Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Kiddy porn letch gets off too lightly

By Kramer - 22 September 2009 49

The ABC reports University academic and child pornography lecher Nicol Schraudolph, has received very light treatment from the ACT courts. Given he was found in posession of 40,000 child porn and child abuse images and nearly 900 videos, a suspended 18 month sentence, and only 6 moths of periodic detention is far too light. Can we bring back public stoning for cases such as this?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
49 Responses to
Kiddy porn letch gets off too lightly
rosebud 2:38 pm 22 Sep 09

“Make the punishment fit the crime,” as the very model of a modern major general once sang. He should maybe be forced to watch each and every shot he downloaded accompanied by a mild and yet painful electric shock and then forbidden to ever have access to the Internet and ever be in the company of children. He should also make a substantial donation to an organisation that supports abused children. And the real threat of a significant gaol term should he ever, ever hurt another child again by this behaviour.

Swan 2:16 pm 22 Sep 09

People like this should not be punished. They should be helped.

And the kind of attitude shown here is what continues to alienate these people.

Besides, its better off that he’s watching this stuff rather than acting on his warped desires.

weeziepops 2:15 pm 22 Sep 09

Indeed. I also wonder if the quantum of images has an impact on the judge’s ruling. Are there degrees of badness when it comes to accessing child pornography (in terms of number of images accessed as opposed to the content of the stuff)? If, as Woody suggests, the number of images accessed is not as high as it seems, does that mean this person has been judged against the right category of sicko? I agree that viewing one image is far too much, but the inclusion of the numbers in the report has made me curious as to the judicial process here.

PBO 2:15 pm 22 Sep 09

NoAddedMSG said :

I wondered at the 40,000 images too – even the biggest data hoarders I have met would be pushing it to get to 40,000 unique images (although 900 videos is not so uncommon). I wondered if they would count multiple back-up copies of the same images towards to 40,000 total.

Does it really matter how much he had? The fact is that he had it in the first place. I really hate grots like this. I hope he stuffs up and gets sent to general population.

NoAddedMSG 1:56 pm 22 Sep 09

I wondered at the 40,000 images too – even the biggest data hoarders I have met would be pushing it to get to 40,000 unique images (although 900 videos is not so uncommon). I wondered if they would count multiple back-up copies of the same images towards to 40,000 total.

harryhaller 1:54 pm 22 Sep 09

It’s actually 8 gig, not 80.

Danman 1:35 pm 22 Sep 09

Makes me wonder what they consider a video or image. 40,000 images at 200k each is still 80gb of images.

80gb of illicit images is quite a lot to be sitting on for personal use.

I am a semi professional photographer and my DSLR manufactured in 2004 is yet to reach 40,000 shutter actuations.

Does 40 000 include thumbnails, are they all child porn or just child porn related, is an otherwise innocuous picture file of a child that is in the same directory as a child pornography imaage now considered an image of child abuse ?

I am just curious as to how they come p with these calculations, because, sure as heck, I have not even taken 40 000 images in 10 years as a photograpoher, and quite often you hear the stats from these siezure that state image count in the 10’s and 100’s of thousands.

Woody Mann-Caruso 1:34 pm 22 Sep 09

40,000 images and 900 videos represent a lot of time and interest.

Or mild interest and a decent usenet client. The numbers shouldn’t sway you. One is too many (though I doubt stoning is an appropriate response).

eyeLikeCarrots 1:29 pm 22 Sep 09

And for our next trick using Judical Prudence in Sentancing, well let someone off for murder because they were in a bad mood at the time.

TA’DAH!

weeziepops 1:01 pm 22 Sep 09

40,000 images and 900 videos represent a lot of time and interest. I hope his life has been destroyed but at the same time wonder what will become of him now in terms of risk of re-offending or even progressing his interests into more serious crimes.

deezagood 12:48 pm 22 Sep 09

Oh well … I can only hope that his life has been utterly and completely destroyed by this and that he will continue to suffer beyond his detention period.

Nosey 12:32 pm 22 Sep 09

We need a Magistrate to be the victim if a vicious crime and maybe then, will we see a fitting punishment.

Whta next?

Ms MASSEY will get a good behaviour order that will state “Not to stab any person/s.”

Nosey 12:30 pm 22 Sep 09

No shock in that.

The Courts here in the CAT obviously don’t believe in handing out appropriate and deserved punishment.

What next? Ms MASSEY will bet a good behaviour sentence that will include “Not to stab any person/s.”

Unfortunately we need a Magistrate or someone close to them, to be the victim of a heinous and vicious crime.

Maybe then we will see an appropriate punishment.

Nosey 12:28 pm 22 Sep 09

No shock in that sentence.

The Courts here in the ACT don’t believe in handing out appropriate and deserved punishment.

What’s next?

I know, Ms MASSEY will get good behaviour conditions that will include “not to stab any person/s.”

farq 12:19 pm 22 Sep 09

rah rah, rabble-rabble.

tell it to a talkback radio host.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site