschool kids don't make stuff up if it's suggested to them?

    You don't think they'd start behaving sexually after being questioned on sexual activities for hours on end?

    The Amiraults got completely railroaded.

  • stopritualabuse, you are clearly a disturbed individual that seeks to imprison innocent people. I'd like to think we learned something from the baseless hysteria of the 80's, but clearly you didn't. People like you don't need evidence, you have children's testimony to seek out the witches in your midst. Please seek help.

  • @stopritualabuse: I think your conflating reasonable doubt with preponderance of the evidence. In criminal courts, preponderance of evidence is not sufficient for conviction. There was no physical sign of abuse, no DNA evidence, and it was demonstrated that interview questions were misleading. Children who said no were asked the same questions over and over until they said yes.

  • Comment removed

  • @stopritualabuse all of which were stated by the adults.

  • Comment removed

  • These kids were abused by the state.

  • Amirault was guilty.

    No matter how it looks to someone that ignores most of the evidence, the fact is they were guilty after different two trials. Not only that, they lost every appeal and almost every judicial review.

    Children can be terrified by their abusers to believe things that aren't true. They can be shown a knife and then raped with something else and believe it was a knife. This is done to terrify them further and discredit them if they ever do tell.

  • i got to ask. what evidence makes you think Amirault is guilty?

  • Why was there ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of abuse?

  • Amirault was found guilty and this verdict was supported by both parties over 15 years. There was a lot of evidence supporting his conviction. We can believe the children, or we can believe the pedophiles.

  • Well, it looks to me like they are innocent, so they aren't really pedophiles if they are innocent. There was no physical evidence to support the wild accusations which were coerced. You cant shove a knife up someones rectum and leave no trace. If we are going to make critical decisions in justice based on the insane idea that children never make up stories we're all in a lot of trouble. All authoritarian societies rely heavily on that principle, by the way.

  • The woman running for senate in MA did not want to grant the man release, even though she conceded the womans misjustice, because she said it is common for a male abuser to coerce females to be part of the abuse. since when did intellectually constructed trends become evidence in crimes? There was little or no other evidence in this case, what a tradegy. The only physical evidence was a microscopic scar on a hyman, and a vaginal disorder caused by a urine tract infection.

  • It was totally insane what we let happen in America around that time. Kelly Michaels was accused of throwing nude parties for HER ENTIRE CLASROOM--entire classes of young children supposedly naked when anyone might walk in.

    Insane.

  • Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WSJ 02/24/95 Hardoon " in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation who did not participate in the trial.....The victims and their families in these cases have been irrevocably harmed"

  • @stopritualabuse that is not true about the financal rewards coming years later. one of the kids fmaily put a 50 thousand dollar lean on them and they had too pay it too free up the rest of there money for there legal defend

  • The financial rewards came years later. Similar to the clergy abuse cases, the victims were given a financial settlement. Victims of crimes like this one deserve a financial settlement.

    Organized pedophiles rape children in other countries or the US and sell their pictures on the Internet. This is a well prosecuted and well known crime. No one "drove" any ideas into anyone's head. This is a myth.

  • After their convictions the civil suits started. The parents of the children got rewarded. That's called financial incentive.

  • Listen to the clueless moron @ 6:12.

    What a complete jackass, totally oblivious to the ruined lives as a result of trusting little kids so implicitly.

  • Is this the case where the therapist constantly drove the idea of abuse into the childrens heads? I remember seeing a special on this.

  • Witness praises Amirault decision John Ellement, Boston Globe, 2/23/02 Hardoon...said...the quality of the investigation and the actions of prosecutors, police, and social workers working with the children were all scrutinized intensely during Gerald Amiraults trial and still the jury convicted...Amirault supporters are focusing on 2 percent of the childrens claims that seem inexplicable and they are conveniently ignoring the 98 percent of the case that was overwhelming against Amirault.

