A criminal who does the right thing, finally.

Remove all ads!

It just seems to me that if he were innocent, he would try to prove himself. If he were guilty, and he felt that, as well as remorse (wc), he could have chosen to kill himself. It seems more plausible that he would kill himself because of guilt.

 

Another possible motivation for the suicide, whether he was guilty or not, could be the treatment pedophiles are said to receive in prisons.

Child pornography, as well as adult pornography, can very well be made without consent. Violence and the threat of it come to mind, and as olimikrig pointed out, people can be manipulated and have their self esteem and will crushed.

 

What about the mass media? Cases such as these are often blown up, and soon the alleged molester is on the lips of everyone. In pedophile cases people tend to judge the charged molester simply based on the fact that he has in the first place become "charged".

Furthermore there's his family, friends, co-workers to take under account. What will he think that they thinks of him?

I do not think any of us can imagine the pressure of being accused of having done such horrible things to a child. But I think the pressure would be damn hard, and that suicide could seem like a tempting way out of it all.

 

@ olimikrig,

Sure, you can accuse someone of anything. However, you cannot even be charged with it without some evidence, and you certainly cannot be convicted without some very hard evidence indeed. I'm saying that if the police charged this man of taking pornographic videos of this girl, then they had to find such evidence in his ownership. It makes no sense that they would charge child pornography in addition to molestation without any evidence.

Police offers know they have to prove their cases in court. Putting criminals on trial is also an expensive proposition. Most police officers I know will not even both charging someone, never mind going to trial, unless they believe the evidence they have will allow them to get a conviction. Simply someone saying, "He took pornographic videos of me" is not going to cut it in a court of law. However, if you have a video siezed from his house that shows the pornographic pictures, well, now you have a good case.

 

I can tell you from personal experience that the pressure generated by false accusations is high. Sometimes one defends himself like a wounded bear, at other times one closes in himself and refuses to speak because it's pointless. Sometimes one is even tempted to "admit" and get a lighter punishment as well as get the whole thing over with. Some people also feel guilty just because they are accused. There have been people admitting to the crimes charged because it was easier for them to make up their own guilt than to deal with the thought they might have been wrongfully accused and ostracised by their own country and fellow citizens.

Molestation is hard to prove because it almost always rests on word vs word evidence. However, you won't make a porn case if you don't have the porn in your hand. Either the porn exists (no one questions the existence of the tapes, either) or there has been a solid and defensible witness account. Something is fishy here.

 

@ Aldeth

I see... That's makes perfect sense.

@ Chevalier

Which is excactly my point with the "Suicide as a way out" theory.

Yes, something *is* fishy here. And I do not doubt that he is guilty. But whether or not he is has never been my argument (or intended anyway).

 

Girl has baby with teacher

 

Aha! You see? Not illegal in this case! That's the point I was making before. Since she had the baby the day before her 17th birthday, that means at the time she got pregnant she was already 16, and at 16, you can consent. So one guy commits suicide, another guy might go to jail for 50 years, but this guy moves in with her and says he's "in love". Now, can anyone put up a defense that says sleeping with a 16 year old student when you're 43 is any less maladjusted that sleeping with a 13 year old when you're 20, or taking naked videos of a 13 year old when you're 31? To me, it seems like either all 3 are OK or all 3 are wrong.

 

Correct unless there's something "magical" that takes place when you reach 16 years of age, which I'm not aware of, anyway. Most likely, it's sick, but the law limits itself to preventing too young people from being exploited. At some point the law doesn't care if people are sick or perverted, so long as it believes the young person is mature enough. Doesn't mean two 13 year olds who have sex with each other are mature enough, but exploitation is far less likely, plus you can't really be a paedophile if you target people of your own age.

And I think a 30 year old guy going out with an 18 year old woman is less sick than 20 and 13. Probably 40 and 18 is still less sick. After all, 20 is already an adult age, if young adult, while most 13 year olds are still kids, even visually. If you go for young girls, it's a quirk. But if you go for kids, it's sick and dangerous.