Child porn investigation catches California lawyer

[Luke Davis]

child porn (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/23/porn.conviction/)

Sanders was chosen by fellow Swift boat veteran John Kerry to introduce him at the 2004 Democratic Convention, when the senator accepted the presidential nomination.

:hat:

[justaguy]

child porn (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/23/porn.conviction/)



:hat: repulsive...glad he was caught.
they didnt mention any family...but i always feel bad for the family. and..alarmed for the kids.

[Luke Davis]

I always wonder about older men getting caught. Was he that good at hiding it or is it something new. He lived a somewhat notable and public life but somehow went unnoticed all this time.

:hat:

[Luke Davis]

This only came to light in 2008. John Kerry wouldn't have known.
The man served in the Clinton administration as well. Again, that was before any of this was known.

That said, if true, I hope he gets full & swift justice. I always feel bad for the families too, especially if there are children.

What bothers me is how well some can hide their behavior/desire. It's not just strangers that children need to fear and real life news such as this case should cause us all to wonder who to trust.


:hat:

[DenverDem]

I wonder how many 67 year old men in the USA have downloads pornographis pictures that may contain underage victims.

Are we going to put them all in jail for 10 years?

I am sorry, it\'s wrong, but 10 years in prison for a first offense that was all done on the internet, with not one single human being touched, does not anyone think this is a bit HARSH for a punishment?

If he had hired and paid and photographed underage young girls, I could see ten years in prison.

[DenverDem]

I am not defending anything here, but I\'ll just mention that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds a distinction between images viewed and intentionally downloaded and images which are viewed and only retained in the computer\'s cache without any action taken to store them permanently. That latter has resulted in numerous criminal convictions being overturned on appeal.

I didn\'t know that. Thanks for the clarification as to what action gets charged and convictions upheld. I suppose if one downloads child porn onto a computer, one could attempt to distribute it later to others. That\'s a big difference. I still think 10 years in prison is too harsh if no children were ever touched or even emailed or messaged by computer.


If one stores magazines in a closet with child porn in them, can one be sent to prison for 10 years? I don\'t know. Do you?

[Luke Davis]

It is interesting in this modern age how easy it is to get porn without even trying. This is especially true for people who only have a basic understanding of the Internet. Not to mention unsolicited cell phone transmissions.

Still, I can only wonder how a person could hide this desire for 50 years. And for a high public official certainly the risk of blackmail is ever present.


MOO :hat:

[DenverDem]

I\\\'m really not sure if it is harsh or not. I guess him having 600 of them is much worse than 1 or 2?

Yeah, 600 is a bit much. I agree. But 10 years? Oh yes, I remember, this guy is a lawyer, so he should know the law and how he might be snagged and punished. An ordinary person would NOT know the law.


How about something like a $10,000 fine?

[Luke Davis]

Yeah, 600 is a bit much. I agree. But 10 years? Oh yes, I remember, this guy is a lawyer, so he should know the law and how he might be snagged and punished. An ordinary person would NOT know the law.


How about something like a $10,000 fine?

How about $1,000 per file?

:hat:

[DenverDem]

How about $1,000 per file?

:hat:

so $600,000? Only a banker or a lawyer could afford it these days, but that would be $600,000 IN to the government rather than spending money to keep closet child porn computer collectors behind bars for 10 years.

[mini6198]

DenverDem,

What if the child was YOUR child??? IF the child was mine I would want the dirt-bag that did this dead!!!

[interested]

I have no personal knowledge of this case. That having been said......

Older men get caught for the first time because their children and grandchildren grow older than their personal preferences.

Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.

Viewing is only a prelude to acting.

No, I don't think 10 years is overly harsh.

[Jayne]

I have no personal knowledge of this case. That having been said......

Older men get caught for the first time because their children and grandchildren grow older than their personal preferences.

Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.

Viewing is only a prelude to acting.

No, I don't think 10 years is overly harsh.


