Poll of the Day > Georgia Man who had the World's LARGEST CHILD PORN is RELEASED after 7 YEARS!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A Pedophile once branded the world's most PROLIFIC CHILD PORN COLLECTOR has been set FREE after serving just 7 years of his 1000 year PRISON sentence in Georgia!!

72 y/o Peter Mallory was handed the longest ever prison term in the state of Georgia in 2013 after police found 26,000 files of child porn on his electronic devices.

He became eligible for parole in December last year and was freed on May 27 after a parole board granted his release

The 5 person board ruled due to "performance credts" such as entering treatment, completing education and good behaviour qualified for his release

He will be subject to court supervision and will have to wear an ankle bracelet and will register as a sex offender and is banned from the Troup County where his crimes were committed

DA. Herb Cranford decried his release but said he was powerless to stop it

He said "No amount of supervision can stop a compulsive sexual deviant like Mallory from seeking out the most heinous images and videos of small children being sexually abused"

His victims opposed the release but were overruled

He owned and operated TV33 station from West Georgia Technical College campus as police were alerted to a computer he used that had child porn on it. They went to the tv station and found huge stashes of porn with more than 26,000 files uncovered.

He also had a secret desk camera used to record young women in his office

Following his release, the parole board said they were "confident" that Mallory will be closely monitored and that he will not try to do this again..

Do you think trust the parole board that they made the "right" decision?

https://i.imgur.com/BwTpnHR.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/CNQLITF.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JtSsayb.jpg
---

He'll probably try and do it again. He should never be let out or worse.

---

By largest child do you mean the most immature man child, or the fatest child?

---

Georgia Man is the new Florida Man

---

It's not clear to me what he did.

mrduckbear posted...

His victims opposed the release but were overruled

What victims?

mrduckbear posted...

police were alerted to a computer he used that had child porn on it.

So was he just downloading stuff from the internet? I understand possession is illegal but he hasn't harmed anyone by looking at it.

mrduckbear posted...

He also had a secret desk camera used to record young women in his office

I don't see the issue. How does this make them victims?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see the issue. How does this make them victims?

Cool. I got a new tag for you.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's not clear to me what he did.

" 26,000 files of child porn on his electronic devices."

What victims?

The kids and kids parents he sexually objectified

So was he just downloading stuff from the internet? I understand possession is illegal but he hasn't harmed anyone by looking at it.

Who knows how he got them? The point is he has them.

I don't see the issue.

You should.


---

Maybe he doesnt have literal victims if he never created any media himself, but its obvious to anybody that if he has these child porn images and videos, there is a market for it and thus, more kids are needed as material.

I think 7 years is a little bizarre...definitely not a fan of it.

wwinterj25 posted...

You should.

Okay, I'll remember that the next time I go into a Dunkin Donuts and see myself on the TV.

---

argonautweakend posted...

Maybe he doesnt have literal victims if he never created any media himself, but its obvious to anybody that if he has these child porn images and videos, there is a market for it and thus, more kids are needed as material.

I think 7 years is a little bizarre...definitely not a fan of it.

This.

Honestly I'll admit my first thought was I'm honestly torn a bit. Isn't the actual point supposed to be rehabilitation, or life in prison if that's deemed impossible? But I can't disagree that people have gotten way longer for less. And given the nature of the crime, it feels really weird for a 7 year sentence.

Idk, I'd honestly like to believe that people get rehabilitated. But at the same time knowing what he did, and knowing that there's people in for life over stupid shit like weed... I feel kinda gross about it.

argonautweakend posted...

Maybe he doesnt have literal victims if he never created any media himself, but its obvious to anybody that if he has these child porn images and videos, there is a market for it and thus, more kids are needed as material.

Let's say that's correct. That means he had evidence of someone else committing a crime. If you have a video of someone running a red light you don't also get a ticket for running a red light. It doesn't make sense to me that this is different where knowledge of a crime is itself a crime.

We're assuming he was looking at actual people. I think porographic cartoons are also considered possession so it's not as clear cut as that. Who is the victim in that scenario?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We're assuming he was looking at actual people.

That's what child porn is yes. It's not a assumption.


