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

Given that all those justice systems only prosecutor a fraction of the percent of their total citizens, that the good old USA does it might be similar to degree but not amount.

Let see six years at 30,000 a year would be 180,000 plus others costs say around 210,00 cost to the poor taxpayers.

Then we have the cost of ruining a 24 year old remaining life.

All this for a crime that depending on the level of the CP would had earn him anywhere from a warning to a few months in jail in the UK.

Firefly do you think that the UK had any more of a problem with children being abuse or harm or any more CP trading going on then in the US due the fact that they do not go insane over this issue?

All kind of issues can come up who had access to the computer in question in the household or office , was any illegal material save by the browser auto look ahead feature in it cache, is the computer or was the computer a part of a bot net, was the unknown 'children' of age or not when you are talking about teenagers.

My stupid ex-son in law had an open wifi connection and was at the same time sharing his whole computer drive so anyone within reach of his open wifi could had save anything they care to on his hard drives including a man living next door that was a register sex offender.


It not as simple as there is what look like illegal material on a computer.

If you bothered to read actual prosecutions of child pornography cases you'd know they already address all of those issues. Most of the questions you raise are generally based on your ignorance of the laws and how violations of these laws are actually prosecuted.

What's quite telling is how BillRM has so much personal knowledge of being accused of sex/violent crimes and has innocent explanations for all of them.

His wife gets a restraining order placed on him because she's a drug addict, he gets thrown out of a park for enticing small children over with kittens because it's the only way he can ensure they go to a good home. And now his son-in-law has child porn on his computer, because of the guy next door.

Have you ever met anyone else with such a wealth of personal experience in this field?

Let not have trials and have the person sentence directly to prison in cases of CP!!!!!

Ok, there was the lady teacher who have such pictures popping up in front of her classroom of children on her school assign computer.

It took a defense expert to prove that it was indeed malware and not something she had done and the state expert did not find the malware.

Then there was a case of a DVD where the state expert was sure that the young woman involve could not be older then 14 or so by way of the tanner scale of sexual development.

The only problem is that the defense found the lady at the last minute and have her come to the court with her birth certificate in hand showing she was 20 years old at the time of the DVD,

Note the author of the tanner scale had stated it should not be used in such criminal matters and yet it is still being use to try to convict people in our court systems.

Of course the state is trying to interfere with defenses having access to the evidence by fully court qualified computer forensics experts under the theory that as it is or is being claim to be child porn the state can not turn over a copy to be examine and the defense experts need to try to do their work at the police or DA office.

Again, this is another display of your ignorance of legal issues.

The state can never refuse to allow the defense to examine any evidence related to the prosecution of their client. The evidence is part of the discovery process and it must be available to the defense.

In the specific case of child pornography, the state may decline to make copies of the pornographic material to hand over to the defense, on the grounds that it puts them in the position of distributing such information, and without their having any control over further viewing and distribution of such material, which is a valid argument.

However, they must still allow the defense to view the material at a designated location. If the defense is unable to do this, for reasons of inconvenience, and it hinders the preparation of the defense, and the mounting of an adequate defense for the defendant, a judge may overrule the prosecution's objection and direct them to turn over a copy of the material to the defense. And that is exactly what just happened in the case of the coach charged with having child pornography on his cell phone.

Your paranoid fantasies about scores of people being unjustly railroaded into jail for possession of child pornography really don't match reality. Defense attorneys are not the total idiots you assume they are. They really do examine the evidence, and they try, as much as possible, to counter it. But, when a client is found to be knowingly in possession of this material, there often isn't much they can do, for someone caught red-handed, other than to try to work out the most advantageous plea deal.

We have public courtrooms. If defendants in child pornography cases were being routinely denied due process, it would be on the front page of the New York Times, and not buried in a meaningless post by you on A2K.

Your ignorance of actual laws and actual criminal procedures consistently leads you to all sorts of erroneous conclusions and paranoid fantasies. These seem to give you an excuse to obsessively post and rant about such matters, over and over and over again, but it never seems to lead you to better inform yourself. So you wind up remaining an ignorant, repetitive bore who really can't offer much of anything, beyond half-baked opinions, in a serious discussion of legal issues..

