Sidebar

John Grisham says child porn sentences too harsh

twofbyc

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,371
187
TIDE-HSV said:
IDK. I'd feel differently about the guy if he'd done a search for, for example, 10 year old girls. 16 is a very recent and artificial age of consent (and adulthood). There are guys under a life sentence for "abuse" of a girl when the girl was 16 and the guy was 17. That's stupid. 16 used to be an "old lady," because people rarely lived far into their 30s. His search wasn't wise and it probably was inspired by alcohol, but a life sentence for it is totally absurd...
Click to expand...
I was 18, she was 15...nothing else to say, 3 years is not that big of a difference, and certainly not one for which anyone should be labeled a "child molester". 16 and 13? Maybe, that's a different area because one is barely a teen. Even 17 and 14 is a gray area IMO.
Teens are going to have sex, they always have and they always will. Does it make it "right"? I think each case should be decided on its own, not a blanket condemnation or approval. I do not think it falls in the same category as a 50 year old having sex/molesting a 10 year old. I don't care what the laws say.
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,606
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I can see your point, but calling it 'a life sentence' is overly dramatic - one lives with the choices they make. I've (sadly) had a few too many several time in my life, but I've not desired this sort of behavior.

I know you're passionate about this, and I am as well, so I'll leave it at this - in our society, 16 year old children are called to be protected, and I believe they should be. Just as I said to CBI1972, my mind won't be changed on this ones and I've said my piece, so I guess I'll leave you guys to defend this behavior.
Click to expand...
You don't get to fire those bolts and run. :) Calling it a life sentence is most certainly not overly dramatic at all. It's obvious you haven't familiarized yourself with the lifelong penalties they go through. I was not kidding at all about the guys in Miami being forced to live under a bridge. It's true. And it can happen to a 17 year old for sexting a pic of his 16 year old girlfriend. And I'm not defending any behavior at all. I'm saying that, as a lawyer, I think the whole field has gotten distorted. It's gotten almost to the ridiculous punishments in merrye olde England, which my forebears fled. I can say that and I'm probably the only member posting who's had a child fall victim to a predator. I'm also probably the only one really familiar with the laws also, since Grisham isn't posting...
 
PacadermaTideUs

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
Crimson1967 said:
I'm glad things worked out for you, Pacaderma, but sadly there will be people who heard of the accusations who may have some idea in their mind that something might have happened even though you were 100% innocent. Where there's smoke, there's fire. It is especially sad your nieces were forced into dealing with things they shouldn't have been exposed to at that age.

Although she never did anything that extreme, I did get involved with a crazy woman one time. I really can't go into detail, but things did get bad, though it had the potential to get much worse. Luckily, it was around this time I met the woman to whom I am now married (20 years and counting), so it was easier to break it off since there was no desire to be with her at all anymore.
Click to expand...
Yes, there will be. Just as I believed her about her ex before me, and just as the guy after me believed her about me (until it happened to him and he sought me out to compare notes), and just as her attorneys and women's support groups, assault victims' advocates, etc believed about me at the time. That's her shtick. Garner sympathy and recruit advocacy with a manufactured sob story until she's tired of those sympathizers and advocates and moves on to the next suckers to advocate for her against the last ones.
 
crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,451
67,349
462
crimsonaudio.net
TIDE-HSV said:
You don't get to fire those bolts and run. :) Calling it a life sentence is most certainly not overly dramatic at all. It's obvious you haven't familiarized yourself with the lifelong penalties they go through.
Click to expand...
I have, in fact. As mentioned above, I know someone branded as a sex offender for peeing off his back porch at night...

The difference in our views is where the line is drawn - you're (apparently) for a more lenient approach for some violations, while I draw the line at intent - if someone inadvertently ends up with some pornographic pictures in their internet cache, images that are like the ones in this case where it's difficult to discern the age of the minor in question, then that's one thing. It's a different thing, however, if someone searches for pornographic images of a minor, as happened in this case.

in the first example above, it was an innocent accident - the person wasn't searching for those images, but they stumbled upon them unknowingly. In the second, the person intended to find these images and proactively downloaded them, contributing to the exploitation of a minor (or minors). I have zero issue if the people who do the latter end up with an albatross around their neck, so to speak, as I believe that's abnormal behavior and people should be aware of the presence of such people in their area.
 
