Are you satisfied now?!

Ex-Priest Pedophile Is Killed in Prison

Ex-Priest John Geoghan, Who Was Convicted of Child Molestation, Dies in Mass. Prison Attack

The Associated Press

BOSTON Aug. 23 —

Former priest John Geoghan, a convicted child molester who became a central figure in the Catholic church's sex abuse scandal, died Saturday after another inmate attacked him in prison, a state corrections spokeswoman said.

Geoghan was injured in an incident with another inmate about noon and died shortly after being taken to Leominster Hospital, said Department Of Correction spokeswoman Kelly Nantel.

The other inmate had been isolated and the incident was under investigation.

In civil lawsuits, more than 130 people have claimed Geoghan sexually abused them as children during his three decades as a priest at Boston-area parishes. He was convicted last year of indecent assault and battery.

Mitchell Garabedian, an attorney for many Geoghan victims, said he was "surprised and shocked" by Geoghan's death.

"Many of my clients would have rather seen Father Geoghan serve out his time in jail and endure the rigors of further criminal trials, so that his pedophile acts could have been exposed further," he said.

The church abuse scandal, which has had repercussions worldwide, broke in early 2002 with revelations that the Boston Archdiocese had shuttled Geoghan from parish to parish despite warnings about his behavior.

The scandal mushroomed after a judge ordered the release of archdiocese files involving dozens of priests, showing repeated examples of the archdiocese shipping priests to different parishes when allegations arose.

Rev. Christopher Coyne, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston, offered prayers for Geoghan's family.

"Upon hearing the news of the tragic death of John Geoghan, the Archdiocese of Boston offers prayer for the repose of John's soul, and extends its prayers in consolation to his beloved sister, Kathy, at this time of personal loss," he said.

Geoghan was convicted in January 2002 for grabbing the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy in 1991 in the first of three criminal cases against him. He was sentenced to nine to 10 years in prison.

In September 2002, the archdiocese settled with 86 Geoghan victims for $10 million, after pulling out of an earlier settlement of about $30 million.

One of those victims, Ralph DelVecchio, said Geoghan deserved prison but didn't deserve to be killed.

"I wouldn't say he deserved to die, you know?" DelVecchio said. "He was in jail that's where I believed he should be."

DelVecchio said he didn't wish ill on Geoghan.

"It's over with," he said.

I was satisfied when he was sent to prison. I'm not less satisfied now.

I think a hard life in prison would have been a just punishment. But this certainly makes parole, rehabilitation, etc. moot points.

Needless to say - and as is made nauseatingly clear by your subject line - you blame certain others (like, for example, oh, I don't know . . . jews?) for what happened to this vile, sick, pitiful "man," but don't blame him.

Do you think any blame should assigned to him - I mean, I know all he did was sexually abuse countless children, but surely you think that some punishment is warranted for those crimes. Don't you?

What's to be happy about? There's nothing to take joy from in the entire sorry tale, from the actual molestations, to the effects on the victims, to the corruption of the Church by the denials and cover-ups, to the ruined careers and vocations, to the ugliness of the trials and lawsuits, and now to this sad denouement. I suspect it's enough to make G-d start thinking about taking anti-depressants! x(

>I was satisfied when he was sent to prison. I'm

>not less satisfied now.

>

>I think a hard life in prison would have been a just

>punishment. But this certainly makes parole, rehabilitation,

>etc. moot points.

My pnly regret is that they didn't send his buddy Bernie Law to prison with him. With a little luck he'd have been whacked too!

fukamarine

You and I are in total agreement. Law should have have been arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for his involvement. It really gets my shorts in a bunch that his only punishment is retirement.x(

Well, imo, you are both sick to advocate and revel in the murder of a fellow human being, regardless of his crimes. This man was judged and sentenced according to law, and did not deserve to be brutally murdered.

It is unfathomable, how anyone could celebrate the violent death of another human being. Who the hell died and made you two God of the universe? As the Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged".

TOTALLY DISGUSTING!!

>Do you think any blame should assigned to him - I mean, I know

>all he did was sexually abuse countless children, but surely

>you think that some punishment is warranted for those crimes.

>Don't you?

I don't believe in capital punishment, and certainly not for sexual assault. His fate was entirely predictable. Sending him to a general prison population served no purpose other than retribution, not rehabilitation or either specific or general deterence. Without the hysteria surrounding these cases, a 67 year old man would have been been sent to a more appropriate institution to serve out the balance of his sentance.

And no, I don't blame the jews for the hysteria, but perhaps you should ask Mel Gibson what he thinks about the subject!