  • Several trials and judicial reviews came to the same conclusion, the children were abused. The victims state to this day they were abused. Could all of these people be "delusional" or could those that deny these crimes be either in denial or have an agenda for wanting to deny this.

    Organized pedophilia today is a billion dollar industry. Could this be the motive for the promotion of the idea that the children were not abused, even with repeated judicial reviews?

  • Yet no one was "brainwashed." Those that believe the children were not abused have been exposed to one-sided propaganda that ignores most of the evidence at the trial.

    There is NO evidence the therapist thought the children were abused before she worked with them. And the children did not initially deny the abuse. They acted it out in extremely sexualized behaviors and trauma symptoms. Physical findings were consistent with abuse in the victims.

  • One of the kids claimed to have had a knife shoved up his rectum.

    The physical finding that would be consistent with such a thing would be....uh....death, I would imagine.

  • The repeated name calling and personal attacks show the true nature of those defending convicted child abusers.

    The fact is that he was and is guilty according to the legal system, the victims and those that defended them. It is time to stop defending those that rape children and ruin their lives and time to start holding them accountable.

  • Interesting that HF came to the same conclusion he had before after looking at the facts of the case, totally ignoring all evidence presented on this page. Adding the prerequisite name calling and personal attacks diagnosing me simply because I disagree with him. But yet the court systems, those abused in this case and those representing those abused also disagree with him.

    CGM calls people "evil" and "bastards.' Just more name callling and personal attacks.

  • You are the one ignoring the evidence. There is nobody who knows the facts in this case who believes that any of these people did a thing to those children, except those who are delusional. The evidence is overwhelming which shows exactly how they were falsely convicted based solely on the testimony of the children who were so well coached, they began testifying against other members of the community and even the very therapist who brainwashed them!

  • The only abuse that was done against the children was by the therapists who brainwashed them into testifying exactly what it would take to convince the jury. All of the abuse began in the imagination of the therapist and was transferred so thoroughly into the minds of the children that by the time it was over, these kids who had initially denied everything were now actually believing they had been abused.

  • Blame martha cokley. She is the evil one. She has been able to keep that innocent guy in jail for 18 years. Yeah. She's one evil bastard. Look at her picture. She even looks evil and basterdious.

  • You seem to really have a passion about this subject, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and did a quick refresher on the known facts of this case. After that I came to the conclusion that you are either horribly misinformed or certifiably insane.

  • Witness praises Amirault decision John Ellement, Boston Globe, 2/23/02 Hardoon...said...the quality of the investigation and the actions of prosecutors, police, and social workers working with the children were all scrutinized intensely during Gerald Amiraults trial and still the jury convicted...Amirault supporters are focusing on 2 percent of the childrens claims that seem inexplicable and they are conveniently ignoring the 98 percent of the case that was overwhelming against Amirault.

  • Comment removed

  • The only victims are the children that were raped.

    Mass. Victims Fight Commutation Plea

    Leslie Miller AP 8/7/01 Victims in the Fells Acres child abuse case...described their pain publicly...in hopes of keeping the last person convicted in the case behind bars...``So many times, Mr. Amirault hovered over me, touched me and hurt me and committed many disgusting acts of abuse.''

    Those children, now adults, stood by their testimony...``This family raped me, molested me and totally ruined my life''

  • The Amiraults were guilty.

    All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse....The children testified that the defendant threatened them....a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified...She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls.

    (Commonwealth vs Amirault 424 mass 618 page 622)

  • @stopritualabuse

    This is like a case where people want power and money so they elaborate a story to sue someone with and be evil.

  • A mother's health is *always* in danger by a pregnancy, thus the "health of the mother" is the mile-wide loophole through which all abortions are performed in America at least. The only exception that should be permitted is a "life of the mother" exception, for situations such as a tubal pregnancy where the baby continues to grow in the fallopian tube and must be removed to save the mother's life. But this is no different than an abnormal pregnancy resulting in miscarriage.

