Pedophile who molested baby freed from jail after transitioning to become a woman

A pedophile who sexually abused 15 children including a one year-old baby is to be freed from jail after transitioning to become a woman. Josie Smith, 23, is set to be let out four years after her conviction thanks to hormone treatment which lowered her testosterone levels. She was sentenced before she began the hormone treatment, and was originally ordered to stay behind bars indefinitely on the basis that she had the sex drive of a man. But lowering Smith’s testosterone has also diminished her sex drive, and thus dramatically decreased the risk of her re-offending, according to officials.

She has been receiving the treatment for the last two years as she prepares to ‘potentially undergo gender reassignment surgery,’ the Storm Lake Times reported. Smith was jailed in December 2015 under her old name Joseph after being convicted of molesting a student.

A pre-sentence report said she had abused up to 15 youngsters aged between one and 13, and recommended a lengthy spell behind bars. Explaining the reason why Smith will now be freed, Iowa Attorney General spokesman Lynn Hicks said: ‘We don’t believe we have evidence sufficient to prove Josie Smith has a significant chance of re-offending.’


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/17/pedophile-molested-baby-freed-jail-transitioning-become-woman-12077980/?ito=cbshare

Sufficient evidence?

15 victims?

Words fail me. What about all the victims? What sort of message is this going to send to Paedophiles. That now have a clause to get of of jail quicker.

I thought Vic outlawed any posts about pǽdophilia.

dont twist things to suit your agenda of abusing people Quill....

I penalised you for for using the term as a term of abuse and a deliberate attempt to incite trouble, knowing, as you must have (or SHOULD HAVE, to use a "legal term ) (albeit loosely), that to use such a term to a brit is possibly one of the worst epithets possible.

Thorin wrote:A pedophile who sexually abused 15 children including a one year-old baby is to be freed from jail after transitioning to become a woman. Josie Smith, 23, is set to be let out four years after her conviction thanks to hormone treatment which lowered her testosterone levels. She was sentenced before she began the hormone treatment, and was originally ordered to stay behind bars indefinitely on the basis that she had the sex drive of a man. But lowering Smith’s testosterone has also diminished her sex drive, and thus dramatically decreased the risk of her re-offending, according to officials.


A pre-sentence report said she had abused up to 15 youngsters aged between one and 13


15 victims?

Words fail me. What about all the victims? What sort of message is this going to send to Paedophiles. That now have a clause to get of of jail quicker.

I fully agree with you didge

and how insulting to men to say that. my hubby used to have a very high sex drive. many men do, that doesn't equate to raping babies FFS!

having a sex change doens't change what's in a sick mind

are we going to pretend that no women abuse children?

FFS!

Victorismyhero wrote:dont twist things to suit your agenda of abusing people Quill....

I penalised you for for using the term as a term of abuse and a deliberate attempt to incite trouble, knowing, as you must have (or SHOULD HAVE, to use a "legal term ) (albeit loosely), that to use such a term to a brit is possibly one of the worst epithets possible.

Vic, that's an interesting standard of law, or rule (in this case): "a deliberate attempt to incite trouble". Can you empiricise that...or at least bring it down to earth?

See, this is what's wrong with your modding: it's all...because Vic says so. Vic's interpretation of what others intend is, if I don't like it, it's...what was it? If Vic doesn't like it, it's a "a deliberate attempt to incite trouble". If there's an opinion, or doctrine, or a school of thought, if Vic doesn't like it, it's "a deliberate attempt to incite trouble". That approach reeks of tyranny. At the very least, it’s not conducive to rational debate.

The whole attempt of democratic rule-making is to address the issue, not to kow tow to one ruler. This is why I fear the Tory part of Britain will never understand democracy...fook the people, there's only one way, my way!!

Mais…I shouldn't pick on Britain; that's exactly what Trump is doing in America.

I guess I detest it because it's cultish behavior. It’s Sun Myung Moon all over again. It focuses on one person's personality, and maintains that his or her personal choice is the correct choice. Any disagreement, is "a deliberate attempt to incite trouble". We seem to be entering an age in which that is a legitimate path to adopt.

