17
   

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

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 07:11 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
Yes,
but there is a more fundamental issue of whether we ever gave jurisdiction
to government such that we need its permission qua what drugs we can take,
what food we can eat or what we can see.
BillRM wrote:
That constitutional issue was settled in Hamilton and Jefferson times and by now is very very settled law to say the least.

The constitution necessary and proper clause along with the commerce clause give the US federal government all the power you do not care for.

The matter is now no more open for real debate then the idea that states have the right of secession from the union.
Well, as a true liberal, I know that u favor despotism
and therefore, u wish to distort the Constitution; I reject that reasoning.
I dismiss the liberal notion that the Founders were despots.
The American Revolution was a libertarian rebellion,
begun by the Sons of Liberty, not the sons of despotism.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 08:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David you can reject all you wish to reject however that rejection does not change two centuries of court rulings one little bit.

As far as the founding fathers are concern perhaps and only perhaps Jefferson would side with you if we could bring him back to life but Hamilton surely would not had done so.

After all Jefferson double the size of the country without asking congress permission ahead of time if memory serve me correctly so who know for sure how he would had come down on your issues after he had been President at least.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 08:56 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
David you can reject all you wish to reject however that rejection does not change two centuries of court rulings one little bit.

As far as the founding fathers are concern perhaps and only perhaps Jefferson would side with you if we could bring him back to life but Hamilton surely would not had done so.

After all Jefferson double the size of the country without asking congress permission ahead of time if memory serve me correctly so who know for sure how he would had come down on your issues after he had been President at least.
No. I am convinced of having the additional support of George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison
and of anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, inter alia.
I re-iterate that it was a LIBERTARIAN revolution.

Here is an excerpt from a neat little recent USSC case
disproving your advocacy of despotism:
US v. LOPEZ
514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)

"Unless the dissenting Justices are willing to repudiate our long held
understanding of the limited nature of federal power, I would think
that they, too, must be willing to reconsider the substantial effects
test in a future case. If we wish to be true to a Constitution
that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government,
our Commerce Clause's boundaries simply cannot be "defined" as
being " 'commensurate with the national needs
' " or self consciously
intended to let the Federal Government " 'defend itself against
economic forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive
of the national economy.' " See post, at 1662 (BREYER, J., dissenting)
. . . . Such a formulation of federal power is no test at all:
It is a blank check.

At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Today, it is easy enough to say that the Clause certainly does not
empower Congress to ban gun possession within 1,OOO feet of a school."




David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 09:15 am

Note that all emfasis in the last post has been added by David.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 09:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Given that Patrick Henry did not wish for a country at all and can not be consider a founding father because of that you might be right about him however as far as Washington he was more of a Federal then not supporting Hamilton far more then Jefferson during his time as president.

As far as Franklin I see no indications that he might agree with your positions.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 10:00 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Given that Patrick Henry did not wish for a country at all and can not be consider a founding father you might be right about him however as far as Washington he was more of a Federal then not supporting Hamilton far more then Jefferson during his time as president.

As far as Franklin I see no indications that he might agree with your positions.
Thay were lovers of personal freedom.
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jan, 2012 10:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
They support a strong Federal government and take note that Washington himself was more then willing to use overwhelming military force to explain that the government would enforce it taxing of whiskey to PA farmers.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jan, 2012 01:12 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
They support a strong Federal government and take note that Washington himself was more then willing to use overwhelming military force to explain that the government would enforce it taxing of whiskey to PA farmers.
Yes, but only qua jurisdiction that actually WAS granted to the government;
(see 9th & 1Oth Amendments to the contrary).

(I must admit that a good counter-argument is the enactment
of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were allowed to expire,
but which were facially unconstitutional.)





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:12 pm
A significant percentage of the pedophiles who seek out and possess child pornography also engage in the actual sexual molestation of children. This one was just arrested.
Quote:
Feb 13, 2012
Kelli Steele - WGMD News
63 YO Salisbury Man Arrested for Sexually Assaulting 8 YO Girl

An elderly Salisbury man is behind bars at the Wicomico County Detention Center today, being held in lieu of $750,000 bail for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl.

Detectives from the Wicomico County Sheriff’s Office and Child Protective Service Investigators of the Wicomico County Child Advocacy arrested 63-year-old James Meager last Thursday; he’s charged with 2nd degree rape, child abuse and 27 counts of possessing child pornography; police say they found over 100,000 images of child pornography on a computer owned by Meager.