I agree..and will not expound (hey..pretty good for my usual long posts, huh?)

:)

J

[LisaM22]

so $600,000? Only a banker or a lawyer could afford it these days, but that would be $600,000 IN to the government rather than spending money to keep closet child porn computer collectors behind bars for 10 years.

have to agree with you there, if this man downloaded porn and nothing else, should we really consider him a sex offender, I mean some men read playboy that doesn't mean they ever have sex with or rape the types of women they see in the magazines, a fine would suffice imo, the ones to go after and give lwop to are the ones involved in taking the pictures, distributing the pictures or those paying for the pictures - jmho

[LisaM22]

DenverDem,

What if the child was YOUR child??? IF the child was mine I would want the dirt-bag that did this dead!!!

the one that did this to a child, this man did not do this to that child, he just downloaded some free files on limewire, I think that was the point denver was making

[LisaM22]

I have no personal knowledge of this case. That having been said......

Older men get caught for the first time because their children and grandchildren grow older than their personal preferences.

Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.

Viewing is only a prelude to acting.

No, I don't think 10 years is overly harsh.

"Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.
"

if they are paying this would be true, someone downloading for free on limewire is not causing a "market" for this type of material imo - I think it should be a crime, just not up on a scale higher then rape and other crimes against a victim

[interested]

"Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.
"

if they are paying this would be true, someone downloading for free on limewire is not causing a "market" for this type of material imo - I think it should be a crime, just not up on a scale higher then rape and other crimes against a victim


All of these sites offer just so much to make the user interested, and then they flood them with ads and pop ups for pay files. Sorry Lisa, I can't agree with you. This is no different than a rape/murder victim being re victimized by the profit and sale of books by their rapist/murderer. In fact, it's worse via encouraging anyone to view their victimization lacking the prohibition of a fee.

These were files intentionally downloaded, not pop up pics that the computer user simply didn't know enough to block via security settings & software guards until it was too late.

[Jayne]

I have no personal knowledge of this case. That having been said......

Older men get caught for the first time because their children and grandchildren grow older than their personal preferences.

Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.

Viewing is only a prelude to acting.

No, I don't think 10 years is overly harsh.

Story..( a true one (oxmoron!))...a worker in a private school was arrested for "child porn"..it was all downloaded on his computer..he had no history of abusing anyone.but he worked in a school with Children. He was given the option to quit or be fired..well...guess? I knew the guy...never in a minute did I think he'd harm a hair on any kid in that school and quite honestly, I don't think he ever did..but after that...WOW did the flags go up..and I've always had "flags" waving. As I understand it there was no evidence of marketing those photos or abusing any kids..but the FEDS were on him and got him.

It's a stupid analogy...but one can learn to shoot a gun...buy one...register it..be entirely law abiding..then one day..SNAP..it's available.

I don't know how to actually "read" this...I agree with you and I agree with others..and that isn't fence sitting, although it may certainly seem like it..but you have to take into consideration the "person" who was doing this...a minister? a psychologist? a doctor? a childcare person? a lawyer? Heck...Lets Add a Parent..or a Live In Girl/Boy Friend. It adds dimensions to the "falling" that perhaps others do no quite fit into. A lawyer..believe me..by the Bar Rules..is so restricted as to what they can do in public AND private..even more than politicians..or so I think. Frankly..I find it all disgusting...but kids today view and download things they have no business getting their noses into..maybe sometimes innocent, others curiosity..and some..deliberate intent.

For an adult..I just can't fathom viewing child pornography without an "intent" of some sort. I can see a kid viewing "porn" out of curiosity..but not out of some purient interest..other than "wanting to know"..Remember the Book "All you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask."? THAT was Porno in my growing up years..or I guess so.

