December 7, 2010
"Sex-Offending Teacher Asks for Castration"
The title of this post is the headline of this AP article from Connecticut sent my way by a helpful student. Here are the details:
A teacher convicted of sexually assaulting one of his students had an odd request for the judge at his sentencing Thursday.
Adam Friedman, 46, offered to be castrated in an effort to avoid prison time. Friedman was an instructor at the Arts at the Capitol Theater magnet school in Willimantic when he was arrested in December 2008.
Prosecutors say Friedman had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl between July and November 2008. The assaults took place at motels in Columbia and Manchester, and at the girl's grandparents' home in Hebron.
He plead guilty to second-degree sexual assault, risk of injury to a minor and possession of child pornography in September. But it was Thursday at his formal sentencing that Friedman asked Judge Elliot Solomon to allow him to be castrated instead of going to prison.
Solomon didn't take the offer, sentencing Friedman to 13 years. "My hope is that this sentence finds its was to every school in our state," Judge Solomon said. "So every teacher knows, if you touch a student, you're going to jail, and you're going for a long, long time."
December 7, 2010 at 10:40 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Sex-Offending Teacher Asks for Castration":
"My hope is that this sentence finds its was to every school in our state," Judge Solomon said. "So every teacher knows, if you touch a student, you're going to jail, and you're going for a long, long time."
Haven't they been doing this for a while now? Like decades? I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now. Stop using crime prevention as a moral shield for excessive sentences, especially since it doesn't work.
Posted by: NickS | Dec 7, 2010 5:39:05 PM
That's the most logical statement I have ever heard anyone make yet.
Posted by: Book38 | Dec 7, 2010 11:36:11 PM
The hunt is on for the productive male, by the vile feminist lawyer and its male running dogs.
First, 15 is in biological adulthood. Left wing, Commie unions wanted to keep fit young people out of the competitive job market, so they had them infantilized, and watched by the baby sitting service called high school. This 100 year old eccentric practice reversed 10,000 years of human history.
Second, there is evidence across national areas that child porn reduces, and prevents child abuse. The aim of the federal child porn law is to reduce the money payment that promotes the depiction and performance of child sexual abuse. The opposite is found to be true. We know that trial evidence must meet Daubert criteria. What happens if a law fails to do so? If it is not based on accepted evidence, then it could be based on faith, a violation of the Establishment Clause. If it is not based on faith, but only on false assumptions, then it violates the Procedural Due Process right of the defendant to have a fair trial.
Third, if the defense lawyer did not demand total e- and regular discovery on the prosecutor, and especially on this vengeful, seemingly biased judge, the representation was inadequate. Aside from finding child porn on prosecutorial computers and referring such to the FBI for investigation, there may have be ex parte contact between the judge and prosecutor's agents. This would require a mistrial and recusal of the biased judge. The defense lawyer does not want to deter the prosecution who is the source of his job. However, that is just too bad, the defendant must demand this form of vigorous defense.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 8, 2010 1:16:20 AM
If one believes, 15 years old is post pubertal and in biological and historic adulthood, Volokh has an analysis applying Lawrence v Texas to the prohibition of sex between health licensees and adult clients. It may be relevant, by analogy, to relations between teachers and students.
Personally, I find the fling between a 15 year old girl and a 46 year old to be gross and disgusting, like sleeping with grandpa and his decrepit body or worse, a Taliban custom. However, I am not that 15 year old girl. She may have found it in her self interest. What I find even more objectionable is the imposition of vile feminist ideology on the public, at the point of a gun, by a male feminist running dog lawyer. No lawyer should be allowed to sit on any bench. Judging is a dificult profession unrelated to lawyering. Lawyering disqualifies the person for life from ever being a good judge. That lawyered up judging makes me vomit more than any turpitude or disgust with sexual conduct with a decrepit body.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 8, 2010 7:07:49 AM
Supremacy Claus - I think I speak for a lot of people reading your comments when I say 'what the **** is wrong with you?'. Seriously man, get help.
Posted by: jsmith | Dec 8, 2010 11:38:09 AM
JSmith: Am I the one who believes minds can be read, the future of rare accidents foreseen, that 12 strangers can detect the truth by relying on their gut feelings? Am I the one operating almost exactly as lawyers did in 1275 AD, causing the utter failure of every self-stated goal of every law subject? Am I the one causing every social and economic problem, including this recession, by forcing banks to mortgage the homes of irresponsible minorities on threat of loss of licenses? Am I the one who started out with a very high IQ, modern outlooks, and ended up believing in these supernatural, Medieval, church based doctrines, who does not know the technical meaning of the word, reasonable, even though it is the central word of my profession?
Be specific, which point of the many shows any evidence of loose thinking? Otherwise, you are just frustrated in the traverse and calling out rude names.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 8, 2010 2:03:01 PM