That's not the same as automatically,
(and aggressively,) demanding innocence.
This thread is one of many.
On another thread BillRM described someone watching graphic child pornography
on a plane as a "useful member of society."
I remember that incident. Was he a medical doctor??
I 'm not sure. A scientist?
Let's keep our concepts intact. I was acquainted with a fellow named Grey Vanaman.
He had expertise in computers and in photografy.
He advised me on successfully getting out of some painfully distressing computer problems
I had in NY, a few years ago; i.e., to me, he was a very useful member of society.
He subsequently pled guilty to child porn, with a sentence of 6O years in federal prison;
i.e., no parole. If he had confessed to murder, I 'd expect him to get 2O years.
I must question the logic
of penalizing him the equivalent of 3 murders
for taking pictures, with no allegations
of sexual impropriety
(i.e., no allegations
of rape nor of sodomy by anyone upon anyone).
I was not present during his sentencing (he was never my client),
but to my mind, this suggests rule by emotion, relinquishing reason.
As an American citizen, I prefer my jurisprudence to be devoid of hysteria
and to be governed by dispassionate logic.
This was child pornography so graphic that other passengers
needed counselling after just glimpsing such material.
Tho I remember reading of the incident,
I have no idea of what was in the porn; whips n chains, maybe??
Something un-natural? I had not heard about the counselling.
BillRM painted watching child pornography as a victimless crime,
he showed no concern for the child victims, instead preferring to talk
about what computer security programmes the criminal should have employed.
He constantly argues for lesser sentencing for the perpetrators of sex crimes,
arguing that it's impossible for a woman to be raped once she's had a drink.
I 'm shocked to read that; I don t doubt your word,
but r u SURE
that he said that?? It strains credulity
that anyone woud say that.
This crime introduces new elements into the realm of criminal liability
that may portend jurisprudential danger, to wit: merely looking
at something makes u a criminal
Even in the case of Julius n Ethel Rosenberg, it was NOT MERELY LOOKING
but delivering military secrets to Stalin.
Were the other passengers (who required counselling) guilty of the crime??
Was Abraham Zapruder guilty of a crime for taking pictures of a felony??
In the America wherein I grew up, it was not a crime
to merely LOOK
. Government is dangerous, very dangerous.
At the same time, (as I'm sure you'll remember,) he argued that
the State of Texas should be allowed to execute a man without
examining DNA evidence that could have exonerated him.
I wonder Y
From that point of vu, I dissent
Incidentally, u give my memory too much credit.
I have formed my opinion of BillRM over many years,
his motivation and response in starting this thread has just strengthened my opinion.
I 'm not certain that I 've read everything
in this thread, but Bill gave me the impression
that he merely questioned the probability of
a well informed IT Tech inculpating himself as badly as has
happened in this case. If I were on that trial jury, based on
the evidence as it has been suggested to us now,
and without more, I 'd probably vote to convict him. Is he a sadist????
Bill will speak for himself
, but I think that he has subtly implied
that he favors conviction in this case.