NCTeacher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 642
- Reaction score
- 3,564
Technically I can't dispute the law, I never have. My opinion is my personal one and not to be considered state statute or federal law.
IMO, had RH not killed his son he wouldn't have been charged with exploitation of a minor *even if the law was aware of his sexting crime.* He would have been charged with something less but more appropriate in this specific circumstance.
He wouldn't be the type of guy the sex offender registry was designed for. He wouldn't be considered beyond rehabilitation or a threat to society or needing to be permanently banned from being within 10 miles of a public school.
The charge merely serves as a backup in the event he's found not guilty of murder. And I'm fine with that but only because I think he's a murderer. If he was being tried solely as a 'sexual predator' I would have a hard time finding him guilty. A pathetic, social reject randomly sexting anyone with two legs doesn't represent the type of predator we should fear roaming the streets. That person doesn't deserve the same punishment as a Jerry Sandusky.
I think RH deserves life in prison but not everyone who kills their child deserves the same level of punishment, even if they intended to kill their child. There was a woman who had grown twins residing in a nursing home. The twins had a progressive disease and were essentially 'locked in,' unable communicate and in terrible pain. She shot them both in the head out of mercy. She technically killed both of her sons but she's no Ross Harris. She was charged with a lesser crime and served zero jail time.
All murderers aren't the same and for those people, they aren't charged with murder 1. Same applies to 'predators or pedos.' It's no more "black and white" for a sex crime than it is for murder. There's plenty of discretion and a host of other charges that can be substituted for the offense.
Paige, I completely understand your position on this and to some extent agree with you. What I cannot understand is the insistence on this thread to not call Ross a "sexual predator" because of personal discomfort when the law itself would classify him as such. We are shifting into the world of connotations and feelings, and incidentally enough by those who come across as objective and attentive to legal definitions and protocols during trial. Now it appears folks want to circumvent the in legal precedence established with regard to sex crimes and minors---and judicial precedence is the very fabric of our judicial system. It doesn't matter what Wikipedia says "sexual predator" means, what matters is that jurisdictions across this country classify Ross Harris as a sexual predator.