Printable View
Dale was arrested in 2005 for possession of hundreds of images of kiddie pron and was just sentenced last month. He got 210 months without parole, lifetime supervision, registration as a sex offender, stay away from places where children are present and banned from the use of computers or the internet for the rest of his life.
Wow.
http://149.101.1.32/usao/txs/release...108Beckham.htm
I cant beleive the Canadians only made him serve time spent :eek:
Regards,
Lee
I think they did that with the intention of deporting him into the hands of the US authorities who were lying in wait. I did that occasionally as a state prosecutor in Iowa; reduce the charges and release the defendant to the federal authorities. Then the state/county no longer had to take care of him but he was still locked up. Canada probably did not want him in their prisons taking up space~Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Crazy stuff !!!
I agree. Why should Canada pay the cost of incarcerating him when the U.S. would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Michael
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Very intense and jaw dropping
Im glad that everyone i spoke to decided to all the content he sold them to the day we learnt of his initial arrest.
Given some of the stuff found on his computer a lot of us could have been in for a world of hurt.
Regards,
Lee
Right he was a BIG eye opener for a lot of us, and the reason some of us are so diligent on really knowing who we're dealing with now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
"officials found nearly 1400 images of child pornography on his computers including pictures of adults engaged in sexual activity with children younger than 12 years of age." and this is the guy who seemed so nice and normal. He had talked about coming out to Australia before all this, chilling to the core.
I didn't really know him except for chatting on the board and the one time we met in San Diego at the webmaster party. I was shocked when this first happened because he seemed so nice. But what is that line from Into The Woods? "Nice is different than good." It's really disturbing to think all this was going on the whole time.
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonMike
I only chatted via ICQ and on the phone a couple times. But the ICQ's were often as he was looking to move overseas to get content and was getting a feel for Australia etc. etc. :rat:
At the end of the day you just never really know who anyone is do you?
He always gave me the creeps... made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
I'm glad to see that he won't be a problem for society for quite some time.
Good Gravy.
Yeah, I had no idea.. I remember being the first one to defend him saying that we didnt' know what happened and that maybe he didn't know how old the kid was and blah blah blah.
I'm just feeling like I need a shower now.
Would that be a shower IN the fratpad, with the residents? If so, show time please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
shit.. you missed it, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tombarr
I am sometimes a Polly Anna believing that a prosecutor usually will not file a baseless charge, and my own experience with federal prosecutors was that they only filed indictments when they had a rock solid case. There are notable exceptions, especially in our industry because pornographers are not considered upstanding moral citizens and some holier-than-thou prosecutors just want to "get" pornographers. However, in this case the evidence was overwhelming. Many that knew him believed the charges because of his attraction to very young guys and, in his own words, "super twinks" (not to be confused with Super Twink, which is corny content).
Almost everyone who is accused of a crime will have supporters that say, "I know him! He is just not that kind of person! He would NEVER do that!" and those supporters, without any other basis to be supportive, are usually wrong.
The evidence was overwhelming. When I read the charging document it was obvious-- an innocent man does not have hundreds of explicit images of very young pre-pubescent children in their possession. It is possible to have a couple of those images on your computer without knowing it, but not hundreds. In the guilty plea, he admitted to the charge and laid the foundation for his guilty plea. He did not just say, "Yes, I am guilty". He had to explain WHY he was guilty, that he understood the nature of the charge, the nature of the plea agreement, that he had discussed the plea with his lawyer, knew what evidence would be used against him, that he understood the sentence that he was facing, and that he was giving up his right to a jury trial and rights to appeal. I would say he is guilty.
Damn Jasun -- I don't think I have ever seen a pic where you are the only one wearing pants........Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
Guys I have read about this case in the media what name was he known by in porn or online? Did he have a site? Anyone?
The only person that came to mind was Dawgy Dawg but it could not be him!
As far as I can remember, he simply went as "Dawgy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbertdidporn
He was the first gay dude I "met" on gfy way back in 2002.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mansized
Actually..I should add Archer as one of the first gay men I "met" on gfy also.
true ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
Didn't he used to work for Gay Porn Kings, and he had his own "twink" content site.
Michael
yes to both. he also had a tgp and galleries that were made with mostly ounique content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
Holy fuck I am blown away by this. Dawgy was one of the first guys I met in the biz. I dont know what to say!!
So what are your opinions on the 17 year sentence? Keeping in mind that he wasn't charged in the US for being with the 14yo in Canada since apparently that was actually legal there. But I would say his "legal" actions in Canada played a role in his sentencing on other crimes here.
There's a lot of horrible things you could do right now and be out long before D*wgy, some involving people dying.
You have no idea how many kids Dawgy successfully had sex with over his years as a free man. And if he was willing to lure a 14-year-old guy to his hotel room once, then I'm sure there were more than a couple that he actually got away with. And speaking as someone who was preyed upon as a 11-year-old boy, I spent a great many years in therapy trying to sort out those experiences; I think the sentence is justified.
I'm sure there are more than a handful of guys who are walking around as adults today who are more than a little fucked up by their experiences at the hand of this convicted *********. Seventeen years in jail almost seems insufficient for the lifetime of wreckage some of those guys will be left to sort out – and many never will. And many of those guys will end up in a sort of emotional prison for the rest of their lives. It seems fitting that their abuser will lose a good part of his life.
