@oralloy,
Quote:
The law should really be changed so that the taxpayers are always forced to reimburse innocent people for all their legal costs.
I agree with you, if you are referring to people who have been exonerated after having been unjustly convicted of a crime.
BillRM foolishly equates a verdict of "not guilty" with innocence--that's not what that verdict means. It simply means the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean there is no possibility that the person committed the crime. Not only is the O.J. case a good example of that, so is the more recent Casey Anthony case.
But, regarding child pornography, which is what this thread is about, it is far less likely that people are being falsely convicted because the charges rest on the fact that physical evidence of the illegal material was found in the defendant's possession. And a judge must concur that the material is consistent with how the law defines "child pornography". Because there must always be some actual physical evidence to back up a charge of possession of child pornography, the probability of a conviction at trial is always high. So, for this particular type of crime, a plea deal is generally in the defendant's best interests, it will help them to get reduced charges and shorter sentences. And the defendant always has the option of a jury trial.
It's expensive to violate child pornography laws. It's much cheaper not to violate the law.
In the case of this man who is charged with child pornography violations, because of the videos of his own children on his cell phone, we, in the public, don't know exactly what is on that cell phone, in terms of content, or why it was considered to be child pornography, both by the person who reported it the authorities, as well as the law enforcement personnel who viewed it. It is far too premature to assume that the charges are baseless.
The state may decide to continue with a prosecution, or they may not, but, in either case, they are conducting a lawful investigation and the man is being afforded due process. Should they decide to drop the charges, and the defense is convinced this was all the result of a malicious or blatantly inappropriate action by the state, the man does have recourse in civil court--because that's where monetary compensation is decided in our legal system.
But, the mere dropping of charges is not an exoneration--it can mean the state has some evidence of guilt, but not necessarily enough evidence to convince a jury beyond any reasonable doubt. If for instance, it could be shown that the child pornography wasn't really in the person's possession, or they really had no knowledge it had been placed on their cell phone or computer, then the dropping of charges would be an exoneration--and the state is required to publicly exonerate the person under those circumstances--to declare them "innocent"--and to acknowledge that the charges are without any foundation.
When it comes to child pornography crimes, the government already has its hands full. It's hard to imagine why they would bother to level charges that are completely baseless in this area--particularly since they need to justify the charges with some physical evidence of child pornography that satisfies a judge.
Maybe what's on this man's cell phone is genuinely somewhat ambiguous regarding whether it's child pornography or not--his defense lawyer asserts it's nothing more than a typical family home video, but law enforcement contends it's legally child pornography. In that case, if the state continues with its prosecution, the defense should insist on a trial so the jury can decide the matter. But the jury would have actual physical evidence to consider, and a legal definition of child pornography to evaluate that evidence against.
