Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteI totally dig what you're saying. Child porn is particularly distastful fodder, and we hate to see it distributed for any reason. But on the other hand you need to have the right "cheese" (to use your term) if you're going to catch this particular breed of rat.
The gov't isn't making new child porn, just using material that already exists to the best use possible (other than destruction). In my mind, it's no different than agents using nabbed drugs to set up deals to catch other criminals (you can tell I just saw Miami Vice). They're not making new drugs, just putting what's already made to use.
Distasteful, I agree. But necessary.
Exactly!
RichardsMy biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteIt called Entrapment! I learned about a case like that in college.
That fits the dscription of entrapment perfectly.
Actually, it doesn't.
Entrapment requires that a normally LAW ABIDING person be badgered, persuaded, tricked, pressured, etc... into commiting an illegal act that they WOULD NOT ORDINARILY DO.
If someone simply puts out there that they're selling this stuff, and somebody else says they'll buy it, that isn't entrapment.
If someone contacts another person repeatedly, won't stop, pressures them, ensures them that they won't be caught, etc...and the person says "fine, if I buy it, will you go away?" That's entrapment. If the conduct of the government representative somehow persuades the person to do something that they would not do if not for the government's pressuring, badgering, etc, then it's entrapment. If they would've just bought the tape from someone else and it was a standard low/no pressure transaction, no entrapment.
It all depends on the conduct of the officers in question.
busaunit 0
It was only a matter of time before they moved from killing kids to raping them.
no surprises here
no surprises here
QuoteI think he has a problem with the 'cheese' in the trap. How do you handle that material legally?~~April
That's pretty much it. The postal inspector committed a serious criminal act. The "beneficiary" of that criminal act was arrested but the postal inspector was not.
I understand that laws must have exceptions to make law enforcement possible, but the question is where do we draw the line. If a police officer exceeds the speed limit to catch someone who is doing the same, no big deal as long as nobody is being unnecessarily put at risk.
Speeding is not generally considered a serious crime, but distributing child pornography is. Where do we draw the line?
It seems to be a case of the end justifying the means.
Walt
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Speeding is not generally considered a serious crime, but distributing child pornography is.
Right. But who is put at risk by using confiscated pornography to catch a child molester?
Child pornography is odious not because of what it produces, but because of how it is made (with children.) If it was 100% computer animated, it would still be disgusting, but it would not be nearly as criminal - because the big problem with it is using children to make it.
That being said, if it was possible to catch this guy with a blank videotape, or some off-the-shelf adult porn, I'd much rather them do that and burn the child-porn tape. But that's my personal feeling on it rather than an objective answer.
Right. But who is put at risk by using confiscated pornography to catch a child molester?
Child pornography is odious not because of what it produces, but because of how it is made (with children.) If it was 100% computer animated, it would still be disgusting, but it would not be nearly as criminal - because the big problem with it is using children to make it.
That being said, if it was possible to catch this guy with a blank videotape, or some off-the-shelf adult porn, I'd much rather them do that and burn the child-porn tape. But that's my personal feeling on it rather than an objective answer.
QuoteThe postal inspector committed a serious criminal act. The "beneficiary" of that criminal act was arrested but the postal inspector was not.
I guess I am confused here, because I understood the article to say that the postal inspector was undercover, so why would he be arrested?
Jen
QuoteQuoteThe postal inspector committed a serious criminal act. The "beneficiary" of that criminal act was arrested but the postal inspector was not.
I guess I am confused here, because I understood the article to say that the postal inspector was undercover, so why would he be arrested?
The point was that the postal inspector committed a serious crime and I don't think our government should commit serious crimes in the name of law enforcement.
Why is it ok for that postal inspector to commit a heinous crime that you or I would spend many years in prison for? In my mind, it's *not* ok. By their actions, the government has served notice that they can select which laws they want to comply with. I'm not saying their cause was not just--I think they did a good thing--but I think they did it the wrong way.
Walt
Quote
Child pornography is odious not because of what it produces, but because of how it is made (with children.) If it was 100% computer animated, it would still be disgusting, but it would not be nearly as criminal - because the big problem with it is using children to make it.
If it were 100% computer generated (or even adult actors who have been altered by computers to look younger) it would not be illegal.
In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the supreme court held that if the image was computer generated, no minor was harmed. The purpose for banning child porn is to protect minors. If there is no minor involved, there is no crime. The justices stated that in the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, by including computer generated porn, congress was essentially trying to police thought rather than action.
In fact, by removing the only legal way to produce and sell child porn, it would encourage porn producers to use real children, because it is much cheaper to film something than to generate it on the computer. If both ways to produce child porn are illegal, there's no reason that the producers won't just go the cheapest route and exploit real kids. If, however, they know they can distribute their porn completely legally if it is computer generated, they probably won't take the risk of using real kids because there's another way that, while more expensive, doesn't involve breaking the law.
We're never going to get rid of child porn, just like we're never going to get rid of drugs, alcohol, porn, and other vices by regulating/criminalizing the producers. You can't stop the flow of black market goods by attempting to restrict the source. It doesn't work. It just sends the activities underground where they are much harder to monitor. However, if you can educate (and in some cases, provide psychological treatment for) the consumers, you reduce the demand. And, in the case of child porn, if you permit a completely legal way to produce it that does not harm children, you also reduce the demand for children to star in those films.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteWe're never going to get rid of child porn, just like we're never going to get rid of drugs, alcohol, porn, and other vices by regulating/criminalizing the producers. You can't stop the flow of black market goods by attempting to restrict the source. It doesn't work. It just sends the activities underground where they are much harder to monitor. However, if you can educate (and in some cases, provide psychological treatment for) the consumers, you reduce the demand. And, in the case of child porn, if you permit a completely legal way to produce it that does not harm children, you also reduce the demand for children to star in those films.
