VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child porn

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) — Beginning July 1 last year, people convicted of possession of child porn were subject to more lenient punishments after sentencing guidelines for the charge were reduced.

“We think that that decision is irresponsible; it affects public safety,” said Camille Cooper with the National Association to Protect Children. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Too lenient, really? For an article about leniency not one mention of a sentence received is provided. Instead some random stats regarding what images or videos supposedly depict in cases are listed as reasons for maintaining harsher sentences. I am not going to defend materials featuring those under 12 being penetrated, however I am also not going to assume that each person under 12 is still prepubescent. Not that an 11 year old or younger who has started puberty should be engaging in any sexual activity, but it has happened. The one thing that matters is if someone under 12 is pubescent then certain aspects of a possession charge, particularly some enhancements must be approached differently. Despite what many might believe age in addition to puberty can mean a lot of difference between one sentence range and another sentence range.

Prosecuting someone for possessing anything that can meet the minimum requirements for classification as child pornography does not protect children (anyone under eighteen according to federal law), does not hinder production, does not prevent trafficking or slavery, and has no impact on preventing another person from coming across the same or similar content for the first time in the future.

The Feds Operated a Kiddie porn site for a week or two and put 10s of thousands of pictures and Videos
on the web, will they also be prosecuted.