One has to wonder where judges live. They seem to have no difficulty at all in putting all manner of scum back on the street and they don't seem all that concerned about it. I guess when they are sitting on committees to determine their own high salaries (to ensure judicial independence) they just make sure they can afford nice high-end neighbourhoods (preferably gated). Not-responsible due to PTSD is one of those ground breaking defences that we will now watch others use to get away with heinous crimes. Remember when the non-responsible due to being pissed out of my tree when I raped and killed defence was first used? Its just mind boggling that anyone can come up with a successful excuse for sexually assaulting children and that a judge would buy it. Rack up a win for the sick bas*ard Preadators who use children as their playthings. :rage: Funny how driving a car through a military building didn't stand up to the not-responsible to PTSD defence but preying on kids apparently will. That's some twisted priorities: in the future protect buildings, not children.
Oh, but all is not lost, this "innocent victim of PTSD" will have to spend a little bit of time in a psych facility to determine if he needs further treatment. I'll wager he will be free to troll the playgrounds inside of a month!