Comments

fedup wrote on Apr 21, 2009 8:12 PM:

" Yes you can lump them together, they are both sick acts. It does not matter if you are enjoying pictures for self gratification or actually making them yourself, you are committing a crime against the children who are depicted in the photos. I am very disappointed to see that there are so many who are uneducated about this subject, yet continue to comment on it. "




ccrider wrote on Apr 18, 2009 1:59 PM:

" AGAIN, not defending Paul OR his actions, but there is a distinct difference between a person who views child p o r n o g r a p h y (the computer wouldn't let me put the word in correctly) and a person who acts on their perverted thoughts and molests a child. You cannot lump the two actions into one catagory. "




Danielle wrote on Apr 14, 2009 11:08 PM:

" Yes! PAUL DID HURT SOMEONE. Oh, but he didn't actually touch a child. Doesn't matter.

He paid for abuse of a child to be photographed, and that is JUST as bad as if he'd done the abuse himself.

Thank God he never got to the point where he actually harmed a child in the valley.

He was my guidance counselor, and I am so sad about this.

Please don't defend him for God's sake! "




forgiven wrote on Apr 11, 2009 6:16 PM:

" Jesus said that if you harm a child you might as well tie a millstone around your neck and throw yourself in the sea.
Yes you harmed them by buying the pictures.You are just as guilty as they are-Repent and be ye converted and you will be forgiven. "




HmmmOpinion wrote on Apr 10, 2009 9:24 PM:

" I can't help but ponder why people still treat pedophilia as a disease. It's been proven over and over again that it is not a mental illness, but a perversion. It's something that is learned and progresses as an obsession, fetish, addiction, or whatever term you may want to use. No matter the case or profile of the criminal, it's a disgusting perversion. "




justanopinion-FYI wrote on Apr 10, 2009 4:52 PM:

" Chemical sterilization has been scientifically shown to prevent repeat and esculating behavior. So yes I do believe that its a real option, for pedafiles. And yes he did act on his impulses he had 600 images on his computer. That is action, whether or not, you want to believe it. "




Theyre everywhere wrote on Apr 10, 2009 7:29 AM:

" Why are all of you people so surprised? Have you ever done a sexual predator location search for the Kern Valley? We have over 30 registered sex offenders in this little valley....it's their hide-out because Bakersfield doean't want 'em! "




ThankGod wrote on Apr 8, 2009 7:19 PM:

" FYI- talk to ANY person in law enforcement or sociologist who studies deviance, Child molestation starts with "gateway behavior" the number one gateway behavior for molesters is child prn. Who knows if he progressed to physically molesting a child. Child prn and child molestation isn't an "illness" is a LEARNED behavioral pattern, Paul is an ADULT he knew what he did was wrong and now he is going to pay for it. "




KMitchell wrote on Apr 8, 2009 5:32 PM:

" I was shocked to see that an instructor whom I trusted was capable of such a horrible thing. I took classes from Mr. Monk and respected him and his intelligence. Sadly this is gone now. I don't feel the college is being targeted. It's just that when you are a well known individual, who is around people all the time, you want to know that they are respectable. Paul Monk, the offender, is not, nor will he ever be again. "




Wow wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:23 PM:

" Sterilize him? Truly? Lest you forget, the man did not physically touch a child, and you cannot punish someone for something they MIGHT do. It's a good thing cooler heads prevail in our judicial system, though I think it's weird that he got more time than an actual child molester would. "




Confused former Student wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:16 PM:

" Im so confused right now. As a former student, I considered Paul to be a brilliant teacher, someone I had great respect for. Im very confused as to how I feel right now. It's impossible to believe Mr Monk is capable of doing anything of this nature.
I have many questions boggling my mind. Where did he & from whom did he purchased these horrific acts from & has the seller been caught and prosecuted. If they're capable of finding Paul then what's the problem finding the freaks behindit. Get them & nomore pics sold, right? "




justanopinion wrote on Apr 8, 2009 12:57 PM:

" Personally, I think the man should do his time, and then be sterilized upon release. As for those of you who feel sorry for him, just stop. He knows right from wrong and chose to do what he knew was wrong. And for those who argue he didn't hurt anyone, your sick. If people weren't paying for it, then there would be alot less of it going on. People like him hurt children by making it a profitable business. Lets just be grateful he was caught before his behavior elevated. "




another college student wrote on Apr 8, 2009 10:50 AM:

" just another thought... All of you that have a false sense of security now that Mr Monk has been arrested.... Just think about those who could possibly be your neighbor. the ones you let your children visit... any one of them could make what Mr Monk did seem like nothing. "




Another College student wrote on Apr 8, 2009 10:48 AM:

" why is it so important to specify that Mr Monk worked at Cerro Coso college? It is not like the college promotes this type of behavior. My opinion, the Sun is interested in this story only because it is a way to attack the college. how many other "citizens" of Kern river Valley have sick twisted habbits? why do we not hear of these stories? "




T. Richards wrote on Apr 7, 2009 11:02 PM:

" I'm afraid you are mistaken. There are many treatments. What there is not is a guaranteed cure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Treatment

Does the fact that there's no cure mean we shouldn't even attempt to help these people, and by extension, the children they may be able to keep from harming?

I'd surely rather put my tax dollars to something of this nature rather than many of the things (and people) they currently support. "




Samantha wrote on Apr 7, 2009 11:31 AM:

" As of right now, there is no known successful treatment for pedophelia. While this is true, our number one priority needs to be identifying these people and keeping our children safe. A close second needs to be finding a treatment that works. As soon as that treatment is found, I'll eat my words and find some tolerance and forgiveness in my heart for those who seek it. But until then, they are monsters and they should be treated as such. "




I Agree wrote on Apr 1, 2009 1:48 PM:

" T. Richards makes a good point. We are way behind the curve on providing mental health care; in other countries the recidivism rate is less than 10% for sex offenders because they don't just throw them out the door and tell them to register. And if mental health care was more readily available than what is provided by most insurances (quick-fix stuff) or by the state (you've offended in some way and it's mandatory) then we might well have less offenses. An ounce of prevention being worth a pount of cure and all that. "




T. Richards wrote on Apr 1, 2009 7:38 AM:

" Having known Mr. Monk, and having been thoroughly shocked by the situation, here's the thought I'm taking away from this.

Yes, he may be subject to urges regarding children. He could have found help for this, instead of indulging in a thrill he knew was wrong. We, as a society, could offer public assistance in the forms of counseling and therapy to help people to stop themselves.

But once you cross that line, there are limits to what society can forgive. "




PMCG wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:49 AM:

" I have to say, Paul Monk was a respectable man, seemed like a great teacher, and was a great guy to be around. Unfortunately, he encouraged and helped sadistic people to do sadistic things and paid them for it. It's a shame that the punishment for these crimes are so little. "




Samantha wrote on Mar 27, 2009 10:30 AM:

" I just can't believe that someone is defending this. He paid people WHO hurt children. The reason he paid them was BECAUSE they hurt children. How can you compare putting a prepubecent child in a violently sexual picture the same as selling stolen property? Seriously?

And yes, "people" would still make it for their own uses, but if they didn't make money off of it in the process, do you honestly think there would be as much of it out there as there is?

I just can't believe what I'm reading here. "




Ahhnold wrote on Mar 26, 2009 9:39 PM:

" I'm disappointed that my last response wasn't posted, I felt it was pretty good.

Anyway, even if nobody was willing to buy this stuff, the people who make it would still be making it for themselves if nothing else, so it would still be out there.

Also, these children were harmed BEFORE he got a hold of these images. Saying he paid somebody to harm children is like saying that if somebody stole something and you bought it from them, that you paid them to steal it. "




Samantha wrote on Mar 26, 2009 7:06 PM:

" Who did he hurt? He hurt the millions of children who are harmed in the kiddy p*rn trade every year. If it weren't for people buying those pictures, there would be no market to make them. He PAID someone to harm a child! How can you think that is "not as bad?"