  • @angel4u32

    The problem with a mother's health is that it can cover too many things. Also, most tubal pregnancies result in a natural abortion and with advances in medicine many baby are now able to live outside the womb at a very early age.

  • there is plenty of evidence showing he did do it, nine children testified he did it, there were physical findings, the children acted out sexualized behavior after the abuse, as adults they still say he did it

    google: day care and child abuse cases ritualabuse(dot)us

  • Many people still believe in the bogeyman too. That doesn't mean he exists, or that satanic ritual child abuse exists either.

    The children were coerced into testifying things which didn't happen. The physical findings either didn't exist or were planted or misinterpreted. Children always act out sexual behavior, and most people ignore it except when they're looking for something. And as adults they only know what they were convinced of as children. Here's your tinfoil hat, bye-bye.

  • They were found guilty in two trials. Swift after judicial review kept him in jail. None of the children were coerced. Children do not simulate sexual acts at the age of 2 or 3 unless they have been abused. Nine children testified against him. It is time for people to stop denying that people abuse children and time for them to start protecting children.

  • Just because people abuse children does not mean that everyone accused of child abuse is guilty. And did you not even watch this video? It demonstrates exactly how children can make up stories of sexual abuse, even when they've never been abused! And indeed the poor kids *were* coerced, that is the reason why these cases all eventually fell through.

  • It is a one sided account of the case. There is no evidence of them being "coerced." Just allegations of a few slightly leading questions from private websites written to discredit the victims.

  • Of course you will never believe that these cases were improperly prosecuted. You have too much invested in the idea that such abuse occurs all the time.

    Why are you here on YouTube with the username "stop ritual abuse"? Why does this matter to you?

  • When there is a lot of evidence they were guilty, as in this case, I make sure the evidence from the trials is made public. You appear to be interested in presenting a one sided attack on the victims of these crimes.

  • As you should be able to tell, I have not attacked any victims whatsoever. I believe there is no evidence that there ever were any victims of child abuse. Understand this point, if you miss all others: The victims were the Amiraults, the criminals were the prosecutors, and the crime was false imprisonment.

  • In some cases, the children who testified to put people behind bars eventually grew up and found out the whole story, then went back and withdrew their testimony, stating that they had been coerced. One girl worked overtime to get a man released from prison because she felt bad for having put him there, knowing he was innocent. At the time she was given no choice: she was forced to say what they wanted her to say.

  • In this case, as in most cases, no one ever retracted. As adults, they have gone public and stated they were abused. Retracting is rare, and it is believed this may be due to influence from those that believe these child abuse crimes do not happen.

  • What do you say of what Stossle says? That there was no clear evidence, and that:

    *The stories claim kids were tortured, but no injuries were documented.

    *Child porn was supposedly made, but there are no pictures in evidence.

    *Adults came and went at all hours, but none of them saw anything.

    The case was made entirely on the testimony of the children, who said things like:

    *They were tied to trees.

    *16 children were killed there.

    *One girl was raped with a 2-foot butcher knife.

  • Children when raped and torture by their abusers can be convinced to believe unreal things. Child abuse was documented.

  • If the witnesses are saying unreal things, how can you believe any of their testimony? A witness who lacks credibility is not likely to be telling the truth. What sort of documentation was there? From this, it appears that the conviction was based entirely on the testimony of these unbelievable witnesses. Is this not the case? If Stossel is not telling the truth, then please enlighten us all.

  • Other kids who attended there have testified that nothing like this happened. Some of them say it was done for money: indeed, insurance claims were paid out to all the families of the supposedly abused children. It has been proven that children who are questioned the way these kids were are very likely to make up stories which go whatever way the investigators want them to go. What do you say to all this?

  • What I can't understand is this--with the claims of the parents of all kinds of evidence of genital sores, etc., why did none of them report that stuff before?

    And by the way, those physical findings have been addressed by Rabinowitz, who has an excellent series on this crime--and by crime I mean what happened to the Amiraults (not what they were accused of).

