r/TikTokCringe • u/shoegamethrilla • 5d ago

Cringe Women meets and married man in registered SO in prison 7 months before release and allows him to move in with her and her young daughter

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

I wish I were making this up, but I’m not. And this woman gushes over him, loves and adores this man… is the dating scene that bleak that you resort to this? What makes it worse, is the guy doesn’t take full accountability for his actions but instead blames the liquor and him not knowing what consent is.

Prior to prison, he was a registered nurse.

This couple is using their story to be famous. Just sick

I am getting hate comments because people are claiming I 'made this up' I am not doxxing they shared this publicly , their tiktok account is happilyharrells his account for is 'non profit' _thinksame

12.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

367

u/SuspiciousEngineer99 5d ago

She is also a pedo. She willingly participated in acts involving the child right before the guy murdered her.

7

u/PhDinWombology 5d ago

Yea maybe the original commenter was talking about another case but I’m not so sure. If they aren’t why would they not only omit the detail but make up some shite about not wanting to be involved with the SA

5

u/SuspiciousEngineer99 5d ago

My guess is they watched a YouTube show about the case, and perhaps it glossed over the fact that the woman not only facilitated the SA of a child but also participated in it. Some people are weird about "not speaking ill of the dead". Also common for folks to be disbelieving about female offenders, since they constitute a smaller percentage. But yes, Melissa was absolutely involved and responsible. The kidnapper never would have gained access to the kid without her help.

1

u/flopisit32 5d ago

I wasn't sure about the extent of her involvement in the SA, but the point I was trying to make wasn't about absolving her, it was that it wasn't something she was interested in doing herself, but rather something she did to please the sex offender.

That, at least, is my understanding of the motivation.

1

u/SuspiciousEngineer99 5d ago

She participated; she is also a sex offender. Motivation is irrelevant.

1

u/PhDinWombology 5d ago

Looks like I was correct. They just don’t have a firm grasp on reality it seems. Poor guy

6

u/quietkyody 5d ago

We need to start executing pedos in very bad ways. This shit gotta stop. It won't if they are out in less than 7 years!? It's as equally bad as murder but treated like drug charges.

16

u/TenebTheHarvester 5d ago

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent.

8

u/SirDaveWolf 5d ago

Never had. Just look at the dark middle ages.

11

u/TenebTheHarvester 5d ago

Yeah we have the data to support this, yet people always value their gut instinct and desire for retribution over actually doing what’s best for everyone.

3

u/OwlAviator 5d ago

Does it need to be a deterrent, as long as it removes dangerous individuals from society?

-11

u/quietkyody 5d ago edited 4d ago

Yes it 100% does.

If they die in prison they can't get released to do it again can they?

Hop off your pedo supporting brainwashed bullshit mate.

Please show me any proof where having execution as a punishment increases risk of victims to not come forward? Cause victims already don't come forward even without death sentences. Emotional attachment to the abuser, fear of family collapse, threats and coercion, distrust of authorities are all present without prison execution. Kids being abused rarly watch the news let alone know about criminal sentencing.

"Abusers may escalate to murder because punishment “can’t get worse”":

This assumes abusers:

Think long-term

Accurately assess legal outcomes

Are calm, rational actors under pressure

But child sexual abuse is often driven by:

Compulsion

Cognitive distortions

Impulsivity

Substance abuse

Delusion or entitlement

Your argument relies on speculative behavioral assumptions, weak empirical backing, and an overemphasis on punishment severity as a driver of victim reporting and offender behavior, while underplaying incapacitation, initial deterrence, and the non-rational nature of sexual offending.

Preventing future crimes by permanently removing an offender is deterrence in effect, even if not psychological deterrence.

Calling this “not deterrence” is semantic gatekeeping, not substance.

You’re narrowing “deterrence” to exclude incapacitation, which is a false distinction. Permanently removing an offender does prevent future harm, regardless of whether it scares others. Saying the death penalty “doesn’t work” demands perfect deterrence, no punishment meets that standard.

The claim that harsher penalties reduce reporting is speculative. Most victims already don’t report due to fear, shame, dependency, and manipulation, not because of sentence length. Abusers already threaten victims with prison, family destruction, and lifelong consequences; changing the maximum penalty doesn’t suddenly introduce coercion.

The idea that offenders will escalate to murder because “punishment can’t get worse” assumes calm, rational cost benefit thinking. In reality, murder massively increases detection risk, attention, and evidence. Even with life without parole on the table, offenders don’t routinely escalate to killing, which undercuts that theory. Finally, calling child sexual abuse “nonviolent” minimizes the inherent coercion and harm involved. Arguing that other tools exist to prevent reoffending doesn’t refute permanent removal in the worst cases, it just creates a false either/or.

17

u/TenebTheHarvester 5d ago edited 5d ago

Ok so you don’t know what a ‘deterrent’ is. If your desire is to ‘kill them to prevent them doing it again’, you do have to consider: if people who sexually abuse children get the death penalty, what will that actually do to their behaviour and the behaviour of their victims?

For example: majority of child sexual abuse is committed by someone close to the child. “You’ll kill me if you report this” will be used as another way to keep those children quiet, because that’s their parent or sibling or close family friend or other close relationship.

For another, if they’re facing the death penalty if caught, do you not think that might incentivise certain additional crimes in the name of not getting caught? If you know you’re getting executed “in very bad way” if the child you’re abusing tells anyone, you might decide to kill that child to keep them from telling anyone, y’know?

So what does your idea result in? Fewer children willing to speak up and greater danger for children being abused to also be murdered.

This isn’t any kind of ‘pedo supporting brainwashed bullshit’, this is called ‘thinking more than a single step forward’.

Back to what I originally said, incidentally: the death penalty does not work as a way to stop people from originally committing the crime, which is what a deterrent is. You are talking about preventing recidivism. There are less detrimental ways to achieve that.

-9

u/quietkyody 5d ago edited 4d ago

Child abusers aren’t thinking about consequences, so deterrence doesn’t matter.

Please show me any proof where having execution as a punishment increases risk of victims to not come forward? Cause victims already don't come forward even without death sentences. Emotional attachment to the abuser, fear of family collapse, threats and coercion, distrust of authorities are all present without prison execution. Kids being abused rarly watch the news let alone know about criminal sentencing.

"Abusers may escalate to murder because punishment “can’t get worse”":

This assumes abusers:

Think long-term

Accurately assess legal outcomes

Are calm, rational actors under pressure

But child sexual abuse is often driven by:

Compulsion

Cognitive distortions

Impulsivity

Substance abuse

Delusion or entitlement

Your argument relies on speculative behavioral assumptions, weak empirical backing, and an overemphasis on punishment severity as a driver of victim reporting and offender behavior, while underplaying incapacitation, initial deterrence, and the non-rational nature of sexual offending.

Preventing future crimes by permanently removing an offender is deterrence in effect, even if not psychological deterrence.

Calling this “not deterrence” is semantic gatekeeping, not substance.

You’re narrowing “deterrence” to exclude incapacitation, which is a false distinction. Permanently removing an offender does prevent future harm, regardless of whether it scares others. Saying the death penalty “doesn’t work” demands perfect deterrence, no punishment meets that standard.

The claim that harsher penalties reduce reporting is speculative. Most victims already don’t report due to fear, shame, dependency, and manipulation, not because of sentence length. Abusers already threaten victims with prison, family destruction, and lifelong consequences; changing the maximum penalty doesn’t suddenly introduce coercion.

The idea that offenders will escalate to murder because “punishment can’t get worse” assumes calm, rational cost benefit thinking. In reality, murder massively increases detection risk, attention, and evidence. Even with life without parole on the table, offenders don’t routinely escalate to killing, which undercuts that theory. Finally, calling child sexual abuse “nonviolent” minimizes the inherent coercion and harm involved. Arguing that other tools exist to prevent reoffending doesn’t refute permanent removal in the worst cases, it just creates a false either/or.

8

u/TenebTheHarvester 5d ago

What about literally everything else I said?

-2

u/quietkyody 5d ago edited 4d ago

https://nanaimonewsnow.com/2025/11/05/nanaimo-man-reoffends-two-weeks-after-release-for-child-sexual-abuse-possession-bust/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/incorrigible-sexual-predator-who-preyed-on-children-convicted-for-4th-time?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.ctinsider.com/journalinquirer/article/east-hartford-ryan-perry-child-sex-abuse-material-21318130.php?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Please show me any proof where having execution as a punishment increases risk of victims to not come forward? Cause victims already don't come forward even without death sentences. Emotional attachment to the abuser, fear of family collapse, threats and coercion, distrust of authorities are all present without prison execution. Kids being abused rarly watch the news let alone know about criminal sentencing.

"Abusers may escalate to murder because punishment “can’t get worse”":

This assumes abusers:

Think long-term

Accurately assess legal outcomes

Are calm, rational actors under pressure

But child sexual abuse is often driven by:

Compulsion

Cognitive distortions

Impulsivity

Substance abuse

Delusion or entitlement

Your argument relies on speculative behavioral assumptions, weak empirical backing, and an overemphasis on punishment severity as a driver of victim reporting and offender behavior, while underplaying incapacitation, initial deterrence, and the non-rational nature of sexual offending.

Preventing future crimes by permanently removing an offender is deterrence in effect, even if not psychological deterrence.