Last edited:
cbi1972

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,144
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
crimsonaudio said:
in the first example above, it was an innocent accident - the person wasn't searching for those images, but they stumbled upon them unknowingly. In the second, the person intended to find these images and proactively downloaded them, contributing to the exploitation of a minor (or minors). I have zero issue if the people who do the latter end up with an albatross around their neck, so to speak, as I believe that's abnormal behavior and people should be aware of the presence of such people in their area.
Click to expand...
The data suggests that prohibition is more contributory to exploitation than proactive seeking of the material.
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,606
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
crimsonaudio said:
I have, in fact. As mentioned above, I know someone branded as a sex offender for peeing off his back porch at night...

The difference in our views is where the line is drawn - you're (apparently) for a more lenient approach for some violations, while I draw the line at intent - if someone inadvertently ends up with some pornographic pictures in their internet cache, images that are like the ones in this case where it's difficult to discern the age of the minor in question, then that's one thing. It's a different thing, however, if someone searches for pornographic images of a minor, as happened in this case.

in the first example above, it was an innocent accident - the person wasn't searching for those images, but they stumbled upon them unknowingly. In the second, the person intended to find these images and proactively downloaded them, contributing to the exploitation of a minor (or minors). I have zero issue if the people who do the latter end up with an albatross around their neck, so to speak, as I believe that's abnormal behavior and people should be aware of the presence of such people in their area.
Click to expand...
I think our difference is really the "lifetime offender" problem. I think there should be more nuance than there presently is. Now it is black or white. You don't really know if your new next-door neighbor went on the register for peeing off his porch or violent rape. Either way, it's lifetime. If you knew it was the former, then you'd yawn. If it were the latter, it'd be "Hide your women" time. It's a very blunt instrument and it was adopted in an atmosphere of hysteria. I think that's what Grisham's trying to say. BTW, there are many lawyers who agree with him...
 
cbi1972

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,144
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
BamainBoston said:
There are times when the argument about abuse and prohibition works (drug use for one), but this is not a victimless crime. Having worked some child porn cases, they are horrible, and the images are not of 16 or 17 year olds. They are babies, toddlers, the youngest of the young. Possession should be hammered; producers should be shot. And as for the concern that you are going to just go to jail because someone sent you a picture, it's not going to happen. Not only is intent necessary, but there are explicit affirmative defenses to prevent such erroneous prosecutions.
Click to expand...
Child sex abuse is not victimless.

Simply looking at a visual depiction is victimless, and given that legal access to materials has been shown to reduce abuse in multiple places where it has been tried, it could even be said to have a negative number of victims.
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,606
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
BamainBoston said:
There are times when the argument about abuse and prohibition works (drug use for one), but this is not a victimless crime. Having worked some child porn cases, they are horrible, and the images are not of 16 or 17 year olds. They are babies, toddlers, the youngest of the young. Possession should be hammered; producers should be shot. And as for the concern that you are going to just go to jail because someone sent you a picture, it's not going to happen. Not only is intent necessary, but there are explicit affirmative defenses to prevent such erroneous prosecutions.

(e) Affirmative Defense.— It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant—
(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction—
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Click to expand...
Where is this coming from? In Alabama, the rule is "a visual depiction." The only statutory affirmative defense is
It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating Sections 13A-12-200.2 and 13A-12-200.3 that the act charged was done for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.
Click to expand...
Again:
(16) SEPARATE OFFENSE. The depiction of an individual less than 17 years of age that violates this division shall constitute a separate offense for each single visual depiction.
Click to expand...
Criminal law is not my field but the Alabama law (which is what matters to me) doesn't seem to gibe with what you've posted...
 
B

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,601
2,259
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
I thought this story would fit here:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/man-guilty-of-owning-sexy-images-of-cart

A man in Britain has been convicted for his fantasies.

