• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

Honor among thieves

omg that is totally sick and disgusting.. yes i think he should get leniency for turning in a child molester, who probably would have continued doing it, not only to his godchild, but to other children as well..
 
Keep in mind, though, that other guy is a habitual thief. It comes down to are they gonna make a saint out of a sinner?
 
slacker2114 said:
Keep in mind, though, that other guy is a habitual thief. It comes down to are they gonna make a saint out of a sinner?
Click to expand...

yes but sinners are forgiven as well. and what he did warrants leniency to me. he knew he would get caught if he turned in those photo cards. i am proud of him..
 
It's amazing how among even the most violent and heinous of criminals, they still have a system of morals in place: You fuck with kids, consider yourself dead.

Someone can go and murder 15 men, and still respected by everyone in the prison block. But heaven help you if you hurt, molested, or murdered a child. If you're not sentenced to death row, your fellow inmates will do everything they can to be sure you receive a death sentence from them.
 
a tough call i think i would give the guy a break for taking that monster off the street a thief can change child molesters are always a danger to re-offend
 
Robbie Aitken is going to get fucked up. As Mimi mentioned, amongst serial killers, kidnappers, and rapists, child molesters are considered to be no more than dirt, and that's by death row convicts. He's not going anywhere. Sick fuck.

As for the burglar...I don't think he should recieve any leniency. Yes, he helped stop a possible serial child rapist, but at the same time, he still comitted a crime himself. How will he learn that you don't do that shit if he isn't punished? How will letting him go, or only making him serve time, not life as he should, teach him that you can't do one bad thing, then another good thing, and get off scott free?

They both should be locked up to rot.
 
I have the same opinion as Viper, he should serve time in prison to repay is debt to society, as a reminder and a learning experience if you will, that they can't continue to harm others and go unpunished, but i also think that what he did was honorable and for that i think that is sentence go be shortened a bit instead of life sentence, or used for making him do some community work or so...
 
leniency. hard to judge from merely an article, but the guy sounds like he has a chance of becoming a positive member of society.
as for aitken, prison. despite the nasty nature of what hes done, i wouldnt want him to suffer unduly, and it would be best to keep him away from those who might cause that.
keep him until hes not going to mess up anyone else's lives. hard to tell when that is unfortunately.
 
Aitken belongs in a deep, dark cell for the rest of his life, no doubt. But the burglar has already done time twice before for theft and when he was hauled in on unrelated charges, it was for 12 counts of burglary. Chances are, he is NOT going to change.
 
god, obviously the guy had a conscience, which to me means everything.. no i do not think he deserves the same treatment as that child molester.. he saw something wrong and reported it, to the detriment of himself..
 
If you take out the whole finding the camera part of it, he stole a safe from an apartment.

When I read the article it sounded like he was setting it up so if he ever got caught breaking the law that would be the bargaining chip.
 
Ask any group of people why prison exists and you'll get one of three answers: to remove people from society who would do it harm, to reform people who can be rehabilitated, or to punish people who have done something wrong. By turning in a child molester none of those are fufilled. He's only been charged with theft three times. There's no telling how many times he's actually stolen in his life. And if being arrested and convicted twice didn't make an impact, what good would showing leniancy now do to him? You can't get out of prison by putting someone else in your place.
 
I see two separate questions here.

There's no doubt that Hahn did a good thing. On the other hand, just being a criminal doesn't mean that you can't do good things. I'm not sure how heavily his good deed should weigh in the scales when sentencing him. If, say, he was charged with murder, would it factor into his sentence if he happened to save someone from a fire on the same night? Probably not, and I don't really think it should.

That said, what are the three strikes laws really for? It seems to me that their purpose is to remove dangerous criminals from society. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Hahn is, ever has been, or ever will be dangerous. He's a burglar - a thief. Do we lock men up for the rest of their lives for that? So while I don't know that whatever sentence he gets should be tempered by his good deed, at the same time I don't believe that putting a burglar away for life is serving any sort of justice.
 
Redmage said:
at the same time I don't believe that putting a burglar away for life is serving any sort of justice.
Click to expand...

I agree, but its not about justice. He's done nothing but steal all his life and after punishing him twice he started again. If they let him out a third time there's no doubt he'll revert to his old lifestyle just because he can. What choice is there in the matter?
 
