RSSUnreal!!! Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein Defending Child Sex Predators, Says Child Porn Laws to Harsh … “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily”
“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily” … Yes we are and it is because judges like Jack B. Weinstein are allowed to serve on the bench. How will we ever protect children, the most defenseless among us with the likes of this as federal judges?
Say hello to LEFTIST Jack B. Weinstein, a 43 year federal judge …
The NY Times states, the judge has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” What is his crusade this time … Child Porn laws. However, it’s not what you think … this judge things that the child porn laws are too strict and defends the child pornographers.
Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”
There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.
That is correct, this judge stated that an electronic ankle bracelet was excessive for a sexual predator and child pornographer as he stated that this perv posed no threat to society. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Eastern District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein has held unconstitutional the electronic monitoring of a Brooklyn pizzeria owner awaiting retrial on child pornography charges.
The judge found that the monitoring, mandated by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, constitutes unconstitutionally excessive bail and violates defendant Peter Polouizzi’s procedural due process rights.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein stated “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily.” However, he was not referring to the victims of child porn … he was referring to the child pornographers! I would agree with the Astute Blogger 100%, “I THINK THAT THESE LEFTISTS ARE EVERY BIT AS BAD AND DANGEROUS AS CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS.”
Just what we need to be soft on kiddie porn. What will the LEFT think of next to defend … child rapists? Guess where child rapists come from liberal judges … that would be the very kiddie porn criminals that you look to let off scott free.
Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.
“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.
“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”
Treatment and supervision … how LEFTIST, liberal can we get? Maybe we need to figure out why his parents did not get him a pony for his 6th birthday while we are at it. You know you have a problem with a judge when a child porn collector sees the man as not a judge, but a dad.
The man he has spent three years trying to save from a long incarceration is Pietro Polizzi, a married father of five who collected more than 5,000 graphic pictures of children. If prosecuted in a New York State court, he would have faced a maximum prison sentence of four years. Instead, in federal court, he faced a minimum of five years and a recommended sentence of 11 to 14 years. Because of Judge Weinstein’s intervention, he remains free as he awaits another trial.
“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”
It’s too bad that these liberal judges did not feel the need to protect the victims of child porn. News flash Judge Jack B. Weinstein … the pic is of an exploited child and the individual with that pic is a time bomb waiting to go off.
So judge, when this perv escalates his child porn pic collection to the real thing … what will you say then!!!
Posted May 22, 2010 by Scared Monkeys Bizarre, Child Welfare, Crime, Facebook, Judicial, Legal - Court Room - Trial, WTF | 10 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
10 Responses to “Unreal!!! Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein Defending Child Sex Predators, Says Child Porn Laws to Harsh … “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily””
Leave a Reply
A Law that protects our children. Sounds good to me. Too many children are murdered, molested and scared for life by Child Predators.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein has no respect for the law he needs to be removed. Is he a closet Child Predator? Seems like he exposed himself on the bench.
UNLEASH THE O’REILLY!!!
SM, the last comment
“so Judge when this perv escalates his child porn pic collection to the real thing…what will you say then”
More than likely, Monster Polizzi’s already been involved with the “real thing” and diddling with children and hasn’t gotten caught. YET.
A 5,000 picture library of child pornography found in his possession ~ that screams VOLUMES to me he’s a dangerous monster to innocent children who are victims of predators like him.
(I’ve a friend who’s on a task force with the State Police who’s job is to find these monsters)…I’d LOVE to hear his thoughts and comments about this monster and also the Judge!)
That ankle bracelet placed on this/these monster(s) for house arrest is on the wrong part of the body…
It Belongs on his/their penis.
[There needs to be a design that would have the jewels of electric current (excuse the pun) running through the "bracelet" and may I suggest the victim(s) have a little dial hand held remote device to administer the electric voltage desired... ~ until it falls off.]
For the “Judge” if it were his children in the photograph(s), he’d make damn sure the law(s) would be more stringent than they are today and I highly doubt he’d let it rest until he also found the ones who molested the children in the photographs and do whatever he could to serve & protect children.
One would think that that would include implementing more stringent and more strict laws onto the books ! and severely punishing under every aspect of the law getting them off the streets and having these very demented observers of child porn, who are partnering with the monsters and providing their existence/living and perpetuating crimes to innocent children by purchasing such inhumane photo’s, behind bars as well.
14 years in prison to this monster ~ he could watch live in person grown men going at it no photo’s necessary.
Greg… I couldn’t agree with you more.
~kitty
P.S.
I’d highly suggest to this Judge that he has the Monsters children be interviewed by Police the Sexual Assault team of professional(s) to see if they’ve been harmed by their sperm donor). He’s No Father. And it would be NO surprise to most, that they are amongst the “survivor” ranks.
Then, remove him from the Bench.
Submitted Kitty on 2010/05/22 at 6:12pm
As far as un necessary cruelty to the law regarding the punishment of observers/participants of child pornography… what about the innocent children?
May this Federal “Judge” use better judgement & start an official Federally supported program:
The Humane Society for the Protection and Cruelty to Children.
I rest my case.
If ever a federal judge needed to be removed from the bench, this is the person. What a piece of judicial crap!
We have far too many judges like this one in our judicial systems. They all need to be found, exposed and removed from the system.
Amen Grandpa!
I wonder how much porn he has at his house or office
Has anyone from this web page researched to see what is the penalty for first time offenders viewing child pornography on the internet?
Depending on the character of the judge and prosecutor, a first time offender of viewing child pornography( ie, possession, receipt) can be 5 years in federal prison, and 20 years for sending images from one computer to another( distribution). 20 years in federal prison for making a mistake at 18 years of age seems a bit harsh.
Wait till your child grows up, and he makes a mistake and gets thrown in prison! There are boys who at 16 got caught with child porn, it doesn’t matter if the girl sent the picture or if the young boy only had 3 or 4 pictures. These guys deserve prison?? They deserve suicide? That is what they do sometimes.
I think, wanting someone to die, or end up in prison is much more perverted, than a young boy looking at a couple of photos,.
So many, Dumb, Naive and Uneducated morons in this country. YOU people that fail to use your God-Given brain are the reason this country is going to shit.
Apparently everybody on here is an Angel. Lets start dissecting each one of your lives, and see how we can paint you to the public. I am sure all of you are responsible for something that you could be seriously punished for, if you had been caught.
The fact that you idiots think that Viewing something means that the Viewer is going to go carry-out what they are Viewing, is so absurd, that the Justice System should throw each of you in Jail for viewing Killings on TV, or YouTube videos of 9/11 Victims falling for the Towers. How DARE you view violence of those poor victims and not be thrown to jail, since you OBVIOUSLY are torturing those helpless victims by looking at those videos.
Pathetic. Take your Vengeful emotions, shove them, and then use your head to logically think about things for a change.
For the record, I am strongly against any bastards that molest kids, but I have enough Brains in my head to understand that while viewing that type of material is disturbing, there is no proven link to say a person will ever commit what they have Viewed.
Thanks
Sincerely,
Commonsense
_____________________________
SM: Hmm, common sense, is that like when a big, overweight guy has the name “Slim” sewn on his Bowling shirt?
Sorry if I don’t protect child predators like you seem to want to do.
R