Autistic Man in Jail for Pedo Porn... Should He Be?

Alberto Rodriguez, a 24-year-old North Miami man admits to viewing a large amount of child pornography. The feds raided his parents home last year and took computers full of the disgusting images of men raping children.

For me its a no-brainer... lock him up and throw away the key, but the libtard that wrote this article seems to disagree...

I do not believe that Rodriguez should be put on trial or spend another night behind bars for his actions. He had no way of knowing that his actions were wrong, let-alone “illegal” and it is a moral failing of our nation that he has spent months behind bars already.

Rodriguez is autistic and while being “high functioning” when compared to other people on the spectrum, he has the “emotional and intellectual maturity of a 10 to 12 year old child” according to the Herald.

Our society would not stand for a 10-year-old child to be tried for a crime of this magnitude. And we should not stand for this either.

Source

Personally, I don't care if the guy is autistic or not. Anyone who gets off on watching men rape little kids is one sick puppy who shouldn't be walking our streets.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are similar to yours.

I couldn't care less if he is Autistic nor what happens to this paedo either.

The more painful the better.

I'd have to agree with OP and Charlie both here.

If he gets out and decides to act out his desires, will that be ok as well?

I'm not opposed to him receiving help, counseling, etc. while he serving his time. I think he should have all of that. But just letting him walk? No.

a reply to: Bone75

Either way he poses a threat and should be separated from any chance at interacting with children. He may need different living arrangements than others and kept separate in prison, but he should still be imprisoned to protect others.

I agree, sounds like he knew what he was doing.

The prosecutor then asked him if he knew what child pornography was, and he blurted: “underage porn.”

Read more here: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

If he knew what it was, then wouldn't he know it was against the law?

Agree with Blaine here too, I think his imprisonment is something to talk about, but not rather he should stand trial for it.

If his crime was a result of his mental condition then he doesn't belong in prison, he does however, belong in a mental institution where he will not have access to children or a computer.

a reply to: Bone75

Rodriguez is autistic and while being “high functioning” when compared to other people on the spectrum, he has the “emotional and intellectual maturity of a 10 to 12 year old child” according to the Herald.

Our society would not stand for a 10-year-old child to be tried for a crime of this magnitude. And we should not stand for this either.

Completely agree. Obviously something needs to be done, but throwing the guy in jail is not the right course of action. Remove the computer, put him in therapy, make sure the parents are actually doing their jobs. Put him in a mental hospital or something if he's actually dangerous. 20 years in jail for someone that doesn't necessarily even understand what they did wrong.

Prison, perhaps not.

Mental institution, most definitely.

Do we actually have these still tho? I thought they were all closed down back some time ago.

Or am I thinking of the "state" ran establishments that generate horror movies and such..

Can i just play devils advocate here and say you are all being hypocrites? I thought we all fight very hard to avoid a dystopyan "future crime" situation. He should be punished for what he did, Not for what he could do.

a reply to: Bone75

Maybe an alternate means on punishment would be better.

Im not sure what, but the second article has a point.

a reply to: Bone75

This is a dangerous person who is dangerous not out of malice, but of limited understanding.

He needs help and to be kept from society until some determined point in time. Prison doesn't do that. I would be content seeing him placed in a facility that was more geared towards this sort of thing.

On the other hand, people tend to assume that people like him are always a victim of their own intellect and never their character. If he has the capacity of a 12 year old, why would that mean he's "innocent"? There are a lot of 12-year-old boys who have evil and malicious traits. People need to realize a person can be disadvantaged and evil at the same time.

This is why we have a system which is constantly evolving. We can definitely improve the way we handle cases like this.

a reply to: Bone75

Well, unless he's going to live in a group home with his peers, and staff to watch him 24/7, I believe it's obvious he shouldn't be left to his own devices. Mentality of a child or not, he's still a man that can do a lot of harm because of his disabilities. Child porn is obviously rape and just because he has the mind of a child doesn't mean he's excused from being attracted to children. That's basically saying all intellectually disabled people are sexually attracted to children, which is obviously not the case.

a reply to: Cygnis

Do we still have mental institutions? Good question, after Willowbrook was exposed I think we did away with them. Now the disabled live in group homes. These homes have managers, staff, cooks, etc.

There are group homes for people like him, intellectually disabled and also a sex offender.

If he is a high function autistic person he should know better. They go through many classes to help with socialization and know right from wrong. Most people that are found to be on the high end of the autism spectrum can live full healthy lives on there own. Using his condition to argue he didn't know better is a farse and the "journalist" in question should do some research on the condition.

There are people on the spectrum that sure might not have a clue as to the right and the wrongs of it, but with that being said if he is truly on the high end he should know better.

If his options are prison or an instatution I would send him to the instatution where he can get the help he apparently needs

That statement would hold true regardless of where he fell on the spectrum,

Don't blame this on liberals in general it is unfair to us thinking liberals just like I won't blame all conservatives for the action of W or rove or cheney...lol

a reply to: Bone75

yes

What I don't see in either article is the age of the people in the objectionable pornography. Are we talking 10 year olds or 16 year olds?
Granted both are illegal, but it's a question of pre-pubesent or pubescent, which might make a difference.

I think we all understand this individual is of a lower IQ.
As it was data collection and not physical, I want to know what he was looking at before I pass judgment.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
What I don't see in either article is the age of the people in the objectionable pornography. Are we talking 10 year olds or 16 year olds?
Granted both are illegal, but it's a question of pre-pubesent or pubescent, which might make a difference.

I think we all understand this individual is of a lower IQ.
As it was data collection and not physical, I want to know what he was looking at before I pass judgment.

You would think the fact that the content in question depicted forced sex would be enough to know.

a reply to: Bone75

No, he shouldn't be. If anything, his guardians should be under fire for not watching his activity on the internet. I don't know how severe his level of autism is. It really depends on that. If his IQ is so low that he can't really be held accountable for his actions, then honestly I think that the worst that should happen to him is forced hospitalization at a facility for people with severe disabilities who have acted in criminal ways.

He's going to get nothing positive out of jail or prison. He needs help. And supervision. Possibly for the rest of his life.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I dunno, when I read "child pornography" I assume it can only mean one horrible thing.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Really? Whole I understand that the age of consent differs by location the facts are the facts to legally show your body in a sex CT you must be 18 years of age in the United states it is illegal to view or posses images of people under that age.

It's black and white no room for gray area in this and that's how it should be. Allowing him to go free sets up a very slippery slope where the porn makers could then go on to say they are making this kiddie crap for the mentally challenged and try to weasel their way out of prosecution.