Why just home detention?

February 8th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

David Clarkson at Stuff reports:

A Christchurch Christian journalist has admitted making intimate videos of a student at home and a 5-year-old girl at a church expo.

John Raymond McNeil, 67, was granted home detention at his Christchurch District Court sentencing, but his internet access will be blocked as part of the sentence.

He was found with 1000 child-pornography images on his computer, which he had viewed on the internet, and three videos he had made.

It’s one think to view pedophile videos others have made (still very sick and wrong and illegal), but quite another to also make said videos.

One video showed a student at her home, one was videoed up the skirt of a 5-year-old girl at a church expo and the third was taken up the skirt of an unidentified young woman walking in the Halswell Quarry.

McNeil is well known in his community, and the court was told that people now knew of his offending.

He is described as a veteran newspaper and radio journalist and South Island editor of Challenge Weekly, a non-denominational and independent Christian newspaper.

I’m sorry but he shot a video up the skirt of a five year old. Why is he not in jail?

A suitable address had been found for him to serve a home-detention sentence, an issue that had led to sentencing being delayed in December.

He said McNeil would be able to continue with his work on computers, without having internet access.

Oh yes it is important he can still put out his newspaper preaching against sin!

There is a fair degree of hypocrisy here. In 2003 McNeil said:

The Government is using the pretext of helping children who are victims of family breakdown as a lever for continued social engineering.

Along with other legislation, e.g. the Families Commission, the forthcoming Civil Union Bill and the Care of Children Bill seek to replace the primacy of married parents with other types. It’s doing this piece by piece in a process we call ‘legislative creep’. All three Bills promote diversity from different angles and through incremental change. …

‘Creep’ will ensure continued change masquerading as ‘reform’. The social fabric is being re-defined through a few key pieces of legislation. Instead of encouraging diversity of family types, it is better to assist those having difficulties, while advocating and supporting marriage as the best environment for nurturing children.

Pardon me while I vomit about the concern he expressed for nurturing children.

Tags:

53 Responses to “Why just home detention?”

  1. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    I was surprised at just home detention, that doesn’t send a very strong signal of disapproval. But at least there was no name suppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,560 comments) says:

    This creep just has to be against the marriage act changes, homosexual law reform and much else. I just loathe these christian hypocrites.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    It’s one think to view pedophile videos others have made (still very sick and wrong and illegal), but quite another to also make said videos.

    The making of child pornography is more serious than the possession of child pornography, and is punished accordingly.

    However, what is charged here was not the making of child pornography. It is the unlawful making of an “intimate visual recording”. This is far far less serious than a child pornography charge.

    Which is why it was treated less seriously.

    For the possession of child pornography, the sentencing process basically recognises four categories of child pornography. The lowest level of child pornography (usually referred to as sexualised nudity) frequently results in a sentence short of imprisonment. Category 3 and 4 material will usually result in imprisonment, often quite serious time, depending on the charge. My assumption is that with this sentence, the material is likely to be toward the lower end of what counts as child pornography.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Longknives (4,968 comments) says:

    Personally I’m more worried about how many New Zealand schoolteachers are fiddling the kids these days- Think how easy they have access etc But I guess that’s not quite as ‘fashionable’ as bashing all Christians for the actions of one perverted creep…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    ….”He was found with 1000 child-pornography images on his computer, which he had viewed on the internet, and three videos he had made.”…..

    It’s a wonder he had time in his busy schedule for Godbothering & moralising.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    So the tradition of christian hypocrites lecturing the public on the immorality of homosexuality etc, whilst touching/fucking/videoing small children behind closed doors still continues?

    If they were smart they’d establish a fund to support each other’s efforts. The Graham Capill Memorial Scholarship or something…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Is the judge an old white man per chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    I look forward to hearing what our own Christian Taliban from NZ Conservative have to say about this!

    They were very vocal about the Aaron Ellmers case recently.. will it be the same when a Christian values crusader is caught with his pants down?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Yup, he belongs in jail.

    The silver lining is that stories like this gives DPF an opportunity to dog-whistle for a baying anti-Christian mob. Works every time. As Longknives says, it’s rather fashionable to bash Christians by association

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. radvad (736 comments) says:

    Possession of child porn should be treated as being party to the original offence which is the making of the filth. After all much of this stuff is made because there are so many out there prepared to download it and presumably pay for it. If that was not the case the original offence may not have been committed.
    Being a party to an offence means the offender can be sentenced as if they committed the original offence. Such scum deserve nothing less.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    it’s rather fashionable to bash [Maoris] by association

    Fixed that for you, kk ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    it’s rather fashionable to bash [homosexuals] by association

    Fixed again ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. radvad (736 comments) says:

    Non Christians oppose child porn but many non Christians are kiddy fiddlers. Lets hear it about non Christian hypocrites also.

