Mr. Follet Is Scheduled To Be Sentenced March 8, 2011
Mr. Lawrence Follett of 10 Alpine St., Billerica, MA has pleaded guilty to many counts of possession of child pornography. He is charged under federal law, and under that law he faces no more than a 10 year sentence with a follow on 5 year probation period. The U.S. Attorney is only recommending a 27 month sentence for this most despicable person. Participating in child pornography is one of the most horrendous crimes one can engage in and a 27 month sentence is absolutely beyond the pale of leniency. The maximum sentence is far too lenient when one considers the lifetime of damage this causes to millions of children worldwide.
It is important to keep in mind that Mr. Follett didn’t acquire his pornographic collection by receiving them from some other pervert as an unwanted e-mail “gift”. He actively sought them out and downloaded them from a website uncovered by Swiss police and passed along to Interpol.
In addition to collecting and holding child pornography, this person taught in the public school system for 17 years and worked at a children’s summer camp for boys in New Hampshire.
Who Commits Such an Outrageous Crime
What kind of people engage in Child Pornography? The following is from the website, Victims of Violence:
Types of Offenders and Uses
There are several classes of child pornography offenders from producers to distributors to users. Each link in the chain must be broken to effectively combat this abuse. They are:
1) Producers include those persons who employ, use or advertise for a minor to be a part of any kind of pornographic material. Many of these offenders are people who make their own material for their own use. These are the people who make the movies or the magazines.
2) Distributors include persons who sell, mail, loan, give, export, advertise or transport any obscene material. Many pedophile organizations, like the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), act as contact services for pedophiles to obtain child pornography.
3) Coercers are those persons who incite, bribe, persuade, or entice a child to be a part of any kind of pornographic material. These people are very good at what they do. They often give the child the attention he/she may be missing at home, or give them money so they can buy nice things. They are very manipulative.
4) Finally, there are the people who use this material. Now that the mere possession of this material is a crime, it will make it much easier for the police to lay charges against them. Eighty-seven percent of molesters of female children and 77% of molesters of male children admit to regular use of hard-core pornography. Clifford Olson was found to be in possession of nude photographs of young girls 2 years before he murdered 11 children in B.C. While he was on his murderous rampage, he carried with him a briefcase full of child pornography.
The main use of child pornography is to satisfy the sexual desires of pedophiles. This is often a prelude to future abuse. It can also lower the inhibitions of children; it relaxes the child in the pedophiles’ attempts to molest the child. It can be used as blackmail to force the child into continuing the relationship. And it can be used as an exchange medium for pedophiles, or for profit.
Children need to be protected through laws that make rounding up this subhuman population easy and punishing them severely the norm. Sentencing a person who admits to, or who is found guilty of engaging in child pornography, deliberately, (being caught with 230 images as accidental stretches the limits of those with the dimmest of wits) should bring about a severe forfeiture of liberty. Furthermore, all of their assets should be seized as part of the sentence and sold off with the funds going to a child abuse compensation pool.
Instead of real justice and an appropriate sentence for his crime; the U.S. Attorney recommended a sentence for Mr. Follett to the judge of 27 months of incarceration. No matter how long the probation period, this jail portion of the sentence is insufficient, inappropriate and unjust. It is reminiscent of the Catholic Church sending Cardinal Bernard Law to Rome as punishment for reassigning pedophile priests that he knew would re-offend and continue to harm children in their new communities. The feds were gutless in that case as well for not charging the Cardinal with accessory child abuse/child-rape.
Consider the Following from the Victims of Violence Website:
Effect
The effects of this kind of abuse on children can be devastating. The harm has been compared to that of the damage caused by incest or sexual molestation. Children feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame. The knowledge that their images are being distributed to who knows where is very frightening.