>Well, imo, you are both sick to advocate and revel in the

>murder of a fellow human being, regardless of his crimes.

Funny, I seem to recall one fellow traveller being banished from this Board for a similar sin against God and nature!

>Well, imo, you are both sick to advocate and revel in the

>murder of a fellow human being, regardless of his crimes.

So, then, you won't be happy when Osama bin Laden is finally killed? You think it was "sick" of those people who celebrated in 1945 upon hearing of the death of Adolph Hitler?

If you had the chance to kill Adolph Hitler in 1938 - before his conduct resulted in the death of 50 million human beings - would you have done so?

>It is unfathomable, how anyone could celebrate the violent

>death of another human being. Who the hell died and made you

>two God of the universe?

Why do we have the right to take a human being and lock him in a cage for the rest of his life, but not kill him?

>So, then, you won't be happy when Osama bin Laden is finally

>killed? You think it was "sick" of those people who

>celebrated in 1945 upon hearing of the death of Adolph

>Hitler?

So you see no difference between the ex-Priest and Hitler or OBL? Interesting!

>So you see no difference between the ex-Priest and Hitler or

>OBL? Interesting!

What's interesting are your hallucinations. I didn't say there were no differences between this vile, depraved child abuser and Hitler or OBL.

VaHawk said that it was "sick" to celebrate the violent death of another human being - and that it was "playing God" to think that one had the right to end someone else's life.

In response to VaHawk's absolute prohibitions on killing, and his belief that it's "sick" to be happy when someone else is killed regardless of the person's crimes, I asked VaHawk whether he would be happy to hear of the death of Hitler or OBL, and whether he would have killed Hitler in 1938 if he had the chance.

Get it now?

>Get it now?

No. I find reductio ad Hitlorem to be the most infantile form of argumentation. Get it now?

For the record, I agree that it's revolting to celebrate anyone's death, including Hitler's. One may favor capital punishment for the same reason one favors amputation -- in some circumstances it may be the only way of saving life from the danger represented by that which is cut off. I never heard anyone suggest celebrating an amputation, and I think celebrating an execution is just as macabre.

To me, the story of Geoghan is a lesson in the difference between having unbearable urges and acting on them. Gay men, especially those who struggle with their orientation before accepting it, are in a good position to know that one cannot choose one's own desires. But there is always a choice when it comes to acting on one's desires. Geoghan made the wrong choice.

>One may favor capital

>punishment for the same reason one favors amputation -- in

>some circumstances it may be the only way of saving life from

>the danger represented by that which is cut off.

I wasn't aware that he was sentanced to death by a jury of his peers, or that his killer was a doctor skilled in amputation!

>No. I find reductio ad Hitlorem to be the most infantile form

>of argumentation. Get it now?

If one proclaims: "X is always wrong" - as VaHawk did - then one way to refute that principle is to find instances in which X is not wrong. That's just basic logic. Only an infant would dismiss such reasoning as "infantile."

>For the record, I agree that it's revolting to celebrate

>anyone's death, including Hitler's.

I think it's revolting not to rejoice over the death of someone who would go on to kill 50 million people, or who will order and cause a series of terrorist acts which will result in the death of huge numbers of innocent people. I can't imagine the moral corruption necessary for someone to find the death of such killers - which saves the lives of millions of innocent human beings -- as anything other than a cause for celebration.

>One may favor capital

>punishment for the same reason one favors amputation -- in

>some circumstances it may be the only way of saving life from

>the danger represented by that which is cut off. I never

>heard anyone suggest celebrating an amputation, and I think

>celebrating an execution is just as macabre.

Several hundred years of Anglo-American law -- which you like to cite as some Ultimate Authority - have reached the opposite conclusion. Cutting people's limbs off constitutes "cruel and unusual," but executing them does not.

Additionally, I think that if you ask most people if they would favor having cut off Osama bin Liden's arms if it meant that 9/11 would have been averted, they would say "yes". What would your answer be - would you rather have him keep his arms and let those planes fly into those buildings?

>Several hundred years of Anglo-American law -- which you like

>to cite as some Ultimate Authority - have reached the opposite

>conclusion. Cutting people's limbs off constitutes "cruel and

>unusual," but executing them does not.

Anglo-American or just American law? I think my friend needs to review the Privy Council jurisprudence on capital punishment before he opines again.

What a stupid infintile defense Dougie,typical Limbaughesqe rationele.Stating that if one does not agree with capital punishment-then one most be a fan of the monsters of history(in this case Hitler,and Americas pal gone bad-Osama Bin Laden)Guilt drawn by a crooked,curving asociation.

