photo sledgehammers_banner_zpsd82b7322.jpg"

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

If True...

These are some very serious and disturbing allegations. If the person in question is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I hope they can find a hole deep enough in which to stuff him.

Child porn charges filed against ex-state Rep. Farnham
Former Illinois State Rep. Keith Farnham was charged Monday with using both personal and state-owned computers to trade hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography and engage in graphic online chats in which he allegedly bragged about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.

The federal criminal complaint alleged that Farnham, 66, a Democrat from Elgin, possessed two videos depicting child pornography on a computer that was seized from his state office in Elgin a week before his abrupt resignation in March. Authorities also linked a Yahoo! email account used by Farnham to a online trading forum in which he chatted with other users about his sexual preferences, according to the charges.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear: This is not a left/right thing. Neither side has a lock on moral purity; neither side is the sole source of depravity. I would like to point out that this politician (I can think of no worse epithet) was advocating for tougher anti-child pornography laws while (allegedly) engaging in same. That's some pretty steep hypocrisy.

You know, like being one of the top gun-banners in CA by day and running guns to the Zetas at night like CA Senator Yee.

What bothers me most is this:
Farnham did not return calls for comment Monday. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.
"Up to" ten years. Meaning he could most likely face less. Now, while I understand that this is the penalty for possession of child pornography, I'd fall over dead of shock if there wasn't more going on than looking at stuff online. Even if all he ever did was look at it online, he's partially responsible for it - without demand there's no need for supply.

No, wait. I take that back. I think that, even if he is convicted, he should go free. However, if he is convicted, the parents of any of the victims involved should not be prosecuted for anything they might do. I bet that would reduce the recidivism rate if a few of these monsters were beaten to death by angry mobs and/or torn apart by separate tractor trailers.

People who hurt children like that deserve whatever happens to them, and the messier the better...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...
(image courtesy of Robb Allen)


5 comments:

wolfwalker said...

"No, wait. I take that back. I think that, even if he is convicted, he should go free. However, if he is convicted, the parents of any of the victims involved should not be prosecuted for anything they might do."

IOW, he should be outlawed in the old sense: declared outside the law's protection, so his life and property are fair game for anyone who wants them. Works for me.

lelnet said...

Limiting it to the parents misses the point, I think.

"Imagine it were your kid" is the wrong reaction. Try "imagine some set of circumstances in which it _could_ be your kid".

Can't? Yeah, that's because you're a better parent than the ones who are or were nominally responsible for the kids who are victims. I wouldn't rely on such as them to take care of _anything_. I would literally (and indeed, I do literally) have more trust in the general population of inmates in a randomly-selected prison, to do the job properly.

wolfwalker's idea is also a good one, of course.

Jennifer said...

I agree with wolfwalker.

Anonymous said...

I'd say nail his tender parts to a post, set the post on fire, and hand him a hacksaw.

Him being from Elgin and a D after his name doesn't enter into it.

After his arrest, he resigned from the Illinois house citing health problems. Not pending litigation.

Joseph from IL

Geodkyt said...

You cannot reform a pedophile. Period friggin' dot. The known recidivism rate approaches unity.

Thus, they can never be trusted in society.