Again if you were as bright as you tecom you are, the standard of law reffered to is is " known or ought to have known". On other words, someone with you supposed level of education and tirs with britain has no excuse fornot knowing that you pr use of that term is the grossest and most vile insult possible, at LEAST as bad as the perjorative NI**ER. You were not expressing an opinion,thus none of you whinings about my supposed didlike of oposing opinion is relevent.
The term causing or inciting is the substance of the charge
Knowing or ought to have known is no doubt possesed of its own bit of latin.
Like most on here who try to incite in such a crafty manner,in the hope their victim will be banned for replying in kind, i DONT give a damn about you opinion or politics thought i may well disagree However I DOgive a damn about your continual attempts to steer this forum in to being another lefty echo chamber, especially when your tactics are weasle words and fantasising.

Victor wrote:Again if you were as bright as you tecom you are, the standard of law reffered to is is " known or ought to have known".

Nonsense. In this sense, you are saying "you ought to have known" my will, and my desire. Those are the words of a tyrant.

The words of a democrat are kinder and gentlier. They are: rules that describe actions (not words) that are injurious to the public weal. If you think the mere topic of pǽdophilia is injurious to the common weal, you ought to consistently apply that rule every time.

Victor wrote:...at LEAST as bad as the perjorative NI**ER.

If pǽdophilia is as insulting to British society, as 'nigger' is to American society, you would have to have gone through something as persistent and pervasive as slavery.

I think that's a false equivalency.

Victor wrote:However I DOgive a damn about your continual attempts to steer this forum in to being another lefty echo chamber

Finally, a bit of honesty: you do have a political bias, and it affects your modding. See, that's not right.

Uh hu...nice try but a big fail unless of course you see allowing all opinions , even those YOU disagree with equal prominence without theowner of said opinion being the recipient of excessive abuse as bias.

Victor wrote:However I DOgive a damn about your continual attempts to steer this forum in to being another lefty echo chamber

What you have admitted to here, Vic, is allowing your political bias to enter into your job as a mod. A moderator is supposed to be neutral in his/her moderating judgments.

That's the standard. And yes, in the sand box of debate I might argue that someone is not being truthful, but that is within the argument. I take people on in the battlefield…I don’t need rules. It is not proper to invoke rules for politically biased purposes.

Liberals almost never invoke rules so close to the central current of debate. If they've got a point to pick, they do it in the battlefield (or sand box, whatever one's metaphor). Where you see the rules-keeper shutting up messages via the rules, is when conservatives get in the seat of authority.

This is what Andy so vociferously argues about, and rightly so. Wolf, also, has been basemented for doing what RW'ers do freely, if more sparsely. The point is that this is behind the move of NF to the right. We have repeatedly pointed this out. This is just a glaring example, that I thought I needed to underscore.

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:A pedophile who sexually abused 15 children including a one year-old baby is to be freed from jail after transitioning to become a woman. Josie Smith, 23, is set to be let out four years after her conviction thanks to hormone treatment which lowered her testosterone levels. She was sentenced before she began the hormone treatment, and was originally ordered to stay behind bars indefinitely on the basis that she had the sex drive of a man. But lowering Smith’s testosterone has also diminished her sex drive, and thus dramatically decreased the risk of her re-offending, according to officials.


A pre-sentence report said she had abused up to 15 youngsters aged between one and 13


15 victims?

Words fail me. What about all the victims? What sort of message is this going to send to Paedophiles. That now have a clause to get of of jail quicker.

I fully agree with you didge

and how insulting to men to say that.  my hubby used to have a very high sex drive.  many men do, that doesn't equate to raping babies FFS!

having a sex change doens't change what's in a sick mind

are we going to pretend that no women abuse children?

FFS!

+1 and great points

I seriously cannot believe the mentality behind this Gelico

To me this is a major safeguarding issue

4 years for sexually abusing 15 kids?

Absolutely disgusting

And OUT in two !

I reckon those journo's reporting on this should look further into that paedo's background.

Who's he related to/friends with, to have his previous sentence quashed ?
Are he/his family/ his fellow abusers sponsors of the ruling political elite in his state;   or do they have blackmail info' to hold against them ?
How much were the Parole Board members paid, to make such a ridiculous decision ?


He's not even had a sex change yet -- but merely undertaking hormone treatment.  Nothing to prevent him stopping that a few months down the track.

Also, they should not be calling him "her/she" until he has actually fully 'transitioned' .

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:However I DOgive a damn about your continual attempts to steer this forum in to being another lefty echo chamber

What you have admitted to here, Vic, is allowing your political bias to enter into your job as a mod.  A moderator is supposed to be neutral in his/her moderating judgments.

That's the standard.  And yes, in the sand box of debate I might argue that someone is not being truthful, but that is within the argument.  I take people on in the battlefield…I don’t need rules.  It is not proper to invoke rules for politically biased purposes.

