IL: Former Illinois lawmaker registers as sex offender

ELGIN, Ill. (AP) – A former Illinois lawmaker who traded in child pornography has registered as a sex offender. Keith Farnham of Elgin is now listed on the Illinois State Police sex offender site as a “sexual predator” who possessed child pornography of a victim less than 13 years of age.

The 67-year-old pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography in a federal courtroom in Chicago earlier this month. He faces up to 20 years in prison and remains under house arrest until his sentencing in March. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

His lawyer is correct in describing it as a sickness. Pornagraphy addiction is a national problem and like any addiction, should be treated, and therapy has repeatedly shown to be successful. Viewing cp is part of that addiction in many cases. Now I am talking viewing, not trading or marketing. Courts should recognize the difference and try to help to curb this national epedemic. Criminalizing an addiction does nothing for the addict.

Ugh. What a waste of time and resources. Good luck reducing the number of first time sex offenses by going after all the non problems. Oh and yeah I hope the prosecutor feels good about possibly wasting tax payer money for the next twenty years.

Wow, 20 years for possession, what a waste of taxpayer money. He should have murdered and/or raped someone so he would have received less time in prison. And yes my statement is outrageous, but so is 20 years prison for looking at photos that are easily found on the internet for free. And why is it okay for my local bookstore, Amazon or eBay to sell “artistic” nude photography books by Jock Sturges or David Hamilton, but it’s considered obscene if the average non-famous person takes or possesses a similar picture?

I wonder how many sex offenders he threw the book at….