Fire Sprite said:
I agree, but its not about justice. He's done nothing but steal all his life and after punishing him twice he started again. If they let him out a third time there's no doubt he'll revert to his old lifestyle just because he can. What choice is there in the matter?
Click to expand...
If it's not about justice then the "criminal justice system" should probably stay out of it. On the other hand, since they're already involved then we should probably make sure that justice gets a say.

Time was, they would have let him out a third time. And if he did it again they would put him away for a fourth time, and a fifth - a little longer each time. By the time he finally died he probably would have spent much of his life in prison. But it would have been for things he actually did, not for what we fear he might do.

Because that's what "three strikes" is all about: fear. It's meant to take criminals off the streets who are too frightening to be left free. For violent criminals I think that fear is justifiable. For a burglar, I don't. I just can't get my mind around the idea that property theft is frightening enough to justify that reaction.

On the scale of penalties, life without parole is supposed to be one step short of the death penalty. It's the sentence that you give someone who has done something that's almost worthy of execution, but not quite. We just can't look each other in the eye and say that burglary meets that standard.
 
You're certainly welcome to differ. But I'd like to know your reasoning for placing burglary on the same level as murder with special circumstances. I think you'll agree that on the surface it looks a little odd to say that a burglar deserves the same sentence as Zacarias Moussaoui or the Unabomber.
 
You're looking at it in a very cut and dry way. The way I see it, he obviously didn't learn the first two times he got caught and imprisoned, so he doesn't deserve to be free again.
 
Personally, I think that what he did was right. NO ONE likes a child molestor, except maybe other child molestors. However, the 'three strikes' rule is in place for a reason. It's a law. Regardless of what good deeds he's done, he's broken the law many times and all on the same thing. Therefore, he is entitled to the punishment put down in the law. He can serve out the rest of his days in prison with the knowledge that even though he was a fuck-up in the outside world, he can take to the grave that he did at least one decent thing in his life.

The fact remains though that the law is the law. Three strikes and you're out. And he's way out with his current charges.
 
i agree with Red. There is no logic in comparing a thief to a killer. The two are simply too different to compare.

You know, when i read threads like these, i sometimes wonder if anybody here has ever known a thief or been one themselves. Considering the level of condemnation, i would say they haven't.

Many people who are thieves do so because they have no other skills to support themselves. SOme have chemical addictions that they can't feed unless they have levels of money they can only get through crimes. Others have financial obligations.

Now, this of course does not excuse a person for commiting a crime. However, when these people are usually let out of prison the first time, they have little to no support, and usually fall back to thievery as it's the only thing they know how to do.

The "three strike law" is simply idiotic.
 
Yes, it's true that many states have a "three strikes and you're out" law, in which a third felony conviction results in an automatic life sentence.

However, it is worth asking: Are the three strikes laws just? Human beings are capable of growth and change. Just because someone has been convicted of crimes in the past doesn't mean that he can't turn his life around and become a productive member of society.


Also, someone who has been convicted of a crime should certainly be punished for it, but the punishment should fit the crime. Should a person be sentenced to 25 years to life for shoplifting a slice of pepperoni pizza? That's exactly what happened to Jerry Dewayne Williams in California, because shoplifting becomes a felony for anyone with a prior theft conviction, and Mr. Williams had two prior, non-violent theft convictions.
 
exactly Icycle, the punishment should be appropriate for the crime, and if what you just posted is accurate, it is most deffinitly not.
 
Cut the thiefs hand off for stealing......................and cut the other guy's thing off for...........................well you know!
 
Cosmo_ac said:
exactly Icycle, the punishment should be appropriate for the crime, and if what you just posted is accurate, it is most deffinitly not.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the case of Mr. Williams is in fact accurate. Google searches will turn up plenty of corroboration. Fortunately, his sentence was later reduced due to a provision of California's three strikes law that can bypass the mandatory sentence in the interest of justice. He only ended up serving three years. That still seems a bit harsh for a slice of pizza, but much less so than 25 years to life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New

5/22/2024
Check out Clips4Sale for more tickling clips of all sorts then anyplace else!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store

Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** LadyInternet ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top