Police say they’re continuing to investigate and are attempting to locate children that Meager has had contact with.
http://www.wgmd.com/?p=48006
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:54 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
A significant percentage of the pedophiles who seek out and possess child pornography also engage in the actual sexual molestation of children. This one was just arrested.


An we surely should punish people for what they might do in the future.

That is one hell of a good excuse to have insanely harsh punishments that are so harsh that the majority of Federal judges do not agree with the sentencing guide lines and is way over the punishments levels of other Western nations.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:01 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

An we surely should punish people for what they might do in the future.

Dummy, the man was arrested for what he did the past--for things he had already done.

And a significant number of those arrested for possession of child pornography have also already engaged in the sexual assault of actual children. Only pedophiles seek out and possess such material, since only pedophiles are sexually aroused by such material.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 04:22 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Only pedophiles seek out and possess such material, since only pedophiles are sexually aroused by such material.


LOL not true at all even by the government own websites somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 percents of who people download such materials out of sheer curious concerning what could be so illegal to look at and then we also define child porn as sexual pictures/videos of anyone under 18 years old and having an interest in fully sexually developed humans of whatever age is not being a pedophile under any normal meaning of the term.

But then you have never been interest in facts.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 04:32 pm
@firefly,
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Child_porn_viewers_unlikely_to_abuse.html?cid=996966


Child porn viewers "unlikely to abuse"

Men who access images of child pornography and are caught are very unlikely to progress to acts of child sexual abuse, a Zurich study has found.
The study by the psychiatric-psychological service of the canton of Zurich indicates that being apprehended for this crime and having to face justice has a strong deterrent effect.



Researchers evaluated the cases of 231 men in canton Zurich who were prosecuted for possessing or downloading paedophile material from the internet. The study was published in the journal BMC Psychiatry.

The men were identified as part of sting operation "Genesis" in 2002. Half were convicted of possessing child pornography, while the other half were acquitted with costs awarded against them. The latter group were lighter consumers of the illegal material.

The scientists tried to establish whether these consumers of child pornography were likely to commit sexual offences involving bodily contact.

Frank Urbaniok, Jérôme Endrass and Astrid Rossegger examined the criminal records of child pornography users before 2002 and checked how their files had evolved in the six years since criminal investigations were begun.



Risk factor
Only one per cent of the group had a previous conviction for a sexual offence with bodily contact and none of them was subsequently convicted of such an offense.

The results showed that for men with no prior conviction, viewing child pornography was not a risk factor in perpetrating acts of sexual violence against children, Endrass told swissinfo.ch.

"Since very few of them had a criminal history of child abuse and none of them reoffended, we assume that consuming child pornography per se is not a risk factor for people who have not committed "hands on" offences, in other words not molested children before."

However, Endrass emphasised that this did not make child pornography a victimless crime.

"Of course there are victims. It is not just a misdemeanour to consume child pornography, there was a very serious offence behind the production of the material," he said.



" Of course there are victims. It is not just a misdemeanour to consume child pornography. "
Jérôme Endrass "Not paedophiles"
The researchers were surprised that most of the "Genesis" men, who registered with an online distributor of child pornography and paid for images by credit card, were not active paedophiles.

"We know that for child molesters, consuming child pornography is a very important risk factor for reoffending but this group is different," Endrass explained.

But what of the cases that have never come to light? The "dark figure" referred to by criminologists and sociologists to describe the amount of unreported or undiscovered crime, which calls into question the reliability of crime statistics.

"The 'dark figure' is a big issue when it comes to sex offenders. The official rate of recidivism for sex offenders is very low and many people assume this is because of the dark figure but we just don't know," Endrass said.



Deterrent
As for the profile of the men caught in the sting operation, most appear to have been "socially very well integrated". A third of the offenders were married and one in four had children.

"They were better educated than average, more likely to be Swiss nationals, 45 per cent were university graduates. These men held good jobs and a significant proportion of them had a professional IT background, " Endrass revealed.

The researchers believe the shock of the police action and subsequent legal proceedings played an important role in preventing future reoffending.

Clare O'Dea, swissinfo.ch


firefly
 
  2  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 04:36 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
LOL not true at all even by the government own websites somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 percents of who people download such materials out of sheer curious concerning what could be so illegal to look at

Post the links to support the above statement.
Quote:
having an interest in fully sexually developed humans of whatever age is not being a pedophile under any normal meaning of the term.

Except that children aren't "fully sexually developed" and wanting to look at pictures of children engaging in sexual acts, or naked children in deliberately sexually provocative poses, is not exactly normal--people who do enjoy that are pedophiles.

Are you trying to tell us you are a pedophile?

Are you telling us you've looked at child pornography only "out of curiosity"?

firefly
 
  2  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 04:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The study by the psychiatric-psychological service of the canton of Zurich indicates that being apprehended for this crime and having to face justice has a strong deterrent effect.

That's wonderful! That means the laws are working and enforcing them decreases the rate of recidivism.
Quote:
Endrass emphasised that this did not make child pornography a victimless crime.

Very true. Which is why prosecuting consumers and possessors of child porn affects the demand end of the supply chain--the material is produced and distributed for those consumers, and these consumers continue the victimization of the children depicted in the pornography and the continued violation of their privacy.



firefly
 
  2  
Mon 13 Feb, 2012 05:13 pm
Quote:
Ex-Pa. teacher gets prison for child porn cache
February 13, 2012

A former teacher and youth soccer coach warned by northwestern Pennsylvania school officials about taking pictures of students' groin areas during athletic events will spend nearly 20 years in prison for collecting and trading more than 57,000 images of child pornography.

David Rinke II, 40, of Erie, was sentenced Monday by a federal judge, the Erie Times-News reported ( http://bit.ly/zeDWIl).

Rinke pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in October and his public defender and a federal prosecutor spent months arguing about the length of the sentence he deserved. Federal sentencing guidelines, which are no longer mandatory, suggested a range of 17 1/2 to 20 years in prison.

Rinke taught 10th-grade science at the Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, a magnet school in the Erie School District, before he was arrested in February 2011.

Public Defender Thomas Patton had argued in court papers filed before Monday's sentencing that 17 1/2 years was sufficient. "No one could view that sentence as anything less than massive," Patton wrote.

But U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin imposed a sentence of 19 years, seven months, much closer to the maximum sentence sought by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Trabold.

Rinke was arrested by the FBI after an undercover agent in Arizona found images from a computer account traced to Rinke.

Trabold argued that Rinke traded such images for at least five years, writing in a presentence memorandum that Rinke "traded images of toddlers being raped, he chatted about sexual abuse as if he was talking about last night's basketball games."

Patton argued that Rinke deserved some credit for his work in the community, but Trabold argued that Rinke grossly abused his trust as a teacher and did the other community work merely to put him in closer proximity to children.

"When a teacher, who should be nurturing and protecting children, entertains himself with child rape movies, it strikes at the very heart of the educational system," Trabold wrote. "A man who amused himself by watching defenseless kids be raped and humiliated and then traded that filth with others, surely was not trying to make Erie a better place to live."
http://www.timesonline.com/news/state/ex-pa-teacher-gets-prison-for-child-porn-cache/article_7142cd66-898c-5e58-a8a6-3b427b48735e.html

Some judges do, indeed, take this crime very seriously, even when there are no mandatory sentences or mandatory guidelines...
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:24 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Are you trying to tell us you are a pedophile?

Are you telling us you've looked at child pornography only "out of curiosity"?


Still throwing mud at anyone who would dare to disagree with you I see.

Never going to give up that silliness are you?

For the thousands and one time for the public record I never even seen child porn let alone have it on my computers and if I ever would download it by error using a p2p network at some future time even with all my computer security and wiping programs I would take the hard drive out of the computer in question and drill holes in it before dumping it as we are insane in the US on the subject.

No one need five years in prison because someone else had mislabel a file name on a p2p network!!!!!!!!!
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:44 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
if I ever would download it by error using a p2p network at some future time even with all my computer security and wiping programs I would take the hard drive out of the computer in question and drill holes in it before dumping it as we are insane in the US on the subject.


It wouldn't dawn on you to contact the police, to help them track down a child pornographer. That figures.
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 07:01 am
@firefly,
What surprises me is that, of all possible places, this stuff is "hidden" on the internet.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 15 Feb, 2012 08:43 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
It wouldn't dawn on you to contact the police, to help them track down a child pornographer. That figures.


Hell no am I not going to take the risk of being charge with such a crime and any time the police get bored and what to make another arrest for child porn all they need to do is place such keys words as young and sex into any repeat any p2p search engine to get all the leads they could wish for.

It is in fact amazing with the level of punishment for having such materials in the US there still seems no lack of such files being openingly share by way of p2p networks.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/11/2025 at 04:17:47