Liberals almost never invoke rules so close to the central current of debate.  If they've got a point to pick, they do it in the battlefield (or sand box, whatever one's metaphor).  Where you see the rules-keeper shutting up messages via the rules, is when conservatives get in the seat of authority.

This is what Andy so vociferously argues about, and rightly so.  Wolf, also, has been basemented for doing what RW'ers do freely, if more sparsely.  The point is that this is behind the move of NF to the right.  We have repeatedly pointed this out.  This is just a glaring example, that I thought I needed to underscore.

So in fact, as i said all along, you are arguing that the way the left debate is to abuse (in the case in point in the worst possible way) anyone of a contrary opinion. That you have a right to do so and claim that anyone forcing the issue back to reasonable territory is a rabid R/W.

accompany this with wolfies schoolboy bully attitude that being called a prat justifies a) releasing a torrent of abuse beyond belief and B) running to the head masters wailing I'm a victim

and you have the definition of snowflake.

whilst I realise that some of the r/w on here (not so much now) have opinions which might be objectionable, they have then SAME right as anyone else to express those opinions provided they do so in reasonable term.

SOME both left AND right have opinions that are simply incorrect, wrong in fact and in substance. these too they have a right to express

this HOWEVER does not mean that all opinions are equal OR valid

Tommy's opinions on a number of things are invalid, because they are wrong, either factually or because they are based merely on "feels"...thats MY opinion

the difference is i can back my opinion with either valid fact where the argument relies on science, or I can validate it from reasonable observation where the argument is about "feels"

that doesnt mean i have any right to abuse him about it.

STOP...conflating the "substance of the opinion" with the right TO that opinion.
and finally, stop lying....yes lying, for effect, silly histrionics that make you look a total idiot....

as you well know with utter certainty...i NEVER banned the "subject" of peadophillia....I warned YOU for using the term paedo as a form of abuse against another poster (which warning still stands BTW). and that as they say is another matter.....

'Wolfie wrote:

I reckon those journo's reporting on this should look further into that paedo's background.

Who's he related to/friends with, to have his previous sentence quashed ?
Are he/his family/ his fellow abusers sponsors of the ruling political elite in his state;   or do they have blackmail info' to hold against them ?
How much were the Parole Board members paid, to make such a ridiculous decision ?


He's not even had a sex change yet -- but merely undertaking hormone treatment.  Nothing to prevent him stopping that a few months down the track.

Also, they should not be calling him "her/she" until he has actually fully 'transitioned' .

and strangely enough i agree with wolfie on this....something is rotten in the state of Iowa

Victor wrote:So in fact, as i said all along, you are arguing that the way the left debate is to abuse (in the case in point in the worst possible way) anyone of a contrary opinion. That you have a right to do so and claim that anyone forcing the issue back to reasonable territory is a rabid R/W.

Not in the least. Ask yourself, does your superior Ben subscribe to this? He is a leftie.

This is in fact RW diversion. You are setting up a strawman argument. The left/right distinction plays, but primarily only in your mind. Face it, Vic, you have become grouchy and intolerant from the days I first met you.

That “grouchy and intolerant” comes simply from your political views…whereas you used to be full of interests and curiosity. See, now, how you look at everything through the lens of left and right. Look how you identify me as “the way the left debate”, when you used to full of questions about law, history and the beautiful woodworking that you produce. You used to partner with sassy, and now you push her away as a left-wing nut. The list goes on.

A part of winnowing down your perspective to left/right, is your modding has embraced the theorem: bad/good = left/right. You see it in your phrasing:

Victor wrote:However I DOgive a damn about your continual attempts to steer this forum in to being another lefty echo chamber

Thus, in your formulation, bad = left. “To steer this forum into being another lefty echo chamber” is merely to argue one side on a debating forum. The left is not bad. Most innovations, since the dark ages, have come from the left. We’ve learned that the earth is round, that it is not the center of the universe, that a rock when released will drop, etc., all coming from the so-called radicals.

Do you see how this perspective (left = bad) is unfair to half of the posters? If we are going to debate left/right, then the mods have to distance themselves and assume a neutral stance. They can participate in the debate, but not while modding.

Victorismyhero wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

I reckon those journo's reporting on this should look further into that paedo's background.

Who's he related to/friends with, to have his previous sentence quashed ?
Are he/his family/ his fellow abusers sponsors of the ruling political elite in his state;   or do they have blackmail info' to hold against them ?
How much were the Parole Board members paid, to make such a ridiculous decision ?


