Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


23

'Manhattan Manny' Pleads Guilty in Boy's Sex Abuse

21-year-old babysitter dodges life sentence with plea

Share

(Newser) – A male babysitter who dubbed himself "the Manhattan Manny" is facing a 12-year sentence after pleading guilty to sexually abusing an 8-year-old boy. Jonathan Then, who also worked at summer camps and as a teaching aide in some of New York City's ritziest private schools, had originally been charged with molesting four boys but prosecutors cut a deal so the children wouldn't have to testify, reports the New York Daily News.

Jonathan Then will be sentenced October 15 at the Manhattan Supreme Court and is expected to get 12 years in state prison.
Jonathan Then will be sentenced October 15 at the Manhattan Supreme Court and is expected to get 12 years in state prison.   (Shutter Stock)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
23 comments
VIEWING:
 
riffran
Oct 2, 09 4:36 AM CDT
you have got to be sh**ing me...another child molester...good greif...go ahead A....try to rationalize this one Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Aelius28
Oct 2, 09 4:51 AM CDT
Nothing to rationalize. This piece of shit deserves to spend many years behind bars.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
riffran
Oct 2, 09 5:38 AM CDT
I admit I'm shocked.....pleasantly so .....touch'e.....signor :)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Aelius28
Oct 2, 09 5:50 AM CDT
You shouldn't be shocked, that's what surprises me. You act as if I support child molestation, when in pretty much every post I've made on the subject I've made it clear that I don't support it and that they should indeed go to prison. Go back through my posts if it makes you feel better, I only ridicule those who want to circumvent the law and those who have moral objections to amoral concepts and behaviours.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
riffran
Oct 2, 09 6:26 AM CDT
"Laws on child porn do not necessarily target behavior that's harmful to children. Some guy downloading child porn from the internet for free (via file sharing or whatever) is not harming any children and is in no way giving the producer any incentives and YET you still have a problem with it. Therefore, I argue, you have an emotional moral objection to it stemming from your intuitive tendency to protect children. "......dude that seem a bit supportive to me...sure kiddie porn is just fine, nobody is hurt...???????? come on now...and just who took those pictures? Victimless crime? Children thrust into sexuality when they should be out riding bikes or playing ARMY or hide and go seek, not engaging in sex acts....Child porn is sick, those that produce it are sick, and those who crave to look at it are sick, or repulsive or perverted or whatever label you want to put on them...Maybe you are sending mixed messages, getting a little lost in the complexity of what you are really trying to say......I still go with the thesis research idea....
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.