Jackson Jambalaya

Does abortion contribute to people like this seeing children as less than valuable?

Don't see what the problem is. No actual child was involved, just some perv downloading digital data from the internet. 40 years seems a little harsh.

This guy is scum and is a repeat offender, so I'm all for him being put away, but 40 years for downloading images? There's nothing here about him molesting of physically abusing a child.

Michael and Blair Porter had sexual relations with a teenage girl (starting when she was in middle school) for several years, including a threesome at the softball field. For sexual battery of a child, they each got 5 years.

Eric Law (remember him?) was convicted of sexual battery of a 15-year-old who he took to his "law and order room" to have sex multiple times. He got 8 years.

I'm not saying Flanagan is a victim. He's a sleazy dude who should go away and should certainly be kept off the internet and away from children. But why is he getting 40 years when people who sexually abused actual children are getting a fraction of that?

9:38 Excellent point and good questions.

40 years does seem harsh. Was he downloading pictures of 3 year olds, or 17 year olds who look 21? Huge difference in my opinion.

Those are indeed good questions, which should be addressed by the state. There was a sentencing task force proposed by the legislature which KF complained about and was ultimately vetoed by the governor. Because our criminal justice system works just fine, thank you very much.

you doofuses who are saying he didn't harm a child do realize that the child or children whose pictures he downloaded were subjected to abuse, right?

In order to download these digital images, at some point, some where a child was exploited. A child was hurt by someone who had this guy in mind while
he was hurting a specific child.

If there was not a demand, there would not be a supply.

For everyone saying this was harsh and no child was involved, I guess you think the children involved in the porn were holograms.
How can you be so stupid? Of course actual children were involved! Child pornographers benefit from idiots like this.

Sentenced to 40 years with 20 to serve. So really, it's 20 years with a close being kept on him for another 20. And I highly doubt that he had a single picture. The reasons the penalty seems harsh here are A) he was a repeat offender and B) child sex offenders typically graduate into more serious crimes. It may start with a couple of pictures, then videos, then chats, until ultimately they make physical contact. I'm all for the 20 and 20 year sentence.

" 40 years seems a little harsh. "

Perhaps. The message seems to be that if you want to be a repeat offender in sexually exploiting children, do it somewhere else that Madison County.

Good bone structure. Maybe he can start a modeling career from Parchman

Several have commented that actual children were harmed in order for this guy to find pictures to download. But, how do we know that to be true??? My understanding is that no one even knows who these "children" are, what country they are from, etc. So, how do we know they actually are children? Oh, I know there really are children exploited for this purpose but that's not my question. I'm talking about the people in the specific pictures this particular guy had in his possession. If authorities can not say for sure who those people are, how can they know for sure that they really are children? It's not difficult AT ALL to find people of legal age who can realistically portray themselves as children. I personally know at least two adult women who could pass as 10 years old any day of the week. And, guaranteed, people WILL undergo surgery, if necessary, to alter their appearance if there's enough money to be made. So....how do we know that the people in the pictures this guy had were truly children?

@9:38 go play in traffic I-55 South @ Meadowbrook. That should do it.

Kingfish loves this shit!

Whatever image(s) or video he downloaded involved a child somewhere most likely being sexually abused/exploited. So while he didn't have a physical victim the image or video contained a child victim from somewhere. The fact that he is a repeat offender of similar convictions and people think the sentence is too harsh is ridiculous.

Some of these comments about fairness? Unbelievable. Anything having to do with sexual exploitation of children should be cause for the most severe punishment. And if he's downloading this stuff it won't be long until he's doing it himself. I'm assuming the justice system considered all of the facts of the case and found him worthy of at least 20 years of imprisonment.

If I have some photos of people robbing banks should I be in jail? Oh, wait....If I do have them, that means 'it won't be long before I rob one'.

Dang... sure looks like an easy way for some gal to get her guy in trouble real quick. Just download some images on his computer then leak it to some authority.

Most of these offenders were molested themselves as children. So, over their lifetime they go from one of the most pitied of victims to one of the most reviled of victimizers. Sad and ironic.

10:56 - I detest child predators and anybody who would take any sort of advantage of a child (with priests at the top of the list); however, who in your scenario, above, is the victim? And where is the link to your claim?

To 3:42

The victim in my scenario is the child who was molested -- the one who now has become a molester himself, and is therefore now the predator.

As to a link:
"Among incarcerated child molesters, 30 to 70 percent were themselves sexually abused as children, but the vast majority of molested children are not destined to re-enact the crime, according to studies by Dr. Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire Family Violence Research Program."

I am not making excuses for the molesters, just commenting in the irony.