Not outside of a prison setting.

It also tells us why BillRM's main focus is on the high cost of defense legal fees, and methods of trying to evade detection, prosecution, and conviction, for crimes of this nature.

It is an attempt to interfere with the rights of the defense to have their experts on equal footing with the state experts in examining the evidences.

No one who is honest can take the position that court approve experts are going to be busy making copies of such material for their own enjoyment.

Anyone who does wish such material let alone computer experts can boot a p2p program and download all they care to in any case.

It is an ongoing attempt of the state to reduce and interfere with the right of a defendant to have a fair trial.

But as you had stated there is no need to have a trial in any case when it come to CP as there is no question of guilt at the charging state in CP cases.

Yes and I had admitted that I traded CP with half the Federal judges also.

Silly silly people and I do love how you did edited a similar past statement of mine to leave out the part about the Federal judges and was claiming I were admitting to being a CP trader instead of making a sarcastic statement.

If anyone need any proof of how dishonest you are that would be all that would be needed.

Sorry but the cost of the whole so call US justice system in both human costs and the cost to the public treasury had been a long standing concern of mine with no focus on just the Child Porn laws even it they are one fine fine example of what is wrong with the US justice system along with the war on drugs.

As far as computer security and privacy on the internet the government had a history of trying to get an infrastructure set up to be able to do mass spying on it citizens using the double cards of the threat of terrorism and child porn trading to sell the need of such an infrastructure.

If anyone wish the details of such attempts go to the Electronic Freedom Foundation at EFF.org

Here is the current issues being address on the front page of the EFF website.
A site well worth looking at.

----------------------------------------------------------------

ECPA Reform May Require Warrants for Email, But Hurts Video Privacy
Deeplinks Blog | September 19, 2012

Wednesday Hearing in 9th Circuit Tackles DNA Privacy
Deeplinks Blog | September 18, 2012

We Use the Internet to Save the Internet: An Interview with Steve Anderson About the Stop the Trap Campaign

Deeplinks Blog | September 18, 2012
Philippines' New Cybercrime Prevention Act Troubling for Free Expression
Deeplinks Blog | September 18, 2012

UK Snoopers’ Charter Draws Sharp Critique from Global Advocates
Deeplinks Blog | September 17, 2012

You were talking about the defense's right to have copies of alleged child pornographic material, in a case where a judge has already ruled they can have a copy of the material. You are arguing a non-existent issue--out of ignorance.

Nor do prosecutors take that absurd position. That's just another example of your own ignorance.

But it is important to maintain some control over the copying and distribution of such evidence in a child pornography case, which in the instance of the specific case you are alluding to, was also based on the fact that those are images of the accused's children, and the protection of those children, from being possibly harmed by the copying of the material, was a consideration on the part of the state.

Nor did the judge in this matter agree with your reasoning--the judge, in ruling that the defense could have a copy of the material, also required the defense to sign a protective order saying this material would not be further distributed, and the accused, as well as any defense experts they have examine the material, will also have to sign a similar protective order.


More paranoid, and ignorant, BS on your part. Part of due process is allowing the defense access to the evidence--and that is never interferred with, and the prosecution must comply with all rulings to make evidence available, or to turn over evidence, to the defense.

Judges and defense attorneys are in the courtroom to make sure there is due process, and a fair trial, and our public courtrooms allow for the scrutiny that helps to safeguard due process. That's how our legal system works--and it doesn't support your uninformed paranoid fantasies.

And the judge's ruling in this case emphasized how important it is to to protect that right of the defense--again showing how paranoid and ignorant you are. This was what Judge Jess said:


I didn't say there was no need to have a trial in such cases, that's another example of your abysmal failure to adequately comprehend what you read. And it's the defense who makes the decision about whether there is a need for a trial--the prosecution must always be willing to have a trial decide the matter, because that is a right of the defendant.

What I did say was that defense attorneys often cannot mount an adequate defense when their clients are caught red-handed with the evidence that points to their guilt, and that is the case with the majority of child pornography possession cases, so the best they can do is work out an advantageous plea deal for their clients--because they know they are likely to lose at trial.

