|
VitalSigns posted:Man I have never seen so many people who agree with each other argue so fiercely. As long as "sexual images of underage people" and "child porn" can be used interchangeably. And a 19 year old teenager is a lot different than a 15 year old teenager.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Cole posted:You didn't quote the post where he asked about rummaging through his child porn stash for sexy time high school pics. The post I was directly responding to. That was pretty off topic. Why single me out when I was responding to exactly to what your friend said? I do not know that guy and this is you continuing to do the thing I'm making fun of you for. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Cole posted:As long as "sexual images of underage people" and "child porn" can be used interchangeably. Yeah that's why I edited in "similarly-aged" in case that wasn't already implied by "non-exploitative". Yall's argument over child porn is just semantics. He is interpreting it as the name of the felony, if you have it you should be convicted as a felon, and you should be convicted as a felon if you have it. You interpret it as all sexual images, which people shouldn't be convicted for in some cases (like a teenager taking naked pictures of himself). But you both agree on what is exploitative and what should be prosecuted. Colloquially, pornography tends to have an impersonal or commercial or voyeuristic element. Are pictures of myself I send to my boyfriend porn? I don't know, maybe, some people would say they are, some people would say no those are personal. Is it worth bickering over the technical definitions of words? If yall want to go for it, but accusing people of being pedos probably isn't going to make for great language debate 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Something seems wrong here: What was the result of the prosecution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying there should be discretion used in cases like this that are clearly not exploitation. It doesn't magically make the images not child porn however, as cases of ex boyfriends sending these type of pictures to all their mates and then being prosecuted for distributing child porn have shown. Discretion never works because there is one rear end in a top hat prosecutor who will charge a minor with possessing pictures of himself at the same age either for reasons or to get him to snitch or something. It would be fairly trival (in terms of the language required) to change the law to create an immunity for media where the only minor pictures is the one possessing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
cole's logic is sound, so sixteen year olds who gently caress eachother should be executed for statutory rape
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Cole is the voter politicians are afraid of, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Not that the stupid slap fight over child porn that shouldn't be prosecutable isn't fun, but in actually interesting and good news, prosecutors who mislead grand juries by knowingly or recklessly presenting false/deceptive evidence in the 2nd Circuit can be held personally liable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
I realize society has reached the point where everyone needs to make sure it's made clear they are against child porn but are we really at the point where -They can stand naked in each other's presence legally. -If while standing in front of each other naked they took a picture they are now potential felonss. Yes "The law" defines it as child porn. But one of the frequent topics of the thread is when is the law wrong and needs to be changed. I have pictures of my wife (poloroids because I'm loving old ok) when she was 18. If I had taken those pictures 3 months earlier it's ok to say I have child porn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not that the stupid slap fight over child porn that shouldn't be prosecutable isn't fun, but in actually interesting and good news, prosecutors who mislead grand juries by knowingly or recklessly presenting false/deceptive evidence in the 2nd Circuit can be held personally liable. Wait wait wait. What the gently caress is this poo poo? Personal accountability in MY GOVERNMENT? Get that poo poo out of here. Seriously, that does address one of my major grievances with the court, vis-a-vis that there are very few actual punishments to grossly loving your job up as a DA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Unfortunately it would require a fellow DA to file charges so it sounds nice but the odds of it being enforced are somewhere between 0-1%
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Unfortunately it would require a fellow DA to file charges so it sounds nice but the odds of it being enforced are somewhere between 0-1% That's not what liable means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:cole's logic is sound, so sixteen year olds who gently caress eachother should be executed for statutory rape Yes that is exactly what I said thanks for the summary
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Unfortunately it would require a fellow DA to file charges so it sounds nice but the odds of it being enforced are somewhere between 0-1% As it turns out, multi million dollar civil judgments you are personally liable for don't require DAs - the aggrieved party can file them directly in civil court. But thanks for playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
