Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
"A registered sex offender from Huntington Beach pleaded guilty Thursday to making child pornography and agreed to serve a 26-year prison term for filming an 8-year-old girl engaged in sex acts.
Gary Samuel Cochran, 53, pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years in federal prison. In a plea deal filed in United States District Court, Cochran and prosecutors agreed to a 312-month prison sentence.
As part of the plea agreement, Cochran would admit producing sexually explicit videos of the 8-year-old victim while on a trip to the beach with the girl and her family. When investigators searched Cochran’s home in 2008, they reported discovering videos of the girl as well as “hundreds of videos and images depicting what defendant knew was child pornography.â€..."
"(CNN) -- A North Carolina woman will serve at least 14 years in prison after pleading guilty Thursday to second-degree murder in the death last year of her 10-year-old stepdaughter.
As part of a plea agreement, Elisa Baker admitted killing Zahra Baker and attempting to thwart investigators by planting a fake ransom note at the family's Hickory, North Carolina, home in October 2010. Zahra's body was dismembered and some of the remains were found a month later.
The freckle-faced girl's disappearance and search drew national attention. Zahra had lost part of her left leg at age 5 and lost hearing in both her ears while undergoing treatment for cancer.
...[Judge] Kincaid advised her that she will face between 14 years, nine months, and 18 years, six months in prison.
...
Baker also pleaded guilty to charges of obstruction of justice, bigamy, obtaining property by false pretenses and identity fraud.
In the plea agreement she signed, and also under questioning Thursday, Baker admitted to several aggravating factors in the case, including "a history and pattern of physical, verbal and psychological abuse of the victim." Moreover, Baker said she "secreted the victim from family and others" and "desecrated the victim's body to hinder detection," hampering the police investigation as a result.
She also accepted statutory aggravating factors, namely that "the victim was very young, physically infirm or handicapped" and that "the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence ... to commit the offense."
...
District Attorney James Gaither Jr....he wished "the law and the facts were more favorable to the state."
Gaither said it was unexpected when Elisa Baker chose to cooperate with authorities on a case that caused "confusion and outrage and real frustration" in the North Carolina community.
In a statement, he said that he agreed to the plea deal to avoid "the risk ... that Elisa Baker would avoid responsibility for her part in the death of Zahra."
"The probability was that without her cooperation, law enforcement would not locate Zahra's body," Gaither said. ..."
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#214,913
They both deserved more punishment.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,914
@previous (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
I think death would suffice.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,915
Life in prison without parole for both.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,916
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Mandatory rapes by to4str as well.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,917
@214,915 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why not just kill them so they are no longer a burden?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,918
@previous (A)
Because I'm always very squeamish about state-sponsored killings. Can I really in good conscience authorize the death of another human being who will no longer be a threat to anyone but themselves, other criminals and prison guards who are fully aware of the dangers of their jobs?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,919
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Until they cease to exist, they are still a threat.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,921
@previous (A)
Well, that's true of every single human being.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,923
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
These are not innocent humans; these are cancerous subhumans that prey on children and the world would be better off if they were purged from existence.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,924
@previous (A)
There are a lot of people whose death would make the world a better place, but under what authority could you possibly demand their execution at the hands of the state?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,925
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Who said their execution should lie in the hands of the state? The state is too kind and lynching is more relieving/fun.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#214,926
@previous (A)
If you're going to advocate indiscriminate vigilante justice, then you are so far beyond the bounds of reasoned discourse that nothing I could possibly say would convince you otherwise.
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#214,950
@214,925 (A)
Did he force the girl? It may have been consensual. She may have enjoyed it. He may love her. If he's a pedophile (I think it's safe to say he is) it's entirely possible he was romantically infatuated.
We have all seen people lose it over someone they fell for. His actions are indefensible, but it doesn't mean he is an inhuman monster.
Christ, man. We are all humans. The mother was dealing with a suffering child. She obviously had the stress of caring for that girl and the pain of watching her suffer. She disposed of the body in a way not to get caught. She didn't do it for fun.
Of course, maybe they are both monsters.