---

Why is skard trying to defend a pedophile?

This isn't even the usual attempt at pedantry, he seems like he is trying to argue if child porn is a crime or not.

mrduckbear posted...

He also had a secret desk camera used to record young women in his office

And were the young women naked in his office....? If so, why? And if the guy is into kids, why is he recording young women? Because that doesn't sound nearly young enough for the guy.

mrduckbear posted...

Following his release, the parole board said they were "confident" that Mallory will be closely monitored and that he will not try to do this again..

Well, he's 72, in a few years he probably won't be doing much of anything.

wwinterj25 posted...

The kids and kids parents he sexually objectified

Pretty sure he wasn't objectifying parents. Dude was into kids.

Otherwise it's unlikely he met any of the kids involved or that any of them knew of his existence.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We're assuming he was looking at actual people. I think porographic cartoons are also considered possession so it's not as clear cut as that. Who is the victim in that scenario?

Technically it's true you can be arrested on child porn when it's a depiction rather than involving actual children and people have gone to prison over it, but usually it's specified when it doesn't involve actual people.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Let's say that's correct. That means he had evidence of someone else committing a crime. If you have a video of someone running a red light you don't also get a ticket for running a red light. It doesn't make sense to me that this is different where knowledge of a crime is itself a crime.

While the claim that the possession supports the industry itself is a little tenuous at best, there are many other reasonable amounts for reducing the overall amount of child porn in circulation because it helps to stem a culture of abuse, it makes it easier to identify + help victims, it reduces the possibility of its existence being used to re-harm a child, etc. It's not just strictly moral shaming where it's banned because people find it distasteful, there are pragmatic reasons for banning it.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

That's what child porn is yes. It's not a assumption.

Not in Canada or the UK.

---

How do you get parole for a 1000 year sentence after only 7 years? Doesn't he have to serve a 200 year minimum?

---

Oh yes. I'm sure that prison cured him. >_>

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Oh yes. I'm sure that prison cured him. >_>

Actually, would he have gotten a different sentence if he wasn't a pedo at all - just a distributor and photographer/filmer who is merely making money off a high value illegal product? Like a drug dealer who doesn't use?

---

I feel like it would be a worse sentence in that case.

---

I think the punishment for dealing is worse than the punishment for possession

---

I don't know how true this is, but I read once people with cp charges often make or distribute as well because no one wants to get caught with the stuff by someone who isn't risking anything, so to get access to a lot of it they had to provide new stuff. The FBI even had a file of cp they had to keep updated they could use for sting operations.

---

slacker03150 posted...

I don't know how true this is, but I read once people with cp charges often make or distribute as well because no one wants to get caught with the stuff by someone who isn't risking anything, so to get access to a lot of it they had to provide new stuff. The FBI even had a file of cp they had to keep updated they could use for sting operations.

It certainly doesn't sound true at all and, logically speaking, it doesn't make much sense either. Clearly most pedos won't be in a position to abuse like that and distro seems like a weak proof since most people probably assume the FBI would do that as a sting.

I'm sure there's a ton of peer-to-peer sharing, though, because that's how much of the internet works when it comes to everything else... and, after trying to look up some details regarding his arrest, an article seems to suggest he was caught because he was peer-to-peer sharing and from the news station no less. The cops didn't know it was him specifically and even asked for his help in the investigation, but they eventually discovered his involvement.

---

mrduckbear posted...

He said "No amount of supervision can stop a compulsive sexual deviant like Mallory from seeking out the most heinous images and videos of small children being sexually abused"

I mean, supervision won't stop him from collecting more if he decides to do so, but it will make it pretty easy to catch him, and I doubt there'll be any difficulty sending him back to jail in that case. Honestly, this actually sounds fairly reasonable, given that he was treated and whatnot. That kind of rehabilitation is really what prison should be for, as much as America likes to treat it as vengeance and demand that criminals suffer pointlessly. Here's hoping it actually worked and he's no longer a problem and/or his surveillance is adequate to prevent further problems.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So was he just downloading stuff from the internet? I understand possession is illegal but he hasn't harmed anyone by looking at it.

