I completely agree and understand this.
Man gets 10 years for downloading child pornography
What really confusaes me is that this man gets 10 years for downloading child pornography while this women only gets 2 1/2 years for killing a child and this women only gets 5 years for killing a child. Now I mentioned the second one and my feelings on it here and nobody commented on my conclusion that 5 years for killing a child is wrong.
So can somebody explain to me why it costs a person, in jail time, less to kill a child than to download child pornography? Seems like our values aren't all that properly in line here, but I'm just a stupid cowboy who doesn't understand all these modern complicated things. They just confuse me. A long rope and a tree would fix these things right up.
The confusion is not my invention. We cannot listen to a conversation for five minutes without being aware of the confusion. It is all around us and our only chance now is to let it in. The only chance of renovation is to open our eyes and see the mess. It is not a mess you can make sense of. Samuel Beckett












The day care case is another issue all together. Maybe it is widely used to help keep providers sane by making sure the kids sleep. But it shouldn't be and she should serve more than five years and be banned from contact with children for the rest of her life.
By the article you linked to, it sounds as if they did have a lot more on him that made him a danger. And remember, he was under the federal guidelines which, in some cases, are much harsher than state laws and do not reflect the facts of the case. The judge actually went beyond the guidelines and he's still got molestation charges coming up in state courts. I expect since one set is federal and the other state, he won't be able to serve any state time concurrently. I could be wrong about that, however, depending on how the judge rules.
And Sam, I think we didn't post on the earlier comment because we agreed with you and didn't know what else to add.