You are a halfwited wannabe neocon fool.

Andrew called,wants to know if you have finished with his boots yet.

>Guilt drawn by a crooked,curving asociation.

>You are a halfwited wannabe neocon fool.

>Andrew called,wants to know if you have finished with his

>boots yet.

Hey, BigPig - I have a serious question for you:

Which of the following best describes you:

(A) You are aware of how stupid you are, but think that it shouldn't stop you from expressing your views, since you believe that, your stupidity notwithstanding, your heart is still in the "right place" and you have "common sense"; or,

(B) You are so stupid that you are actually even unaware of how stupid you are, or even that you are stupid.

I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question.

>Well, imo, you are both sick to advocate and revel in the murder of a fellow human being, regardless of his crimes.

I didn't advocate or revel in his death. I merely stated that I was satisfied with his prison sentence and not less satisfied with his death.

I firmly believe that the person responsible for his death should be tried and punished in accordance with the law. Murder is murder and I wouldn't want it to go unpunished.

But, please explain how you interpreted my comments to be advocating and reveling his death? Perhaps you should consult your doctor because I'm not sure you are seeing things realistically.

>I merely stated that

>I was satisfied with his prison sentence and not less

>satisfied with his death.

You are right and I was wrong, this is not revelling in the man's death, but it certainly, imo, can be interpreted as at least tacit approval of his fate as one that was well deserved.

Isn't it one of the wonderful things in life, that there are standards even in prison, where someone (don't know in this particular case) who is a career criminal who has stolen the most precious thing of all (i.e. other peoples lives) can be the judge, jury and executioner of a child molester?

>

>Perhaps you should consult

>your doctor because I'm not sure you are seeing things

>realistically.

Thanks, perhaps you are right, maybe I need to consult a doctor. But since this advice is so freely dispensed on this board perhaps you can suggest one? instead of making a general statement? What speciality do suggest that I need to consult first?

Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>Several hundred years of Anglo-American law -- which you like

>to cite as some Ultimate Authority - have reached the opposite

>conclusion. Cutting people's limbs off constitutes "cruel and

>unusual," but executing them does not.

August 25, 2003

Priest's Murder Disappoints Some Victims

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:33 a.m. ET

BOSTON (AP)

....

Druce, 37, a reputed member of the neo-Nazi group Aryan Nation, is serving a life sentence for a 1988 murder. He also pleaded guilty to sending fake anthrax from prison to lawyers with Jewish-sounding names and was sentenced to an additional 37 months in prison.

Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte said Druce will be charged with murder. He said Geoghan appeared to have been strangled, though an autopsy was scheduled for Monday.

An executive of the state corrections union, Robert W. Brouillette, told The Boston Globe and The Washington Post that Druce followed Geoghan into his cell and jammed the electronic cell door to prevent guards from opening it. Druce bound Geoghan's hands behind his back with a sheet and gagged him. He then repeatedly jumped onto Geoghan's body from a bed and beat him with his fists, Brouillette said.

State correction officials declined to comment to The Associated Press on the reports.

According to the Globe, Druce was in prison for the murder of George Rollo, 51, a bus driver who had picked him up hitchhiking. Druce, who then went by his birth name, Darrin E. Smileadge, attacked Rollo, stuffed him in the trunk of Rollo's car, drove him to a wooded area and strangled him.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Church-Abuse-Geoghan.html?pagewanted=print&position=

RE: Cruel or Unusual Enough for you?

>Druce, 37, a reputed member of the neo-Nazi group Aryan

>Nation, is serving a life sentence for a 1988 murder. He also

>pleaded guilty to sending fake anthrax from prison to lawyers

>with Jewish-sounding names and was sentenced to an additional

>37 months in prison.

Hey, Axehbia - this sounds like you. Please confess that you are the one who furnished him the list of the lawyers with the "Jewish-sounding names."

I hope this incident at least brings some peace to the scores of human beings and their families whose lives were ruined by this vile bacteria and by that Most Holy Institution which aided and abetted him in his crimes.

>>One may favor capital

>>punishment for the same reason one favors amputation -- in

>>some circumstances it may be the only way of saving life

>from

>>the danger represented by that which is cut off.

>I wasn't aware that he was sentanced to death by a jury of his

>peers, or that his killer was a doctor skilled in amputation!

I didn't say I favored capital punishment for Geoghan or that I approved of what happened to him. Nor have I or would I suggest amputation as a punishment for any crime. Come back when you've learned to read.