Because the child’s actions are reduced to a recording, the pornography may haunt him [or her] in future years, long after the original misdeed took place. A child who has posed for the camera must go through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child pornography.” Shouvlin, “Preventing the Sexual Exploitation Of Children” (1981) “Children involved in pornography can be psychologically scarred and suffer emotional distress for life. They may see themselves as objects to be sold rather than people who are important.” U.S. General Accounting Office, “Sexual Exploitation of Children” (1982).
Children who are victimized by child pornography often fall into the world of prostitution, and many grow up to be abusers themselves. Pornography has a direct relationship to child abuse. Pedophiles see their desires on video and this validates their feelings for them. This means that future abuse is more likely. Studies have shown that those who collect child pornography are more likely to be active abusers.
Does the most severe penalty Mr. Follett faces; no more than a 10 year sentence with a follow on 5 year probation period, seem adequate to you? If not, then how can anyone accept the proposal by The U.S. Attorney, a position whose salary and benefits is paid for by taxpayers, for a 27 month prison sentence. How is this just considering the ramifications and the potential for lasting harm to children as described above and as witnessed by victims of the priest scandal?. Don’t you think it is past time for people to express their outrage at the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Federal Judge scheduled to adjudicate the case, including the acceptance or denial of the plea deal?
Hello Rick,
I must agree with you that the act committed by Larry Follett was not a respectable one, but I would please ask that you refrain from judging his character and calling him a “most despicable person” without any knowledge of who he is as a man. As a dear friend of Follett’s I know better than to see this crime in a black and white sense and would ask that you please not make such comments without ever meeting this caring, gentle, in no way malicious, individual.
Mr. Follett is going through a hard enough time in his life without uninformed, unrelated bystanders telling him and the rest of the world that his actions were wrong, and taking it so far as to say he is an evil person. He will never regain his professional image and all you are doing is bullying a hurt man.
Hopefully you can understand what you are doing and refrain from such actions in the future or remove this post from the internet for other people to read and make misinformed, overly-biased judgments on.
I respect your right to your opinion and to state that opinion as loudly and as publically as you wish. I respect your right to free speech, even when I find the substance of your speech offensive. I also, in a way, respect the loyalty you are showing to your friend, Mr. Follett.
It would be more appropriate of you to tell me why I should not post my opinions on my blog about a man who admits to one of the most disgusting crimes against humanity before suggesting that I refrain from expressing my views freely on my own blog. Let’s review the conditions of Mr. Follett’s case.
He was caught with 230 or so child pornography images which he knew to be clearly against the law. Allegedly, he downloaded those images willingly; and in his mind, he did so with some anticipation of a reward for possessing them that superseded the risk he was taking. Still, he chose to take the risk. These despicable images didn’t just fall into his computer. His activity was so brazen and careless that it caught the attention of Interpol, who in turn notified U.S. authorities, because the majority of people on their continent also find the behavior illegal and disgusting.
Furthermore, he pleaded guilty to possession. Did he do so before he got caught; self-reporting out of a sense of guilt or shame, believing it to be the right thing to do as a first step in getting help? Or, did he plead guilty because he got found out, and because he knew that he was going to be found guilty? His plea is no more noble than a ploy to get a reduced sentence for himself as opposed to making a plea out of a sense of shame and a genuine concern for the victims depicted in his child pornography collection – innocent children.
Caring, gentle, non-malicious individuals do not engage in activities that have as their end-products the harming of children, or that provide the incentive for others to continue to harm children to meet the demands of a very sick market. Did you consider the supportive information I provided that demonstrates clearly that children are harmed; many for a lifetime? Or, did you just gloss over it as you are glossing over the despicable behavior of a depraved soul; one who is getting from you more sympathy and support than he deserves? I don’t want to get inside the dark world of Mr. Follett’s head, but I would like people like you to get a grip on their own.
Furthermore, I do not care about Mr. Follett’s personal reputation. One can forgive some activities, even crimes, and even by a majority of opinion; but some crimes are simply unforgivable and should remain unforgivable, even by the perpetrator with respect to forgiving himself. This is an activity that is clearly in the unforgiveable catagory. It is a hallmark of a person of clearly dishonorable intent and little consideration beforehand for himself, his family, friends like you, and most particularly his victims.
