58 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

http://www.ctv.ca/CT...ography-120104/


This religious figure, as all religious figures must be held to a higher moral expectation than a layman given his position and authority.

To grant him bail for such an immoral act is unacceptable, He should serve the full sentence prescribed fort the offense. Individuals that seek and obtain such materials encourage the abuse of more children to provide their perversion.

" Disgraced Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey was sentenced to 15 months in prison Wednesday for importing child pornography, but was released on probation within hours.

Lahey pleaded guilty to the child pornography charge back in May and surrendered himself into immediate custody while awaiting sentencing.

Since Lahey committed his crime in 2009, Ontario Court Justice Kent Kirkland said the 71-year-old bishop was entitled to receive double credit for time served awaiting sentencing.

And with close to eight months already in jail, Lahey was free to go from the court."

[dre]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120104/lahey-bishop-child-pornography-120104/


This religious figure, as all religious figures must be held to a higher moral expectation than a layman given his position and authority.

To grant him bail for such an immoral act is unacceptable, He should serve the full sentence prescribed fort the offense. Individuals that seek and obtain such materials encourage the abuse of more children to provide their perversion.

" Disgraced Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey was sentenced to 15 months in prison Wednesday for importing child pornography, but was released on probation within hours.

Lahey pleaded guilty to the child pornography charge back in May and surrendered himself into immediate custody while awaiting sentencing.

Since Lahey committed his crime in 2009, Ontario Court Justice Kent Kirkland said the 71-year-old bishop was entitled to receive double credit for time served awaiting sentencing.

And with close to eight months already in jail, Lahey was free to go from the court."

This religious figure, as all religious figures must be held to a higher moral expectation than a layman given his position and authority.

Actually I dont see any reason why one would hold a religious figure to a higher moral expectation than a postal worker, or a farmer.

[prairiechickin]

Actually I dont see any reason why one would hold a religious figure to a higher moral expectation than a postal worker, or a farmer.

Considering they themselves constantly trumpet thier roles as moral guardians of society, I think we can hold them to a higher standard. Not to mention that they hold positions of great trust in society, especially among their own congregations. Wasn't this clown the Bishop of Antigonish, and wasn't that region recently awash in allegations of clergy abusing children?

[Peeves]

Actually I dont see any reason why one would hold a religious figure to a higher moral expectation than a postal worker, or a farmer.

Well think about it. Who preaches morality?
Who has opportunity to influence moral codes?
Who hears the confessions of sinners?
Who is indeed held as the 'epitome' of religious virtues?
If a religious leader isn't expected to higher moral principles who is?

I expect a cop to be held to a higher ethical (behavior) standard.

I expect a doctor to be more thorough medically than a nurse or a layman.

Certainly all are human and fallible, but, a Rabbi, priest or any holy man best be held to a higher standard and expectation, one they preach to their flock.

[Peeves]

Considering they themselves constantly trumpet thier roles as moral guardians of society, I think we can hold them to a higher standard. Not to mention that they hold positions of great trust in society, especially among their own congregations. Wasn't this clown the Bishop of Antigonish, and wasn't that region recently awash in allegations of clergy abusing children?

Well put.

[Scotty]

Considering they themselves constantly trumpet thier roles as moral guardians of society, I think we can hold them to a higher standard.

This begs the question, if a criminal hold himself to a very low standard should we hold them to lower standards and give them weaker sentences?

[jacee]

I think he should be incarcerated forever, the scum sucking pig!

However, it isn't for the court to hold him to higher standards: that's for the church ... to make sure he NEVER reoffends, and to withdraw him from any contact with children. His credibility as a spiritual advisor he has destroyed all by himself.

[prairiechickin]

This begs the question, if a criminal hold himself to a very low standard should we hold them to lower standards and give them weaker sentences?

As a rule we do when it comes to white collar crimes.

[eyeball]

However, it isn't for the court to hold him to higher standards: that's for the church ...

Wouldn't that be like encouraging the Mafia to police itself?

Personally, I never let my kids anywhere near a church when they were were growing up. Of course I was also concerned about people diddling with their minds.

Edited by eyeball, 08 January 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[Scotty]

I think he should be incarcerated forever, the scum sucking pig!

Because he downloaded some pictures? Really?

[Scotty]

As a rule we do when it comes to white collar crimes.

The general reason why white collar criminals get lower sentences is because up until they're caught they generally led exemplary lives, held down jobs, etc. Most street crimes by contrast, are committed by people with no gainful employment and previous criminal records.

[Melanie_]

Because he downloaded some pictures? Really?

He didn't download "some pictures", he downloaded pictures of children being sexually assaulted. He did this because he got his jollies from looking at images of children being raped. He created a demand for further sexual attacks on children, as those who like to look at this stuff are always looking for more. He also contributed to their continued victimization, as those images will always be out there, so those children never know in their day to day lives if they are interacting with someone who has seen them be abused, and enjoyed watching it.

Don't try to minimize his role in the abuse of these children. People who download child porn are complicit in the abuse, and should be held accountable.

[Moonlight Graham]

LOL @ time served.

[Peeves]

He didn't download "some pictures", he downloaded pictures of children being sexually assaulted. He did this because he got his jollies from looking at images of children being raped. He created a demand for further sexual attacks on children, as those who like to look at this stuff are always looking for more. He also contributed to their continued victimization, as those images will always be out there, so those children never know in their day to day lives if they are interacting with someone who has seen them be abused, and enjoyed watching it.

Don't try to minimize his role in the abuse of these children. People who download child porn are complicit in the abuse, and should be held accountable.

Touché.

[Scotty]

He didn't download "some pictures", he downloaded pictures of children being sexually assaulted. He did this because he got his jollies from looking at images of children being raped.

But he can't help what arouses him, no more than anyone else can. You are judging his morality based on factors beyond his control.

He created a demand for further sexual attacks on children,

That's simply nonsense. People aren't molesting children because they can put the pictures on the internet. They're molesting children because they're sexually attracted to them and don't have either the necessary self-control or the care about the harm they cause to not do anything about it. As I said earlier, eliminating pictures entirely, eliminating the internet entirely, is not going to do anything to stop sexual assaults on children.

He also contributed to their continued victimization, as those images will always be out there, so those children never know in their day to day lives if they are interacting with someone who has seen them be abused, and enjoyed watching it.

I grant you the possibility, but the fact he looked at a picture of someone naked does not make him a participant in the abuse, no matter how far you want to stretch it. That's especially so given the majority of the children in child porn pictures are probably middle aged by now.