@BillRM,
Quote:The law is so badly written that it can be used as a weapon to harm the very people that if writers had claim it is design to protect!!!!!!!!
You have the nerve to criticize
anything for being badly written? ROFL
Who are you kidding? You've never even read the laws. Exactly which child pornography law are you referring to? The state of Florida? Federal law? Don't refer to "the law" unless you cite the specific law you are talking about, because otherwise your comments are meaningless. Beside the federal law,
there are 50 separate state laws.
Quote:You do know that we got a guilty verdict with nothing but two thumbnails of pictures on one man computer and he is sitting is Federal prison for a decade or so?
No, I do not know that because that statement is completely untrue. You do not cite case law either because you are ignorant of it. You read part of an appeal decision and stupidly misinterpreted both the total evidence presented at the original trial as well as the sentence. People are not receiving 10 year sentences, on a first conviction, for 2 thumbnails of porn. You have been distorting facts so long, you probably believe your own distortions by now.
Quote:Of course guilt or innocent the state had one hell of a hammer to get people to take a plea bargain
What do you mean, "guilt or innocent"? Child pornography cases are one area where the objective, observable, physical evidence speaks for itself--either the defendant was in possession of the pornographic material or they weren't. Guilt is rather clear-cut and the defendant would likely lose at trial--and that is the main "hammer" the state has in obtaining plea deals.
Plea deals which occur in over 90% of child pornography cases, save the tax payers money and help to keep court calenders from becoming clogged up. Particularly with crimes where violations of the law are so clear and supported by physical evidence, it would make no sense not to try to resolve as many of these cases as possible with plea deals. Where is your case law evidence that the "innocent" are being imprisoned for child pornography?
Quote:
If you do not plea to the state charges the Feds will also charge you under their 5 years minimum sentence law is one old tool in the tool box.
No moron, if you do not take a plea deal to state charges, you
go to trial for the state charges. Whether you are also charged under federal law would depend on the specific aspects of a case that warrented such charges.
And, I am rather tired of hearing you constantly repeat the "five year minimum sentence" mantra regarding federal law, with the untrue implication that most people actually receive those 5 year sentences. If you bothered to educate yourself on the subject, so you had some awareness of the typical sentences imposed on first time offenders under federal law, you would find sentences which are significantly shorter than 5 years, and these cases are not at all difficult to find--except you don't bother with reality because it conflicts with your bogus arguments.
This case, from just three days ago, is an excellent example of a federal sentence that is significantly less than 5 years--in fact, the man was sentenced to
only 7 months, and,
he received time served, so he walked out of the courtroom.
Quote:
Former Waterloo Man Sentenced on Child Pornography Charge
A man who possessed child pornography was sentenced December 12, 2011, to seven months in federal prison.
Martin Weeks, age 43, formerly of Waterloo, Iowa, and now of New York, received the sentence after a July 7, 2011, guilty plea to one count of possessing child pornography. At the guilty plea, Weeks admitted that, between November 2007 and February 2008, he knowingly possessed child pornography.
Weeks was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge Linda R Reade. Weeks was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. A special assessment of $100 was imposed, and Weeks must also serve a five-year term of supervised release.
He must comply with all sex offender registration and public notification requirements.
Weeks was released with credit for time served.
This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Mark Tremmel and was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit
www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
Court file information is available at
https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl. The case file number is CR 10-2053.
http://7thspace.com/headlines/402182/former_waterloo_man_sentenced_on_child_pornography_charge.html
So stop with your hysterical, and inaccurate, and perseverative, carrying on about this issue. You resort to distortions, and downright lies, and do not back up your assertions with reference to either specific, actual laws, or to specific case law examples, with citations.
As is the case with Hawkeye, there is no real substance to your assertions. The two of you are good examples of empty barrels making the most noise.
You only think you can beat everyone Hawkeye but you can't.
