What it takes to get 15 years in prison

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Saturday, June 5, 2010

The man who shot a Fairfax County cabdriver to death, after he couldn't pay his $130 fare, was sentenced Friday in Fairfax Circuit Court to 15 years in prison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404868.html?hpid=sec-metro

Quote:

In the fall of 2008, Congress again passed legislation relating to child pornography
offenders. The PROTECT Our Children Act created a new offense at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(7)
with a statutory maximum of 15 years, which made it unlawful to knowingly produce with
intent to distribute, or to knowingly distribute, “child pornography that is an adapted or
modified depiction of an identifiable minor” (“morphed image”).226

http://www.ussc.gov/general/20091030_History_Child_Pornography_Guidelines.pdf

Let's see....blowing away a guy with a gunshot to the back of the head....photo shopping kiddie porn.

Sounds like equivalent evil to me.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,314 • Replies: 23

[+3] - Intrepid - 06/05/2010Yeah, Hawk. I agree. I knew you would finally get it.

@hawkeye10,

Yeah, Hawk. I agree. I knew you would finally get it.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I am not sure what one sentence has to do with the other and I would cheerfully support the death sentence for anyone who raped a child under 11 or so. And I do not care about any pedophile nonsense about a young child being able to consent to sex with an adult.

I do think that in the US we had gone overboard however with the child porn laws and we should follow the example of Europe where they divided such pictures by age and by subject into 1 to 5 levels.

One is just naked pictures of under age children and five is pictures of young children being both raped and tortured.

Twenty years seem about right for someone with a collection pictures of infants being raped, however a picture of a 16 years old having sex without force should get a warning or some such as happen in Europe.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

One need not agree with me as the what the laws should be, what this societies approach to sexuality should be, to agree that our sex laws are whack. As far as I am concerned success for now would be a honest conversation on the subject. I am not unreasonable.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

We both are in agreement that the child porn laws are not sane in the US at least and seem to being used to fill up our prisons beyond the 2 percent or so of our total male population and as an excuse to greatly increased the monitoring of our whole society on and off the internet.

I been keeping an eye on the subject by the way of google news and been amazed at the otherwise useful citizens being catch up in this net.

The most amusing is an FBI IT employee who was found to be using the FBI computer net to download child porn!!!!!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You seem to have a need to discuss the subject of child pornography over and over again. This is the second thread you started on the topic. This was the first
http://able2know.org/topic/145093-1

One problem is, you don't view the child pornography itself as harmful to the children depicted. Punishing distribution and possession is one way of trying to curb production of the material and stopping sexual abuse and exploitation of the children involved.

I do believe that statute you cited refers to a mandatory maximum sentence for child pornography--that means the sentence can't be more than 15 years, but it can be considerably less. Most people convicted of possession of child pornography under state laws serve sentences which are under 3 years. The problem is that the federal laws may result in stiffer sentences than the state laws because of higher mandatory minimum sentences on the federal level. It is not that the laws are wrong, it is more that we need better consistency and coordination among the existing laws.

I believe that child pornography in the U.S. may be rated on a scale which is similar to, or the same as, what is used in Europe.

And yes, I do believe that someone who produces and distributes child pornography might warrant a 15 year prison sentence.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Firefly I do not know why Hawkeye is interested in the subject for myself there are a number of reasons.

The charging or the threatening of charging 17 years old girls who send pictures of themselves to their 19 years old boyfriends with child porn charges. Having sex between them is not illegal in a large areas of the US but taking a sexual picture is. That is insane.

Not having in the US grading of pictures as is done in Europe so someone is facing the same level of charges for having a collection 15 to 17 years old naked and or having sex with someone with a collection of infants being raped.

The raiding of homes and putting people through hell with like proof that they have child porn. Having someone used your credit cards without your permission for example is not uncommon someone once used one of mine to buys goods in Japan.

Now if that had occur where the thieves instead of buying electronic had purchase child porn instead of getting a call from the credit card company my door would had been broken down at 2 AM by the FBI and that is insane.

The used of internet trading of child porn as an excuse to greatly increase the power of government to monitor all of us to a far greater degree.

From a google news search the amazing, to me, numbers of people who are being charge with this crime from all walks of life.

Then as a computer security nut it also amazed me that people who know they have materials on their computers that can get them send always for 20 years do not used freely available tools to encrypted their drives.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Firefly I do not know why Hawkeye is interested in the subject for myself there are a number of reasons

I am interested in this subject for multiple reasons, on multiple levels, from multiple angles.

The last straw for me was a few years back when I read about a husband/wife in a master/slave relationship. a neighbor called the cops, and the cops arrested the husband. The DA charged the husband and put in a no contact order. The husband was convicted, did time, and then had a multiple year no contact order after that. I think that they finally got together again after the order ran out.

This is after the wife told everyone all along that she consented, that she did not think that her husband did anything wrong. The courts found that she could not consent because she had been manipulated into agreeing. The courts decided that she did not know her own mind, took away her right to choose, then locked away the husband and I believe made him a sex offender for life.

I am against the state abusing its citizens. I am against allowing do-gooders decide for other people what they should want. I am against punishing a man because a couple did what they wanted to do in the bedroom.

I want the police to stay out of my bedroom, and I am appalled that in 2010 we are still in a position where we need to fight for this individual right.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

We tend to take a good idea and run it into the ground do we not be that idea the fight against child porn ending up charging children with the crime or the courts issuing no contact orders to protect women and ending up keeping married couples apart against both of their wishes over minor matters.

The case of the then New York mayor is interesting as he was in the kitchen one morning trying to open a cardboard box containing tea when his wife who he been fighting with make some nasty comments about his lack of ability to open the box.

He then unwisely throw said box in her direction causing a small cut on her forehead

When the smoke clear they both was order not to have any contact with each other and they needed to have two sets of lawyers fight to have the order removed with the DA fighting to keep a married couple apart against both of their wishes over a thrown cardboard box.

This was the first time I hear of courts ordering married couple to have no contact against both of their wills.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The state decides for itself that there is a victim to protect, even when that person objects to being labeled a victim, and then based upon what it considers its right to invade every corner of life with-in its borders to protect victims.... it does so. It was only a generation ago that the state only did this for children victims, on the grounds that parents are fallible and it is reasonable for the state to go the extra mile to protect children who sometimes can not look out for themselves. Debatable but at least this made some sense. Boy has the state taken the ball and run with it. The state now maintains the right to insert itself anywhere it finds a victim, which in practice means anywhere they want to go because a victim is in the eye of the beholder once the actual alleged victim no longer has the right to decide for themselves if they are a victim. The alleged victim will of course still be forced to endure the gauntlet of the self proclaimed guardians of the victims as they use every manipulative trick in the book to create a new supplicant. The victim creation business is a full fledged industry, it is a career for a large number of people who need constant new blood to stay in business. Thus the ever changing definition of victim, as they run out of prospects on the old definitions.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Well when it come to adults I tend to agree with you as we seem not to have decided if growth women are or are not able to take care of themselves for example.

Rules that GPs for example should not be allow to date their patients or college professors who does not teach a class for the students in question should not be allow to date an adult college student does not made sense if we view women as adults.

Now when it come to protecting young children from sexual predators or others such harm coming from in or out side of the family the state surely does have a role.

0 Replies

When government was brought forth on this continent
photografy did not exist. People were able to draw pictures
and had done so for a while.

I earnestly and sincerely believe when government was created
here, it was not given any jurisdiction that can be used to interfere with photography,
when eventually it was invented, the same as freedom of speech and opinion exists on radio & TV.

If any crime is photographed, robbery, murder, etc.
the criminals shoud be prosecuted for that crime, not for photography thereof.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

If any crime is photographed, robbery, murder, etc.
the criminals shoud be prosecuted for that crime, not for photography thereof.

Child pornography involves at least two crimes. The first crime is the commission of an act of child abuse in order to get images and videos. The second crime is the photographing of such abuse, and the distribution of such images or videos. This involves an invasion of the child's privacy, and each person who views or possesses those images continues to invade the child's privacy. Both types of crimes should be prosecutable.

If you don't prosecute the production of child pornographic images, you have little means of controlling subsequent distribution, or even of controlling the original crimes of child abuse which were photographed or videotaped. In fact, many of these crimes of child abuse are committed mainly for the explicit purpose of photographing them, and then selling and distributing them. You really can't draw a fim line between the original crime of child abuse and the visual images of such abuse.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I want the police to stay out of my bedroom, and I am appalled that in 2010 we are still in a position where we need to fight for this individual right.

What are you doing in your bedroom that would even interest the police? How is your privacy, in your bedroom, actually being violated?

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

If you don't prosecute the production of child pornographic images, you have little means of controlling subsequent distribution, or even of controlling the original crimes of child abuse which were photographed or videotaped. In fact, many of these crimes of child abuse are committed mainly for the explicit purpose of photographing them, and then selling and distributing them. You really can't draw a fim line between the original crime of child abuse and the visual images of such abuse

I think that our willingness to make creating fake pics of children engaged in sexual acts a 15 years in prison crime that all this talk about protecting children is a lot of hooey. We don't like people who are sexually attracted to kids, and we want to ring them up regardless of whether they ever have or are likely to ever negatively impact a kid or not. I appreciate the earnestness of your "we must protect the children" sales pitch, but since this is not the motivation for what we do, and since you can not show any evidence that this massive violation of the individual that is conducted under the rationalization of protecting the kids actually protects kids, the substance of your argument is not impressive.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am interested in this subject for multiple reasons, on multiple levels, from multiple angles.

...because that's how Hawk shoots his videos.

0 Replies

@firefly,

I love your name.
We call them Lightning Bugs here in NY.
Thay are always VERY WELCOME every summer.

David wrote:

If any crime is photographed, robbery, murder, etc.
the criminals shoud be prosecuted for that crime, not for photography thereof.

firefly wrote:

Child pornography involves at least two crimes.
The first crime is the commission of an act of child abuse in order to get images and videos.

Let 's try some thought experiments, for purpose of analysis, to see how the logic lays out.
When I was a kid, it never occurred to me to make money that way.
I had cameras lying around, but did not use them much.
I did not need extra cash. I had everything I wanted, but suppose that
I had used a camera to augment my cash supply selling pictures of myself, using mirrors or a tri-pod stand.

Was government ever granted jurisdiction to interfere with me (other than taxation) ?
How did government get any such political power over me ?

firefly wrote:

The second crime is the photographing of such abuse,

If I 'm birdwatching, with a camera, and I see a crime thru my telescopic lens
(maybe a robbery or a murder or an assault or a kidnapping)
do I have a moral duty to STOP taking pictures, because abuse is occurring?

When I was about 13, I had a friend (an Italian kid named Joe, who lived next door), a few months younger
than I was, who complained to me that his father beat him, sometimes jokingly.
If I had a camera handy, shoud I make a particular point of NOT
photographing his father slapping him because slapping is abuse ?

firefly wrote:

and the distribution of such images or videos.

For ease n simplicity, let 's consider it first on a non-sexual basis.
We can integrate sex in later in our analysis.

1. If I see a criminal breaking an adult 's arm, MORALLY,
must I take no picture thereof because it is abuse? or invasion of privacy ?

2. If I see a criminal breaking a child 's arm, MORALLY,
must I take no picture thereof because it is abuse? or invasion of privacy ?

3. Same question as to robbery of an adult?

4. Same question as to robbery of a child?

firefly wrote:

This involves an invasion of the child's privacy,

IF there is no sexual activity going on and if the child negotiates and sells his privacy and is paid for it,
do u see a moral violation? If the child takes the pictures himself, or hires someone to do it?

Is the morality of it changed
if the child is raping the adult?

firefly wrote:

and each person who views or possesses those images
continues to invade the child's privacy.

For the sake of argument, what if the child sells the images?

firefly wrote:

Both types of crimes should be prosecutable.
If you don't prosecute the production of child pornographic images,
you have little means of controlling subsequent distribution

Do the rights of the citizens to be left alone
depend on the convenience of the police ?

firefly wrote:

or even of controlling the original crimes of child abuse which were photographed or videotaped.

If thay find out that a crime has been committed, then thay shoud investigate that crime.
That does not affect the validity of the First Amendment.

firefly wrote:

In fact, many of these crimes of child abuse are committed mainly for the explicit purpose of photographing them, and then selling and distributing them.

What if a picture is drawn, or painted, or sculpted in stone, not photographed?
How is the morality of the situation affected ?

firefly wrote:

You really can't draw a fim line between the original crime of child abuse
and the visual images of such abuse.

I do not follow your reasoning. Perhaps u will elucidate.

David

1 Reply

Quote:

Child sexual abuse is any interaction between a child and an adult (or another child) in which the
child is used for the sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or an observer.

http://www.nctsnet.org/nctsn_assets/pdfs/caring/ChildSexualAbuseFactSheet.pdf

An increasingly common definition which is alleged adult erotic malfunction centric and not harm to children centric. They get points for honesty, but once we buy this horseshit we are guaranteeing the elimination of what remains of the individual's right to be free.

as we see from the 15 years prison for photo shopping inappropriate pics no interaction with a child is required for the charge of child abuse, so the above definition is out of date already.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Child sexual abuse is any interaction between a child and an adult (or another child) in which the
child is used for the sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or an observer.
http://www.nctsnet.org/nctsn_assets/pdfs/caring/ChildSexualAbuseFactSheet.pdf

An increasingly common definition which is alleged adult erotic malfunction centric and not harm to children centric. They get points for honesty, but once we buy this horseshit we are guaranteeing the elimination of what remains of the individual's right to be free.

as we see from the 15 years prison for photo shopping inappropriate pics no interaction with a child is required for the charge of child abuse, so the above definition is out of date already.

I know of a fellow who served over a year in prison
for going to have a roll of film developed, which unbeknownst to him
included nude pictures that his child took of herself.

David

1 Reply

I heard of a case, in which someone had a pornografic image
of a male adult, from a paper magazine, whose head he had replaced
with the face of a child. He was convicted and imprisoned for child porn,
according to what I heard.

0 Replies

Forums
» What it takes to get 15 years in prison

Read Discussion
Reply to All

What it takes to get 15 years in prison

Quick Links

My Account

able2know