Life in prison plus 150 years for monster who secretly filmed kids in their bedrooms

Originally published at:


“During sentencing, the judge overseeing the trial addressed the court, declaring that she would have Alden castrated if she could.”

I hate when judges add these sorts of editorial comments (justified as they are) because inevitably this stuff has to get dealt with on appeal. Say that to your clerks or your secretary or your husband or whatever when you get home, please don’t do it from the bench.


I suppose these sorts of comments are likely to make it inside the prison where castration is more likely to happen.

“Alden’s lawyer argued that the sentence was far too harsh. He stated that 10 years would be more appropriate. After all, it’s not like his client had actually touched any kids.”

Can the lawyer receive a similiar sentence for being a scumbag?

Edited … This was a tongue in cheek comment. I’m familiar with the duties of a defense lawyer and how the justice system works. My apologies for it being mistaken as a serious recommendation.


I hate it too, and you’re absolutely correct; such a comment greatly increases the odds of an appeal being granted, and a far lesser sentence being found. After a lot more time, work, and money at the expense of taxpayers. I wonder if this judge was appointed, or elected (my money is on “elected”).


It’s official, nothing is sacred any longer…

Came here to say this - it now gives this guy grounds for appeal, perhaps going as far as saying he did not receive a fair trial.


No - as much as he may be an actual scumbag (and whether he used the argument that no actual touching was involved, IDK) his job is to defend his client. That’s pretty foundational to western justice systems and there are already plenty of overworked public defenders who don’t have the time to build a strong defence for their client, let alone argue down their sentences. In fact, they often just advise their clients to plead guilty in hopes of a lighter sentence.


I don’t believe in the death penalty, either as a punishment or a deterrent, but crimes like this push my belief system to the edge.


Is this saying that cameras that he had access to were installed by someone else? Do we know who? Did they work for him?

I hope this guy never sets foot outside a prison again.

I think those kinds of comments (the judge’s, not yours) contribute to us giving a wink and nod to prison violence. Oh well, prison is a hell-hole of sexual violence and abuse, but this guy had it coming so we’ll accept it.


He may be a filthy bastard, and he certainly deserves significant time in prison, but I suspect this is more than he would have received if he had murdered a child. Maybe I’m the only one here, but I see a significant difference between physically assaulting a child and taking secret pictures, especially if he didn’t spread them where anyone could watch. If all copies are now destroyed that’s some form of closure.

Chemical castration actually isn’t that bad suggestion, if combined with a shorter prison term. This seems to be a man who just can’t handle his sexuality, and both for himself and society he’d be better off without it.


You’re not. On the scale of bad things that could happen to my kids, “creep takes secret pictures” is preferable to lots of possibilities, even unremarkable non-predatory ones like “unhelmeted bicycle accident”.

Frankly, I’m confused at the combination of fury at the defense attorney and apparent violent rape fantasy on display in this thread.


Well said

1 Like

My 2nd son died in his sleep to SUDC (Sudden Unexplained Death of a Child) and I would set up a 24x7 cam for all the pervs in the world if that’s what it took to have him back. Yes, on the scale of bad things, this [creep takes secret pictures] is … lower. Not good, not good at ALL…but there are by far worse things. As someone else noted, a monster who knowingly and willingly (even joyfully) killed a child would have received a lighter sentence.


I was also thrown off by the snarky reference to the attorney’s argument. Of course he’s going to argue for something less than a life sentence and cite the fact that his client didn’t actually touch any children–that’s a pretty meaningful fact and it’s literally his job as the defendant’s attorney to make that case to the judge.

And although I’m not arguing that 10 years would have appropriate here, spending ten years in prison only seems like a slap on the wrist in our system where we throw around manhole covers like they’re nickels.

@jbmonkeythumper, I’m terribly sorry that happened to you and I can’t imagine the pain for you and your family.


Oh, Sweet Merciful Jesus, is BoingBoing going to like this woman (to her credit she has worked as a public defender as well!):

(As it happens, he pleaded guilty, so no chance for any kind of retrial, but they can revisit the sentencing)


Do you have specific cases of this, or is that speculation? I have had family go through an appeal, and the appeals court found that bias alone wasn’t a problem; there still had to be some error of law or procedure.


I think it is saying some of the cameras are in areas where non-homeowners use them, like a shower at a “public” gym, or restaurant bathrooms.

Then again a homeowner’s bathroom also occasionally gets used by guests.

I’m not sure that’s true; plenty of convicts out there who got either life-without-parole or the death penalty for killing a child.

There’s also the serial nature of the crimes in this case, it’s clear this wasn’t a single impulsive crime but a carefully planned pattern of reprehensible behavior spanning through years and victimizing countless individuals.