He's not even had a sex change yet -- but merely undertaking hormone treatment.  Nothing to prevent him stopping that a few months down the track.

Also, they should not be calling him "her/she" until he has actually fully 'transitioned' .

and strangely enough i agree with wolfie on this....something is rotten in the state of Iowa

Seconded, i agree also

you talk out of your ass sometimes Quill.....

what i AM intolerant of is the continuous EXTREME abuse promulgated almost entirely from the left (or perhaps I should say some of the left) and supported by others on the left such as yourself.

i have never penalised anyone for their opinion, except in a couple of cases when the recipient of such wrath as I can dispense were in fact r/w. AND...I challenge you to find any example of me doing otherwise, moreover if you cannot then clearly I am correct in my points, whether you like it or no, and your opinion on the subject is thus invalid since it lacks any basis of either fact or observable reality.

you know what they say quill...opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one, that doesnt make them all either valid OR equal in weight or substance.


as to the point about not allowing (by intimidation via abuse) the formation of a l/w echo chamber, surely if you are truely in favour of open debate THAT is as important as not allowing it to be a r/w nodding house? and since I allow all OPINION, AND quell SERIOUS abuse (inc hate speech) from the right as well.....(and yes that includes didge as he will confirm) even to the point of permabanning more than one r/w er you cannot find fault there

no you problem is more that of the spoilt brat....whaaa iwanna spout abuse...but I dont want it back....moreover you will (one would hope) agree that a free for all abuse wise is NOT conducive to free and open debate...

without involving other posters it would be impossible to talk specifics but....

there are posters who's opinions on some matters are clearly wrong, i know it, you know it and quite frankly the ONLY person who DOESNT know it is the poster themselves. how does THAT permit, excuse or justify another posters permanent outburst of tourettes

what THAT poster hopes to acheive of course is that their "enemy" (as they see it) is driven off by their vile insults.....RATHER than either ignoring OR engaging in civilised debate and in extremis agreeing to disagree??

That surely is the absoloute opposite of what you are pleading for?

Victorismyhero wrote:you talk out of your ass sometimes Quill.....

what i AM intolerant of is the continuous EXTREME abuse promulgated almost entirely from the left (or perhaps I should say some of the left) and supported by others on the left such as yourself.

i have never penalised anyone for their opinion, except in a couple of cases when the recipient of such wrath as I can dispense were in fact r/w. AND...I challenge you to find any example of me doing otherwise, moreover if you cannot then clearly I am correct in my points, whether you like it or no, and your opinion on the subject is thus invalid since it lacks any basis of either fact or observable reality.

you know what they say quill...opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one, that doesnt make them all either valid OR equal in weight or substance.


as to the point about not allowing (by intimidation via abuse) the formation of a l/w echo chamber, surely if you are truely in favour of open debate THAT is as important as not allowing it to be a r/w nodding house? and since I allow all  OPINION, AND quell SERIOUS abuse (inc hate speech) from the right as well.....(and yes that includes didge as he will confirm) even to the point of permabanning more than one r/w er you cannot find fault there

no you problem is more that of the spoilt brat....whaaa iwanna spout abuse...but I dont want it back....moreover you will (one would hope) agree that a free for all abuse wise is NOT conducive to free and open debate...

without involving other posters it would be impossible to talk specifics but....

there are posters who's opinions on some matters are clearly wrong, i know it, you know it and quite frankly the ONLY person who DOESNT know it is the poster themselves. how does THAT permit, excuse or justify another posters permanent outburst of tourettes

what THAT poster hopes to acheive of course is that their "enemy" (as they see it) is driven off by their vile insults.....RATHER than either ignoring OR engaging in civilised debate and in extremis agreeing to disagree??

That surely is the absoloute opposite of what you are pleading for?

This is where the other mods, and the Forum owner should step up and back this statement.

When moderators or posters become the subject of threads as opposed to a newsworthy topic or subject, that should ring alarm bells for the forum owner.
It suggests things are getting personal and some mods are getting above their station, and should remain unbiased and completely neutral.
An initial skim through the threads suggests that Victorismyhero is less than unbiased towards left wing posters.

in your opinion

Brutus wrote:When moderators or posters become the subject of threads as opposed to a newsworthy topic or subject, that should ring alarm bells for the forum owner.
It suggests things are getting personal and some mods are getting above their station, and should remain unbiased and completely neutral.
An initial skim through the threads suggests that Victorismyhero is less than unbiased towards left wing posters.

