October 31, 2006
Priest gets top of guideline range for downloading child porn
A recent federal sentencing of a priest in Chicago adds another potential spin to the debate over whether past good deeds should lead to a sentence reduction (recently debated here and here) Here are details from this article:
Roman Catholic priest caught with violent child pornography was sentenced Tuesday to more than seven years in prison by a federal judge who said that she could "not help but be appalled."... "He has victimized young children, possibly scarring them for life," [Judge Blanche] Manning said, giving [Rev. Daniel] Schulte the maximum under federal guidelines. "The court cannot help but be appalled."
In a quiet voice, Schulte said that he was sorry about "the children whose innocence I've stolen by downloading child pornography" and apologized for "the embarrassment and scandal I've caused for others." His attorney, Patrick Cotter, pleaded with Manning to show mercy, saying Schulte had never been accused of directly touching any children but merely of downloading pornographic images of children on his computer.
Cotter said his client had been sexually abused himself as a child and had tried hard to overcome his obsession. "He is trying somehow to confront the demons that are inside him and that led him into this horrific behavior," Cotter said. He said that since his fellow priests discovered his pornography collection, Schulte had been "in therapy seven days a week for hours and hours every single day."
October 31, 2006 at 07:04 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Priest gets top of guideline range for downloading child porn:
"Therapy" is the Catholic euphamism for choir boy molesting group circle-jerk. Remember the Pope said "he who masturbates thy little ones shall have riches in heaven eternal."
Posted by: bruce | Oct 31, 2006 10:23:21 PM
I thought the most interesting part of the sentence is that the priest is forever forbidden from using computers.
This is not a very intelligent sentencing provision. Computers are simply a communication tool. Criminals who use a telephone in their crimes are not forever forbidden from calling anyone after their release, so why treat computers differently?
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Nov 1, 2006 8:27:18 AM