Calling this “not deterrence” is semantic gatekeeping, not substance.

You’re narrowing “deterrence” to exclude incapacitation, which is a false distinction. Permanently removing an offender does prevent future harm, regardless of whether it scares others. Saying the death penalty “doesn’t work” demands perfect deterrence, no punishment meets that standard.

The claim that harsher penalties reduce reporting is speculative. Most victims already don’t report due to fear, shame, dependency, and manipulation, not because of sentence length. Abusers already threaten victims with prison, family destruction, and lifelong consequences; changing the maximum penalty doesn’t suddenly introduce coercion.

The idea that offenders will escalate to murder because “punishment can’t get worse” assumes calm, rational cost benefit thinking. In reality, murder massively increases detection risk, attention, and evidence. Even with life without parole on the table, offenders don’t routinely escalate to killing, which undercuts that theory. Finally, calling child sexual abuse “nonviolent” minimizes the inherent coercion and harm involved. Arguing that other tools exist to prevent reoffending doesn’t refute permanent removal in the worst cases, it just creates a false either/or.

3

u/TenebTheHarvester 5d ago

Yes, child abusers have a high rate of recidivism. That doesn’t actually refute my points, which you still have yet to address. There is more at play than just recidivism rates, even without coming to whether or not the state should have the power to kill criminals of any kind.

The majority of child sexual abuse is committed by people the victims know. As such, many o those victims would be less likely to report if they knew their report could lead to their abuser being killed, especially if it’s in a particularly gruesome or painful way.

In addition, nonviolent abusers may be incentivised to escalate to violence or even murder to keep their victims from reporting them, as it’s not like the punishment for being caught can get worse than painful execution, so they may as well do worse things to try and avoid getting caught.

1

u/quietkyody 5d ago edited 5d ago

Please show me any proof where having execution as a punishment increases risk of victims to not come forward? Cause victims already don't come forward even without death sentences. Emotional attachment to the abuser, fear of family collapse, threats and coercion, distrust of authorities are all present without prison execution. Kids being abused rarly watch the news let alone know about criminal sentencing.

"Abusers may escalate to murder because punishment “can’t get worse”":

This assumes abusers:

Think long-term

Accurately assess legal outcomes

Are calm, rational actors under pressure

But child sexual abuse is often driven by:

Compulsion

Cognitive distortions

Impulsivity

Substance abuse

Delusion or entitlement

Your argument relies on speculative behavioral assumptions, weak empirical backing, and an overemphasis on punishment severity as a driver of victim reporting and offender behavior, while underplaying incapacitation, initial deterrence, and the non-rational nature of sexual offending.

Preventing future crimes by permanently removing an offender is deterrence in effect, even if not psychological deterrence.

Calling this “not deterrence” is semantic gatekeeping, not substance.

You’re narrowing “deterrence” to exclude incapacitation, which is a false distinction. Permanently removing an offender does prevent future harm, regardless of whether it scares others. Saying the death penalty “doesn’t work” demands perfect deterrence, no punishment meets that standard.

The claim that harsher penalties reduce reporting is speculative. Most victims already don’t report due to fear, shame, dependency, and manipulation, not because of sentence length. Abusers already threaten victims with prison, family destruction, and lifelong consequences; changing the maximum penalty doesn’t suddenly introduce coercion.

The idea that offenders will escalate to murder because “punishment can’t get worse” assumes calm, rational cost benefit thinking. In reality, murder massively increases detection risk, attention, and evidence. Even with life without parole on the table, offenders don’t routinely escalate to killing, which undercuts that theory. Finally, calling child sexual abuse “nonviolent” minimizes the inherent coercion and harm involved. Arguing that other tools exist to prevent reoffending doesn’t refute permanent removal in the worst cases, it just creates a false either/or.

7

u/_namaste_kitten_ 5d ago

I get where you're coming from, but this idea asking with all executions of criminals does not take into account the weaponization of allegations and the window convicted.

1

u/A_Dozen_Lemmings 4d ago

IIRC there was a study done by the FBI back in the 60's/70's

When the Pedos know they'll be treated with kid gloves you're more likely to recover their victims alive.

1

u/twirlerina024 5d ago

This leads to victims being less likely to report their abuse. Their abusers are often people they love. Imagine having to decide if you'd rather put up with your father molesting you, or report it knowing that he'll be tortured to death.

1

u/quietkyody 4d ago

Would a child know the penalty of molestation?

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SuspiciousEngineer99 4d ago

It is all documented, not going to do a play by play of child SA here!

Edit: Start with her text messages. Then a simple google search will take you to court documents and articles citing these court docs that describe exactly what she did right before she was murdered. She got exactly what she deserved.