You'd figure obstruction of justice would be a criminal charge, but nope, just a civil matter. What a poo poo-tier remedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:As it turns out, multi million dollar civil judgments you are personally liable for don't require DAs - the aggrieved party can file them directly in civil court. So someone in jail because the DA lied or tampered with evidence just has to file a civil suit from jail with likely with no assets so just find a lawyer pro bono willing to sue the DA. Yes, I see how that is better. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:What was the result of the prosecution? Dude plead out to 2 years of warrantless searches, no cell phones for some amount of time and no sex offender listing. Cue the sperglords getting all  that "he shouldn't have taken the plea deal and risked prison + sex offender listings to fight it"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Dude plead out to 2 years of warrantless searches, no cell phones for some amount of time and no sex offender listing. wait who are the smug sperglords in this situation
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Zelder posted:wait who are the smug sperglords in this situation Anyone who thinks they can judge someone negatively when that person is facing federal prosecution and a sex offender listing and they choose to take the prosecutor's bargain against an "unjust charge" rather than fight it to the bitter end, really. There is a bit of an attitude sometimes that if someone doesn't risk it all for one of their rights they don't deserve them at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Oh okay I get what you're saying. That post just seemed pretty harsh but aimed at no one in the thread I don't read this thread that often though
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:So someone in jail because the DA lied or tampered with evidence just has to file a civil suit from jail with likely with no assets so just find a lawyer pro bono willing to sue the DA. When there's the potential for a 300k plus payday (standard contingency fee lawyer rate of 1/3 on a million dollar judgment) the whole "no assets" part becomes significantly less important. You don't need a pro bono lawyer, just your average member of the plaintiffs bar, who do not give a gently caress about the DA because they will never deal with him (because they work civil suits.) But sure, this is a meaningless thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
jfood posted:You'd figure obstruction of justice would be a criminal charge, but nope, just a civil matter. It's both! But criminal charges don't actually do any good for the person who got screwed by the DA. Civil matters do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
If two 17 year old teenagers send nudes to each other and then one of them turns 18, can said person now be charged for child porn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:If two 17 year old teenagers send nudes to each other and then one of them turns 18, can said person now be charged for child porn? As in this case, they can and have been charged for it while they were still under 18, as adults to boot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Anyone who thinks they can judge someone negatively when that person is facing federal prosecution and a sex offender listing and they choose to take the prosecutor's bargain against an "unjust charge" rather than fight it to the bitter end, really. I don't know that people really judge the defendants. It's more the defense attorneys who plead out 99% of their cases and advise every defendant to take the plea because they're overworked. You can applaud someone like Thabo Sefolosha for spurning a lenient plea without looking down on people who take them. The only reason he can do it is he has the resources to mount an actual defense. But like the West Memphis 3 taking Alford Pleas, well who can look down on them for that? Speaking of, here's a guy who took an Alford Plea after the state paid the main witness against him (and threatened to take her kids and charge her with perjury when she wanted to recant) and gave the other witness (jailhouse informant lol) 5 years for goddamn murder. The judge overruled the jury to issue his death sentence, because in 3 states judges can apparently do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:But like the West Memphis 3 taking Alford Pleas, well who can look down on them for that? When that happened, multiple people I talked to refused to believe any possibility they were innocent because why would they plea guilty then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Lemming posted:As in this case, they can and have been charged for it while they were still under 18, as adults to boot. The american justice system is actually loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Meanwhile in  :http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/21/policeman-who-accused-chiefs-of-bullying-sacked-over-mortgage quote:Ch Insp John Buttress, from Greater Manchester police, was dismissed from the force on Monday after being found guilty of gross misconduct at a police disciplinary tribunal, held behind closed doors. Summary: senior copper speaks out about racism and discrimination in force, is then mysteriously tried for fraud. Found innocent in court, then gets fired by his force anyway for what is, absent of malice, probably a tax fuckup if it is indeed anything at all. Of course, Manchester are capable of showing restraint over more minor offences, such as loving up so bad someone offs themselves: quote:Earlier this year GMP officers were disciplined, but not sacked, following the death of a 17-year-old boy. Joseph Lawton killed himself two days after being arrested and detained by GMP officers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I don't know that people really judge the defendants. It's more the defense attorneys who plead out 99% of their cases and advise every defendant to