For that reason, I think he cared less about his own reputation than you do now; otherwise, he would have thought long and hard about his activities and the damage they would cause others. He had free choice and chose to jump, willingly, into this cesspool industry.
I think he only cares that, once behind bars, he might become a victim of others, who have engaged in pornography and violent crime; but not the kind that involves children. Most prisoners find child pornography and sexual child abuse vile, evil and well beyond the definition of immoral even for murderers, rapists and other violent occupations. Many of his fellow prisoners are the very products of the industry that he has participated in, encouraged to flourish through his downloads (demand for more supply) and cheered on from the sidelines; the industry of physical and sexual abuse of children. Instead of writing me, you should, perhaps, just pray that some violent felon with little to lose, who was also a victim of child pornography or child abuse, doesn’t share a cell with him.
I do not care about Mr. Follett’s “hard time” that he is enduring because of his sick behavior. I am more concerned about the hard time the millions of victims of child pornography will suffer throughout their lives because of people like him; people who propagate and support harm to defenseless children by engaging in this horrific industry in any way, shape or form. My sympathies, concern and benevolence rests on the victims of child abuse, not on the various cogs that support the wheel turning of such an industry. This is an industry that encourages even more victims to be pulled into a world so ugly that only a sick mind can comprehend and enjoy it. Your friend, Larry Follett, is such a cog and there is no accounting for the potential damage to children his downloading may have caused.
While I am aware that recidivism rates for sex offenders may not be as high as advertised, that is beside the point. The U.S. Attorney has agreed to recommend a 27 month sentence for your beloved Mr. Follett. Need I remind you that people have received longer sentences for killing rabbits, roughly equivalent sentences for killing cats, or dogs. Football player, Michael Vick received 23 months for his role in dog fighting.
Tell me, what is the right price for killing the soul of a child. The crime your Mr. Follett committed concerns not just people, but the most vulnerable and trusting of people – children. Expect no apology or sympathy from me. If he has any level of the decency you describe, he won’t ask for forgiveness or mercy and he will accept the fact that he has participated in ruining the lives and innocence of no less than 230 children. And, yet, there is no public outcry for his blood as there was for the rabbits, the cats, the dog or for Mr. Vick. Why is that, Steve?
Rick,
I also agree with my friend steve when he says you shouldn’t judge Larry’s character on the crime he was charged for. Unlike steve, i will say it a little more clearly to you. Dear Rick, shut *** **** up. you know nothing about Larry or his character. Larry is the single funniest person i have ever met. He changed the way i thought about the summer camp i went to. His actions were wrong, and clearly he has some problems when it comes to downloaded illegal images. The things he chose to download do NOT reflect who he is as a person. You deserve to be locked up for your unintelligent, rash, and just plain bullshit comments. Next time think a little harder before you judge a man by one action. You know nothing about Larry and you never will. Stop talking shit.
Word up steve. I got your back.
Jorge, your tone and use of language to express yourself speaks volumes about your character. Your defense of a self-admitted child porn collecting pedophile and your continued association with him raises questions about your behavior as well. Somehow, I get the distinct impression that you don’t really believe that what he did was wrong.
Do you find humor in child pornography? Do you have any idea what those children go through throughout their life after having been the subject of such abuse? Judging your use of language and your attempt to tell me what I can and cannot write on my own blog, indicates that you may also have an abusive personality that might be a bit out of control.
Contrary to your viewpoint, most people do believe that a person’s character is reflected in the choices and associations they make and keep. He made a pretty sick choice – not just once, but on multiple occasions. I don’t need to know anymore about Larry, Steve or yourself to understand you all are not people I would admit inside my social circle to even the smallest degree.
