Willie wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:31 AM:
" Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while there they will be unable to engage in crime. "
Willie wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:30 AM:
" Definition for wikipedia: "Deterrence can be divided into three separate categories.
Specific deterrence focuses on the individual in question. The aim of these punishments is to discourage the criminal from future criminal acts by instilling an understanding of the consequences.
General or indirect deterrence focuses on general prevention of crime by making examples of specific deviants. The individual actor is not the focus of the attempt at behavioral change, but rather receives punishment in public view in order to deter other individuals from deviance in the future. The argument that deterrence, rather than retribution, is the main justification for punishment is a hallmark of the rational choice theory and can be traced to Beccaria and Bentham. "
Willie wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:17 AM:
" There are different forms of deterrence(it is a broad term that is often misused). One, you are deterred by potential punishment before the crime occurs. Two, you are deterred when you see someone else get punished for the crime. Three, you are deterred from committing crime while you are locked up (you don't have much of a choice on that one). Four, you are deterred after serving the time by fear of re-incarceration. The different types of deterrence have names but I don't have exact recall on the terms since criminal justice 101. It is all part of deterrence theory and isn't very useful if you ask me, but our law makers keep making stiffer and stiffer punishments with deterrence in mind. Think OWI. The only true deterrent from crime IS to lock them up so they can't commit more crimes because they ARE locked up. "
Willie wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:01 AM:
" Don't blame the wife for standing by her man, that is a societal more and is also denial that her man could do anything bad or sick. It is extremely common for close family members to support their loved one no matter what the crime was. Admitting that their loved one is a bad person could be construed in their own mind that they too are somehow responsible for what happened. It is the sad truth about human nature. We saw the same thing happen on blogs from Ramirez's baby momma and other close friends and family. "
Cards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:32 PM:
" hey slinger1919 , he is to blame and kept watching it, until he was caught, it sounds like in your little world you give in very easily to temptation, you need some help there, you obiviously didn't get my point, so I will help you,both sides are to blame equally, no child porn shouldn't be produced and if you think that is o.k. you need help, and wathan was wrong for watching it, it is that simple. I hope that helps you understand... "
Darwinism wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:55 PM:
" Get it right: Tribune: article is about sentencing and reporter states he plead guilty to 1 count, 2 identical dismissed but "could be considered at sentencing". Isn't this a sentencing article?
Willie, how can he be deterred from serving 40 days AFTER he admits to the crime and spends the time? Actually, so far the deterance is working or it would have been reported.
Roxy, that "technical" stuff is called criminal law, a good lawyer would have been helpful. "
doyoudovoodoo wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:38 PM:
" Was a PSI (presentence investigation) ordered and if so, what was the sentencing recommendations? Will this criminal be a lifetime registrant on the sex offender registry or will he only do 15 years on it? The Tribune needs to fill in the gaps when it reports on stuff like this because the public needs to know. "
jens2gd4u wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:01 PM:
" SICK AND WRONG!!! And the wife stands by??? He still was watching these inappropriate videos. Hmmmm was he browsing for it? Because I never have a pop up with child porn. "
antieverything wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:11 PM:
" Roxy,pull your head out, file papers and rid yourself of this devil. You will be a better person for distancing yourself from these incidents. "
rfield wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:42 AM:
" roxy... I'm sorry that your husband new that it was wrong to look at child porn, but yet he still watched several videos. Sure maybe after the first time downloading a video and finding out it's child porn and STOP WATCHING, then you could blame it on LimeWire. He knew, and hopefully he won't repeat or worse actually assault a young person. "
slinger1919 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:41 AM:
" Hey there not playing with a full deck of "cards".
I have to disagree with you also. Sure he is to blame...but the people who made the video are more to blame. Don't agree with your anology at all..."no demand, nothing to watch etc". So according to you if we didn't have banks there would be no robbers. If we didn't have cars people wouldn't chose to steal cars so I guess we shouldn't produce anything because in your world it's all temptation!!! How about just knowing right from wrong... The producers of the videos are more at fault and they should look into it further. Just like a drug bust...they go up the chain to find the supplier (source). "
Barny1 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:35 AM:
" This is the problem with liberal judges. This handsome individual should have received @ a minimum 20 years.. "
roxywathen wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:51 AM:
" because what they dont also state was that they took him from the hospital eaither without questioning him and he was all drugged up from falling off a tow truck at work either. the only reason why he pleaeded guilty is because it was all technical stuff. he wouldn't of pleadded guilty... so I'm going to for warn everyone STAY OFF LIMEWIRE "
sp0506 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:33 AM:
" re:roxy...why does it state in the article that he admitted to downloading and viewing the videos if he is innocent? "
roxywathen wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:58 AM:
" first off My husband will not re-offend he's not like that its called LIMEWIRE that did it to him you dont know what your downloading until you've already downloaded it.. before you get accusing someone on a matter you should get all the facts.... We've already talked to the lady that didn't know all the facts when she wrote the artical... "
SP0506 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:44 AM:
" We need to put these people away for a long time. This is very disturbing. Why would anyone be interested in looking at a child like that, especially 2 years old!!!!!!! He will re-offend, no doubt and we can thank our "law enforcers" for that. "
Willie wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:41 AM:
" This case shows that he wasn't deterred by a 40 day jail sentence. I guess he won't be stopped until he serves a 40 YEAR sentence in prison. I wonder how many victims will be created for that amount of time to be served? Of course he knows it's WRONG!!! That didn't stop him did it Ramona? Pathetic. "
Im Still Jackson wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:51 AM:
" He will be back they always are! "
rfield wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:32 AM:
" I agree mom of 1, you never hear about the investigation going any further than the person who downloads it. You can tell where a file came from, it really wouldn't be hard to go after both. "
Cards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:26 AM:
" There is a choice mom of 1, in fact, he CHOSE to download the movies, so he is at fault as are the people that put them on line, wathan is as much to blame as them watching the CHILD PORN as the people producing them, no demand to watch, no making of child porn, it is that simple, but wathan didn't get it, and he gets off with a light sentence which is wrong! "
MOM OF 1 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:24 AM:
" Is anybody looking for the "pervs" who posted these photos on line? They are the ones who really should be in prison. He wasn't right to look at the pictures, but you cannot look at what isn't there. And what about the children in the photos? Who is looking out for their best interest? Who is protecting them? There is a lot more to this story than Mr. Wathen looking at these pictures. We need more investigation. "
Krusty wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:17 AM:
" They really taught him a lesson! "
annonymis wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:52 AM:
" He looks kinda "special". "
Advertisement