In some cases, like the coach charged with having child porn on his cell phone, there is a definite need for a trial because the central issue, as the judge noted, is whether these videos constitute “pornographic works” as the term is defined under Minnesota law. The judge noted that this is a rather unique circumstance because, in most child pornography cases, there is no disagreement that the material conforms to the definition of child pornography stated in the law.

Again, all you are spouting is nonsensical paranoid bullshit that is not supported by reality, and it is largely based on your ignorance.

You seem to never tire of posing for these photos.

Take note the state gave limiting such access by the defense the good old college try and their being overrule by the judge does not made the attempt itself to limit such access by the state any better.

In any case, I was not just addressing this one case but a whole pattern of attempts to limit the right of defendants to have their experts review such material on equal terms with the state experts.

As far as having control agreements on materials that is standard when dealing with a great many types of evidences that is turn over to the defense to be examine what is not normal is trying to limit the defense experts being allow to look at such materials only under the control of the state and on state property.

I am laughing at the idea that the court and the prosecutor have some real fear that lawyers who are officers of the courts and their computer forensics and other experts are any more likely to make illegal copies to place them back in circulation then state employees are.

Guilty or innocent is no longer the primary concern of the justice system and guilty or not well over 90 percents of all criminal charges ends in plea deals.

Few if any citizens have the means to fight the state on anywhere near equal terms or are brave enough to roll the dice when the state had overcharge them to the point that they would be risking ten times or more prison time by exercising their constitution rights to a jury trial.

The system is as rotten as rotten can be while still pretending to give fair treatment to those charge with crimes.

Footnote in the case of the coach it is likely to be drop and not go to trial unless the state can dig up some indications that the man would produce this family video for his sexual gratification.

Of course the state will first offer for him to plea out to some very minor misdemeanor but given his career I can not see him doing so.

The state jump the gun on this case as I had said before.

Right, just as the defense argues against admitting some evidence if they feel it is damaging to their client.

That's all part of an adversarial legal process.

And the prosecution cannot prevent access by the defense to evidence in any case, nor can they prevent defense experts from accessing the evidence.
You don't know what you are talking about. The results of discovery must be turned over to the defense once a judge makes such a ruling--and that ruling is made in response to a defense motion asking to see the evidence the prosecution has acquired. And the defense experts are also given access to the evidence.

But you haven't cited any other specific child pornography cases, in which the prosecution tried to limit defense experts from accessing and examining the evidence, to back up your claim of "a whole pattern".

What the prosecution tries to do, or what the defense tries to do, with the motions they both make, isn't what determines whether the process is fair, it's much more important how the judge rules on those motions in determining the "fairness" of the proceedings.

And the judges in these child pornography cases seem very fair in their rulings.

So far, that coach is getting due process, with no indication of unfairness.

That's not how child pornography is defined in Minnesota. His possible motives, in terms of gratifying himself are not the issue. The issue is whether the images are, or aren't child pornography under Minnesota law.

It's actually better, for him, if this case goes to trial and a jury decides that the material does not represent child pornography under Minnesota law.

And you're still spouting ignorant, paranoid bullshit.

My I had read one case after another where the state had try to limit such access and not only in the US but even in merry old england so how many cases would you care me to link to in showing this pattern?

In fact the freedom loving congress put the denial of such CP materials to the defendant defense into the Adam Walsh bill of 2006 except under the direct supervision of the state.

The courts had have problems with such denials however law or no law and some cases had been thrown out over the matter when the state had refused to give a copy to defendants experts.

See below.

http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/06/charges-dismissed-for-not-giving.html

This post is about a state case in which § 3509(m) became an issue. A joint investigation by the FBI and the Kingman (Arizona) Police Department resulted in a search of Mark Johnson’s computer “which allegedly contained several images of child pornography.” State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Arizona Court of Appeals 2010). After being indicted on 10 counts of possessing child pornography, Johnson asked that “an identical copy of the hard drive be provided to the computer forensics expert under a protective order.” State v. Johnson, supra.



