Page 1 of 1
750 years in prison too much?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:44 pm
by Trielelvan
Not even close. HAH
Now, if only we could arrange to have what he did tattooed on his forehead before entering prison...
Burnsville man gets 750 years for creating child pornography
Pioneer Press wrote:A Burnsville man was sentenced to 750 years in prison for creating at least 29 pornographic images of prepubescent girls in his basement.
The tip-off that helped investigators put him away: a Brownie uniform in the background of one of his photographs.
The sentence handed down to Bruce W. Betcher in U.S. District Court on Monday is believed to be one of the longest in U.S. history for the manufacture and possession of child pornography.
In May 2006, Betcher, 53, was convicted after a weeklong jury trial on 24 counts of manufacturing child porn, one count of receipt of child porn and one count of possession of child porn.
In sentencing him Monday, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, called Betcher's crime "an utterly unconscionable act," according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office.
"There are some crimes for which there is no excuse," Rosenbaum said.
The 750-year sentence took even some seasoned defense attorneys and federal law enforcement officials aback. Authorities were attempting to determine if it was a new record for a child pornography case.
"Have I ever heard of a longer sentence in Minnesota? The answer is no. Nothing like that," said Earl Gray, a St. Paul attorney whose major practice is in federal court. "(Rosenbaum) is usually pretty fair."
And I'd just like to make sure this little gem was in here...
Gray said Betcher could appeal his sentence, but he said he was not likely to gain much sympathy from the federal appeals courts in Minnesota.
"If you appeal the sentence to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, they'll probably give him 1,500 years," Gray said. "They're tougher than Rosenbaum."
I actually laughed out loud reading that.
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:51 pm
by Harrison
750 years for pictures...
Less than 15 for rape...
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:53 pm
by Trielelvan
Yep, that's fucked up ><
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:07 pm
by 10sun
I'm curious if it was even really child pornography rather than some girl who looked like a child?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:09 pm
by The Kizzy
Well, at least its a start. This case can now set prescedence.
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:59 pm
by Markarado
It will certainly make future possible offenders think twice before taking pics. Or these people are so insanely sick and twisted that they won't care. Or... are they people? Should we classify these people as animals/beasts? ... If we did we could.. you know.. put them down.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:08 am
by kinghooter00
hmmmmmm, thats just rediculous... Just say you will be in jail the rest of your life. 750 yrs is kinda pointless...
Whats he gonna appeal anyways?? Get the sentence cut down to 300years??
jack ass.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:35 am
by Lyion
"In May 2006, Betcher, 53, was convicted after a weeklong jury trial on 24 counts of manufacturing child porn, one count of receipt of child porn and one count of possession of child porn."
Based on that quote, assuming it was making the videos and not just copying DVDs, I think he got off light.
Hopefully he'll be in general population when word leaks of his crime.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:53 am
by Martrae
10sun wrote:I'm curious if it was even really child pornography rather than some girl who looked like a child?
If you follow the link they said they traced him to 6-10 girls. One of them said emphatically he took the pics.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:12 am
by Lueyen
The Kizzy wrote:Well, at least its a start. This case can now set prescedence.
I'm tired of seeing light to laughable sentences handed down for criminals that exploit children in a sexual manner.
Harrison wrote:750 years for pictures...
Less than 15 for rape...
Not that either crime is better or worse, but I do think the punishment should be more harsh when a child is the victim. That being said it wasn't just one count on him, I would think the sentence for 29 counts of rape would be more then 15 years.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:18 pm
by Scatillac
was there butsecks?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:21 pm
by Evermore
he should be peeing into a bag thru a tube where his dick was
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:21 pm
by Xaiveir
Scatillac wrote:was there butsecks?
Hmmm previous thread of yours about bestiallity, and your perversions about it.
Now a thread about kids, and you pop in with butsecks.....
Kin of makes you wonder....
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:27 pm
by 10sun
What should be done about Child Beauty Pagents then?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:14 pm
by ClakarEQ
10sun wrote:What should be done about Child Beauty Pagents then?
That there shouldn't be swimsuit competition would be a start.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:22 pm
by Xaiveir
ClakarEQ wrote:10sun wrote:What should be done about Child Beauty Pagents then?
That there shouldn't be swimsuit competition would be a start.
I would certainly agree with that.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:31 pm
by kinghooter00
definitely agreed
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:34 pm
by Trielelvan
Evermore wrote:he should be peeing into a bag thru a tube where his dick was
That's the *first* thing that comes to mind for all male sexual offenders who are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt.
For both male and female offenders, I think it'd be pretty cool to also throw in being tied down, pour sugar water on their nether regions, and unleashing a couple hundred hordes of fire ants on them for a little while.
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:24 pm
by Yamori
To play the devil's advocate, castration for pedophiles is a bad idea due to the fact that children are VERY easy to manipulate into false testimony. I'd hate to see some innocent dude get their junk cut off. D:
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:34 pm
by 10sun
I could have sworn that even castrating pedophiles doesn't stop their impulses.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 3:45 am
by Trielelvan
Yamori: that's why I said beyond the shadow of a doubt. I'm talking about cases where you find unquestionable proof (physical tearing, DNA, first hand eye witness, whatever, etc.).
10sun: correct, because it's not always necessarily a sexual impulse, and usually when the courts talk about castration, they are talking about chemical castration via drugs. However, I am talking about jagged, rusty, no anesthesia, fucked up razor sawing off your member after injecting said member with enough cocaine to ensure a hard on type castration. It may not kill their impulses, but I will bet they'll think twice before acting on those impulses again.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:45 am
by Evermore
Trielelvan wrote:Yamori: that's why I said beyond the shadow of a doubt. I'm talking about cases where you find unquestionable proof (physical tearing, DNA, first hand eye witness, whatever, etc.).
10sun: correct, because it's not always necessarily a sexual impulse, and usually when the courts talk about castration, they are talking about chemical castration via drugs. However, I am talking about jagged, rusty, no anesthesia, fucked up razor sawing off your member after injecting said member with enough cocaine to ensure a hard on type castration. It may not kill their impulses, but I will bet they'll think twice before acting on those impulses again.
much <3 for triel.