Should tax dollars go towards "protecting" this cockroachs' rights?

[Hammertime]

Child Porn Charges Added to Mo. Case
BY CHRISTOPHER LEONARD


ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


ST. LOUIS -- A Missouri man accused of kidnapping and molesting two boys was indicted Thursday on federal charges he took pornographic pictures and videos of one of the youngsters.

The indictment marked the first federal charges against Michael Devlin, 41, a former pizzeria manager from the St. Louis suburbs.

Devlin is charged with kidnapping and other offenses in the 2002 abduction of Shawn Hornbeck, who is now 15, and the January abduction of 13-year-old Ben Ownby. Both boys were found in Devlin's apartment Jan. 12.

U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said four counts of the six-count indictment allege Devlin photographed and videotaped a minor engaged in sexually explicit acts between 2002 and this year. Two other counts allege he took the minor to Illinois and Arizona with the intent to sexually assault him.

Hanaway said all six counts involved the same child, identified only as "S," an apparent reference to Shawn. Authorities have alleged that Devlin held him captive from October 2002 until police found the boy in January.

It is The Associated Press' policy not to identify most alleged victims of sexual abuse, but the boys' stories have been widely publicized and their names are now well-known. Their families have also gone public, conducting media interviews.

Besides the federal charges, Devlin faces 75 state charges, including forcible sodomy, kidnapping and armed criminal action. He has pleaded not guilty to all those allegations.

Devlin's attorney, Michael Kielty, said he had not seen the prosecution's evidence, but he acknowledged that most child pornography cases are "very emotional, very difficult."

"If there are photos and videotapes, that certainly would add some weight to the government's case," Kielty said.

Shawn Hornbeck knew the federal charges would be filed and was with family members for moral support Thursday, said the family's attorney Scott Sherman.

"It's tough," Sherman said. "These are really tough facts. It's the most intimate and the most personal of all the indictments we think," Sherman said.

Shawn is ready to testify in the case, no matter how painful it might be, Sherman said.

"Justice for he and Ben is a very important element in (Shawn's) recovery," Sherman said.

Authorities allege Devlin used a gun to abduct Shawn as the boy was riding his bike near his home. Prosecutors have said he sodomized Shawn at least once a month for the next four years.

Neighbors thought Shawn was Devlin's son and said the boy was free to ride a bike, hang out with friends and cruise the Internet.

When Ben was abducted soon after getting off a school bus in January, a witness got a description of a white pickup seen speeding away. The description matched Devlin's vehicle, leading to his arrest.

Devlin remains jailed on $1 million bond. His federal trial won't begin until his three state trials have concluded.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/APA/703012747

[Mistress]

From what I understand, sex offenders usually don't last long in prison, there is a zero tolerence code within prison walls about child molesters....

[TheDon]

he does have a right to a fair trial..

[G-Benz]

Anyone remember the oft' revisited skit on the original SNL about the elderly babysitter that showed up with the Polaroid. The "girls" loved him, called him "Uncle", and he had them do all sorts of innocent-looking gymnastic poses in their nightgowns while he snapped away?

Back then, we all got a laugh of the hidden perverseness of said character. Makes you wonder when did all of this take a serious tone?

[SwampYankee]

The best-case scenario for this scumbag is that he only abducted two kids. We'll probably learn that it was much worse.

It's a real shame that he didn't put up a fight when the police arrested him so they could have shot him then. Since we can't lock people like this up in a 6x6 room for 24/7/365(366 in a leap year) and have the next time his body ever see the outside of that cell occur when they pull his corpse out in a body bag, hopefully he will meet an untimely death in prison. Preferably sooner rather than later.

Convicted pedophiles do not deserve one penny of taxpayer money whether it's food, medical, clothing, toiletries, bedding. Unfortunately our laws force us to.

[Mistress]

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

The best-case scenario for this scumbag is that he only abducted two kids. We'll probably learn that it was much worse.

It's a real shame that he didn't put up a fight when the police arrested him so they could have shot him then. Since we can't lock people like this up in a 6x6 room for 24/7/365(366 in a leap year) and have the next time his body ever see the outside of that cell occur when they pull his corpse out in a body bag, hopefully he will meet an untimely death in prison. Preferably sooner rather than later.

Convicted pedophiles do not deserve one penny of taxpayer money whether it's food, medical, clothing, toiletries, bedding. Unfortunately our laws force us to.

He won't last long in prison.

[John Doe]

Should we just suspend the Constitution? Maybe just this once......

[Hatterasguy]

China's legal system does have some good sides, and I think in this case we can use part of it:

Shoot him in the head and charge the bullet to his next of kin. In this case I will even pay for the 9mm slug, just tell me where to send the check.

[Brian Carlton]

I've got no love for him either, but, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Eliminate that provision of the Constitution and you've started down a slipperly slope.

Why not just shoot accused murderers on the spot.........as well?

That would also save quite a few tax dollars.

[Old300D]

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I've got no love for him either, but, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Eliminate that provision of the Constitution and you've started down a slipperly slope.

Why not just shoot accused murderers on the spot.........as well?

That would also save quite a few tax dollars.

Agreed. I don't think this anger is about "tax dollars", it's about what this parasite has done. But until he's proven guilty he deserves the legal presumption of innocence and due process.

[Nate]

If he's found guilty, then punishment should be death.
Same with all crimes of this type, and murder...

~Nate

[al76slc]

Originally Posted by Hammertime

It is The Associated Press' policy not to identify most alleged victims of sexual abuse, but the boys' stories have been widely publicized and their names are now well-known. Their families have also gone public, conducting media interviews.

And what possible justification could the parents have for going public?

Did they ask the kids how they felt about their names being publicized?

I don't like it.

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by G-Benz

...Back then, we all got a laugh of the hidden perverseness of said character. Makes you wonder when did all of this take a serious tone?

I think it was a "nervous" sort of laughter. Lots of families have a "funny uncle."

We are now more aware of the impact such behavior has on victims.

There was a time, not long ago, when rape was not thought to be much of a crime either. Just "good old boys" getting carried away.

Now we know better.

The investigation and prosecution of these crimes has come a long way since the days when rape victims were told that they had "asked for it" or when they were told to just "relax and go along with it."

I guess society has indeed evolved!

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by al76slc

And what possible justification could the parents have for going public?

Did they ask the kids how they felt about their names being publicized?

I don't like it.

I don't like it either.

But there are two schools of thought on this.

One, is to respect the privacy of the victim, so as not to further victimize the victim through the ensuing publicity circus. This makes sense to me.

The other theory, which also has some vailidity, is that these victims have nothing to be ashamed of. They did nothing worong, so why hide in the dark? To some people, going public and tellign the entire wolrd what was done to them has a tremendously liberating and empowering effect.

Many of the victims of priest abuse have related how awful it felt to live in secret, hiding the crime of what was done to them--as if it was their fault. They also relate how incredibly liberated and powerful they felt once they went public.

I guess I would be OK with the publicity IF AND ONLY IF the victims were consulted, counseled on the effects of the publicity and then agreed to go public.

Then it makes sense to me.

Good post HAMMERTIME. Thanks for helping shed a light on these cucarachas. Let me get my spray can.......

[jlomon]

I think I'm paraphrasing John Stuart Mill here, but the truest test of a democracy is its willingness to grant equal rights to the most reprehensible elements of society. If you can't do that, you aren't a democracy. So if those ideals are important to you, then you gotta suck it up when it comes to the monsters.

From a far more pragmatic point of view, I want to make sure that every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed when it comes to due process for these animals. I want every right exercised and observed in that first trial. Because if you don't follow due process then they have grounds for appeal. And if a jury convicts them, I don't want any avenue for appeal before they spend the rest of their miserable lives in jail.