So, can we assume therfore that you support and endorse the use of extreme verbal abuse as a means of debate? Oh dear...

OR would you rather that I deal with it from whatever faction....

in which case please feel free to look back through various threads and do a mental tally of not only the amount, but the severity of said abuses and see where the worst offenders lie politically.

(btw....calling someone a prat and such like ISNT severe or extreme abuse, irritating though it may be......)


like i said of the 3 people i have permabanned 2 were R/W for racism and one was by anyones standards an extremeist l/w er who was intent on disruption.....
further more if the above is your opinion...please validate it by providing evidence in the same manner as I requested of quill, after all if there is a bias you should finde evidence, otherwise your "opinion" is based soley of "feels" which puts it straight into the class of as non valid and plainly incorrect opinion

have a nice day

Absolutely.
An interesting question arises, might be worthy of debate is "should moderators separate their personal opinions , where religious, sexual or political bias are totally acceptable from their moderator status which should be fair, balanced and equal to all sides of the debate?"

absolutely what?

You make a valid point, and, unless you can show otherwise, I believe in modding decisions I do indeed keep my personal religious/sexual/political bias out of the mix....#
It is no secret on here that placing me precisely on the political spectrum fails spectacularly, since I hold a peculiar mixture of views that doesnt conform directly to any common POV.

what I AM biased against is abuse, of an extreme and unnecessary nature , calculated to shut down a debate simply because a person disagrees with another's opinion.

over the years on forums i have been accused of being a lefty shill (by the rabid right) and a screaming nazi (by the equally rabid left)...so I guess in general i must be doing something right
Hold and expound whatever opinion (within the bounds of decency i.e no overt racism etc) you wish...but for heavens sake do it in a reasonable and generally decent manner, and keep away from abusive diatribes (that often contain no other content). If folks would do that, I would be very happy and not have a lot to do.

as it stands its like refereeing a kindergarden playground and herding a sack of ants

and just in case you wonder

I like neither the far right in toto...nor equally do i like the far left, nor even do i much care for maddogs overly libertarian pov, since the libertarians have yet to learn that in order to "do as thou will" one should first ensure that "it harm none"
and those pov WILL of course come over in my "posts as a poster"

Brutus wrote:Absolutely.
An interesting question arises, might be worthy of debate is "should moderators  separate their personal opinions , where religious, sexual or political bias are totally acceptable from their moderator status which should be fair, balanced and equal to all sides of the debate?"

Can you cite an example where a mod unfairly chastised or penalized a poster for their views about a topic?

If so, I'd like to see it.

Not saying any mods have.
But I have seen it on other forums.
During heated debates where there are 'side's, and a mod is contributing, it is wise for that mod to say he is speaking as a poster, and it is personal opinion he is s2w2 aying, which will naturally be at times at variance to his neutrality and impartiality when posting as a moderator.
As I said, I have seen this go horribly wrong elsewhere, trust is lost from posters in relation to mods.
When trust has gone, the forum is on a slippery slope.

Brutus wrote:Not saying any mods have.
But I have seen it on other forums.
During heated debates where there are 'side's, and a mod is contributing, it is wise for that mod to say he is speaking as a poster, and it is personal opinion he is s2w2 aying, which will naturally be at times at variance to his neutrality and impartiality when posting as a moderator.
As I said, I have seen this go horribly wrong elsewhere, trust is lost from posters in relation to mods.
When trust has gone, the forum is on a slippery slope.

Brutus wrote:An initial skim through the threads suggests that Victorismyhero is less than unbiased towards left wing posters.

Actually, you did just that, Andy.

Maddog wrote:

Brutus wrote:Not saying any mods have.
But I have seen it on other forums.
During heated debates where there are 'side's, and a mod is contributing, it is wise for that mod to say he is speaking as a poster, and it is personal opinion he is s2w2 aying, which will naturally be at times at variance to his neutrality and impartiality when posting as a moderator.
As I said, I have seen this go horribly wrong elsewhere, trust is lost from posters in relation to mods.
When trust has gone, the forum is on a slippery slope.

Brutus wrote:An initial skim through the threads suggests that Victorismyhero is less than unbiased towards left wing posters.

Actually, you did just that, Andy.  

Lets NOT go down that route eh Maddog

Victorismyhero wrote:

Maddog wrote:






Actually, you did just that, Andy.  

Lets NOT go down that route eh Maddog

Fair enough.