OK..I sound like an old foggie. But..an adult who wants to look at children...having sex..or being forced into it..isn't just "curious"...I agree with you...it is a time bomb..waiting to go off.

jmo

J

[LisaM22]

All of these sites offer just so much to make the user interested, and then they flood them with ads and pop ups for pay files. Sorry Lisa, I can't agree with you. This is no different than a rape/murder victim being re victimized by the profit and sale of books by their rapist/murderer. In fact, it's worse via encouraging anyone to view their victimization lacking the prohibition of a fee.

These were files intentionally downloaded, not pop up pics that the computer user simply didn't know enough to block via security settings & software guards until it was too late.

so you think if a rapist\murderer post their story on line and you read it for free you should be charged with a crime, I think you have made my point

[coffee1950j]

I have no personal knowledge of this case. That having been said......

Older men get caught for the first time because their children and grandchildren grow older than their personal preferences.

Possession is not a victimless crime, if it weren't for the market to distribute, there would be no market to continue victimizing yet more children for the purpose of new material.

Viewing is only a prelude to acting.

No, I don't think 10 years is overly harsh.

I totally agree with you. Someone I know very very well (46 yrs old) was just thrown in jail for 52 months, $25,000 fine and has to register as a sex offender when he gets out. He had a 6-figure job at a very prestigious company, which of course he also lost.

This man is very intelligent, wrote a couple of books, etc. I think the only reason he only got 52 months is because he probably "snitched" on a couple of people.

He had over 400 images on his computer. Most of these sites, you have to register and pay for.

You would not believe how many people in the club I (and he used to) belong to are standing behind him.

My response to them is "how would you feel if you found out it was pics of your grandchild or child that he was looking at?" Of course they don't have a response to that.

BTW, these were pics of children under the age of 12, with some of them involved in sexual acts.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. He's where he belongs, IMO. I just wish he would have gotten a longer sentence.

ETA: Oh, and he blames it on the fact that he has OCD. The judge didn't buy it, fortunately. IMO, if you KNOW you have OCD, have a friend put a lock on the puter so you CAN'T download this stuff.

[Details]

He definitely belongs on the sex offender registry - I sure want to know if someone who enjoys watching child porn is anywhere near my child. That's not some normal little preference - it's a sickness, to be able to look at a child in a sexual pose, being sexually abused, and find any pleasure in that.

A lower rank, and there's so much we need to do to make that offender registry really work - more reasonable requirements for low level offenders, stronger monitoring for the most serious offenders, and remove crimes that don't indicate a real sexual problem (such as outdoor urination, Romeo and Juliets) from the registration - but yeah, he belongs on it.

[interested]

so you think if a rapist\murderer post their story on line and you read it for free you should be charged with a crime, I think you have made my point


No, and I never said it was. But if that rapists victim was a child, and that rapist puts a video of the crime on the internet, and it requires the viewer to do something proactive to download it, knowing what they're downloading, as all the images in this case were, yes.

Thank you for trying so hard to find an excuse for the predators.

[i4doors]

He definitely belongs on the sex offender registry - I sure want to know if someone who enjoys watching child porn is anywhere near my child. That's not some normal little preference - it's a sickness, to be able to look at a child in a sexual pose, being sexually abused, and find any pleasure in that.

A lower rank, and there's so much we need to do to make that offender registry really work - more reasonable requirements for low level offenders, stronger monitoring for the most serious offenders, and remove crimes that don't indicate a real sexual problem (such as outdoor urination, Romeo and Juliets) from the registration - but yeah, he belongs on it.
great post:thumbsup: i ta!

[LisaM22]

No, and I never said it was. But if that rapists victim was a child, and that rapist puts a video of the crime on the internet, and it requires the viewer to do something proactive to download it, knowing what they're downloading, as all the images in this case were, yes.

Thank you for trying so hard to find an excuse for the predators.

not making any excuses for them, I will say it again, but you are free to disagree "I think it should be a crime, just not up on a scale higher then rape and other crimes against a victim" - I think we lessen the more serious crimes by putting anonymous limewire down loaders in the same category as real rapists and child molesters - jmho

[Dogmatic]

I wonder how many 67 year old men in the USA have downloads pornographis pictures that may contain underage victims.

Are we going to put them all in jail for 10 years?

I am sorry, it\'s wrong, but 10 years in prison for a first offense that was all done on the internet, with not one single human being touched, does not anyone think this is a bit HARSH for a punishment?

If he had hired and paid and photographed underage young girls, I could see ten years in prison.


Videos and/or still shots of pre-pubescent girls engaged in sexual acts with adult men. The key word is pre-pubescent. These were girls easily identified as little girls. Ten years is not nearly enough.

If anyone comes across such videos and/or pictures, they should immediately notify police to get those children being raped out of harms way. Instead, he opted to save them to his "favorites". Throw away the key on this perv

[Jayne]

10 years seems harsh for his offense but it is politically correct.

I think I understand your comment about being "politically correct"..yet IMO, it is futuristic-ly correct. If something isn't done now, it will escalate because not sanctioned to enough of a degree to stop it...as if that will stop it, I don't know..but it puts that person in a degree of "watch/hold" that they cannot commit that crime a second time without a much harsher sentence, coming close to having committed murder. OK..he didn't touch anyone..but would he? Maybe not...maybe it's the same thing as a foot fetish or long hair fetish...but to even be viewing those feet and hairdos on children..sure it isn't the same..or is it? It's all in context.

Maybe if this guy had just downloaded every possible porno thing and photos he could find..of adults and children..it might be a different scenario..at least that's how I'd argue for him IF I HAD TO.

I realize it's a very poor analogy..but I liken this to the person who downloads information..plenty of it...on how to build a bomb..make a fireball cocktail (OK..I can't spell it right now..Malakov?)..etc. etc. BUT..hasn't done anything...no one was ever hurt..YET.

It's a time bomb waiting to go off..or, yes maybe not..but I'd rather our justice system doesn't take that into consideration and say "false alarm"..for children..any more than it would for being a "terrorist" to US security.

There's gotta be a law. (Isn't that a quote of someone?)..and there is...and politically correct or not...it should be upheld.

jmo

J

[Dogmatic]

10 years seems harsh for his offense but it is politically correct.


If someone downloads something accidentally or on purpose that depicts a pre-pubescent child being raped, they have an obligation to report this to authorities. Otherwise, by keeping it or ignoring it, they deserve jail time in my opinion.

How can any grown man live with himself on a daily basis after viewing a child being raped and not reaching out to help that child?
That concept is so depraved, so twisted, that I think ten years in jail is far too short of a sentence.

[Dogmatic]

I didn\'t know that. Thanks for the clarification as to what action gets charged and convictions upheld. I suppose if one downloads child porn onto a computer, one could attempt to distribute it later to others. That\'s a big difference. I still think 10 years in prison is too harsh if no children were ever touched or even emailed or messaged by computer.




If one stores magazines in a closet with child porn in them, can one be sent to prison for 10 years? I don\'t know. Do you?


Here is how my mind works.

If I'm walking down the street and see an adult man raping a pre-pubescent child, do I have an obligation to call authorities even though I am not the one doing it?

If I come across a video, still picture, or computer download that depicts a grown man raping a child, do I have an obligation to call authorities even though I am not the one doing it?

In my mind, the answer is yes. We all have the obligation to help that child. If a person is twisted enough to keep those pictures in paper form or computer form without turning the evidence over to authorities, then I have no problem with that perv sitting in a jail cell for a decade or two to figure out their demented tendancy.

[c_biscuit]

IMO, anyone who has that many files of child pornography that were intentionally downloaded, free or not, deserves a harsh sentence. Anything that will keep him away from children is fine with me.

Children need to be protected.

[airportwoman]

IMO, anyone who has that many files of child pornography that were intentionally downloaded, free or not, deserves a harsh sentence. Anything that will keep him away from children is fine with me.

Children need to be protected.

OT: Hi, c-biscuit! Haven't seen you around here; hope you are okay.