take the plea because they're overworked. You can applaud someone like Thabo Sefolosha for spurning a lenient plea without looking down on people who take them. The only reason he can do it is he has the resources to mount an actual defense. People plea guilty for a hell of a lot more reasons than "my defense attorney made me." When someone is facing a life sentence and gets offered probation, that is hard tobturn down, regardless of how strong a case you have. Same for lifetime sex registration. Huge manditory mins and stuff like that play a huge part. Am I supposed to tell someone who is facing life to not plea to probation because they're innocent? Because regardless, I go home at night. This whole defense attorney forcing innocent people to plea thing seems to be more of a myth than reality, the south perhaps excepted. Do I advise clients to plea guilty? All the time. And it is based on the combination of the strength of the case and the strength of the offer. It os real easy to say "everyone go to trial" when it isn't your rear end on the line. Also a huge part of my job as a PD was convincing people to take cases to trial. I really thought the John Oliver bit missed the mark. It paid lip service to PDs who cares, implied that caseloads for PDs to plea people, while ignoring the huge other pressures placed on defendants. Manditory mins, missing work for court, judges who try to force people to plea, judges who gently caress up pretrial rulings, and juries who think thier job is to convict. nm fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
nm posted:I really thought the John Oliver bit missed the mark. It paid lip service to PDs who cares, implied that caseloads for PDs to plea people, while ignoring the huge other pressures placed on defendants. Manditory mins, missing work for court, judges who try to force people to plea, judges who gently caress up pretrial rulings, and juries who think thier job is to convict. Uhhh. OK. But you're still talking about the same coin. Defendants do not get their fair day in court
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Uhhh. OK. But you're still talking about the same coin. Defendants do not get their fair day in court I agree to a large extent, but I don't think he did the actual issues justice. Every year or so we get someone at an academic level argueing that we should do away with plea bargains or something and without larger changes that just fucks everyone over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
nm posted:I agree to a large extent, but I don't think he did the actual issues justice. The secret of John Oliver is that he's actually not very good at handling complex issues and oversimplifies them in ways that are misleading regarding the actual issues and are typically incredibly frustrating if you actually understand the field he's spending 15 minutes on. I.e. He's a comedian, not an actual journalist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
He is the closest thing you have to a journalist. Because he only has 15 minutes he will never meet whatever impossibly high standard you are applying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:He is the closest thing you have to a journalist. Because he only has 15 minutes he will never meet whatever impossibly high standard you are applying. My man, have you heard of these things called books? Sometimes it can take a person whole days to begin to grasp the complexities of a topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Would the reasonably likely scenario of "couple sends nude photos, couple breaks up, nude photos exist among their friends" count as distributing child porn? (Mainly directed at those who want a Romeo & Juliet exemption)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would the reasonably likely scenario of "couple sends nude photos, couple breaks up, nude photos exist among their friends" count as distributing child porn? (Mainly directed at those who want a Romeo & Juliet exemption) Yes, because you no longer have the consent of the person of whom the photo is taken and you are exploiting that photo sexually. What answer did you honestly expect?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Yes, because you no longer have the consent of the person of whom the photo is taken and you are exploiting that photo sexually. What answer did you honestly expect? I was curious at what point kids should be charged as adults.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I was curious at what point kids should be charged as adults. In my opinion, kids should be charged as adults when they're adults. I haven't been given a convincing argument why we need to treat children as being older than what they are, especially as they aren't granted certain rights for exactly that reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The secret of John Oliver is that he's actually not very good at handling complex issues and oversimplifies them in ways that are misleading regarding the actual issues and are typically incredibly frustrating if you actually understand the field he's spending 15 minutes on. He also uses his show to help inform the public of problems with society so they actually have a starting point for figuring stuff out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Would the reasonably likely scenario of "couple sends nude photos, couple breaks up, nude photos exist among their friends" count as distributing child porn? (Mainly directed at those who want a Romeo & Juliet exemption) If they are not adults then sure charge them with something but don't ruin their future. Make them do community service or something, no jail, and don't put them on the sex offenders list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:23
|
|
