Medicine Hat Media

Greg Fritzke Gets 15 Months

Former vice-principal Gregory Fritzke has received a 15 month jail sentencing after being convicted of accessing and distributing child pornography.

What do you think about the sentencing? Is it too light for having accessed and distributed child pornography? Will the overall term length lowered by how much time he has already served under house arrest? Would you want to give him a second chance and allow him to teach again? Voice your opinion by leaving a comment and voting on our poll located in the sidebar.

Our past articles on Gregory Fritzke include:

User Comments

17 Responses to “Greg Fritzke Gets 15 Months”

  1. October 29th, 2010 at 11:50 AM

    Taylor says:

    This sentence is waaaaay too lenient. It is kind of a kick in the teeth for anyone with children as well. Obviously he should never be allowed to teach again, and permanent registration as a sex offender and all the restrictions that accompany that label only begin to right the heinous wrongs he has committed against children. Yet another example of why I question the Canadian Justice System.

  2. October 29th, 2010 at 12:53 PM

    StockholmSyndrome Much? says:

    Much too lenient a sentence. Crimes against children are heinous and immoral. Given his profession and position in the church community alone, I’d hoped the justice system would make a precedent here and sentence to fullest extent. The way he walked around, arrogant and proud of his morals and values is disgusting. Especially now knowing what he did behind closed doors. No wonder he wore t-shirts claiming abortion is wrong, he needed those children to be born so he could exploit them. It doesn’t matter if there were 8 or 8,000 pictures on his computer, ONE is too many. There are no excuses. It makes me sick to my stomach to think about.

  3. October 29th, 2010 at 3:06 PM

    Dusty says:

    It does say “accessing and distributing child pornography”, not sexual assault or making it himself – both of which are far worse.

    It’s kind of like drugs? Someone is going to make it, and users will find a way to get it, and there are people in between called “dealers” – who are typically users. When a dealer gets dropped, another takes its place to fill the demand.

    There has been and will be limitations before / after jail. He hasn’t sexually assaulted anyone so the public doesn’t need protecting from him, just that he never be allowed the opportunity to continue spreading this material, and obviously he shouldn’t be allowed to work where minors are.

  4. October 29th, 2010 at 3:28 PM

    StockholmSyndrome Much? says:

    The people who access and distribute it are just as guilty as the ones who actually “create” those images or videos. He participated in an illegal act that necessitated the creation and distribution of these images and videos simply by seeking them out.

    And he wasn’t formally convicted of sexual assault but the report suggests that yes he had unacceptable relations with a young girl; they couldn’t charge him because the law had changed from the time of the alleged assault to the time of the charge (age of consent).

  5. October 29th, 2010 at 3:34 PM

    Sean says:

    If you access it, you are creating the reason as to why people make it, and if you create it then you are providing it to those people who want it.

    Still, there is a world of difference between looking at it and taking matters into your own hands and going to the extreme to “create” it.

  6. October 29th, 2010 at 4:12 PM

    Dusty says:

    No one would choose to have an illegal fetish, people do not choose to be pedos. There’s the argument that this material prevents people born this way from going out and actively getting what they need to float their boat.

    The person making it not only commits the crime of sexual molestation AND / OR exploitation, but also profits from it.

    “position in the church community” – he didn’t actually molest anyone so does this make him better than some priests?

  7. October 29th, 2010 at 4:18 PM

    Herpaderp says:

    It looks to me that this guys charges are already pretty trumped up to begin with. 15 months, without bail, for having some questionable photos (which we don’t know the details or – real or drawn? Realistic or moe-blobs? Holiday snaps or back alley snuff?). We all know the “distribution” charge is overblown as well. Anybody who’s used a torrent program, Kazaa/Limewire, or Napster (for you old folks) is also a distributer of illegal material.

    Considering the minimum penalty for this sort of thing (at least according to section 163) is 14 days in prison, don’t you think this guy’s already had the book thrown at him?

  8. October 29th, 2010 at 4:27 PM

    Vaughn says:

    The sentence was probably longer due to the other charges that have since been dismissed. That being said, anybody convicted of looking at homosexual images, bestiality images, snuff images, images of weird sexual origin should clearly be gaged, bound, tortured and then killed.

  9. October 29th, 2010 at 4:38 PM

    Herpaderp says:

    Speaking of homosexual images… I’m just barely old enough to remember Mr. Leternou(sp), the gay teacher at one of the catholic elementary schools (St. Mary’s). After he was outed he lost his job, his kids, and was ostracized from the community and driven to suicide.

    It’s not really the same situation, but it’s interesting what a difference 15 years makes. The same people that called for the “fag” to be drawn and quartered less than two decades ago are the same ones calling for this guys blood. But I have to wonder… How many of these self-same righteous defenders that want us to “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” have fursuits in the closet, leather dungeons in the basement, force feeding fetishes in the bedroom or rape fantasies in their heads? The arguably victimless crime can be a tricky problem, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the most vocal advocates of this guy’s ruination are the ones with their orn skeletons in the closet.