We don't know them though. We know one bit of information.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#214,952
good thinking bud, if real criminals are executed prisons will have plenty of room for music and movie pirates
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#214,955
@previous (E)
Nope. Need room for the marijuana and psychedlic users.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,028
@214,952 (E)
If murderers and child rapists (which FILM their violent act against CHILDREN) were executed, we'd have plenty of room for our financial criminals.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,029
They should have received 10 death sentences each at least.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,032
@215,028 (A)
Nope, we would have room if we only locked up people who were dangerous to society. Financiers aren't actually dangerous if they are kept from handling other people's finances. They should be allowed to be free to work so they can pay back the people who have been hurt. Prison as a punishment is a non-beneficial solution. Incarceration should be kept to situations where the person is a danger to the public. If that danger can be limited in other ways, then I see no reason to house and feed them for free.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,265
Of course, in Canada, Britain and Australia, you can go to prison just for reading a fucking comic book. No shit.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,383
My first thought was that the second case needed to be more severely punished, but the mother was clearly insane (no sane mother would kill their child), so it makes sense that her sentence was smaller (still shouldn't have been that small. Killing a child is unacceptable). The standard for murder of a child should be 50 years at least, though. Not death, because then they would not be able to reflect on their mistakes. They may as well be getting let off scot-free if you kill them.
The mental state of the child in the first case ought to have been examined. If she were negatively effected, fine, the man should have been punished that much, even more. But if she was not harmed, then he is guilty of a victimless crime, and so I believe should have been punished less than he was. She could have filmed herself with his camera, and he would be punished just as much.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,385
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Hey, shithead, children/teenagers don't know what they are doing usually and are easily influenced by older peers. "Filming herself" is a very lofty reason so don't make it sound like it's a legitimate excuse because it isn't.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,388
@previous (I) > missing the entire point of the post
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,393
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
You're a fucking idiot, UJ.
> Not death, because then they would not be able to reflect on their mistakes.
Oh, so somebody who is fucking deranged enough that begins to feel sympathy makes up for the fact they killed their own child? Hey, maybe we should let them start their own website after converting to Christianity! It totally worked for David Berkowitz!
> They may as well be getting let off scot-free if you kill them.
Fuck them. They gave up their rights as human beings when they killed another person. Don't even try to pull this bullshit.
> The mental state of the child in the first case ought to have been examined. If she were negatively effected, fine, the man should have been punished that much,
You're trying to argue that so long as a child doesn't turn out fucked up that child abuse is okay? Fuck you.
> the man should have been punished that much, even more.
Hey, asshole, a CRIME was committed here.
> But if she was not harmed, then he is guilty of a victimless crime
Okay, way to try to justify pedophile crime against children who can't defend themselves. You're exploiting innocence. Once again, fuck you.
> I believe should have been punished less than he was
You make me sick.
> She could have filmed herself with his camera, and he would be punished just as much.
Once again, shithead, these are underaged people we talk about. They don't have the life experiences to defend themselves when it comes to a court of law.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,407
@previous (I)
I find your lack of logical arguments disconcerting.
> Oh, so somebody who is fucking deranged enough that begins to feel sympathy makes up for the fact they killed their own child? Hey, maybe we should let them start their own website after converting to Christianity! It totally worked for David Berkowitz!
> Fuck them. They gave up their rights as human beings when they killed another person. Don't even try to pull this bullshit.
There isn't even an argument here. Nothing can make up for the murder of a child. But if you kill them, they will not even feel pain, or regret. They will simply escape life. Child murderers are the most hated scum in the world, other prisoners will make their lives hell.
> You're trying to argue that so long as a child doesn't turn out fucked up that child abuse is okay? Fuck you.
strawman fallacy. He should still be punished, but not that much. lrn2read.
> yada yada yada idiocy, yada yada yada ad hominem
kk
> Once again, shithead, these are underaged people we talk about. They don't have the life experiences to defend themselves when it comes to a court of law.
Again, completely irrelevant. The parents are at fault for leaving her alone with a registered sex offender in the first place. He is mentally unwell, he can't be blamed for having done this. The mentally unwell don't have the capacity to understand that they have done wrong.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,410
It's more expensive to execute someone then to let them rot in prison for 60 years. It is actually cheaper to house and feed them for the rest of their miserable lives.
Honestly, the death penalty is stupid. Die today, or a full life of regret and misery. hmm.... The atheist in me says exact revenge whilst they still exist.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,412
@215,407 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6) > The mentally unwell don't have the capacity to understand that they have done wrong.
Holy fuck, are you kidding me?
You know who else were not mentally well? Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Ugh. You are so full of shit and excuses it's insane.
