Man, 93, spared jail for sexually abusing daughters

He should have been thrown in gen pop untill he died.

Who cares what he suffers from now....I wouldn't have spared him the bullet let alone jail time

Maybe so, but I have a difficulty with 1956 - 1963.

What, if anything, did he do after those years re his daughters and others - this entire business of false memory syndrome is sickening.

A good friends eighteen year old daughter recently attempted suicide with a tylenol od - once committed she sated she had been raped at the age of nine by an unknown male - a physical determined that most certainly had never occurred - not enough info in the article. . . .

I find the fact they could get a conviction from an incidents that happened so long ago speaks for itself. This person has not paid for his crimes yet and probably never will, at least not in full.

He can never tell, because he has Alzheimers. So it is their 50 year old story...
I don't know, I have to agree with Karra...

Usually any case that dates back more then 20 years is thrown out due to lack of substantial evidence, so they must have had him stone cold to get a conviction. I would love to see how the trial went, it would be extremely interesting to see how they actually convicted him.

yes, I agree with you on that!

Having witnessed within my extended family, the devistation that such behaviour can result in, I am a strong proponent of the harshest punishment. This being Canada, the punishment rarely amounts to more than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

I also believe that there should be a statute of limitations should be applied to this particular type of crime. The statute would be that unless the victim is certifyably mentally challenged then they would have only 1 year after reaching the age of consent in the area in which they live at the present time. Keeping a 'secret' for 45 years or longer and then trying to prosecute is like 'chasing smoke'! Witnesses die or as in this case, alzheimers, memories fade. It becomes a 'he said, she said'' without either side being able to adaquitly prove or disprove.

May as well throw a dead guy in jail. I'd rather save that cell for someone who poses a present risk to society. Sorry to the victims, but the most they should get out of this is moral vindication due to a finding of guilt. Who knows, maybe he has money adn they can sue now.

Such horrible crimes should not have a statute of limitations, this is why we have a judge and jury. They determine if the accusation is true, time shouldn�t matter. As long as the defendant is alive he should be prosecuted.

You do make an excellent point Zip.

You'll never get any argument from me in as much as I don't think that there is a much more vile crime. However, I wonder how my point got past you Eisen. If there was a statute, then instead of putting a 90 year old man on house arrest for a couple of years, the courts would be catching these bastards and doling out years of harsh punishment[/b, made even harsher just by the fact that the offender would actually be losing a good part of his life.

Ah seen.

That is a valid point Zip. I also think that the message should be sent to these predators that no matter how long ago you committed your sick crime, you will be punished as if you did it the day before. Just because a guy makes it to old age before he's convicted, that itself should not mitigate the punishment.