Our country needs to take sex crimes, especially against children, MUCH more seriously. And yes, if a scizophrenic was out harming children you bet your behind I'd want them behind bars. "




Mac wrote on Mar 26, 2009 1:24 PM:

" To webmaster - yeah, I figured it was the program, I just found it humorous. "




webmaster wrote on Mar 26, 2009 1:09 PM:

" To Mac et al: I just found out who c*e*n*s*o*r*e*d the "P word" - apparently the blog program and/or company we use lets you read it, but not write it. LOL is right on. I'll check this out. "




Mac wrote on Mar 26, 2009 12:05 PM:

" Obviously supporting such a heinous industry is wrong, but I do wonder how the time he got compares to that of an actual child molester? It seems a bit steep for a first time offense.

Also, LOL that they censor the word "p*rnography" when commenting on a story about child p*rn. It's in the article but commenters can't say it??? "




outraged young adult wrote on Mar 25, 2009 8:03 PM:

" The people who defend and think little of this selfish crime are just as sick and twisted as those who watch and make these disgusting images.
As a survivor of childhood sexual,emotional, and physical abuse I stand my ground and defend all those helpless children who are damaged for life by the predators who make and purchase these images.
For all those who pleasure themselves to these horrific images and those who support them, you do not know the pain that any abuse leaves. I not only write as an outraged citizen, but also a victim. "




fedup wrote on Mar 25, 2009 3:33 PM:

" To Ahhnold,
Pedophilia is an abnormal interest in children. Which, our legal system defines as a “criminal act.” Sexual Masochism is “pleasure and excitement produced by pain, inflicted by others or by oneself.” So in order to be a pedophile you do not have to be the one harming a child, watching it happen is just as sick and vile as the act itself. So to answer your question, “Who did he hurt?” The answer is quite simple, every child he watched on those 600+ images! "




Ahhnold wrote on Mar 25, 2009 12:32 PM:

" Let me ask you, who did he hurt? He didn't harm anybody. He may have condoned the actions of the people who did, but just because you condone someones actions or accept them, doesn't mean you would commit them and it's not the same thing.
Did he rape and murder these children? Did he put them through these acts himself? No, he didn't. To say that two completely different acts should be treated the same is something I simply can't agree with.

Pedophilia is a mental-health issue. You wouldn't imprison somebody for having scizophrenia would you? "




fedup wrote on Mar 25, 2009 8:54 AM:

" I can't believe that you would think that what he did was not that bad! Looking at children and getting pleasure from the pain they endured from the adults who made these disgusting pictures is just as bad as having molested them yourself. These abused children will forever be damaged because of people like Paul and others who enjoy this kind of perverted and sick behavior. The punishment absolutely fits the crime, he admitted to doing it! Wake up people. "




Ahhnold wrote on Mar 24, 2009 8:10 PM:

" Wow, 6 1/2 years? Considering the fact that he didn't hurt anybody, that is a long time. That's almost as much time as the guy in Bakersfield who just got his 5th DUI and hospitalized two girls after running from the cops.

I'm not saying what he did was right, but the punishment should fit the crime. It's not like he molested these children himself, or was the one making the material he was arrested for. "




thinker wrote on Mar 24, 2009 7:10 PM:

" he should get alot more time than 78 months yes he is sick i dont care if hes nice or not he should be in jail forever..................... "




ccrider wrote on Mar 24, 2009 9:27 AM:

" Do not mistake my statement as a defense of Paul's actions- he is a good person who had an "illness" and simply made poor decisions. He deserves punishment, as he is to recieve. He is not a child molester, he is not violent, he is ill. "




Jesus Saves wrote on Mar 23, 2009 8:30 PM:

" Geezzzz, you people who are "investigating and harrassing" the healthcare district should take up a "new cross"---this looks like it is an appropriate one! "