View Full Version : 10 months for kiddie porn producer
Why?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53070
Dudeskey
11-26-2006, 03:26 PM
Damn, death by firing squad would have been better
loborugger
11-26-2006, 04:33 PM
Dude, it came from worldnetdaily... you cant trust that as an accurate source of news.
Seriously, I thought NC was tougher on criminals than that. What a shame.
However, I am sure he will reform, and never do it again.
From the Asheville NC Citizen-Times:
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200661102091
All WND did was look behind the story a bit and find out who defended this scumbag.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-26-2006, 07:50 PM
Dude, it came from worldnetdaily... you cant trust that as an accurate source of news.
Seriously, I thought NC was tougher on criminals than that. What a shame.
However, I am sure he will reform, and never do it again.
That's a pretty stupid statement to make. It's easily verifiable.
Here's a little stiffer sentence that should make everyone happy.....
-------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2006
What ever happened to state constitutional law, textualism, and libertarianism?
As noted here, yesterday the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a former Phoenix high school teacher's claim that his 200-year prison sentence for possessing child pornography violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." All three opinion in Arizona v. Berger, No. CR-05-0101-PR (Ariz. May 10, 2006) (available here) are fascinating, thoughtful, and worth the time to read if interested in these issues. (Based on Berger and earlier Blakely work, perhaps the entire Arizona Supreme Court might merit a place in my Sentencing Hall of Fame.)
Though much could be said about Berger, three particular issues/questions came to mind as I reflected on the ruling and the Arizona Justices' opinions:
1. What about state constitutional law? Throughout Berger, the Arizona Justices seem to struggle with the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and hint that, absent controlling SCOTUS rulings, the case might have been resolved differently. This led me to wonder about the distinct provision in the Arizona Constitution prohibiting the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment." Though bound by SCOTUS interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, the Arizona Justices have a unique authority and obligation to interpret state constitutional provisions (and many state supreme courts have provided defendants enhanced rights based on parallel state constitutional provisions). Did a state constitutional law claim get raised in Berger? Could (and should) the Arizona Justices have taken up the issue sua sponte even if not raised below?
2. What about textualism? Throughout Berger, the Arizona Justices debate whether there was "gross disproportionality" in the 200-year sentence. Though this is the focal point of modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, I am always troubled that the actual constitutional text gets lost in these cases. The opinions in Berger make clear that a 200-year sentence for a first-offender downloading terrible pictures is "unusual"; it also seems kind of "cruel." This textualism concern dovetails with point 1 above: though perhaps bound to ignore the actual text of the Eighth Amendment, the Arizona Justices certainly could (and should?) give distinctive attention to the text of Arizona's constitution prohibition on inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment."
3. What about libertarianism? Shouldn't libertarians and folks concerned about privacy issues (such as those who blog here and here and here) be troubled by this case? The defendant's criminal conduct in Berger essentially consisted of downloading the wrong type of dirty pictures using his computer in the privacy of his own home. For this he gets a mandatory 200-year sentence, which apparently cannot even be reduced through a pardon or clemency under Arizona law. Though it is well-settled that simply possessing child pornography can be a crime, shouldn't those who argue for constitutional limits on government power be troubled by how severely Arizona is punishing Mr. Berger?
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/ycvdfx)
200 years is too much. 20-40 would be sufficient.
Doesn't excuse the fact that a ring of Democrats worked together to get a fellow Democrat an incredibly light sentence for producing kiddie porn.
Barry Ramey
11-26-2006, 10:46 PM
This doesn't surprise me. It's democrats in the 10-12 or states that still don't have Jessica's Law, that are fighting against it, most notably in New York, Mass. and Vermont. And yet they wonder why they are labeled as soft on crime. It's well earned label. Many of course are the lefties of the democratic party who don't believe there are bad people(well only republicans are bad people and even terrorists are excused) and can rehabilitate and "fix" people, including those types of people who are into child porn, though I don't believe I have heard of a case of someone being reformed from such activity, much less a vast number.
enjolras
11-26-2006, 11:27 PM
So you seriously beleive that locking away someone for LIFE for simply posessing child porn is good policy? Is that justice? Is that American fairness?
The problem is that the right casts anything as less than the death penalty for any crime as being 'soft' on crime. There is more to justice than punishment.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-26-2006, 11:31 PM
200 years is too much. 20-40 would be sufficient.
Why? Did he assault anyone? Did he do anything outside of the privacy of his own home (or inside) to harm anyone in any way? How do you determine what the punishment should be for someone looking at pictures of minors inside their own home?
I thought Libertarians were against government regulating what we do inside our own homes?
I thought Libertarians were against government regulating what we do inside our own homes?
Gee, I guess if I murder my family inside my own home, the libertarians wouldn't have a problem with it, right?