  • One more example why ASSachussets should be cut off the continent and dumped into the ocean. Nothing but a bunch of sick ass liberal shitbags up there. They throw a guy in prison for 18 years for something he never did, but a drunk fat pig who drowned a woman not to mention destroyed so much of this country is re-elected over and over and over for over 40 years as Senator. Now if you can believe it, they want to make Martha Coakley, the bitch responsble for this guy serving 18 years, SENATOR!

  • You have stated it perfectly.

  • 18 years in prison for something you didn't do? thats bullshit and im sorry that gerald had to go through that.

  • I would have taken responsibility in such a situation, if the government allowed me to. But more than likely they'd have interfered, because the government (and the general public) will not allow minors to take responsibility for themselves, although they will punish them as if they were responsible.

    I agree that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their kids about sex, but they don't, generally. Certainly not when they're in grade school.

    As for abortion, I am thoroughly against it.

  • Aren't you concerned that you're just confusing your kids, by telling them that some adults are to be respected and others are not, and expecting them to know the difference? A lot of kids just verbally assent to what their parents say, then go and do their own thing anyway, talking about how little their parents understand them.

  • Listen, I was 10 years old when puberty began. I was capable of becoming a father months before my 11th birthday! Not only that, I was into porn and talking about sexual escapades with my peers. At the age of 12 my dad gave me a book about sex, but by then I already knew more than the book. If I had had the right opportunity, I could have been having sex, and I would not have used any "protection" either because it wasn't important to me at that age. What if I had gotten a girl pregnant?

  • No, I'm saying that *some* 8 year olds can consent to some sexual activities, but at the same time the parents ought to have a say in what their children are doing.

    Any child can understand what sex is if they are told! It's not that complicated. Sex has very little to do with age, it has much to do with love and commitment though, and people seem to forget all about that part.

  • Thank you for posting this. I've been looking for video relating to the day care abuse hysteria of the 80s and this is extremely helpful. It's hard to believe that people took these and other allegations, such as in the McMartin case, seriously.

  • When people are fearful, the mob mentality can take over. Fear thrives in an environment of ignorance, and so the best thing we can do is educate people.

  • Yes, educate people that those found guilty of raping children will deny their crimes to get out of prison or avoid going to prison. It is time to protect children and stop covering for those that abuse them.

  • You said it was okay for kids to have sex with kids their own age, so long as it was consensual, and I asked why the age of their partner should make any difference at all.

    I do not believe in an "age of consent" by most people's definition. They say that anybody under that age cannot consent to sex, but anybody over that age can. In other words, people believe in a "magic birthday" which somehow confers the ability to consent to sex. I think that's ludicrous!

  • How can kids consent to sex with other kids, but not with adults? Either they can consent to sex or they cannot, make up your mind. I already made up mine: rape is sex by force, & where there is no force or coercion, then it's not rape.

    Any man having sex with a young girl without her parents' consent is in the wrong! In the past they had a "shotgun wedding" after that. People should not be so casual about having sex, because sex is special, & should be saved for marriage!

  • grouping pedophiles together is the same as making any other "blanket statement", such as grouping by race, sexual orientation, gender, or political beliefs. You can't accurately state all pedophiles are monsters any more then you can speak the same hatred for white heterosexual male democrats, for example.

  • Angel, I am not a rapist and I have never tried to kill anybody. You are using classic straw man arguments to denigrate pedophiles; they are not monsters, they are just people who have slightly different sexual desires than other people. They do not, as a rule, molest children. I feel for you, having been hurt by a rapist at a young age. But please do not take out your frustration on innocent people. Scapegoating is wrong too! "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)

  • The question is "are people that are convicted of raping children" and lose appeals "innocent." Or are they denying that they raped children like most pedophiles when they are caught.

