200 years for child porn

[pigeonmeister]

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Morton Robert Berger's appeal that his sentence violated the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

A judge in 2004 sentenced the former Cortez High School teacher to consecutive 10-year prison terms on each of 20 convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor. Each of the 20 counts was for possessing computer and printed images of child pornography, and 10 years was the minimum sentence for each count.

Arizona law requires that the sentences be served consecutively and that they be served without the possibility of probation, early release or pardon.

This is a difficult one: Nobody wants to defend someone downloading Child Porn. But 200 years without possibility of parole...seems a ridiculous sentence. SIn my view this warrants a 7-10 year sentence (serve 3-5 with good behaviour) and a lifetime on the sex offenders register- that would be the sentence in the UK I believe.

Opinions?

[Xenoflame]

Definitely not 200 years. Maybe 300 or 350.

Actually, though, the charge seems odd to me. Why is viewing an image "exploitation"? Shouldn't that be the crime of the makers of the porn?

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Xenoflame

Definitely not 200 years. Maybe 300 or 350.

Actually, though, the charge seems odd to me. Why is viewing an image "exploitation"? Shouldn't that be the crime of the makers of the porn?

As said this isn't an easy question. One thinks that simply "Lifetime" would be enough, rather than 200 years.

Though by downloading filth like that means he's also supporting those distributing the porn and even worse -- the perpetrators of (child) pornograpgy.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Xenoflame

Definitely not 200 years. Maybe 300 or 350.

Actually, though, the charge seems odd to me. Why is viewing an image "exploitation"? Shouldn't that be the crime of the makers of the porn?

I think that Arizona's logic is that those downloading are essentially part and parcel of the industry, and as such equally responsible.

Justice W. Scott Bales wrote in the ruling. "Criminalizing the possession of child pornography is tied directly to state efforts to deter its production and distribution."

Is it possible to get beyond the 'lock them up and throw away the key' attitude? Justice needs sensible parameters- where do you go after 200 years?

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

- where do you go after 200 years?

I think that's a question of great philosophical depth...

[Inquartata]

And the answer is: To Disneyland.

Sorry.

Anyway, it's strange, because there are cases much worse than this one going through the courts every day ( which in itself is cause for dismay ) and the perpetrators are getting a few years for possession of hundreds or thousands of images, videotapes, and so forth. In fact the sentence under discussion is harsher than many handed down for sexually abusing an actual child...

More proof of the axiom that tough cases make bad laws. Frankly I don't think long prison sentences have any more of a deterrent effect than does the death penalty, other than that they absolutely deter offenses against children while the felon is in prison...

[mrbiggs]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/LegalCent...2785054&page=1

I think that the law should be clearer, so that we can separate people who are actually dangerous to children, and people who just didn't do enough checking into the websites they're visiting, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time or whatever.

[fences_like_a_lemur]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Opinions?

Only 200 years? That seems pretty lenient to me...I think that they should take him out back behind the jail and empty a few cartridges into his worthless carcas. That, is what I think he deserves; I mean if he's doing stuff like that then why should people be lenient with him?

"Off with his head!"

[Philistine]

As Inquarta notes--actual conduct with a child is punished significantly less . A quick look at the AZ statues seems to suggest that a person who sexually molests a 14 year-old will get one quarter the time of a person who happens to download 8 pictures which were taken of that act.

If Arizona wants to make possession of child pornography a mandatory life sentence, they should just do so. The mandate in Arizona law that each picture is a seperate crime, and that each picture must result in a consecutive sentence effectively makes possession of child pornography a mandatory life sentence.

As the dissent points out in the Az Sup. Ct. Case:

For example, in the federal system, the sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence of approximately five years (57-71 months) based on the number and type of images Berger possessed.....Indeed, the minimum ten-year sentence in Arizona for possession of one image is greater than the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography in thirty-six states and equal to the maximum sentence in nine other states....In Arkansas, Berger would have been eligible for a sentence of three to ten years, and in Connecticut, possession of twenty images requires a sentence of one to ten years....In most states, Berger’s sentence would not exceed five years, and he would also have the possibility of probation or early release.

I'm not condoning in any way child pornography--but he would have received a lighter sentence had he gone out and raped 20 (adult) women.

--Philistine

[Gav]

I'm not condoning in any way child pornography

This is the very problem with a discussion on subjects such as this. People often feel that they are unable to address a question because; the very act of suggesting that people take a reasonable look at an issue, seems to elicit an extreme response or perhaps the suggestion that they are [somehow] in favour of whatever is being debated. There seems something unhealthy in a group mentality which seems unable to separate reason from the easy knee-jerk reaction. But then such is the mob.

I also don't think that the judges sentencing actually deals, in any way, with the underlying problem.

[notalent]

The fact that child molesters would get less time says all you need to know about inequity of the law. I find it amazing that you cant even be pardoned for it either. Are there other offenses in AZ for which you cant be pardoned?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And the answer is: To Disneyland.

Sorry.

Anyway, it's strange, because there are cases much worse than this one going through the courts every day ( which in itself is cause for dismay ) and the perpetrators are getting a few years for possession of hundreds or thousands of images, videotapes, and so forth. In fact the sentence under discussion is harsher than many handed down for sexually abusing an actual child...

More proof of the axiom that tough cases make bad laws. Frankly I don't think long prison sentences have any more of a deterrent effect than does the death penalty, other than that they absolutely deter offenses against children while the felon is in prison...

[mrbiggs]

I'd just like to point out that Charles Manson has had the opportunity for parole.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by fences_like_a_lemur

Only 200 years? That seems pretty lenient to me...I think that they should take him out back behind the jail and empty a few cartridges into his worthless carcas. That, is what I think he deserves; I mean if he's doing stuff like that then why should people be lenient with him?

"Off with his head!"

Are you being serious or sarcastic here?

I in no way condone child porn, but this is just ridiculous. What exactly is the crime here? Downloading the images? So, clicking a few buttons on a keyboard is a crime? How about if it's downloaded automatically by the site I happen to be on? Is the fact that it's on my computer a crime? Or, is just looking at it a crime? So, if I show you a picture of child porn, now you can go to jail? And if looking at and downloading images of child porn is a crime, how about looking at and downloading images of a murder? That would be worse, right? How many 100's of years will I get for watching the news?

This whole thing is not only ridiculous, it's very disturbing. It smacks of 1984 and thought crime. Where does it stop if you can be imprissoned for looking at an image, or thinking a thought?

I'm all for procecuting child molesters and those making child porn, etc. But just downloading an image isnt anywhere near the same. And sorry Zz, I dont buy this "it supports those who create the child porn" argument. That's just BS.

.

[Phaeton]

Atleast thanks to Arizona we now have Miranda rights..that's probably about the only good legal precident that came out of something tha happend in the state.

[muaddib]

Originally Posted by OROD

This whole thing is not only ridiculous, it's very disturbing.

I couldn't agree more. This case is unbelievable. It's just plain ridiculous, it might even pass O.J.'s case for the most injust case in history. All this dirty old man did was possess pictures, he didn't hurt anybody. He is even a father, and his kids weren't molested. He was a teacher and none of his students were molested. He just liked looking at pictures. This is a crime in AZ?? I don't get it!

Human beings as a species like disturbing things....why do we slow down on the freeway and look at the bloody accident? Why are gory and violent movies so popular? Why does "sex" sell ?? I think Sigmund Freud would say it's the "Id", the beast inside all of us.

I think for some people, looking at the images will satisfy the "beast" and they will never harm anyone. I think AZ courts have gone way overboard here and I hope this dirty old man gets an appeal in the Supreme Court .

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by OROD

{snip}
What exactly is the crime here? Downloading the images? So, clicking a few buttons on a keyboard is a crime? How about if it's downloaded automatically by the site I happen to be on? Is the fact that it's on my computer a crime? Or, is just looking at it a crime? So, if I show you a picture of child porn, now you can go to jail?

The crime is "knowingly '[d]istributing, transporting, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing, electronically transmitting, possessing or exchanging any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.'"

So knowingly downloading is illegal. Mere viewing (i.e. someone shows it to you) is not.

The Court took pains to distinguish this case from the situtation in mrbigg's link of inadvertant downloading--noting hard copy pictures, and a system of organization, as well as other factors showing he knew what he was getting.

{snip}This whole thing is not only ridiculous, it's very disturbing. It smacks of 1984 and thought crime. Where does it stop if you can be imprissoned for looking at an image, or thinking a thought?

Criminalizing possession/distribution of child pornography isn't that different from any number of things that are criminalized--e.g. receiving stolen property, possession/distribution of drug paraphanalia, possession of drugs, etc.

I'm all for procecuting child molesters and those making child porn, etc. But just downloading an image isnt anywhere near the same. And sorry Zz, I dont buy this "it supports those who create the child porn" argument. That's just BS.

I agree that there is a significant difference in culpability between those who produce child porn and those who view it--but clearly downloading child porn supports the child porn industry.

Unlike your argument about photos of murder--the primary motivation of those producing child porn is to receive money for it--which is done through the distribution. The argument is, if the demand dries up, the supply will go away. Which, on its face, makes a whole lot of sense.

That is, of course, secondary to the issue of what the right punishment is for possession of child porn. I think that Arizona has got it horribly wrong--but I think it is entirely proper to make knowing possession of multiple images a serious crime (in line with what every other state and the federal system have done).

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by muaddib

{snip} I think AZ courts have gone way overboard here and I hope this dirty old man gets an appeal in the Supreme Court .

It's not the Courts which have gone overboard, but the legislature. The Judge was required to give the sentence he did, and, in fact, gave the most lenient sentence possible under the law.

The problem is, it's never a bad idea politically to be "tough on crime" by proposing more stringent sentences, especially for crimes that most people can't contemplate doing themselves.

From a technical standpoint, 8th Amendment challenges to length of sentence are extraordinarily difficult--especially when the crime is in the least bit serious. Even if it got to the Supreme Court, it's unlikely he'd win, IMO.

--Philistine

[muaddib]

Originally Posted by Philistine

snip...
So knowingly downloading is illegal. Mere viewing (i.e. someone shows it to you) is not.

Everything one views on the internet is downloaded to their computer, otherwise you couldn't see it! But true, he did make hardcopies, so he did know what he was doing. But still, looking at it isn't hurting anyone. If someone hurts a child, they should be punished in horrible ways, but images are easily fixed, it's pretty simple to cut and paste things. It's hard to say really what's happening in a photo.

I wouldn't ask him to babysit my kids, but I don't think he deserves 200 years in jail with no parole chance.

[Inquartata]

Understandably, the topic makes people crazy. Legislators, judges, police officers, parole officers, lobbyists, lawyers---all have children of their own, or would like to have them, or at a minimum see the virtue in protecting them. Even felons have kids and are protective of them ( the child molestor's lot in prison is not a happy one ). It's understandable why the law is the way it is, because the law is a human artifact.

But hard cases still tend to result in bad law. The sentencing issue isn't even the most extreme one in this regard. People have been prosecuted---so far unsuccessfully as far as I am aware, but still prosecuted---for the possession of written fiction concerning sex with children. For drawings. In other words, there is not even the rationale of an actual child being exploited somewhere involved. And there has been some progress toward the practice of indeterminate sentences---that is, keeping convicted pedophiles in jail indefinitely even after they have served their full sentences. Sort of a Padilla situation, only with pedophilia being the justifying offense instead of terrorism. ( And with far fewer people and groups calling it "unAmerican" or "unconstitutional"...because even the lions of the left and the mavens of the media have children themselves, I suppose. )

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/.../sex_offenders

I just don't know what the solution is. No one does, apparently, because the ones we've invented thus far seem pretty ineffectual. Maybe incapacitation really is the best we can do...