The creation of kiddie porn is criminal, and this guy was helping to create a market for that. No, it's not like using pot.
enjolras
11-27-2006, 01:33 AM
Libertarianism is lagely about defending liberty, including the right to not be exploited as a child. You can hardly argue that a libertarian would be in favor of allowing people to possess child porn.
They would (as I have) argue that we need to ensure that our justice system is doling out justice and not revenge. Putting someone away for decades isn't about justice...
Bronco_Beerslug
11-27-2006, 08:09 AM
Gee, I guess if I murder my family inside my own home, the libertarians wouldn't have a problem with it, right?
The creation of kiddie porn is criminal, and this guy was helping to create a market for that. No, it's not like using pot.He didn't "create" anything according to the article, he had pictures on his computer and in his home. There was NO evidence he paid anyone anything for the pictures. So exactly how was he "helping to create a market"?
loborugger
11-27-2006, 10:07 AM
That's a pretty stupid statement to make. It's easily verifiable.
Easy, grumpy grumpenstein. It was said tongue in cheek - as I have seen that statement made on here times before regarding the news source.
He didn't "create" anything according to the article, he had pictures on his computer and in his home.
Since the creation of kiddie porn is a priori immoral, those who have it, whether or not they paid for it, are aiding and abetting an immoral act.
If you're trying to get me to claim that this scumbag isn't, you're not going to get very far.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-27-2006, 11:16 AM
Since the creation of kiddie porn is a priori immoral, those who have it, whether or not they paid for it, are aiding and abetting an immoral act.
If you're trying to get me to claim that this scumbag isn't, you're not going to get very far.
So where do you draw the line at government intrusion into your home and how do you arrive at 40 years being justified for possessing disgusting pictures?
BroncoBuff
11-27-2006, 11:48 AM
You're missing an important point: If it was a plea-bargain, the prosecutor must have agreed.
BroncoBuff
11-27-2006, 11:50 AM
200 years is too much. 20-40 would be sufficient.
Doesn't excuse the fact that a ring of Democrats worked together to get a fellow Democrat an incredibly light sentence for producing kiddie porn.
I agree with all of that. The "producing" part is pretty troubling. Maybe a life sentence would be better.
enjolras
11-27-2006, 12:32 PM
Ya.. if your PRODUCING child porn, then you need to be dealt with harshly. If your WATCHING child porn, that seems different to me. It should definitely be dealt with (just like fencing stolen merchandise is), but I see very little benefit to society if you lock them up for several decades.
It seems like a few months in jail, and a LOT of mandatory medical therapy is in order. It's likely this guy has something else going on that needs to be dealt with... deal with the problem instead of simply trying to hide these people away in prison.
So where do you draw the line at government intrusion into your home
If what I'm doing in my home doesn't involve an immoral act, and doesn't require that something immoral be done to enable me to do it, then the State hasn't any business inside my house. Do you find that difficult to accept?
and how do you arrive at 40 years being justified for possessing disgusting pictures?
Maybe 20 years instead. Protecting children from scum like this guy is important.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-27-2006, 12:53 PM
If what I'm doing in my home doesn't involve an immoral act, and doesn't require that something immoral be done to enable me to do it, then the State hasn't any business inside my house. Do you find that difficult to accept?Listen, I myself can't understand how people could get off on looking at child pornography. But how far do you let the government go in the name of looking for or stopping crime?
Maybe 20 years instead. Protecting children from scum like this guy is important.Isn't this a little like pre-crime prosecution? I mean is your concern based on what he may do in the future?
But how far do you let the government go in the name of looking for or stopping crime?
I don't know how the government determined this guy had kiddie porn. Are there details in the article you posted?
What's your take on his punishment, if any?
Isn't this a little like pre-crime prosecution? I mean is your concern based on what he may do in the future?
No.
Spider
11-27-2006, 01:39 PM
well I heard the Republicans are all on the same Page on this issue ..........
Spider
11-27-2006, 01:47 PM
You're missing an important point: If it was a plea-bargain, the prosecutor must have agreed.
yeah somthing was up with this case , personaly i think this scumbag should do some hard labor , my stance would be i dont know if he passed this material on or not , dont want ot take the chance ....... 5 years in the pen , 12 years probation , and computer use only at a libary or hospitial ...........
Bronco_Beerslug
11-27-2006, 01:59 PM
I don't know how the government determined this guy had kiddie porn. Are there details in the article you posted?
What's your take on his punishment, if any? On your link? Since he didn't actually rape any kids, a life sentence or the death penalty is probably not called for. But since he abused his position as a trusting adult and had these kids in his presence he needed to do some serious time. One year is far too lenient! Something like a 5 to 10 year sentence with 10 years of probation would seem more appropriate. The other adults speaking out and defending him need to find a book on what's right and what's wrong and read it.