  • Because of the witchhunt mentality, it has become very easy to be falsely accused, convicted and lose all appeals. Nobody wants to be the one to allow a potential child rapist to walk free, so people will justify it in their minds, even if there is not enough evidence to convict. For crying out loud, recently the US Supreme Court held that a man could not be executed for raping a child, because he was not a murderer... and people protested for weeks over that, and probably still are!

  • Because of the backlash against child abuse survivors, children are not believed when they state they have been abused. There is no "witchhunt." This concept was manufactured in part by those defending convicted child rapists.

  • Some kids DO know what's going on, and they have sex willingly. Is it still rape to you? What if it's two kids having sex or sex play, and no adult involved--would you charge the kids with raping each other? It's been done, you know.

  • I agree that there is alot of over-reaction to things involving children and adults (which doesnt include rape)...but this comes to SICK CUNTS...

    it's your fault people are so scared for there children (and rightly so)...and as for the video..i agree that the first people in this vid have been fucked over

    but as for all the daycare centres across america getting investigated...i agree 100 fuckin percent....children daycare centres are ripe with sick cunts

  • It is NOT my fault that people are scared for their children. The responsibility for that rests on the media, who hype child molestation cases to increase ratings, on politicians and bureaucrats who make much of it to get reelected or promoted or job security, and on idiots on a witch hunt who think there's a pedophile behind every bush and keep screaming that at parents.

  • No, those that hype "miscarriage of justice" every time a group of people are convicted of child rape are the real problem. The "witch hunt" is against those that are abused by pedophiles.

  • Those people were clearly innocent,

  • "Personally I think the penalty for child molestation ought to be much less than it is."

    Well, you would, wouldn't you?

  • This shows how the child fearing child hating mind-manipulating authoritarian Anglo/Yank n Brit jUnK-media and their puppet governments are infecting the world with their climate-of-fear for profit-not-protection, while destroying lives including the children they falsely claim to protect. Historically, and hysterically they just can't leave people in peace. Post Reformation Anglos need serious help or maybe they're beyond help !

  • It has been shown over and over again now how kids will say almost anything when 'inspired', to them it's like fairytale telling while playing.

    If 'agents' are bent on getting stories to convict someone, they will. About green men and secret tunnels and satanistic rituals and whatever a child have picked up from some source and can talk about..

    It all becomes a threat to anyone.

    And now they have destroyed trhe life of a 14year old girl that had nude pics of herself. Who is the bad ones?

  • They care for "the children" only so far as they can use it to their advantage. When it becomes advantageous to make "the children" into "perverts" they'll do so in a heartbeat. They don't really care, and far too often, they are the bad ones.

  • Comment removed

  • This video is scary, it seems very easy for prosecutors to put innocent people in prison.

    But even if they were guilty 20 and 40 years prison terms are ridiculous. The American judicial system is clearly not working, if it were would America have more people in prison per capita than any county in the world? Or maybe if you believe the system works the real problem is that Americans are just more evil than people in other countries???

  • We spend so much money on prisons in this country, it's becoming a burden on our straining government budgets. Judges are now being told by the department of corrections not to send them any more prisoners because they can't handle them. It is getting totally out of hand. But meanwhile people keep calling for longer prison sentences for all sorts of crimes... it's absolutely insane!

  • I do not blame people for wanting to be SAFE. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be free from the "worst-of-the-worst". I am sorry, but some people cannot live in society. Maybe society's pressures are becoming too much for the "average person". If the puplic casts a majority vote it must be accepted. This is a democratic country. Many European countries are socialistic. If the majority sais tougher sentences, than we must allocate taxes for it.

  • What country do you refer to as a democratic one? Surely not my country, the USA, which is a republic.

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    Like Ben Franklin, I believe that liberty is more important than safety, and I will gladly sacrifice my safety in order to maintain essential liberty. I would rather that child molesters go free than lose the freedom I need to live.

  • There are many reasons to make as many people as possible into criminals, and prisons and legal leechery are big business.

  • Well if they can make everybody into criminals, they can justify taking away their freedom at any time for any reason or no reason. And that's exactly what they are doing.