The prosecution asked the court to deny the motion, citing an Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure which says evidence should only be released to a defendant “when it is necessary to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Johnson, supra. At the oral arguments on Johnson’s motion to compel release of a copy of the hard drive, his lawyer explained why forcing his expert to review the hard drive at the FBI office would violate Johnson’s right to a fair trial:


Defense counsel said . . . he did not have [the expert] at argument because it would be too costly to have her come to Kingman from Tucson when he could speak on her behalf. He said the expert told him it could take her up to a few days to complete the examination. He stated:


`If it's going to take longer than a day, she'd have to leave the evidence there, rely upon the government not to interfere or tamper with her process while she goes back to her office, goes home to sleep, eat, live her life, and then eventually when the tests are done, to come back and retrieve it and assume that everything is okay . . . [T] here's no safeguard we are comfortable with that's going to assure this stuff is not tampered with. . . . And the fact it's not in our secured environment, we believe any test that is done while in the government's hands would simply be insufficient.’


Defense counsel expressed concern that the expert's access to the evidence would be limited during trial because the hard drive would be at the Tucson or Phoenix FBI Office while the trial is in Kingman. He urged the trial court to find that the proffered accessibility, security and access to resources concerns associated with investigating the evidence at the FBI facility would deprive Johnson of his right to a fair trial.


The State responded that the hard drive evidence is of the type typically viewed in a state facility and that the FBI has `terminals and areas available for forensic experts to come and examine evidence, because this is part of [the FBI agent's] routine evidence provision.’ The prosecutor stated that `[t]here is no sign at this time that there will be any denial of time with the materials as needed.’

State v. Johnson, supra. The trial judge ordered that a copy of the hard drive “be made available to the defense expert at the FBI office in Tucson (where the expert resides)” in accordance with the terms of a protective order limiting access to it. State v. Johnson, supra. The judge offered this explanation of the order:


Every time I get one of these cases, I think this is a unique issue. But when I step back from it, I look and there's thousands of cases where evidence is taken into state custody that could never be released again to the defendant or anybody else. Including drugs, including other items that are not allowed back onto the streets once they're taken into custody. . . . And I believe, just like there could be an independent test of any drugs that are found, or any urinalysis that is taken, or blood tests that are taken, there can be an independent review of this particular evidence.

State v. Johnson, supra. The prosecution filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider because § 3509(m) prohibits the FBI “from releasing child pornography images” as long as the prosecution makes them “reasonably available” to the defense. State v. Johnson, supra.


The prosecution’s motion told the court the FBI would refuse to comply with the judge’s order to release the material to the defense; Johnson filed a motion in opposition and the trial judge affirmed the original order. State v. Johnson, supra. At a later status hearing, the trial judge dismissed all charges against Johnson due to the FBI’s refusal to release the material. State v. Johnson, supra. (The dismissal was without prejudice, which means the charges could be reinstated "if circumstances changed.” State v. Johnson, supra.)


The prosecution appealed the judge’s order dismissing the charges, arguing that Johnson hadn’t shown that giving his defense expert access to the material under the prosecution’s original conditions would deny him his constitutional right to a fair trial. State v. Johnson, supra. The Court of Appeals found that Johnson raised “valid concerns” regarding “accessibility, security, and access to resources in the State’s requiring his expert to review the hard drive at the FBI office. State v. Johnson, supra.


As to accessibility, Johnson repeated his arguments that his expert would not have the access she needed, either before or during trial. State v. Johnson, supra. He lost:


The State responded to these accessibility concerns by claiming access would be made nearest the expert prior to trial and the exam could be conducted at the expert's discretion anytime she needed it. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the State adequately rebutted Johnson's accessibility of evidence arguments.

State v. Johnson, supra. As to security, Johnson argued that government agents could

observe his expert's investigative process and could tamper with the process while she is gone. The State claimed the expert could conduct the investigation outside the view of law enforcement agents. The State, however, did not offer to provide a secure location to prevent possible government tampering with the investigation. Instead, it argued that government tampering is an issue in all cases. . . .


In this case, however, the State did not adequately rebut Johnson's security concerns despite the FBI's willingness to provide a secure facility in previous federal cases. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Johnson made a substantial showing that inspection of the items under the State's conditions would undermine his right to effectively investigate the evidence against him.

State v. Johnson, supra. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted that in two federal prosecutions, the federal authorities had taken steps (i.e., the area the defense expert used was “in a security office complex” of the government offices and “the expert’s materials could be secured in a locked case when not in use”) to secure the defense expert's materials. The Court found that these cases indicated that “the FBI could ensure a secured facility” in which Johnson’s expert could review the hard drive. State v. Johnson, supra. The Court of Appeals found that the FBI had not adequately rebutted Johnson’s security concerns, since it had been willing to do so in other cases. State v. Johnson, supra.





As to resources, Johnson argued that his expert

could not access her reference materials if required to conduct the exam at the FBI office. Moreover, Johnson argues, the expert could not do other work while waiting for exam results, which could increase the costs of the examination to $20,000. While the latter argument is akin to a convenience argument, the former argument is persuasive. The State did not proffer a remedy to the expert's inability to access her reference materials at the FBI facility. . . .





[T]he State did not rebut Johnson's argument that his expert would not be able to access the resources she typically uses in these types of investigations despite the FBI offering similar resources to experts in the aforementioned federal cases. Therefore, we conclude that Johnson's access to resources concern amounts to a substantial showing that a copy of the hard drive was required to ensure his right to a fair trial.

State v. Johnson, supra. The Court of Appeals consequently affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the charges without prejudice. State v. Johnson, supra.

This is the UK more sane manner to treat CP collectors not tying up a cell for five years for a 66 year old retirees.



http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/local/berkhamsted-church-volunteer-had-child-porn-on-his-computer-1-4213861



Berkhamsted church volunteer had child porn on his computer

Published on Thursday 30 August 2012 17:31


Church-going Michael Eller called the police himself after a message on his computer told him he would be reported to the authorities for sexual chat with a 14-year-old girl.


The retired financial director was communicating with an underage girl called Claire on a site called ‘Chat Roulette’ when a banner appeared saying his computer address was being noted.

After confessing to his wife, Eller called the police and his computer was seized. When it was examined child sex abuse images were found, St Albans Crown Court heard.

Eller, 66, from Berkhamsted, pleaded guilty to five counts of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent images at the magistrates’ court. No charge was brought in connection with the contact he had with the girl called Claire.

Prosecutor Rebbeca Smith said that on October 6 last year Eller telephoned the police out of concern over the message that appeared on his computer.

Eller admitted when questioned that the conversation became sexual and that he sent her an image of a penis.

He denied he had any indecent images of children on his computer and was bailed by the police. But when the Dell computer was examined officers found 148 images. 90 were at Level 1, the least serious level, 6 were at Level 2, 22 at Level 3, 23 at Level 4 and 7 at Level 5, the most serious level.

Defence barrister Gary Adel said: “Mr Eller is a retired financial director, who has been married for 37 years and is a grandfather. His wife is deeply upset as is his family.

“He does voluntary work for his church and is a regularly attends St Peter’s Church in Berkhamsted.”

Mr Adel said Eller has been diagnosed as being bi-polar. He said: “He expresses full remorse and accepts responsibility. He is totally ashamed and embarrassed.

“He was on the Chat Roulette site and saw the banner saying that it was an offence to meet people under 16. The next day he spoke to his wife by way of confession and he reported himself to the police.”

Judge Martin Griffith passed a three year Community Order with a condition that Eller attends the Thames Valley Sex Offender Group Programme. He must register as a Sex Offender for five years and will be subject to a Sex Offender Prevention Order. It means he cannot access the internet until the police install risk management software and he must not use software that deletes or encrypts data.

The judge told Eller: “I could have no difficulty in sending you straight to custody, but the sentence I am passing is more onerous. Probation are going to be in the best position to make sure that this offence never happens again.

“I have taken account your good character, your guilty plea and that it was you that notified the police. Go away and don’t come back.”

Here part of the results of shoving more and more people into our prisons for longer and longer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/prison-overcrowding-report_n_1883919.html

The federal prison system has been unable to keep pace with the stream of inmates flooding its facilities over the last five years despite adding space for thousands of new convicts, according to a government report.

The ballooning incarcerated population puts inmates and guards in danger and holds back efforts to rehabilitate convicts, experts told HuffPost.

The already-taxed Bureau of Prisons network swelled to 39 percent above capacity through last September, and is expected to surge to more than 45 percent above its limit in 2018, says the Government Accountability Office report, titled "Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure." The report was released on Wednesday.

Last year's overcrowding level was the highest since 2004, when federal prisons were 41 percent above maximum levels -- called the "rated capacity."

Wardens may see a spike in violence as more inmates are squeezed into tight living quarters, researchers warned. The overcrowding contributes "to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff," according to the report.

"If you start cramming more and more people into a confined space, you're going to create more tensions and problems," said the GAO's Director of Homeland Security and Justice David Maurer. "It creates the possibility that someone's going to snap and have a violent incident."

With more prisoners confined to limited spaces, prison officials are forced to cut back the time inmates have in the cafeteria, recreation yards and television rooms. Two and three inmates are bunked in rooms designed for one prisoner or in common areas that were never meant to be used as cells.


"Some of this sounds small and trivial," Maurer told The Huffington Post, "but it adds up."

Crowded cells and the loss of privacy increase the odds that inmates will lash out, threatening the guards keeping watch.

"Once they get frustrated enough, we're looking at another riot. And that's what scares me," said Dale Deshotel, president of the Council of Prison Locals, which represents about 32,000 federal prison employees.

So far this year, 14 federal prison workers have been assaulted with weapons and another 45 were assaulted by unarmed inmates, according to statistics compiled by the union.

As the prison population boomed, Deshotel said the government in 2005 reduced the average number of guards stationed in prison housing units. "There's no way that they can monitor that many prisoners," he said of the guard-to-inmate ratio.

The hazards of overcrowding could eventually ripple outside prison walls. Unless prison budgets grow, inmates will have less access to job training, education and drug treatment programs, which could increase the likelihood that they'll commit crimes again after their release.

"People will get out of prison, but they're not being helped to reenter society," said Inimai Chettiar, a director at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, who has reviewed the report. "People are going to recidivate more when they get out of horrendous conditions without job training and development programs to get their lives back together."

To decrease the overcrowding problem, Department of Justice officials could push for options like constructing new prisons, lightening sentences or reintroducing parole for federal crimes.

"[The report] pointed out exactly what we assumed," said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a critic of mandatory minimum sentences, which add to overcrowding problems. "With more inmates, [prison officials] focus more on security and less on the programs that can rehabilitate the prisoners."

The Department of Justice, which oversees the Bureau of Prisons, did not return calls for comment.

There are more than 218,000 inmates locked in the teeming network of federal and privately-run prisons. About 48% are there for drug offenses, according to the GAO's analysis.

The report examined fiscal years 2006 to 2011. During that time, five federal prisons opened and four minimum security camps shut. That increased space for almost seven percent more inmates, but the system took on over nine percent more prisoners.

The unrelenting growth in the overcrowded 117 federal prisons contrasts with the population in state prisons, which began decreasing modestly in 2009.

Budget crises have prompted states to explore early release options for prisoners. California is scrambling to comply with a Supreme Court order that said severe overcrowding was unconstitutional. By mid-2013, the state must reduce its inmate population by 30,000.

Simply requiring the defense expert to view the evidence in a secure government location does not deny the defense access. And that was what the court ruled.
The state does not always have to provide a copy of the material to the defense--but they must make the material available to the defense experts for examination at a secure government location.

The rest of the defense objections in that case had to do with the prosecution providing more security for the defense expert's work, so it wouldn't be tampered with, and allowing the defense expert expert access to terminals so she could do other work, beside examining evidence, etc--things the government had done in other cases. They were unwilling to do that in this case, so they lost the appeal.

So the government's refusal to provide a copy of the hard drive to the defense in this case did not jeopardize the defendant or deny him a fair trial--it cost the government their case. This case resulted in a dismissal of the charges against the claimant. What could be fairer than that?

And you're citing that as an example of defendants not getting due process in child pornography cases?

This case, if anything, indicates how fair the process is--it didn't permit anything that would interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Thanks for posting a child pornography case that shows just how fully the defendant's right to a fair trial is protected in our justice system.