> Honestly, the death penalty is stupid. Die today, or a full life of regret and misery. hmm.... The atheist in me says exact revenge whilst they still exist.
You need a head check.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,414
@previous (I)
Second one wasn't me, bro. But either way, you seem angry and incapable of making rational or logical arguments at the moment, so I think this conversation is over. You are not wrong, but you have not presented any arguments to make me think you are right, either.
@215,410 (J)
Actually does fit with my line of thinking, though.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#215,415
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I know it wasn't you. It was directed towards Anonymous J. Anyway, because I missed that point you want to completely disregard my argument. That's okay, because I know you want some kind of way out because your sick fuckery pedo idea where the laws are convenient to you are more convenient when I make a simple typo. I'm done arguing with you as well because you're obviously a piece of shit who gets off on the idea that you can exploit children since they can't defend themselves or do not know how. You're a predatory individual and people like you make me feel fucking ill inside. Your line of thinking is self-serving and gratuitous.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,029
Remove antiquated notions of sexual purity, religious ideas of chastity and sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of recreation &c. and what becomes of sex crimes? Should the state legislate morality?
The mother with the disabled child should have (and with less state interference, more easily could have and likely would have, since she seemingly did not do it for pleasure, but to end the stress of caring for the child) surrendered the child to a charity set up to care for disabled children.
Murder, in any case, is the worst crime (debatable?) and as such requires a harsher punishment than other crimes to discourage it being committed to cover up crimes. That is to say, non-capital crimes must be punished less than murder to discourage the thief from killing his victims (if one advocates life imprisonment for property crimes), or the rapist from murdering his victim (if one advocates life imprisonment for sexual crimes) &c.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,034
The pedo that raped the girl and made CP should have gotten life, even though child molesters do not last long in prison unless they're placed in protective custody.
The stepmother was insane, and being institutionalized for life would be more fitting than just locking her up. When she finishes her 14 year sentence, she'll be just as dangerous because she won't have received proper treatment.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,039
@217,029 (K)
The death penalty doesn't discourage crime. It's been shown. Harsher punishments do nothing but cost the taxpayer money. The length or incarceration should be determined by the risk posed to society.
Punishment is a barbaric practice. Incarceration should be used to keep dangerous people from causing harm. Every effort should be made to rehabilitate criminals. A rehabilitated murderer becomes an asset to society.
They already do this with prolific sex offenders. That system is terrible and not designed to actually rehabilitate anyone, but it shows that people are willing to try the system (sure, it takes failed reasoning and logic and a disregard for the law, but that's a government project to gauge how willingly we will give up our freedom -- using largely child molesters who have victimized dozens of children won't get sympathy from anyone, so it's rather brilliant). Imagine if we used that model with society's interests in mind?
Sure, it's a scary thought to treat humans as humans, but change is needed. The current system doesn't work. We incarcerate far too many people. We are an embarrassment to the human race.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,051
@previous (sluggy)
I do not advocate the death penalty; I was using "capital crime" to refer to crimes causing death. I was arguing that crimes that do not cause death must be punished less than crimes that do cause death. If one sets life imprisonment as the sentence for crimes causing death, than one should have sentences of less than life imprisonment for crimes that do not cause death.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,052
> It's more expensive to execute someone then to let them rot in prison for 60 years. It is actually cheaper to house and feed them for the rest of their miserable lives.
This is a problem that needs to change.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,107
@previous (A)
Yea, state sanctioned murder that has no benefits is really something we shouldn't have.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,109
@previous (sluggy)
Its benefit is that one can remove the defective from society WITHOUT having to provide them with food, clothing, bed, etc for the rest of their lives. Its downfall is that it manages to be more expensive than life sentencing.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,119
@217,106 (A) > This is a problem that needs to change.
"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for Ñapital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not Ñommit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be Ñompletely eliminated.
If the death penalty was replaÑed with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole, which Ñosts millions less and also ensures that the public is proteÑted while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the Ñommunities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, poliÑe officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for Ñrime victims and their families."
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,138
@previous (M)
or we could just kill people when they are arrested. Save everyone the trouble. But, here in texas, we appreciate justice. Especially justice against an innocent man, 'slong as he's a nigger, and retards.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#217,195
@217,104 (sluggy)
I was under the impression that many are calling for the repeal of Three-Strike laws because it lead to increased violent crime, by taking away the penalty for committing a more violent crime.