Michael
He entered Canada a criminal as he was importing child porn to the country, which is illegal in Canada and the U.S. It isn't apparently actually legal to be a grown man and have sex with little boys in Canada the way Dale Eric Beckham did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
"The age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years." source
Remember that he was found guilty of luring the child to have sex with him, which is illegal in both Canada and the U.S. Also remember 1400 images of cp were found on his computers including images of children under 12 engaged in sexual acts with adults, which is illegal in both Canada and the U.S.
I think the sentence in the U.S. and Canada was light, based on what we know. It's obvious the Canadians didn't want to waste their resources on Dale Eric Beckham as they knew he'd get the book thrown at him here.
And I believe many states (or perhaps it's a federal law) have laws which allow prosecutors to charge U.S. citizens who are travelling to foreign destinations to get around the age of majority in their own country. So, they may have tacked those charges on as well.
Michael
i'm sure dawgy was one of those molested guys. molesters were generally molested. at what age do we stop feeling they need treatment and start feeling that they need to be locked in prison with a group of people who will treat them abusively every day for 17 years?
some sexually molested kids molest other kids when they're still kids. do those kids need to be thrown in prison? what if they're only 10 years old? is there an age where suddenly treatment is no longer what someone should have and punishment is the only answer?
there's a great lack of focus on treatment in this country, and seems like most perceive prison as revenge - and i'm not just talking about in the case of child molesters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
I certainly agree that most abusers have been abused. It certainly would be progressive if we began developing child molester jails where the focus of the incarceration would be on treatment and rehabilitation.
But by the same token, aren't most criminals the victims of some sort of abuse? It seems to me that we look at incarceration as the treatment for their problems. Most prisoners could probably benefit from a more therapy-based approved.
Michael
We stop treating someone like a victim and start treating them like a criminal when they victimize others.
Past abuse does not give someone a free pass to abuse others. I had limited personal contact with dawgy but my impression was that he was no victim. He struck me as a predator. My gut was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I agree 100%. However, sexual predators are the most difficult to rehabilitate, thus making funds spent on treatment unlikely to produce the desired results. Society is best protected by preventing them from victimizing others, and Dawgy has been proven to be a sexual predator.
You can rehabilitate what sexually arouses a person?
so does that mean a 9 year old who molests his 5 year old brother should be treated as a criminal? there are actually many such cases.
i'm not saying these people should be rehabilitated, but perhaps they can be taught not to act out. i'd still keep them away from kids, but putting them in general population when it's pretty well known that child molesters are treated so badly there seems to me to be revenge rather than anything else.
it's odd to me how people who say they don't believe in torture have no problem throwing a molester into a situation where he will be beaten, threatened raped and otherwise harmed on a daily basis for many years. how is that not torture? and while i don't condone molestation in any way, i'm sure that the people who commit torture on people in situations we say we deplore also don't condone their activities. where's the line here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
I think if someone drives 2,000 miles to be with a teen, then it is one possibility that they have expirence in doing it closer to home. So I'm with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
These speculated crimes are however a moot point since he wasn't on trial for any of them. If you get pulled over for speeding do you get one ticket, or a bunch of tickets for all the times they think you got away with it?
My post was just asking about the 17 years he got for having photos on his computer that he wasn't charged with creating or selling, "just" possessing. The link Chad posted says nothing about other charges.
The reason why the sentance surprises me is that I was looking at my state's online sex offender database and seeing guys who molested kids under 10 that spent less than half the time in prison that D*wgy got for having photos. That's really all I am questioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Yes there are and I have personally been the prosecutor. How I handled the case was entirely different than with an adult predator. We are not talking about 9 year olds here.
This was a 32 year old man who has been an adult long enough to know what he is doing, to be responsible for his own actions, and with his participation in the legal adult industry he damn well knew that what he was doing was highly illegal and considered despicable even by the most hardened legitimate pornographer. His sentence had to satisfy several prongs, including (1) protect society from a predator (2) deterring the predator from doing it again and (3) deterring others who may consider violating the law from breaking the same law.
I believe the sentence is fair considering the many factors at play.
The conditions in prison are not good. However, the possibility that the predator may become the victim of some future crime (being assaulted in prison) also does not give him a free pass. The predator should be locked away so he cannot harm other victims. The predator should also be protected from assault by other inmates while in custody and someone that assaults him should also be punished.
basschick I am with you on this one! I feel that we are quick to punish a criminal and I don't feel that we spend enough time on rehabilitation and as a result these people are treated like animals or worse in our jails and it is tolerated and then when they have served their time if they survive they are released back into the population, without any rehabilitation having taken place. To me this is hardly a civilized way of addressing these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
There is a difference in state and federal law, which usually accounts for different sentences. Also, that "sex offender" designation is attached to a wide range of crimes, so in order to compare sentences it is important to look at the elements of the crime committed. The 23 year old high music teacher that gropes the covered breast of his 15 year old student may be labeled a direct contact sex offender in the same group as the 50 year old priest that anally penetrated an 8 year old altar boy. Sometimes they carry the same label but with very different underlying crimes.
Had he been charged in Arizona the sentence is 10 years per image, no probation, all terms to be served consecutively. This scheme is ludicrous because a handful of images becomes a life sentence and to me fundamentally unfair. A few years for actually molesting a child seems too light and dawgys seems about right to me.
I never met this person... but good riddens!