  • Who is "they". This seems to be a common theme. I think that society as a whole does not want violent people around them. I am sure that there are innocent people in prison. Perhaps there are pedophiles that were innocent of their charge but guilty of acts not yet found out or acts they "got away" on. I would think an innocent person would take a polygraph, voice-stress test, or the machine that goes on the penis & the person looks at photos. Is society "making" people into criminals now?

  • "Perhaps there are pedophiles that were innocent of their charge but guilty of acts not yet found out or acts they "got away" on."

    This is the sort of thing they said during the Spanish Inquisition: "If he weren't guilty, he wouldn't be here in court." You are surmising that the person accused of child molestation must be guilty by reason of having been accused.

    I understand that the FBI once tried to make the penis & picture test mandatory for agent applicants, but they all failed.

  • Yes, the video does put a lesser known truth that some accused child molesters are innocent via child coertion. In response to this comment; IF they are in fact guilty - of molesting 20 children - I do not think that 1 or 2 years for each life ruined is too much time in prison. IF someone is in fact guilty, 1 - 2 prison years to be spent, for each $25,000 of taxpayer money spent on prosecuting the case, is too much or "ridiculous". It is not "ridiculous", a 20-40 yr. sentence for 20 lives.

  • Personally I think the penalty for child molestation ought to be much less than it is. It surely should not be higher than the penalty for murder! I think probation and paying money to the molested child should be a decent penalty.

  • I was a victim of two men who molested me. 2! I had nightmares for years, and I was suicidal before I got right with God. Look, when an ADULT does what those men did to me, the kid has to live with that forever, and it's hard! I think that there isn't ENOUGH done to safeguard kids. How can you say you love the Lord but you say lessen punishment for people who harm children? Are you serious?

  • JacRab, how does a multi-year prison sentence do any good for the crime of child molestation? Does it make the child feel better knowing that someone went to jail a long time? Does it reform the person, so that they won't do it again? Is it BIBLICAL?

    If we put a person on probation and require them to pay money to the victim, then at least the victim receives some direct benefit, and the offender has plenty of incentive not to offend again. It's cheaper and more Biblical too.

  • You think probation and a fine is enough penalty for child molestation? No way. And if he can't pay the fine? Jail time? So molestors with money should get away easier? They touch a kid they lose their freedom. They can live normal lives, but need to be monitored. GPS tracking, daily check ins, etc..

  • Of course he can pay the fine. It would be a reasonable percentage of his income for life. Poor offenders will have just enough to live on, while rich ones will make their victims rich.

  • So you agree they lose their freedom for the rest of their lives right? The poor should pay what they can and the rich will pay all they can. Either way, there's no easy way to get out and they'll have to live with it all their life.

  • Not exactly. I believe that RAPISTS should have to take responsibility for their crime. If a person forces another person to have sex with them, they should be forced to take care of that person's needs for the rest of their life. This however does not apply to consensual relationships, which are fine and dandy, as long as they are MARRIED. It also does not cover lesser sexual activities which do not take a person's virginity.

  • Your sad!!! Your working hard to defend Pedophiles on YouTube!!! Pedophiles whom freely admit to being a Pedophile. Even when they delete their messages from view reporting them has revealed their sick comments for which YouTube suspended them.

    Pedophiles are not welcome on youtube and if you don't like that then you can consult your doctor who may be able to help you!

  • I'm not actually working hard. It's easy for me to defend innocent people. I don't care if a person admits to being a pedophile, because there's no law against being a pedophile, nor is it immoral or unethical. If it's any consolation (probably not, your mind is likely made up) I do downvote all abusive or rude comments, whether sexually oriented or violent.

    What on earth are you talking about with this "consult your doctor"?

  • I waste my time on you. You can't read (or can't understand what you read) and your mind is firmly closed, so why bother?

  • dude, where's my country? .....18 years.... damn

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more