Fact: No harm was done to any of the children in the classroom physically or psychologically since they were not present nor did they hear the lyrics(sexual). In this case abuse can not be proven under the evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence. Using the classroom setting is not a crime or at least not a felony in this case since the prosecution can not prove "harm". Some State laws could possibly find him guilty of child endangerment by using the pictures of the children in the video and connecting them with the sexual content. That is not a 20 year felony. Most States it would be less than 6 months if that and more than likely probation with conditions of attending counseling. I don't agree with his lyrics toward children and would have to say that he has a deep seated sexual problem that needs to be dealt with by highly qualified individuals with expertise in the area of sexual deviant behavior.As for his being around children of a young age---he shouldn't be. He has exhibited a proclivity of wrongful sexual behavior/thoughts toward children.
Ticker, well put. I don't think this rises to the level of a 20 year felony. I do agree though that this is worrisome. To some extent you could say that it was a harmless prank and he was just being an idiot but a rational person just doesn't do something like this.I too think there is something there to explore.
Speaking as an advocate for the children and parents... this brings up many questions: what kind of sick individual thinks this would be a funny video to produce? What kind of person thinks of those lyrics? And even though no actual physical harm was done to any children, is this one of those episodes which could go ignored only to later find out the guy escalates into sexually abusing children?This person needs severe intervention, because there is definately something wrong with his thinking. Now, we can question the 20 year sentence and ask if a crime was actually committed... and where the line of criminal intent and a poor judgement is, but we must also consider the fact that this event may be the beginning of an escalation to criminal behavior.Still, do we accept punishment for lack of a crime in order to prevent possible future crimes... what would be the appropriate response to this man?
Firs, he lied to gain access to the kids. That tells me he knew in advance that what he was up to was wrong. Let a jury decide. he deserves what he gets.
Ticker and Leslie made good points. This is not a 20 year felony, but the guy definitely put himself on a path that could take him there. Phil is also quite correct in stating the fact that he lied to gain admission proves he knew what he was doing was wrong. Let the jury decide. I doubt he'll get hard time, probably extensive counseling and community service (away from children). A lot of people are finding out their stupidity on Youtube and Facebook is coming back and biting them on the butt when it comes to employment, getting in school etc. But we've raised a generation where everything is pretty much amoral or relative to them. Then they scratch their head when the rest of society doesn't find them funny.
I never even heard of this dirt bag until today, but I can see that he has the potential for replacing Michael Jackson, Charlie Sheen, or even hopefully, Ronnie Lee Gardner.
Suppose that he had left the "nice" version of the song in the video and posted it on YouTube. Did the kids' parents consent to having their video taken? (I remember having to sign a form for my kids).Now suppose that 20 years from now, one of these kids tries to get a job and this video turns up. Will it be held against them? What is the impact there?I agree with all that was said earlier, but was curious about these other two aspects as well.
Although Ticker makers a good point (no children were actually harmed), I don't have a lot of empathy for him. I cannot say I think it warrants a 20 year sentence, or any jail time for that matter. But I will say it goes to show what happens to a generation, when the older generation raising a younger generation goes to sleep on the job. This could have been prevented in this instance, with this man, if his parents had taught him to think things through before he acted. And if they did teach him this, then he obviously didn't listen.Very likely it was some impulsive thing that he thought would be funny and well-received by his peers. But instead, he is facing consequences that (while may be a bit outrageous) would never have had a chance of occurring, had he thought this one through beforehand.
No children were actually harmed or even sung to; the video was a prank.Therefore, I conclude that he doesn't deserve 20 years.Should be have been arrested? I'm on the fence on that one because, clearly, this young man is warped.One link in the article mentions a generation gap. God help us if this generation thinks that such pranks are fine and dandy.
Cases such as this are seldom heard before a jury since they involve minor children regardless of whether the children would be "used" by the prosecutors or not. I used the word "used" because I have known prosecutors who would "use" a child in order to attempt to win a tough case. Judges are pretty smart in that regard and usually won't allow it. If perchance it did go to a jury trial and children were called a smart judge would hear testimony in chambers and not allow the trauma of "grandstanding" for the prosecution to be inflicted on the children.
Leslie, also well put. The question is "is there a concern with this guy?"Phil, I do tend to agree that it may have been pre-meditated but I am not sure if that is clearAlligator, agreedMustang, you sometimes wonder why we couldn't stop these guys earlyRandy, good points. Once something is online it is hard to get rid of itLA,Very likely it was some impulsive thing that he thought would be funny and well-received by his peers.This is kind of where I was when I read the article. I keep coming back to the thought though that a "normal" person would not find this funny or even have the idea occur to themAOW, I agree on the issue of the generations. There is a bigger point here in that we are raising a generation of kids that are growing up on Youtube, texting, Facebook. Do these social media have an influence on how they think?Ticker, that is one of the issues. Is the potential damage to the children worth the need to punish this man?
I think there's a concern with this guy...just considering doing it is warped.but 20 years is nuts; he needs a counselor and some help. Hopefully, that's enough.thanks for your story about the elderly lady v the young girls at the ER at my place...'the times they are a changin'...and not for the better :-(
Z, I agree with you. 20 years seems like too much. I would think some time behind bars and some mandatory counseling would be a good fit. I am writing a post right now about how our society is changing because of social media.
Post a Comment