Shut Him Down?
July 31, 2007 on 7:12 am | In Main, National |
Fascinating discussion on Gene Burns yesterday about a story in USA today on a pedophile with a website. There are probably millions of them, you say? As you saw if you clicked on the above link and read the story, this one is different.
The story of Jack McClellan is one that causes most reasonable people to shake their heads in disbelief. On his website, McClellan “has been living out his fantasies” by offering “a virtual how-to manual for pedophiles.” Shut him down, lock him up and throw away the key, you say?
There’s just one problem. Unless McClellan physically acts on his fantasies, he’s not breaking the law. Which raises an important question: should it be against the law to do what McClellan did? How would you craft a law that addresses guys like McClellan but also safeguards our free speech rights?
What makes me think the guy is on the level about not physically acting out his sick fantasies is that, for obvious reasons, most pedophiles operate below the radar. McClellan is practically shouting from the rooftops.
Still, I wouldn’t want this character (or one of his followers) anywhere near my daughter. All I can say is thank goodness for the laws we do have on the books, since McClellan says they’re the only measures that prevent him from actually molesting children.
P.S. Note the irony that after the Santa Monica Police publicized McClellan’s photograph, he threatened to sue them. This from a guy who posted images of innocent young girls on his website. You can’t make this stuff up.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
This would be a perfect place for me to launch into one of my all-time favorite diatribes–the inefficacy of The Law. I could suck up all of your bandwidth going on about what a travesty this is; getting one’s intllectual arms around this is like wrestling a Sequoia.
The very short version–
In 21st century America, The Law and Justice have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
We’ll put handcuffs on and incarcerate a driver who is .02 over the legal alcohol limit at 3 in the morning but we tolerate child molesters stalking our kids; we jail shoplifters and tax cheats but let axe murderers take a walk if the police mess up the evidence chain; let your dog run free and you’re in Bantam court but stalk a child and nothing happens.
I’ve written extensively about legal inequities on my own blog, and will continue to further this discussion whenever and wherever I can. I’ll leave with one question:
What does a sane, rational individual do when the Law is impotent?
In this case, my true conservative self shows up: hunt this creep down like a rabid weasel.
I think (hope) you have a very long thread on your hands here, Terry.
Comment by Doug Richardson — July 31, 2007 #
We cannot lock people up for their thoughts. Certainly, Hollywood movies are often filled with violent pyschopaths whose behavior is immoral and illegal. What dangerous minds create these characters? And all those murder mysteries being read on beaches from coast to coast, aren’t they primers in how to commit crimes? We don’t lock up authors and directors, do we? Pedophiles are scary people, but I don’t see how we can preemptively lock them up.
Comment by Duncan — July 31, 2007 #
We ought to lock up people for vocalizing violent and perverse thoughts and then encouraging others to act on them.
This piece of human garbage is instructing and encouraging those of his ilk to act.
Comment by Doug Richardson — July 31, 2007 #
Doug,
Perhaps putting “pedophile speech” under “hate crimes” laws would allow fellows like this to be punished for encouraging perverse, immoral and illegal behavior. It is certainly “hateful” behavior
Comment by Duncan — July 31, 2007 #
Duncan and Doug,
I couldn’t support using hate crimes legislation to cover this type of behavior. Hate crimes statutes essentially criminalize thought (or prosecutors use it as a way to get a longer prison sentence for convicts, which has the same effect).
Here’s what might work (albeit after the fact). If it can be shown that McClellan’s instruction and encouragement caused a pedophile to commit a crime, then perhaps McClellan could be prosecuted for incitement to pedophilia.
Comment by Terry — July 31, 2007 #
McClellan’s story is at minimum disturbing.
The unfortunate part of this story is the dilemma it causes
when it comes to both Freedom of Speech and Freedom on the Internet.
As much as I would like to see this person locked away for
life, the fact is he has done nothing more than express himself, as sick as his
expression may be.
Part of our problem is the lack of real laws with unmistakably
stiff and mandatory penalties for crimes such as those committed against the
young and innocent.
We watch while sex offenders (of all types) are paroled for ‘good
behavior’, only to go out and do it again.
Good behavior … in an environment (jail) that ENFORCES good behavior,
and we let them out.
Want some alarming statistics … http://www.cpiu.us/statistics.php
It is not for us to limit Free Speech or Freedom on the
internet … to do so would be criminal on our part. What we need to do is write strict and
unbending laws when it comes to any type of sex crime, but especially sex
crimes against those under 16.
Think for a moment … what type of punishment did all the
pedophiles in the Catholic Church receive?
Forgiveness? Paid off some folks
with money??? Great example!
Solid law is the answer to these crimes. If they all knew they would be locked up for
life without any chance for parole, then we might have something. Sounds cold and cruel?
Having been party to raising a child who had been tormented
by this type of filth, putting them away for life is mild compared to what they
have did to the child.
We should not lose our focus on a person like this and waste
our time curtailing Free Speech and Free Internet.
We should focus on making the punishment meet the crime and
MEANING IT!!
Comment by Michael J. Flint — July 31, 2007 #
I’ll make the argument that since McClellan has “outed” himself, revealed himself to be a pedophile to all the world, he is less of a threat to children than those predators who are trying to entice youngsters to meet with them posing as something they are not. His threat is in providing information online to those who are not known, so can use the knowledge to harm children.
This would seem to fall into the same category as terrorists providing the information for building bombs or structuring a terrorist attack online.
So, should there be some regulation set on what is openly available online?
Comment by Janet Manko — July 31, 2007 #
Making an internet “regulation” only let’s the camel’s nose under the tent. Give this administration–and their Fundie supporters –one inch, and kiss internet freedom goodbye.
History proves that censorship never (ultimately) works.
Comment by Doug Richardson — August 2, 2007 #
Have to agree, Doug - always better to tend toward openness
Comment by Janet Manko — August 2, 2007 #