<< It is exactly your 'scale of severity' I am wishing to explore. >>

Excellent Steele. At last someone is taking notice of my much-emphasised point about the severity of offences and their position on the scale of all possible offences that come under the category of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching.

<< I would put it to you that yours is not only patently out of synch with the vast majority of the community but will lead to nonsense conclusions. >>

All the people I have discussed this matter with in the real world are of the same accord as me, except for one person. Whereas people in on this thread are of your accord, except for I think four respondents. So I wouldn’t assume that your perspective prevails overall, or that I am out of sync with the vast majority.

It is my fear that people who are very strongly condemnatory of offences at the light end of the scale and who fail to consider the broader perspective are very likely to reach ‘nonsense’ conclusions.

From your previous post:

<< A proposition from you of a $300 fine for a near 40 year old man twice raising a little girl's skirt to touch her genitals I felt was so completely out of synch >>

The judge stated:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her [censored] over her clothing. >

So Steele, with respect you have overstated it somewhat by saying; ‘raising a little girl’s skirt’ and by omitting ‘over her clothing’.

continued

I find this to be very significant, because it is an exaggeration of what really happened (accepting the judge’s account as accurate).

It is inadvertent on your part. Lots of people do this. Small exaggerations like this, plus an unquestioning acceptance of what a complainant has said as being the absolute truth, may lead to a strong bias and indeed to a ‘nonsense’ conclusion.

It all makes me fear that what we have heard and what the court has found and hence the judge has stated, may be considerably worse than what really happened. And if this can happen with the very simple and quick action regarding ‘A’, then it can happen to a greater extent with longer or more complicated actions, as those regarding ‘C’ and Tonya Lee, and to a very significant extent when considering the whole set of charges.

The very fact that there were 12 counts against Harris for the matters that came before the court is of considerable concern to me, as there really were only 8 incidents, 5 of which were in relation to ‘C’.

Counts 5 & 6 arose from the very same quick action, as did 7 & 8. Counts 10, 11 & 12 arose from one incident. I have a considerable problem with count 9 being an offence at all, occurring when ‘C’ was 19. And I also think that count 2 is extremely minor.

I see the whole setup as being considerably exaggerated. It seems to amount to an inbuilt bias, which one could argue was designed to maximise the impact on the defendant, rather than taking the matter forward in a neutral manner.

I also see several potential biases in the judge’s statement.

continued

So, bearing all of this in mind and hence having considerable uncertainty in my mind as to whether the stuff I read about the whole case is accurate or biased against Harris, I feel that the penalties for some of the offences should be considerably lighter than those imposed.

However as I have said, the overall sentence is probably reasonable, given that 6 of the 12 charges involve concurrent sentences.

Also, regarding ‘A’, it was a first offence, and should have been treated as such. Later offences should not have meant that this first offence copped a bigger penalty than it otherwise would have.

So, nine months jail was patently way over the top. ANY jail time for that offence would have been quite extreme. A realistic penalty would have been a small fine. I previously said 300$. Well, perhaps 1000$.

I know you’re not going to like that. But I do hope you can appreciate that I have thought it out very thoroughly and gone to the trouble of explaining my reasoning here.

continued

<< With respect sir you have not given me an actual penalty you adjudge appropriate for Harris' crime of downloading images of child pornography. >>

Given the circumstances, which I described in my first post of 18 July, I would allot no penalty. It doesn’t seem to be anything more than a matter of a bit of online exploration, involving material that was borderline child porn, many years ago at a time when the internet was just becoming established. There is no indication that it developed beyond that.

<< …let's focus it a little with a hypothetical. Assume Harris, instead of sexually assaulting the 8 year old, had taken a picture of her unclothed in a change room without her being aware of it… >>

Well, I am sure you can appreciate that one would want to know the exact circumstances. They would want to know what a critical assessment in a court of law came up with and they’d want to be able to have confidence that it was true beyond a reasonable doubt, and not exaggerated. In the absence of this, it is very hard indeed to suggest a reasonable penalty.

If he does this without a girl being aware of it, and the photo never gets seen by anyone other than him, then it is surely quite a different circumstance to the photo being seen by others or to the girl being seriously frightened by seeing a man in the change room pointing a camera at her while she is naked.

So…. what penalty would you impose?

lewd/but not crude;joke..<<..a change room without her being aware of it… >>

i have seen these sights/where guys get their jollies taking blury PHOTOS..of girls..ladies and even guys..doing everYDAY THINGS/but being watched

its a tottilaTION/the thrill of the chase
but really..in the sceme of things..[materially..hurts no-one
and at least gets these introverts talking with/others shadLows..[these beings are important spiritualy[as we know in the karMIC REALITY/NO GOOD SIN goes unnoted[in hell the darkness really does have watching eyes

im noting these shy types/are spread through the realms[heaven/and\hell]

[think/like that bartender/saving homers jelly baby]
these snoops or the base of good policing[if their on side the police give them excellent jobs;spying on the rest of us[but sadly woman are best at noting the pathetic abuses]..and getting men is difficult.

<<>.Well, I am sure you can appreciate that one would want to know the exact circumstances.>>

no not really[i leave the judging to god*[inc/ltd]

<<..They would want to know what a critical assessment in a court of law>>

court law is preceeedant law[and by quoting a precident/the real criminals escape justice[the law is a seive/to any half smart lawyer]
high spiritual larma

lol/4\law..<<..came up with and they’d want to be able to have confidence that it was true beyond a reasonable doubt,>>

true law works by injury
damages/potential danger\expectation of future works

<<.If he does this without a girl being aware of it,>>
AND HASNT ..DEMEANED HER TO OTHER!
i see no sin*

<<..and the photo never gets seen>>

i have no need to judge others sins
'least that judgment se the measure for mine own judgment.

<<>>>So…. what penalty would you impose?>>

i say go and sin no more
as a man thinken in his heart; so is he
unavoidaby/the sooner we find the danger/the better for who
who the best judge of danger[the potential victim;..so there is a dog collar;that zaps anyone arround the kid fitted with it/we fit them at birth

problem fixed;you dieD
CAUSE YOU FRIGHTENED THAT KID
GOOD/or\die..inc/ltd..[god*;..cod*]

COD=CONTROLLED UNTIL DEATH
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/anstey%27s%20kingdom%20of%20shylock.html

OUG, I was responding to RObert who said <<My comments about the viewing of child porn as a release are a call for more investigation/research>>

RObert, How can there be more investigation/research, what kind of investigation, what kind of research. Experiments involving children and pedophiles? The word 'more' implies there has been past investigation, has there? I would maintain if there had been "research" using children against their will, which by nature it must be, then the "investigators" should be locked up, along with the pedophiles! If anyone could please explain this notion.
Ludwig said <<So it is indeed very brave of you R0bert to suggest that child porn could possibly have a positive effect for some people.>> Where is the consideration for the child in that "positive effect"?

Ludwig, your dissection of the judges findings In my view puts you and those your claimed << All the people I (Ludwig) have discussed this matter with in the real world are of the same accord as me, except for one person>> out of step with the general community attitude to Rolf and his punishment, in fact the general outrage may well have been for an even tougher sentence for good old Rolf! So who's out of step?