  10. October 29th, 2010 at 4:41 PM

    Dude says:

    I’m not entirely sure, but I got the impression the volume of images on Greg’s computer was fairly overblown. To all those calling for a harsher sentence, I ask: How harsh are you suggesting? 10 years in prison? Life? What? He wasn’t convicted of molestation or assault of any sort, both of which are likely more common than accessing child pornography, and are far worse offenses. Look up the statistics on how many people are sexually abused in their childhood; it’s huge. We’re surrounded by unconvicted sex offenders. You are probably even friends with one or two. To assume this isn’t true is, simply put, naive. Greg’s punishment has been severe already. House arrest, extreme embarrassment, ostracism from the community, registration as a sex offender, loss of career, nationwide media coverage. Heck, everyone in Alberta knows this guy’s face. I’m not condoning his actions in any way, but don’t you think he has been punished enough? The stigma around this guy will linger for the rest of his life. Jail time is just a slap on the wrist compared to the other punishment he has been subjected to.

  11. October 29th, 2010 at 10:08 PM

    Taylor says:

    I think what makes his crimes so upsetting are the fact that they were crimes against children, not adults that can potentially defend themselves. True, there are worse crimes than accessing inappropriate pictures, but the fact that these pictures featured helpless kids and the fact that Fritzke chose a career involving close, extended contact with kids is understandably upsetting to anyone with kids or with kids in their life.

    Dusty’s comment on the argument that child porn allows people with socially deviant fetishes to satiate their appetites without causing direct harm to the subjects of their desire is a valid one. Except that Fritzke worked with kids. I know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but the fact that he has these attractions AND worked with kids is very troubling, and obviously raises suspicions as to what else he did that he was not convicted for. Overall, every ounce of punishment this man gets is justified, whatever form it has taken, and although I wish it was more severe at least we can hopefully be confident that Fritzke will be unable to re-offend.

  12. October 31st, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    StockholmSyndrome Much? says:

    Taylor you are a smart young woman, I ditto your post above as I couldn’t have said it better!

  13. November 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    Dusty says:

    “I got the impression the volume of images on Greg’s computer was fairly overblown.”

    It was 9 images (illustrated? could be) and one non-pornographic video, were these images temporary files? If so then anyone who has been to 4chan has just as much of this content on their computer.

  14. November 4th, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    Wake up Taylor says:

    Give your head a shake ….what ages were these girls on Greg’s computer? Ask your male “friends” and if they are honest they would have seen way worse. I see a bunch of sit at the internet …. and facebook kind of comments comeing from you aned a few of the other women postes on here… Porn is everywhere so we all should be aware Homeland Security is watching all of us … And ask God for forgivness for your faults…..

  15. November 4th, 2010 at 6:32 PM

    Taylor says:

    1) No one on here is arguing that all porn is bad and everyone who sees it (whether intentional or not) should be punished. Based on your comment, you have clearly missed the point of this debate.

    2)It was child porn, so what does it matter what age the children featured were? If the court decided it was child porn then that’s what it was, and the possession of it is illegal for good reason.

    3) I’m sure most, if not all of the people I know, male or female, have seen “worse” or “equivalent” depending on how you define such relative terms. However, having seen child porn accidentally is a very different animal from seeking it for intentional use and distribution as the court found Fritzke guilty of.

    4) I do not appreciate your gendered comment. Dusty and I are the only obviously female commentators on this article, and that is due to our pictures only. Our genders have no bearing on what we have said. I am a well-educated woman with a valid, carefully considered opinion. I can only wonder why you chose to attack only the comments of the women, and not the others on this page. And since when is having an opinion a fault I should ask God forgiveness for?

    5)Learn how to properly use ellipses.

  16. November 5th, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    Dusty says:

    He’s obviously not paying attention since the only women here have different opinions. :/

    The internet has a cruel sense of humor, so Greg’s intent is something we don’t know. On one hand we don’t know exactly what material he had, whether he was “distributing” it to friends with “lolzy” comments attached, or if he was serious. When I first read the story I was under the impression it was the first because I could tell there was tons of information missing that I thought was necessary for me to properly form an opinion.

    This internet humor applies to a certain kind of internet user which exists in every profession all over the world (not to mention every age, even under 18). Yes, it’s a horrible thing to laugh at, but lots of people do (and far worse), and these are every day people.

    “You are probably even friends with one or two. To assume this isn’t true is, simply put, naive.”

  17. October 7th, 2011 at 1:45 AM

    nobody says:

    The thing is if a guy finds himself addicted porn and the addiction gets more and more bizarre… where can he go for help ???.. if he goes for counselling he is reported immediately.. it is one of the things a counsellor must break the confidentiality code.

Leave a Reply