If you're really going to ignore the realities of supporting an industry that routinely exploits and abuses children, just think of it as a sort of informal copyright infringement. He's using those children's intellectual property without their permission.

---

I cannot believe people have to explain why child porn is bad to a adult.

You guys love coming here to be as dumb as possible.

---

The biggest porn

---

EvilMegas posted...

I cannot believe people have to explain why child porn is bad to a adult.

You guys love coming here to be as dumb as possible.

The comments some people make, maybe the FBI should check their computers.

---

Thank you Zues, I was going to post and ask why a person into child porn would be filming adult women, that seems really strange.

I honestly don't know much about it, but do pedophiles find adults attractive as well? Can there be like bi-pedophiles (only instead of both genders they find all ages attractive?

That seems really strange to me.

Also i'm not really sure on the whole jailing people for images on their computer thing. I think CREATING the images and putting them out there should for sure be ilegal, and any sites with that stuff should be shut down. Maybe fine people who have that stuff on their computer as well, and classify them as a sex offender as well (to protect people in the future).

Sending them to jail seems like it's going to far though, but I am generally against jail unless you are directly protecting the public from the actions of the person being put in jail (or I would prefer just a secure location where they can still live fairly normal lives).

Creating child porn should obviously be a serious offense and should (sadly...I really hate jails) lead to jail time, but I think just having it on your comp should just identify you as a danger, require you to be monitored, on a list, restrict you from many jobs (any supervising children for example), and perhaps even implement restrictions on internet use or owning a computer as well.

But whatever, leaving all that crap up to ya'll cause I'm just gonna focus on my life, let the rest of the world sort themselves out.

---

I wonder if he will fit in here with some PotDers....

Anyway on the fence b/c this is despicable act, but he is 72 and probably won't be around much longer. Save the taxpayers some $$$ in the process.

wolfy42 posted...

Thank you Zues, I was going to post and ask why a person into child porn would be filming adult women, that seems really strange.

How is that weird?

He's a insane pervert, you honestly think his attraction to children will stop him from being attracted to women?

---

EvilMegas posted...

I cannot believe people have to explain why child porn is bad to a adult.

You guys love coming here to be as dumb as possible.

Of course it's bad...

But it can't be THAT bad if the guy only had to serve 0.7% of his sentence.

---

I mean whether you had a few images on your computer or thousands of images, why should that equate to more jail time? The fact is it was there to begin with.


---

deoxxys posted...

The biggest porn

Imagine an 8-foot long VHS tape

---

EvilMegas posted...

How is that weird?

He's a insane pervert, you honestly think his attraction to children will stop him from being attracted to women?

I...just assumed?.....I guess...that people into kids were well, freaking weird, and didn't find mature women (or men I guess) attractive?

I seriously don't get finding undeveloped kids attractive, I mean I get finding like you know 14+ year olds who have reached puberty attractive, but kids? It doesn't make sense unless you just have like some weird sexual inclination (or at least that is how I always thought).

It's like someone who finds ...I don't know...horses attractive, or um, dolphins (think there was a boston legal episode about dolphins), they don't find humans attractive as well.

If you DID find both attractive, wouldn't you just focus on the one that wasn't totally illegal and morally wrong?

It's a legit question for anyone who has done research into pedophiles as it's not something I wanna research myself lol.

---

adjl posted...

I mean, supervision won't stop him from collecting more if he decides to do so, but it will make it pretty easy to catch him

You have more confidence in the efficiency of the system than I do.

---

EvilMegas posted...

How is that weird?

He's a insane pervert, you honestly think his attraction to children will stop him from being attracted to women?

Do you also believe that homosexual perverts record individuals of the other sex on the grounds that perversion means being attracted to everybody? >_> Or that heterosexual perverts will be attracted to their own gender on those same grounds? While there can be overlap when the minors in question are teens and it's therefore logical for the perps to be attracted to adults as well, people into young kids typically are *only* into young kids.


---

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure he wasn't objectifying parents. Dude was into kids.

The kids he sexually objectified and the parents of said kids are the victims is clearly what I was getting it. Althouggh why stop at parents? The kids family and friends would be effected too.

Zareth posted...

Not in Canada or the UK.

