“A 78-year-old Winnipeg man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old mentally handicapped girl in a city park three years ago knew he had been caught in the act when he told police he was impotent, the Crown argued at the man’s trial Wednesday. A police officer who accompanied the man back to the police station for questioning testified yesterday the man, without prompting, said he was diabetic ‘and incapable of doing anything sexual.’ ‘It was (the accused) who said he couldn’t get it up if he tried,’ said Crown attorney Jill Duncan in her closing argument. ‘Clearly he knew he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, as it were…’ Witnesses testified Tuesday seeing the man getting off his bicycle and groping his groin in an effort to arouse himself as he approached the girl. Three witnesses said they saw the man gyrating against the girl’s back and side, one of them describing the motion as looking ‘like a dog humping a football.’ Witnesses, who watched the scene from roughly 70 metres away, said the man took the girl to a park bench where he tried moving her hand to his groin and had her suck his finger.” —Winnipeg Sun (Canada)

It’s pretty obvious that this impotence claim is a flimsy excuse. In the first place, they ought to make the guy prove that he’s genuinely impotent. Lock him up for an hour with a porn star and see what her professional opinion is. In the second place, even if he is impotent, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t try testing himself out or trying to whip up an erection against the backside of a young girl. In the third place, even supposing he was terminally limp as a noodle, it doesn’t require an erect penis to sexually abuse someone. It is also sexual abuse to finger, lick, or even touch a ten-year-old girl inappropriately — and it goes without saying that humping her like a dog on a football would be considered, by most parties, inappropriate.

The thing you always have to wonder with a 78-year-old perp, though, is this: at that age, is the risk to the individual worth the reward? In other words, if a twenty-year-old guy molests a girl, he could end up spending ten or twenty of the best years of his life in prison. But if a septuagenarian feels up an adolescent retard, maybe the reward (young flesh) seems worth the risk — after all, for how long could he possibly languish in jail? Especially with that cunning “impotence” excuse?

And if that’s the case, if the prospect of jail is less off-putting to geriatric sex offenders, what other punishment could one devise to discourage them from groping the local mental defectives? Should one act on the eye-for-an-eye principle and subject them to groping at the hands of grotesque gerontophiles?

UPDATE: “Impotent” Pedo Found Guilty.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.