[Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
Saundra Lund
v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
Mon Jun 21 21:59:20 PDT 2010
Paul, in spite of being kind of taken aback by the anger and insult directed
at those who don't agree with your opinion on this (contrary to your
opinion, you *don't* corner the market on rational thought here), I'm going
to don my Kevlar suit and comment.
You seem to be operating under the impression that this creep was arrested
because of his thoughts when ***nothing*** could be further from the truth:
he was arrested because he sent sexually explicit text and pictures to
someone he believed was a young girl, for Pete's sake. Would you have
preferred that he was successful in his efforts?!? Personally, I thank God
it was a cop on the receiving end of his putrid communications rather than a
13-year-old girl.
Now, maybe you've been living under a rock or just haven't bothered to
educate yourself about the peril in cyberspace to our children from
pedophiles like this, but the threat is very real and creeps like this guy
cause very real harm to children every single day. If you don't believe me,
try hanging out online and pose as a 13-year-old girl -- or boy -- yourself.
The absolutely ***filthy*** crap I got when I tried it was a real
eye-opener.
Or, check out:
http://www.perverted-justice.com/
[WARNING: the site contains chat transcripts of pedophiles sending sexually
explicit text and pictures to who they think are children.]
Regardless of what you think of their actions, the chat transcripts should
provide you with the education you clearly seem to be lacking.
And, I don't give a *rip* where he encountered this person: as soon as
"she" identified herself as a 13-year-old girl, he was ***way*** over the
line in sending her sexually explicit text and pictures.
I think the sentence was a travesty, an absolute joke, and part of the
problem of child sexual abuse in this country. If the courts minimize the
crimes, as this sentence shows, is it any wonder other segments of society
don't take it seriously? During the sentencing of another local pedophile,
I actually heard a judge comment from the bench in explaining his leniency
that the fact that the offender had been homeschooled years before the
offense had sheltered him so that his emotional age wasn't what it should
have been. <snort> That's the way to encourage child victims to come
forward, don't you think?
This is what passes in Latah County as justice for crimes against children
here, and it's a damn embarrassing shame.
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke
***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:30 PM
To: Art Deco
Cc: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
The question of the legality of this defense in this case aside, how is
this not thought crime? If the defendant claimed that they did not
believe that the person they were corresponding with was really a
13-year old girl but decided to "go along with it" for the excitement
such a fantasy might give him, how would they be able to determine
otherwise?
Paul
Art Deco wrote:
> "A Moscow man who *pleaded guilty* to enticing a child over the
> Internet..."
>
> Heustis was represented by Chuck Kovis, a very able trial/defense
> attorney. If the argument you presented given the evidence presented
> at court really raised a reasonable doubt, it is highly probable that
> Kovis would have earned a not guilty plea.
>
> Here is the statute:
>
> 18-1509A.Enticing of children over the internet -- Penalties --
> Jurisdiction. (1) A person aged eighteen (18) years or older shall be
> guilty of a felony if he or she knowingly uses the internet to
> solicit, seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or actions, or
> both, a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years *or a person
> the defendant believes to be a minor child under the age of sixteen
> (16) years* to engage in any sexual act with or against the child
> where such act is a violation of chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18
> <http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm>, Idaho Code.
> (2) Every person who is convicted of a violation of this section
> shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period not
> to exceed fifteen (15) years.
> (3) It shall not constitute a defense against any charge or violation
> of this section that a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or
> other person working at the direction of law enforcement was involved
> in the detection or investigation of a violation of this section.
> (4) The offense is committed in the state of Idaho for purposes of
> determining jurisdiction if the transmission that constitutes the
> offense either originates in or is received in the state of Idaho.
>
>
> I think this matter of virtuality has been before an appellate court
> before and has withstood a challenge.
>
> Notice in my comment I said "attempting to entice a *virtual *13
> year-old girl"
>
> W.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
>
>
> I don't know what to think about this. If "enticing a child"
> means that
> he was setting up a time and place to have sex with a person he
> thought
> was 13, then I'm glad they caught him. But there is an interesting
> twist to this, though. What he was charged with doesn't sound
> like it
> would be a crime if there was no minor involved. Since there
> wasn't an
> actual minor involved, then this means that they are charging him for
> thinking that there was a 13-year old on the other end of the
> wire. Did
> they just cross over into thought crime territory? I don't know.