If you and Steve think this “man” has the sort of character worth defending, that speaks volumes about you and Steve and the character traits you share in the most unflattering manner possible. Perhaps you need to consider what is humor and what is just pathetic behavior. In any case, I wouldn’t want any of you around children in a one on one situation, and I’m certain most civic leaders would feel the same after reading your rant and Steve’s myopic view of this situation.
As to your foul language, let me point out that this blog is not another version of Topix. Unlike newspapers, I have standards and I have no hesitation to apply editorial restraint. On this blog, I decide and define standards of acceptable language, conduct and association. Therefore, the next time you write a comment for my blog, either use language that is free of profanity or expect it to be rejected and deleted without ever getting a public viewing.
In case you are unaware that dictionaries exist or that your are unable to use a dictionary, child pornography is also profane by nature, Jorge. On first blush (impression) your nature, through your support or this sick individual and your manner of self expression through the choice of profanity doesn’t seem all that different from Mr.Follett’s worldview on the value of kids.
Rick,
Let me begin by saying without a doubt, you are one of the most idiotic people i have ever had the misfortune of communicating with. In regards to Larry’s action, the images were all downloaded in one sitting. This means his action was one mistake. No doubt that Larry was wrong in his doing and that child pornography is no laughing matter. Children should never have to be put through the horrors of that, I agree. On the other hand, the child pornography industry produces hundreds of thousands of videos and pictures annually and posts them on their sites. Those pictures and videos would still be there regardless of Larry downloading them. I know for a fact that Larry’s one mistake and sickness does NOT reflect his character. How can you judge him if you’ve never talked to him or even met him? Now to show you how it feels, let me judge you just like you have unfairly judged Larry.
1) you are a lonely man who has no wife, friends or even any social connections.
2) you have nothing better to do than to bad mouth a man whom you have never met.
3) you pass your pathetic days sitting at your computer stirring up controversy on the internet.
4) Even if you begged me, even if you and I were the only people left alive on the planet, I wouldn’t admit myself into your “exclusive” social circle.
Think before you speak. Don’t judge Larry since you don’t know anything about him.
Get at me.
-Jorge Diamonte
Well done! You can use the language without profanity. This is a G rated blog and it’s nice to see that you’ve considered that minors may actually visit from time to time.
I’ve given my opinion regarding Mr. Follett and I’ve responded fully to you and your pal, Steve. My position on his crime, his sentence plea, and his despicable behavior is not going to change. I don’t need to know Mr. Follett in order to judge him based on his crime and his admitted guilt. You are correct about the images and videos being present online regardless of Mr. Follett’s download misadventure(s). Isn’t always funny how when people get caught doing something, it’s always their one and only time doing it – like drunk driving. However, like anything else, if there were less demand for this stuff, there would be less crime against children and fewer children harmed. Your friend’s engagement in this vile and immoral trade only perpetuates and expands upon the harm done to children. End of story.
You are entitled to your opinion of me as I am entitled to my opinion of the child pornographer, Mr. Follett. I’m not going to defend myself, my family or my lifestyle to you. I’ve exercised my right to freely speak out about Mr. Follett as a dispicable person who deserves a lot more time behind bars than 27 months. I’ve given you the same privilege to express your views. Now it is time for the readers to decide for themselves which course of action they should take or not, and if the sentence proposed is sufficient, or not.
It is my hope that many people will write or call the Judge’s office to protest the obscenity of the prosecutor’s plea arrangement. But , that is their call. My function is to advocate for tough sentencing and against Mr. Follett’s plea deal. I think that the comments coming from Steve and you have only served to demonstrate the foolishness of leniency in this case; and the need to send a clear, strong message to those who are or are considering getting involved in child pornography, in any capacity, that those who do will lose a great deal of their freedom as punishment.
Your acceptance of a more lenient approach only serves to encourage more of this sick behavior and more abuse of children. How you can sleep with a clear conscience after making such an outrageous defense is beyond reason and rational thought. And I’m certain, if you have children, that you wouldn’t hesitate to trust Mr. Follett as a baby sitter even after spotting that digital camera on his coffee table.