Child porn is looking at people anywhere as you know children are people.
Some comments here make me question some folk.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Child porn is looking at people anywhere as you know children are people.
Some comments here make me question some folk.

It's just a weird thing where loli and anime are also banned in Canada and the UK...

I'm not allowed to draw an infant getting reamed by a centaur 'cuz... .... Trudeau?

---

Lokarin posted...

It's just a weird thing where loli and anime are also banned in Canada and the UK...

Yeah any type of images that show child porn are rightfully banned. This guy however I assume had images of actual children. Who knows though? A paedophile is a paedophile regardless.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Yeah any type of images that show child porn are rightfully banned.

The logic behind this is supposed to be illustrations (loli stuff) isnt actual child porn because, its not of actual children.

I mean it sort of makes sense, how many crimes can you think of where it begins with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil?

---

deoxxys posted...

The logic behind this is supposed to be illustrations (loli stuff) isnt actual child porn because, its not of actual children.

Close enough. I'm happy it's banned.

I mean it sort of makes sense, how many crimes can you think of where it begins with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil?

Depends how you plan said crime doesn't it?

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Close enough. I'm happy it's banned.

Would you still be happy even if it mean't there were less child molesters?

We were talking about how porn reduces cases of assault in the other topic, if the results are less children diddled, then loli porn being legal doesnt sound so bad.

---

deoxxys posted...

Would you still be happy even if it mean't there were less child molesters?

Are you saying child porn should be allowed in order to try and stop paedophiles becoming child molesters?

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Are you saying child porn should be allowed in order to stop paedophiles becoming child molesters?

Loli porn, not actual CP.

Maybe a scientific study should be done to compare cases of child molesters per capita in the US vs the UK.


---

deoxxys posted...

Loli porn, not actual CP

ANY type of child porn or images that look like child porn should be banned period. I'm not a advocate for some sick paedophiles fantasy at all.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

ANY type of child porn or images that look like child porn should be banned period. I'm not a advocate for some sick paedophiles fantasy at all.

If cartoon porn helps actual children be safer then why not?

It sounds like a case of choosing to lock a door vs not locking a door.

Yeah we dont like that people steal but its a precaution that helps prevent theft.

---

deoxxys posted...

If cartoon porn helps actual children be safer then why not?

So again you're implying porn that looks like child porn so is banned should be allowed. A better solution would be a death sentence for paedophiles.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

A better solution would be a death sentence for paedophiles.

I mean if we apply this logic, the death crime would help deter ANY crime. But most people here disagree with the death penalty, and we obviously know that we will never revert to the death penalty being common again.


---

deoxxys posted...

I mean if we apply this logic, the death crime would help deter ANY crime. But most people here disagree with the death penalty, and we obviously know that we will never revert to the death penalty being common again.

I'm a advocate for the death penalty when folk commit really horrible crimes. Paedophilia is one of those crimes. They are the scum of this earth.

---

Ok pedophillia is not a crime at all. It's the attraction to children, not an action. There is also nothing harmful about drawings of any sort of illegal sex including horrible shit like snuff or gore. I mean, beastiality is illegal, want to jail all the furries that draw porn? It's absolutely nonsensical to ban illustrations of anything even if there were zero benefit from allowing it. You don't ban something just cause you don't like it or its gross, you ban something because it harms a real human being, which this does not.

As for this georgia man case I feel like we need to allow the system to work. The legal system is in a weird place where most people don't trust it and use it for vengeance rather than bettering society. You should want a child pornagraphy owner to be able to be rehabilitated and you should want to lessen the taboo at least enough for people that have those urges to feel like they can seek help before they do something to an actual child but people care a lot more about feeling righteous than results so whatever.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Ok pedophillia is not a crime at all.

Viewing child porn and having child porn however is.

I mean, beastiality is illegal, want to jail all the furries that draw porn?

Furries stuff isn't bestiality.

It's absolutely nonsensical to ban illustrations of anything even if there were zero benefit from allowing it.

Other than it being really close to child porn sure.

YoukaiSlayer posted...

You should want a child pornagraphy owner to be able to be rehabilitated

I should? Why should I want nothing more than death for paedophiles?

---