> Did
> he really believe she was 13? People lie about their age and gender
> online all the time. What if he thought he or she was someone
> pretending to be 13 and that thought excited him? Does "enticing a
> child" cover other aspects that don't involve actual meetings for
> sex?
> In other words, were they just "talking dirty" to each other?
>
> Anyway, I just thought that was an interesting aspect of this
> case. You
> guys can go back to bashing Judge Stegner now.
>
> Paul
>
> Art Deco wrote:
> > When are we going to get a district court judge that takes sexual
> > crimes against children seriously enough to give sentences that
> > promote deterrence and demonstrates to the community that sexual
> > crimes against children are not to be tolerated?
> >
> > Thirty days soft jail time and five years of basically meaningless
> > probation is hardly an appropriate sentence for attempting to
> entice a
> > virtual 13 year-old girl into a sexual encounter.
> >
> > Who is the greater threat to the well being of the community? A
> > single offense offender or a judge that gives many lenient
> sentences?
> >
> > Wayne A. Fox
> > 1009 Karen Lane
> > PO Box 9421
> > Moscow, ID 83843
> >
> > waf at moscow.com <mailto:waf at moscow.com> <mailto:waf at moscow.com>
> > 208 882-7975
> >
> >
> > Man gets jail time in Internet crime case
> >
> >
> > Heustis sentenced to five years probation, 30 days in jail
> >
> > By Christina Lords Daily News staff writer
> >
> > Posted on: Saturday, June 19, 2010
> >
> > A Moscow man who pleaded guilty to enticing a child over the
> Internet
> > was sentenced by 2nd District Court Judge John Stegner to 30
> days in
> > jail and five years probation Friday.
> >
> > Kendall W. Heustis, 40, pleaded guilty to the charge in Latah
> County
> > District Court in mid-April.
> >
> > He faced a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of
> $50,000.
> >
> > The charge was in relation to an undercover law enforcement sting
> > conducted by the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon
> between
> > April and July 2008. The investigating officer was a member of
> > Oregon's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
> >
> > The officer posed as a 13-year-old girl from Oregon, and Heustis
> > exchanged explicit information through chat rooms and Web
> cameras with
> > the undercover officer during that time.
> >
> > "It's been a long two years," Heustis said. "I've learned a lot
> from
> > it. A lot of things happened because of what I did on the computer,
> > and I'm paying the price for it."
> >
> > During the sentencing, Michelle Evans, senior deputy prosecuting
> > attorney for Latah County, asked for 10 years probation and a
> 90-day
> > jail sentence.
> >
> > "I think that it's appropriate to impress upon Mr. Heustis ... the
> > seriousness of what he did," she said.
> >
> > Evans said it was fortunate Heustis was chatting with an undercover
> > detective instead of an actual victim during the incidents.
> >
> > Heustis must register as a sex offender and complete sex offender
> > treatment at Valley Treatment Specialties in Clarkston.
> >
> > The computer he used during the enticement incidents, which is
> in the
> > possession of the Moscow Police Department, must be forfeited,
> and he
> > is not allowed to use the Internet except for purposes congruent
> with
> > this probation requirements.
> >
> > Under the terms of his probation, he is not allowed to be alone
> with
> > anyone under the age of 18 and cannot frequent any city parks or
> > schools where children may be present.
> >
> > Heustis is prohibited from consuming alcohol, but Stegner said
> Heustis
> > would still be allowed to enter some bars to be able to continue
> > playing drums in his band.
> >
> > He was sentenced to pay $100 in court costs.
> >
> > Latah County has never pursued an enticement case like this before,
> > Evans said.
> >
> > *Christina Lords *can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 301, or by
> > e-mail to clords at dnews.com <mailto:clords at dnews.com>
> <mailto:clords at dnews.com>.
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list