“I’m a monster,” pedophile facing indefinite jail time

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

KITCHENER, Can.– A pedophile who has been convicted twice for sexually abusing boys now says he is willing to get intensive treatment.

Records show that the judge was told there is no way of telling if multiple-time sex offender, Dan Magda, will actually follow through with his claim.

The 40-year-old got out of jail in 2008 after sexually abusing three boys for almost a decade starting in 1994.

When he got out, he victimized two more boys – ages 10 and 3 – after he was released for good behavior.

Magda was caught abusing those boys after one of the boys’ older brothers discovered the digital camera that Magda used to record videos and take pictures of the mistreatment.

‘I’m a monster,’ Kitchener pedophile told psychiatrist Dr. Derek Pallandi.

Crown prosecutor Karey Katzsch wants Magda declared a dangerous offender subject to indefinite detention rather than a set period in prison.

However, defense lawyer Bruce Ritter is seeking a lesser long-term offender designation, which involves a definite prison sentence followed by 10 years of community supervision.

According to insidehalton.com, Magda admitted to abusing crystal meth and other substances, and acknowledged a sexual attraction to boys that requires treatment.

Magda told the doctor he is open to intensive treatment including drugs to reduce his sex drive, which would give him a “much higher” chance of not re-offending.

“I hate it. I’m the worst person in society,” Magda said.

But under cross-examination, Pallandi agreed that Magda may just be saying what he thinks he has to say in order to avoid being locked up indefinitely.

A third option for Justice Michael Epstein is to declare Magda a dangerous offender, but sentence him to a set prison term followed by life on parole.

The case is said to be scheduled to resume in March with final arguments by the Crown and defense, or a possible constitutional challenge by Ritter to the dangerous offender law.