Pedo priest gets 20 years.

Adelaide, my city:

Quote:CATHOLIC priest John Sidney Denham has been jailed for almost 20 years on child sex charges against 25 boys in NSW between 1968 and 1986.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1079...ex-charges




Sadly, he'll be out in 13 years,unless another inmate kills him first. One can only hope..

So he gets lesss than a year a childs life ruined.

(July 3, 2010 at 4:49 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: So he gets lesss than a year a childs life ruined.

That is sick. :/

I'm sure Herr Von Popenfuhrer is outraged!

Chasm Wrote:That is sick. :/

I agree. They are supposed to be role-models or some such for the young catholic people and yet-- argh. Even other convicts know that molesting little boys is wrong.

What would have happened if he was just convicted of one? would they have just given him a few months? Of course, it would probably be less likely that he'd be convicted of just one.

(July 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Cego_Colher Wrote:

Chasm Wrote:That is sick. :/

I agree. They are supposed to be role-models or some such for the young catholic people and yet-- argh. Even other convicts know that molesting little boys is wrong.

What would have happened if he was just convicted of one? would they have just given him a few months? Of course, it would probably be less likely that he'd be convicted of just one.

I can tell you this one thing: If that guy wasn't a priest and he molested that many boys, even just ONE boy, he would be in there for life.

(July 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm)chasm Wrote:

(July 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Cego_Colher Wrote:

Chasm Wrote:That is sick. :/

I agree. They are supposed to be role-models or some such for the young catholic people and yet-- argh. Even other convicts know that molesting little boys is wrong.

What would have happened if he was just convicted of one? would they have just given him a few months? Of course, it would probably be less likely that he'd be convicted of just one.

I can tell you this one thing: If that guy wasn't a priest and he molested that many boys, even just ONE boy, he would be in there for life.

That's not necessarily true. Unfortunately, these dickheads are getting less time than potheads across the board. How many times have you heard about a minor girl being raped and killed on the news and the anchor goes on to say how the perp has been convicted in the past and was let out of jail just (insert alarmingly small time frame here) ago? It happens far too often.

That being said, I am outraged that this priest didn't get more time. I spend most of my fucking life outraged over some douchebag kid toucher who didn't get his just desserts. *sigh*

Quote:I can tell you this one thing: If that guy wasn't a priest and he molested that many boys, even just ONE boy, he would be in there for life.

Here in Australia, 20 years IS life,and a lot more than most people serve for murder (usuallly 10-12 years) 'Life without parole' is rare in Australia, being reserved for people such as Martin Bryant


In this case the guy is 67, so will probably die in prison.

My own view; child molestors should never be released.



0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Martin John Bryant (born 7 May 1967) is an Australian convicted murderer serving 35 life sentences in a Tasmanian prison. He murdered 35 people and injured 21 others in the Port Arthur massacre, a shooting spree in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996.[1] He is currently serving 35 life sentences plus 1,035 years without parole in the psychiatric wing of Risdon Prison in Hobart.[2] His rampage ranks among the deadliest of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_bryant

Then what's you opinion on that guy that made the biggest ponzi scheme ever and got jail for 150 years

(July 3, 2010 at 1:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm)chasm Wrote:

(July 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Cego_Colher Wrote:

Chasm Wrote:That is sick. :/

I agree. They are supposed to be role-models or some such for the young catholic people and yet-- argh. Even other convicts know that molesting little boys is wrong.

What would have happened if he was just convicted of one? would they have just given him a few months? Of course, it would probably be less likely that he'd be convicted of just one.

I can tell you this one thing: If that guy wasn't a priest and he molested that many boys, even just ONE boy, he would be in there for life.

That being said, I am outraged that this priest didn't get more time. I spend most of my fucking life outraged over some douchebag kid toucher who didn't get his just desserts. *sigh*

Yeah. :/

---

(July 4, 2010 at 2:11 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:I can tell you this one thing: If that guy wasn't a priest and he molested that many boys, even just ONE boy, he would be in there for life.

Here in Australia, 20 years IS life,and a lot more than most people serve for murder (usuallly 10-12 years) 'Life without parole' is rare in Australia, being reserved for people such as Martin Bryant


In this case the guy is 67, so will probably die in prison.

My own view; child molestors should never be released.

I agree.