Robul Hoque, 39, was found guilty of downloading "prohibited images" of cartoon girls, some in school uniforms, doing dirty deeds. The fact that these manga drawings are available on legitimate sites did not sway the judge. Nor did the fact that—oh yeah—there were no actual humans in the pictures.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize one could violate the rights of cartoons.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,461
13,292
287
Hooterville, Vir.
BamainBoston said:
The federal statute, which most of these cases are prosecuted under. The Alabama law requires knowing possession, which also takes care of the instance some people are concerned about.
Click to expand...
I have to assume that this was enacted under the powers to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."
Is a Federal statute against kiddie porn law really necessary for the government to "regulate commerce ... among the several states?"
 
bamachile

bamachile

Hall of Fame
Jul 27, 2007
7,992
1
55
56
Oakdale, Louisiana
cbi1972 said:
The abuse that has already taken place isn't going to be mitigated or exacerbated by someone viewing an image.
Click to expand...
By the viewing, perhaps not. By the knowledge that one's own personal sexual abuse is being openly viewed, however, comes continual violation of one's person. This is extremely well established, besides being intuitive. The strength of this effect is so overpowering that it has been used by defense teams for sexual predators for centuries to discourage victims from pursuing justice.

I can in no way justify the intentional viewing of child pornography. Accidental contact should reasonably be separated from intentional possession, but intentional viewing is indeed a predatory act.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,461
13,292
287
Hooterville, Vir.
BamainBoston said:
It is commerce, albeit illegal, estimated at $20 billion a year (at least), taking place across the wires and through the mail. Even with your limited views of the Constitution's grant of powers, that Congress has the power to regulate this activity--and in this case ban it--seems without dispute.
Click to expand...
I know. I was just busting your chops.
I still go back to Madison's pronouncement that the clause was intended as a negative power to prevent the importing states from harming the non-importing states, coupled with the uniform and pervasive intent of supporters of the Constitution to carefully limit Federal powers, and find an expansive interpretation of the Federal commerce clause to be inconsistent, and thus, not intended.
It makes no sense to strictly limit Federal powers in every area, and then intentional give the Federal government power to control anything that has a substantial effect of interstate commerce (a power that is simply open-ended),
And yes, I realize that yours is the current view. I just enjoy pointing out the inconsistency.
Not that I favor this nefarious traffic. I just find it exclusively within the states' police powers.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,461
13,292
287
Hooterville, Vir.
BamainBoston said:
It is commerce, albeit illegal, estimated at $20 billion a year (at least), taking place across the wires and through the mail. Even with your limited views of the Constitution's grant of powers, that Congress has the power to regulate this activity--and in this case ban it--seems without dispute.
Click to expand...
And for the record, while I take an extremely narrow view on Federal powers, Federal overreach does have its up side.
An attorney friend of mine (UVa Law grad) told me, when Vick was first charged, if it goes to a Federal court, you watch, he'll fire his initial defense team (hired with a view to defending him in a Virginia state court), and cop a plea, because the cards are stacked against the defense in Federal court, he won't have a chance and his new (Federal) defense team will tell him so.
And so it played out...
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,606
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
BamainBoston said:
The federal statute, which most of these cases are prosecuted under. The Alabama law requires knowing possession, which also takes care of the instance some people are concerned about.
Click to expand...
I think you'd better read the Alabama statute again and more carefully this time:

Section 13A-12-192

Possession and possession with intent to disseminate obscene matter containing visual depiction of persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts.

(a) Any person who knowingly possesses with intent to disseminate any obscene matter that contains a visual depiction of a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado-masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, breast nudity, genital nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be guilty of a Class B felony. Possession of three or more copies of the same visual depiction contained in obscene matter is prima facie evidence of possession with intent to disseminate the same.

(b) Any person who knowingly possesses any obscene matter that contains a visual depiction of a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado-masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, genital nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be guilty of a Class C felony.
Click to expand...
Note the bolded language. Four images make one a prima facie distributor. There is a school teacher from Limestone County presently doing time in an Alabama who had a dozen or so pix which the prosecution convinced the jury involved underage participants, which put him over the limit. BTW, all of the images had been deleted and were recovered by computer experts. So, in the end, it amounts to strict liability. It's Catch 22. Not only will he never be a principal again, he'll never teach school again. The idea that most prosecutions occur under the federal statute is just wrong. There is active prosecution on a continuing basis in Alabama. The only ones which really come up under the federal statute are guys involved in rings of file-swapping groups. The Alabama cases seem to be mostly from disgruntled ex-spouses or someone else who has a grudge against the defendant. Again, I'll state that the present AL statute is flawed and the registration statute needs to be more nuanced instead of black or white...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom