Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

Firefly:
how can we POSSIBLY believe that we live in a FREE Republic
if criminal law is subjective, per the whim of criminal prosecutors or the police????
In other words, if government ultimately decides: "well that 's OK,
because that did not gross us out and it HELPED us in our emotional desires" ??????

Are you suggesting that prosecutorial discretion is a radically new concept,
and one that will alter the course of our "free" Republic?

If I were a US Attorney or a D.A., I 'd apply statutes mechanically,
to everyone, showing favor nor preferences to no one,
but treating everyone equally without discrimination.

I woud not consider myself to have been endowed
with authority to be a SUPER-legislature, amending statutes
nor deciding who is right or rong without judicial process.

Prosecutors must have the ability to control the prosecution: to decide when to bring charges, whether to bring charges in the first place, whether to offer a plea bargain, etc. They have the responsibility to assess the facts and the evidence and decide whether or not a crime has been committed, or whether there is sufficient evidence to convict a person of the alleged crime.

There is certainly and necessarily a measure of subjectivity involved.

If you are saying that the measure of whether to prosecute or not prosecute should be fairly and uniformly applied, without preference to any particular person over another person, I agree that sort of bias should not factor in. But putting aside the issue of favoritism, each case must necessarily be assessed on its own facts, with an eye to the sufficiency of the evidence, how serious the offense is, and the culpability of the defendant.

Prosecutorial decisions cannot be strictly mechanical or formulaic.

Let 's slow down, Firefly: someone says that the complainant
was: "smart enough to take a picture of it" when doing so is a federal FELONY ?
I am taken aback that committing federal felonies is asserted to be "smart".
That is producing child pornografy.

Is there an exception in the statute?
Admittedly, its been quite a while since I read the statute,
but the logic of it indicates to me that both passengers
woud be (figuratively speaking) cellmates for similar federal crimes:
looking at child porn and PRODUCING child porn
(after looking at it).

Do you honestly believe any prosecutor in this Country would prosecute the passenger for "producing" or "reproducing" child porn under these facts?

Or are you just trying to raise a theoretical point?

Actually the kiddie porn laws tend to be written so that do-gooders
who claim to be trying to help the state catch pervs are given a free
pass for their porn collection.

Last Friday, a Utah judge signed Smith’s divorce decree against his wife, citing irreconcilable differences. The Smiths have two children, ages 8 and 11, court documents show

Well it's obvious what those 'irreconcilable differences' were, maybe now those poor kids will get the counselling they need. Their lives were over years ago.

The government could never get away with searching all of our email looking for child porn

An of course no one dare to complain as after all this is evil child porn

well worth tearing up the bills or rights over

And the next day he is in first class on a flight to Boston....that folks is one spectacular implosion.

Quote:

And the next day he is in first class on a flight to Boston....that folks is one spectacular implosion.

It does indeed appear to be a spectacular implosion. His child pornography viewing might have been getting out of control, certainly his viewing of it in a public place suggests that might have been the case. Perhaps he wanted to get caught. Maybe this was some sort of cry for help.

Well, the law will help him to curb his viewing habits now, and it will give him a long time to reflect on the nature of his problems.

But, whether this man was self-destructive or not, the behavior he engaged in, by possessing and viewing child pornography, is destructive and abusive toward the children involved in the production of such images. I'm not prepared to see him as the victim, in any regard. And this particular man was educated enough to know he had a problem, and affluent enough to have sought help for that problem. That he failed to do so, and now must face a different set of consequences, is also his responsibility

Quote:

Last Friday, a Utah judge signed Smith’s divorce decree against his wife, citing irreconcilable differences. The Smiths have two children, ages 8 and 11, court documents show

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53011701-78/smith-office-utah-boston.html.csp

And the next day he is in first class on a flight to Boston....that folks is one spectacular implosion.

Well it's obvious what those 'irreconcilable differences' were, maybe now those poor kids
will get the counselling they need. Their lives were over years ago.

My feelings at the time was what a damn waste of human resources and abilities we are witnessing.

It is also sad for all of us that an otherwise highly educate and useful citizen will be lost to the society over this matter.