« Intriguing Second Circuit opinion concerning which priors trigger 10-year child porn mandatory | Main | New commentary highlights why DOJ's new clemency initiative is not enough of a good thing »

May 16, 2014

Record-long sentence?: 81-year-old child molester gets 935- to 1,870-year prison sentence

As reported in this local article, in order to "serve as a warning to other child predators," Pennsylvania Judge Albert Cepparulo "has imposed a 935- to 1,870-year prison sentence to an 81-year-old man who sexually abused a girl for four years and videotaped nearly every assault."  Here is what led the judge to require an elderly offender to remain imprisoned until at least the year 2949:

Thomas Holliday was convicted in January of 234 crimes, including hundreds of counts related to creating and possessing child pornography.  Prosecutors said Holliday began abusing the girl in 2009, when she was 14.

Holliday was a family friend who offered to help the girl's mother financially and the girl was sent to live with him. He denied the charges, telling the judge that he and the teen were in love. 

May 16, 2014 at 07:53 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201a3fd0a0936970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Record-long sentence?: 81-year-old child molester gets 935- to 1,870-year prison sentence:

Comments

How old was the teen? Why did they not give her a lie detector test? This guy is gonna be too old to have sex when he gets out.

Posted by: Liberty1st | May 16, 2014 11:13:31 AM

Obviously you did not read the article. He is already 81 sex for him should be difficult and besides who knows how this guy was having sex with her? However, this is basically a doge to make sure he never makes it out. If your going to give someone life then do so. This is a record long sentence where the guy will never get out, it makes the judge look good to the laymen because he appears hard on crime. The judge wasted taxpayer money grandstanding. Even a relatively short sentence of 10-25 years would have accomplished the judges apparent goals of sending a message to the world without wasting taxpayer resources. The man would have died in prison. What the judge has done is set a precedent that the supreme court will most likely have to deal with. This costs money and resources, both of which are scarce in todays society. All the judge did was give the man an avenue for appeals. This costs money. The appeals are his right, no matter the crime. And for those who cry take away those rights, you'll cry otherwise when something happens within your own family, no they can't and should not be taken away. Yes, he deserved a long sentence, which in this case is a death sentence, but this long is grandstanding by the judge.

I am a student.

Posted by: DC | May 16, 2014 11:28:23 AM

lol to me DC what it shows is the judge is a retard. sorry but any type of sentence like this that says anything but "I sentence you to prison for the rest of your natural life" is retarded showboating.

Posted by: rodsmith | May 16, 2014 11:42:40 AM

I am no attorney, so perhaps someone can explain this to me.

The perp was caught red-handed. How much more resources is required to sentence him to 1,800 years than 30? Some more ink on the paper for the extra numbers?

As far as appeals (which is where DC takes this), it is the perp and his attorney who decides to appeal. If they want to appeal a sentence from 1,800 years to 30, they are the ones wasting money, not the judge. If the judge had sentenced him to 30, they would find another avenue of appeal anyway.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 16, 2014 12:31:33 PM

This reminds me of ancient Greece where trees and rocks were put on trial when people were killed in accidents. Or colonial times when animals were put on trial when they injured human beings. This is ultimately what happens when you dumb-down the problem. The system looses all credibility.

How about just being realistic? Correct those aspect of the problem that can be done so sensibly; suck up the rest, and go on.

Posted by: Tom McGee | May 16, 2014 5:05:35 PM

The article doesn't really tell me much in way of details.

WHY is this a "warning" when obviously the time span is nonsensical and given normal life spans, he will die in maybe 1% of the times?

Sometimes, these sorts of things have to factor in appeals -- some charges you were found guilt in might be dropped on appeal or something. But, this just seems silly.

At some point, it's like you use a calculator and the number is too high and you get a "E" error symbol. Just say "life" and be done with it. This being obvious to me, I'd like more details than the brief article provided.

Posted by: Joe | May 16, 2014 6:38:31 PM

It could be possible that the judge himself is either up for re-election (if he is an elected judge) or maybe thinking about a run for political office sometime in the near future. Politicians LOVE to use sex offense crimes to help them get attention from their constituents.

Posted by: Book38 | May 17, 2014 1:19:09 PM

A story on the internet says that the girl lied about her age to him and seduced him.

Posted by: Liberty1st | May 18, 2014 11:54:37 AM

If the story is wrong, does that mean Google has to take it off the internet? What if the story goes to France, where people wear no pants and the European Court tells Google what to do? Can Google leave Europe and let some other chump handle he internet there? Just say no.

Posted by: Liberty1st | May 18, 2014 11:57:04 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB