A 27-year-old Cleveland man faces between 15 and 30 years in prison for allegedly producing child pornography. But no children were harmed by his actions: The man merely took consensual, sexually suggestive pictures of his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 20. https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/05/sexy-pictures-17-child-porn-arrest
Related posts
-
A $5 Billion Proposal to Fight Online Child Sexual Abuse
New legislation would try to curb the illegal imagery with record levels of funding for law... -
Why Will This FBI Agent Not Be Prosecuted for Child Porn?
We don’t know why the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the supervisory FBI analyst who... -
Should psychotherapists be required to report patients who look at child porn?
For years, California law required psychotherapists to report any patient who admitted developing, duplicating, printing or...
Oh, the poor victim! That innocent, young girl (17) whose life is now ruined forever! 🙄
Back to reality: I sure hope the judge has some common sense and uses it in this case! Such cases are an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money!
The whole thing defies reason. Period!
But if that 17 year old did the same with another 17 year old, it’d be the exact same charge because that 17 year old would be charged as an adult. Does that make sense? No. Never has and never will.
Reason and common sense do not fit into the picture. Also, by the letter of the law, he should not have taken the photos. However, this is where a judge should be allowed to exercise his authority and see this case as a waste of time. Sadly, with mandatory minimums in Federal sentences, common sense goes away. District Court judges have a love/hate relationship with mandatory minimum sentences, as it ties their hands.
You can murder someone and get out in 10-15 years, then resume your life unimpeded by the government!
Pictures are more egregious than physically removing a life from this planet FOREVER?
America, you scary!
Ah the scale of Justice in full swing here!
Wtf ever happened to the punishment fitting the crime!?!
Our system truly is a lazy sack of shit.
American Justice… Pathetic
I hope he can find a way to retain counsel other than a court appointed attorney. The article doesn’t provide many details, but I’m wondering how the feds will show jurisdiction 7 years later. In these kinds of cases the federal government has to prove such photos were generated or trasmitted via interstate commerce. That can include using technology made outside the state, but who keeps phones / computers / cameras for 7+ years?
I would be surprised if his testimony implicated federal jurisdiction. Lacking that, they may have to reduce the charges to possession, which would be current because someone apparently still had the photos.
The case should be dismissed as a de minimis infraction. This sort of situation was not envisaged by the legislature when they wrote these laws. I hope the ACLU or similar organization helps him out.