Washington County Judge Goes Light On Child Porn
This is absolutely outrageous.
A 40-year-old New Berlin man who faced up to 100 years imprisonment will spend a year in jail.
Vincent S. Maniaci, formerly of Hartford, appeared in Washington County Circuit Court with attorney Wendy Patrickus before Judge Patrick Faragher for sentencing on four felony counts of child pornography.
He was charged with 12 counts, but in an agreement with the District Attorney’s Office, Maniaci pleaded no contest to four charges and the other eight charges were dismissed, but could be considered for sentencing.
Deputy District Attorney Mark Bensen asked Faragher for a sentence of three years imprisonment followed by five years extended supervision to be served consecutively on the first two counts and a withheld sentence with 10 years probation on the other two counts.
“When you look to the nature of the offense, we believe it’s an extremely serious one. There were numerous other images (that weren’t mentioned in the pre-sentence investigation or charged). There were 300 movies and 1,000 images ... and these are not teens. These are 8 to 10 year olds in some of the videos and 10 to 12 year olds in others,” Bensen said.
[...]
Faragher based his decision for probation on the lack of risk Maniaci posed to the public, which Dr. John O’Donnell said in testimony was extremely low. Further, Faragher said Maniaci was one of the only defendants who did exactly what every judge and lawyer recommends after arrest — immediate treatment.
“There is zero evidence you pose a risk to the public,” Faragher said. “Primarily you need to be watched for a long time, to make sure your doctor is right and that there are no secondary risks. It’s more important for you to be under the thumb of the government rather than under the roof of the government.”
Due to the number of images and videos, and the nature of some of the videos — which included some hard core acts, forced acts and some elements of torture — Faragher said Maniaci needed to be punished for his crime.
This guy was getting off on watching 8-12 year olds being raped and tortured. One friggin’ year in jail!?!? The man plead guilty to four felonies of child porn and he gets one year????
Utterly disgusting.
This is a terrible, terrible act that should be punished. But, as long as the the judge can be assured that this won’t happen again, I would prefer the guy to be out of jail, supervised, with a job and paying his own way in life rather then us paying his way in jail. The article doesn’t go into specifics about his probation, but I would hope that he has to stay away from computers and children for the rest of his life.
As for my solution, the government should build a apartment complex on the edge of town’s where these sex offenders can live. Curtail their personal freedoms. Make them go to a job. Pay rent. Do unannounced searches of their apartments. Either that or go to jail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 0950 hrs
People get upset with a DA that made a stand against unlawfully teaching children to have sex but don’t get upset with a DA that makes a deal like this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 0955 hrs
I defend a lot of child porn cases, and that’s not an unusual sentence for the civilian system. Maybe a little light, but not far off.
Posted by Jed on April 14, 2010 at 1014 hrs
But, as long as the the judge can be assured that this won’t happen again, I would prefer the guy to be out of jail…
I couldn’t disagree more. A big reason we put criminals in prison is punishment for their acts. If this scumbag doesn’t go to prison for a significant amount of time, aren’t we really minimizing the crimes he committed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1016 hrs
A big reason we put criminals in prison is punishment for their acts. If this scumbag doesn’t go to prison for a significant amount of time, aren’t we really minimizing the crimes he committed?
As long as it can be reasonably assured he can’t commit the crime again, I would prefer him with a job paying his own way in life then living on my dime.
I’m not big on jail for non-violent crimes. Yes what happened to the kids is horrible. Find the people who did it and put them in a deep, dark hole and throw away the key. I just think that society can be better served by having the end users of this filth adding to society, instead of being a drain on it. As long as we can be reasonable assured it won’t happen again, have them pay their own way in life.
I’m not advocating no jail time. And a reasonable argument can be made that one year is too light for this guy. But 100 years is WAY to draconian. Send him to jail for a reasonable time, curtail his freedom’s for a LONG time after. YMMV
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1037 hrs
Seems like a light sentence, but I don’t really know what would be standard.
I’m curious how some of you distinguish your strong feelings on this issue from your total disregard for the idea of “hate crime” laws. This guy isn’t accused of actually creating the materials or assaulting any kids, the problems with child porn are almost entirely based on secondary effects on group who was specifically targeted and the larger community, just like the secondary effects used to justify bias crime sentence enhancements. He’s not hurting anyone by looking at pictures. It’s a thought crime.
Not trying to defend child pornographers or pedophilles, just wondering how you folks reconcile your stance here with your stance on “hate crimes.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1048 hrs
Jason -
Think of it more on par with illegal drug use. We often hear from some that it is the fault of the US for all of the problems in Mexico because the market is here. Even though most of those same people will say that using drugs is a victimless and non-violent crime.
Same with child porn. This guy creates the market for the abuse of children.
The difference here is that real children are real victims.
Anybody who collects these types of images is below bottom-of-the-barrell scum. I don’t believe for a second that he won’t reoffend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1122 hrs
Jed said: ” 3.I defend a lot of child porn cases”
In Washington County?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1131 hrs
I don’t know what the references to drug laws have to do with anything because drug laws are not “thought crimes.” Drug possession laws have all kinds of crazy justifications related to prohibiting self-injury and discouraging low individual productivity, as well as concerns about the secondary effects of drugged up people driving and stealing to support their habits. Child porn possession laws, on the other hand, are directed entirely at secondary effects. It’s not injuring this guy to look at these materials, at least not in the conventional sense, and he’s not injuring anyone by looking at them. Very different than drug laws, but very similar to sentence enhancements for bias related crimes, when bigots face increased penalty, not because of the actual crime they committed, but because of its secondary effects on other people..
But you’re right, real children are real victims at some point in this process, even though the guy in the story isn’t the one who victimized them. Real people are real victims of “hate crimes” too, and in those cases the person who actually did the victimizing faces the penalty, rather than just a person who possesses the product of the victimization. The reason this guy is facing a penalty is because of the secondary effects these materials have on children, and the sense of safety in the community in general. But I’ve seen plenty of people on this blog argue that “hate crimes” should be treated like any other crimes, totally disregarding the secondary effects on the targeted group and the environment created in the community as a whole. I’m just wondering how one goes about drawing lines when it comes to “thought crimes?” Why are some secondary effects tolerable, even laughable, to some commenters here, while others are mortal sins?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1151 hrs
In Washington County?
No.
Posted by Jed on April 14, 2010 at 1247 hrs
the guy in the story isn’t the one who victimized them
I could not disagree more. He vicitimizes all the children that are so grotesquely violated by child porn by helping to create the market for the creation of that vile crap in the first place. If there were no purveyors of the product, there would be no product created. I see almost no distinction between those the produce the product, and the consumers of the product. Both should be dealt with harshly.
Posted by TD on April 14, 2010 at 1417 hrs
Sure, I agree with you 100%. But you’re talking about the kind of existential victimization that’s the basis of bias crime sentence enhancers too.
Do you also agree that a racist skinhead who beats a random hispanic man just because of his race is essentially victimizing all hispanics who live in that area? Shouldn’t that warrant more punishment than a simple assault of an individual?
Why should pedophilles be responsible for not just the individual injury they cause, but also the environment they create if bigots aren’t held to that same standard?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1435 hrs
Actually, I would argue that all crimes are “hate” crimes. You don’t beat someone up because you love them. What hate crime legislation tries to do is say that beating up someone in a protected class is worse than beating up someone who isn’t.
Or bullying - was the white Irish girl in MA any less bullied than a minority student would have been?
All bullying is wrong, all assault is wrong, all murder is wrong.
That is why I disagree with hate crime legislation.
That is also why someone getting caught viewing torture pics of children is not even close to being on the same level. This man directly hurt these children, for exactly the reason that TD stated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2010 at 1704 hrs
Don’t get hung up on the fact that the media has labeled bias crime sentence enhancements “hate crimes,” it’s a misnomer. Many crimes may involve an element of hate or anger, but very few crimes are clearly based on bigotry. The “hate crime” laws, despite the catchy name, are only directed at the latter category, and really have nothing to do with the emotion that a particular criminal was feeling. They also aren’t applied very often, certainly not as often as the culture war screechers would have you believe. A white guy beating up a black guy is not a hate crime unless it’s very clear that the assault was motivated only by the victim’s race, and finding the evidence required to prove such a thing is rare.
But even under your reading of those laws, how is that any different than child porn laws, which say that viewing pictures of someone in a protected class is worse than viewing pictures of someone who isn’t? The actual injury will be punished, provided the assailant is apprehended, whether it’s a child sexual assault or a simple assault, but “hate crime” laws and child porn possession laws mete out additional punishment because of the secondary effects to the larger community.
So I still don’t understand how someone can be so sympathetic to one kind of “thought crime” and so completely dismissive of another. All kids should be free of sexual assault fears, and child sexual assaults should be strongly discouraged, but some kids just have to accept simple assault fears because they’re different, and nobody cares about discouraging assaults based on bigotry? Where’s the consistency?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2010 at 1100 hrs
That you can find the purchase and view of sexual torture pictures of 8-12 year old children a “thought crime” and even in the same universe as the ridiculous “hate crime” laws is incomprehensible to me.
These are people that prey upon those that are the least able to fend for themselves.
It is evil. There is no moral equivalency.
This man should be punished to a far greater degree and monitored for decades.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2010 at 1525 hrs
Looking at a picture versus physically attacking a person because of their skin color. You’re really one to talk about moral equivalency. Consider the incomprehensibility mutual.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2010 at 1617 hrs
Utterly disgusting.
Now you know how I felt when you supported Zeigler for the Supreme Court, she let actual child molesters off with similarly light sentences?
Faragher must be a Liberal or a Democrat, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2010 at 2028 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134061
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:10 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 124
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:11 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).