Former City Resident Declared Long-Term Sex Offender

Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:07 AM

A man convicted of molesting four children in Prince George is heading back to prison.

In 1996, David Ronald Moffet was sentenced to a year in jail in connection with the molestation charges here in our city.

Yesterday, a judge in Edmonton handed the 50-year-old Moffet a three-and-a-half year jail term and declared him a long-term sex offender. He was convicted of molesting two girls, aged 11 and 13, over a three-year period starting in 2002.

Moffet apparently befriended the girls' parents and later moved into their basement in Morinville, north of Edmonton.

He was also convicted of molesting two six-year-old sisters in Edmonton.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:07 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Mike on January 7 2006 11:12 AM

Here's an example of the lenient laws we have. 3 yrs means only half the sentence will be served. While in prison, he'll be segregated from general population because most inmates don't like sex offenders.
He can sit around and watch porn movies in his spare time. Work time will consist of menial little tasks like laundry. These guys should be outside digging holes! In frozen ground! With teaspoons! Only when there is some real punishment will the repeat offenders stop. It boggles the mind that one gets more jail time for shooting a grizzley without a license than one who sexually assaults children and messes their mind for life. It makes be damn upset when a carniverous predator is more important than an innocent little girl.

Posted by: Gofaster on January 7 2006 11:20 AM

Which predator Mike, the two legged one or the four legged one?....

Posted by: Chadermando on January 7 2006 2:42 PM

What a stupid comment from Gofaster.

Posted by: ammonra on January 7 2006 3:10 PM

I understand the anger over cases like this, and I share it. It;s true that sentences in these cases are too lenient and should be longer. There must be some other way to penalise these perverts apart from keeping them at a cost of $100,000 per year each. That money may be necessary to protect society, but why can't the perverts pay restitution for the rest of their lives. Why can't they be forced to put 50% of what they earn for the rest of their lives into a central fund to be used for compensation for victims, educational programs in schools, parole supervision and police services necessary to keep tight tabs on them after release, and so on. Why not make the perverts pay and pay and pay, after all, their victims do for the rest of their lives?

Posted by: Percy on January 7 2006 4:18 PM

I agree with the notion of putting these offenders to work so a portion of all they earn will be deposited in a fund for the victims.

Why do we allow them to continue to be a net financial liability to us besides? Percy

Posted by: Chadermando on January 7 2006 6:22 PM

I figure we put them all (life-timers for violant crimes) on an island in the artic where they are forced to live as a house arrest community supplied from time to time by the government. If its all male or all female the population would always die out with time.

The cost of monitoring an island is far cheeper than running a prision.