    In reality we are all hypocrites to some degree. For example we don’t want anyone to lie to us but we have all told lies. We all expect others to maintain a certain standard but often fall short of that standard ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    it’s rather fashionable to bash [schoolteachers] by association

    And again ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    it’s rather fashionable to bash [Jews] by association

    Need I continue?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    The silver lining is that stories like this gives DPF an opportunity to dog-whistle for a baying anti-Christian mob.

    Again, I agree. Fact is, had the guy not been a christian journalist, the story would never have made it to the news.

    And against the prevailing tide of opinion here and probably elsewhere, I don’t think putting this guy in jail would do much good.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. libertyscott (344 comments) says:

    One guess, the term “child pornography” has been used to describe material that is not what would be treated as such elsewhere (e.g. the USA).

    Usually people think it involves at least nudity or illegal sex, but the descriptions here are not of that. So no, he hasn’t produced child pornography, it is lazy journalism. He has invaded privacy, and been offensive, but to equate it to child pornography diminishes what that actually is. There is a lot of hyperbole in the censorship world, which is almost impossible to independently research.

    Now images on his computer are something else, he is an accessory to the original offence and should be treated as such.

    What isn’t widely discussed is the fact that in many countries the biggest creators of child pornography are the people “starring” in it, because increasing numbers of young teenagers make their own self taken images. The law as it stands doesn’t take account of this, as it was never conceived that it would be so easy to produce and distribute pictures of yourself to anyone you wanted.

    However, don’t expect rational discussion about this. Already in the US there is a girl who is now a registered sex offender because she did just that and the criminal justice system tolerates no leniency – completely victimless and pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. radvad (736 comments) says:

    ” many non Christians are kiddy fiddlers. ”

    My bad. Should read “many kiddy fiddlers are non Christian”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    The guy’s a journalist!

    I’m sick of journalist hypocrites.

    There fixed that for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    Ya know whats interesting about child pronography? the lack of credits…

    so, this shit bag gets to stay at home, all toasty and warm. no Internet?? hmm

    in this modern world of smart phones, whats to stop him acquiring a pre paid sim? then just turn said smart phone into a wifi hotspot and hes away. hard to trace too! just pay cash for top ups etc. burner phones?!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Usually people think it involves at least nudity or illegal sex, but the descriptions here are not of that. So no, he hasn’t produced child pornography, it is lazy journalism. He has invaded privacy, and been offensive, but to equate it to child pornography diminishes what that actually is. There is a lot of hyperbole in the censorship world, which is almost impossible to independently research.

    I disagree that the this was lazy journalism.

    The article is actually very clear:

    A Christchurch Christian journalist has admitted making intimate videos of a student at home and a 5-year-old girl at a church expo.

    It explicitly states the charge “making intimate videos”. This is not child pornography, and the article doesn’t say it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    it’s rather fashionable to bash [homosexuals] [Jews] [Maoris] [schoolteachers] by association

    But hang on, John Raymond McNeil has been convicted and sentenced for his perversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    For some reason, I always enjoy being on the same side as the lefties….a rare but enjoyable occurrence.

    A number of points worth making: it is not ONLY news because he is a proselytising God botherer…there have been a number of these “upskirt” cases reported in the media over the last few years; this is the first God botherer I recall.

    Yes, it is worse that he is a God botherer, and an active crusading one. Capill is of course the very worst example (some of the reasons are the identity of his victims, which is the subject of suppression orders, but join the dots people…), and that even after his conviction he was still denying liability, and bleating about supposed consent. (AND of course that he was a former police prosecutor who well knew that consent could never be a defence in such a case as his_.

    All of that said, if this is all they have the guy for (which of course doesn’t mean it is all he has done) then I probably agree with Graeme E that this is not a case for jail. The guy is now on the police radar….

    (And for completeness, before the inevitable accusations of hypocrisy arise about me, my offence of 30 years ago was entirely unconnected with the violent crimes which I crusaded against when in parliament and subsequently…And even if I HAD been convicted of armed robbery 30 years prior, crusading against such crimes 30 years later is not hypocrisy in my view …. one is expected to evolve and change over 30 years…. I do not plan to respond to any “dead baby” references on this thread)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Pauses and asks – Why not just home detention?
    I don’t want to understate this guy’s crime, but really, it’s sick rather than heinous. The depravity and criminality has been recognised as much by the conviction, as by the penalty.
    DPF, can you imagine the gravity of a sentence which includes your being denied access to the internet?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. gracious (11 comments) says:

    old christian white guy, presided over by an old white guy – he was never going to get jail!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Please, give me prison rather than give me home detention without my internet – for seven months
    Please. take away my food, my oxygen … but don’t take away my internet.

    Surely as case of Cruel and Inhumane punishment.
    Surely a Bill of Rights breach.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    You’re fine DG – I don’t expect anyone here is really twisted out of shape enough to try to draw lines of moral equivalence between a stupid student prank and child porn or pedophilia!

    (But plenty of us here will help deliver a good kicking if they do… :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Fixed that for you, kk

    Nope, you didn’t ‘fix’ anything. You demonstrated over several comments that you support bashing of a minority, on the grounds that some do likewise towards other minorities.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. gump (1,685 comments) says:

    @tropicana

    You seem to be unaware that there is no Internet access in prisons either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Longknives (4,968 comments) says:

    There is internet access in prison available to most inmates.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. pq (728 comments) says:

    your knee is jerking again Farrar.10 demerit points

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    There is no internet access in prison.

    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/utility-navigation/faq/questions-regarding-prisons-and-prisoners.html#email

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    Clearly RRM and Nasska hate their fellow atheists – the majority of prisoners – by calling for the God-botherers to join them inside and bother them!

    They also from time to time condem Cristians for saying that God hates homosexuality – but both whole heartidly and happily support the ATHEIST IDEAL that gays WILL NEVER GO TO HEAVEN!

    Classy! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gracious (11 comments) says:

    oh….so the 4 that gave me the thumbs down, are obviously happy with home detention for that sick fuck…..so what else do you support? Man/child love?? It would appear so,.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    :cool: Spartans! What is your profession?

    :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: OOH OOH OOH!

    :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: OOH OOH OOH!

    :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: OOH OOH OOH!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    Au Contraire, Krazykiwi…

    McNeil and Capill really, really are hypocrite christians who spouted christian morality and brimstone while at the same time being kiddy-fiddling perverts.

    But yes I’d happily bash them ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    oh….so the 4 that gave me the thumbs down, are obviously happy with home detention for that sick fuck…..so what else do you support? Man/child love?? It would appear so,.

    Yea, it coudn’t possibly be because of your race bating…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gracious (11 comments) says:

    How is that comment race baiting. Its factual – maybe you could give me the reasons why a man with 1000 child pornography images on his pc, images upskirting a 5 year old, that he has been in contact with…. why this man gets home D? But hey if you support the sentence, dont accuse me of race baiting, because I dont support the sentence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    How is that comment race baiting.

    If you can’t read, don’t write.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    And since someone sensible might bring it up, yes, I condemn this man’s crimes and the sentence he was given without reservation.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    maybe you could give me the reasons why a man with 1000 child pornography images on his pc, images upskirting a 5 year old, that he has been in contact with…. why this man gets home D?

    Gracious – That was answered before you even asked it, in the third comment on this thread.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/why_just_home_detention.html/comment-page-1#comment-1093519

    I can see you’re new here. For future reference: Read anything Graeme Edgeler says, he is generally always correct. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    Seems home detention is par for the course if you’re a prominent person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. gracious (11 comments) says:

    Thanks RRM :) – does a judge have no discretion of his own?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    gracious

    ….”does a judge have no discretion of his own?”…..

    Surprisingly little it would seem. The issue has been discussed at depth on these forums several times & it seems that judges are bound by previous sentences with little discretionary leeway. If they do go overboard the sentence is usually appealed successfully.

    Governments set the maximums…..that is where the pressure for realistic sentences must be applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    I’ll tell you why he only got home d ..in 3 words…Judge Raoul Neave.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. gump (1,685 comments) says:

    @Longknives

    You are wrong.

    Inmates in NZ prisons are not allowed to use computers with Internet access.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. snowy (108 comments) says:

    A five year old? Imagine if it was your daughter he’d done that to.

    It’s got nothing to do with race – he’s simply a fucking dirty old prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    gracious: Much would surely depend on the precise nature of the “pornographic” images on his computer, which may be loose use of words by the writer of the story……as Graeme E has pointed out, there is considerable difference between objectionable images – which for me would include images of fully clothed little girls wearing “I’m a slut” T shirts (go to your nearest shopping mall), high heels and heavy makeup – and pornographic ones….

    This is clearly a disturbed man who deserves the opprobrium he is no doubt getting…but it is never wise to judge cases from media reports…Home D and public outing among his God bothering community may well be an appropriate sentence…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    Cha – “…Seems home detention is par for the course if you’re a prominent person…”

    You’d get life. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. gracious (11 comments) says:

    Thanks David, I still think the least the could throw in would be public castration, but maybe Im just bored lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    David Garret#

    If your familiar with the Daniel Morcombe case here in QLD, the trial has got the go ahead, but the accused who killed the 12yr has just changed his name by deed poll to ‘Shadow Hunter’ – and Daniel also has a twin brother.

    That guy IS a real sick fuck!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Rufus (736 comments) says:

    Oh look, last week there was a pedophile who was an old, non Christian, white guy (much like Nasska, or DPF). Moralising basterds. Hypocrites. I now hate all those old white guys. Especially non Christian ones.

    /sarc

    Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that some HUMANS are shitheads? Some bash their kids. Some are pedophiles. Some fly planes into buildings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. pq (728 comments) says:

    i said to my dear wife , can I go out look up a little girl underdress,she said husband, i have seen you with my own eyes you are a strong man, and it is what is in your heart of photo nhat is good , the little girls and their fathers trust you, we have serious and
    proper relatiionships

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote