LOVE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST... PENALIZATION
#1
[Image: o-JESUS-STATUE-BLURRED-570.jpg?22]

Should the 14-year-old boy who posed for this photo at Love In The Name of Christ (a Christian organization) be facing up to two years in juvenile detention for it?

He has been charged with "desecration of a venerated object".

"Desecration” is defined in Pennsyvlania as ““Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

Vandalism, on the the other hand -- which leaves physical damage -- typically carries only a one year maximum sentence.

Doesn't make any sense to me to incarcerate this dipshit kid for any length of time over this single incident. Maybe he should be made to go to church every Sunday for a year instead?
Reply
#2
(09-11-2014, 06:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Should the 14-year-old boy who posed for this photo at Love In The Name of Christ (a Christian organization) be facing up to two years in juvenile detention for it?


No.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#3
His parents should kick his ass for being a little dickhead. But no, detention is not appropriate.
Devil Money Stealing Aunt Smiley_emoticons_fies
Reply
#4
I say give him the maximum sentence and let those other kids who poured piss all over the retarded guy off the hook. It's all about priorities.
Reply
#5
The Ohio teens who physically victimized the autistic boy deserve way worse punishment than the Pennsylvania statue humper, for sure. But, I doubt they'll be facing up to 2 years.

In either case, I don't think incarceration should be the first option for dealing with asshole teens.
Reply
#6


Haven't I read in the crime forum about kid killers being looking at differently in regards to their crime because their brains are not fully developed? I would think that would apply in this case as well. Some young people make stupid decisions, this kid did nothing more than be disrespectful and he doesn't deserve to be locked up for two years because of it. What the fuck is wrong with people anymore.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#7
I hope this story went viral just because it's possible that the teen could get up to two years, not because it's likely. I'd hope his age is taken into consideration.

Personally, I'd think it was stupid to incarcerate an adult with a fully-developed brain for doing the same thing. However, I'd not object to a tox screen and/or a psych eval in that case. And a fine.

IDK. We put too many people in jail for "moral crimes" in this country and let a lot of others out after they've sexually of violently assaulted others. I'm kinda frustrated with the inequities sometimes, I guess.
Reply
#8
Maybe God wants him in jail and this is his way of teaching him a lesson. His intention was not good.
Reply
#9
The church said they'd just like to see the boy do community service, and some at the church. That'd seem appropriate.

The kids in Ohio, tho, those assholes should be incarcerated. You pour piss and shit on handicapped kids, you get your bodily functions monitored for the next year in detention center.
Reply
#10
(09-11-2014, 08:58 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Maybe God wants him in jail and this is his way of teaching him a lesson. His intention was not good.


Yeah, fuck all those poor kids in the world being raped and murdered. God is too busy worrying about this little bastard making a joke with a statue of Christ.
Reply
#11
(09-11-2014, 09:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: The church said they'd just like to see the boy do community service, and some at the church. That'd seem appropriate.
Agreed.
Reply
#12
(09-11-2014, 09:53 PM)Clang McFly Wrote:
(09-11-2014, 09:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: The church said they'd just like to see the boy do community service, and some at the church. That'd seem appropriate.
Agreed.

That sounds reasonable to me too, guys.

Hopefully the court will agree.
Reply
#13
Years ago nobody would do that, today with facebook and all the other crap its a jailable offense it seems. I think its creative.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Reply