Good to see some reasoned and sensible logic in SC.
I agree.
I think a lot of people here are reacting emotionally rather than logically, and that's a very human thing to do. When I read stuff about child porn, it makes me very angry that people would do that to kids, and disgusted at the content. My gut reaction is "ban that shit." I try to take a few steps back from the emotional side of the issues, though, and look at things from logical and legal perspectives. The logical perspective was in my post above... You can't get rid of illegal goods just by making them illegal. You have to reduce demand, and the supply will go away. The legal perspective is that if no children are harmed/used in the making of digital porn, then it simply isn't child porn. There aren't any children there. What's on a computer is what comes out of someone's head, and it's just not practical to police thought. When you start policing thought, you run into a slippery slope... where does it end? Who decides what's okay to look at and to think and to feel? Where do you draw the line between art and porn if art is legal and porn isn't? Who decides? For example, take Stanley Kubrick's film "Lolita". I thought it was a great movie. However, when it was made, the film sat around for over six months because Kubrik couldn't find anyone to play it. I don't think most people would consider the film porn now... but what about the original Nabokov novel? The novel is a lot more descriptive than the film about the interactions between Humbert and Lolita. Is that pornography? Is it child pornography because the character in the book is underage? Is it child pornography because someone might imagine in their own head what those scenes would look like? Can the written word even be pornography?
All this stuff is so ambiguous. I think the supreme court drew the line in a really reasonable place. No children = no child porn.
All this stuff is so ambiguous. I think the supreme court drew the line in a really reasonable place. No children = no child porn.
Walt, you are overthinking this. It is a crime to be in possession of child porn, right? Does this means that every cop, officer, clerk, attorney, judge, jury, etc., who is in possession of evidence of the crime (the child porn) is guilty of possession of child porn?
Exceptions are built in to the rules. This means that mere possession of obscene material is not a crime, but "unlawful possession" is.
Think about the busts that are made where Mrs. Appel is busted for plotting to kill her no-good husband. They have a videotape of Mrs. Appel handing $5k to the undercover cop and stating, "Make Walt's death as disgusting as possible." Well, the undercover cop has just committed a conspiracy. The difference is that her conspiracy is "unlawful" and his isn't.
It's that simple, Walt. And I used you because I am informed and believe and thereon allege that there is no Mrs. Walt Appel...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Exceptions are built in to the rules. This means that mere possession of obscene material is not a crime, but "unlawful possession" is.
Think about the busts that are made where Mrs. Appel is busted for plotting to kill her no-good husband. They have a videotape of Mrs. Appel handing $5k to the undercover cop and stating, "Make Walt's death as disgusting as possible." Well, the undercover cop has just committed a conspiracy. The difference is that her conspiracy is "unlawful" and his isn't.
It's that simple, Walt. And I used you because I am informed and believe and thereon allege that there is no Mrs. Walt Appel...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteWalt, you are overthinking this. It is a crime to be in possession of child porn, right? Does this means that every cop, officer, clerk, attorney, judge, jury, etc., who is in possession of evidence of the crime (the child porn) is guilty of possession of child porn?
I have no problem with that. The difference in this case is that the postal inspector *sold* the porn to the guy. The guy would not have been in possession of that porn had the government not sold it to him.
Quote
Exceptions are built in to the rules. This means that mere possession of obscene material is not a crime, but "unlawful possession" is.
The government took action to transfer porn, which presumably was lawful for them to posses, to a citizen across state lines at which time it became not only illegal for the citizen to possess, but the means by which he obtained it was a federal crime. If the government had not sold that porn to him, he would not have been in possession of it.
Again, I have no issue with taking the guy off the street, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable had they done it by busting the guy for *attempting* to buy the child porn, assuming that is illegal.
Quote
Think about the busts that are made where Mrs. Appel is busted for plotting to kill her no-good husband. They have a videotape of Mrs. Appel handing $5k to the undercover cop and stating, "Make Walt's death as disgusting as possible." Well, the undercover cop has just committed a conspiracy. The difference is that her conspiracy is "unlawful" and his isn't.
It's that simple, Walt. And I used you because I am informed and believe and thereon allege that there is no Mrs. Walt Appel...
In that case I see the undercover cop's actions being ok because presumably his *intent* was well-documented and that intent did not include murder. By her actions, though, Mrs. Appel demonstrated an intent to have her husband murdered.
Selling child porn is selling child porn regardless of what the intent is. The postal inspector sold child porn and had it transported across state lines to make it a federal case. It looks to me like the government wanted to bust the guy and would go to just about any lengths to do it. Maybe the guy truly deserved it, I don't know. I think the government's methods were very questionable, though.
BTW, you are correct--there is no Mrs. Walt Appel, which should not be too surprising.
Walt
I can see your points, walt. But this quote in the original story is what did it for me: "In July, an undercover postal inspector in Missouri sold the couple 10 videotapes containing child pornography" (emphasis added)
Had the postal inspector merely thought, "I'm gonna mail this guy some kiddie porn and then report it" then, yeah, I would have a BIG BIG problem with it. But this indicates to me that the guy wanted kiddie porn, solicited for kiddie poinr, paid for kiddie porn, and received and possessed kiddie porn. That's a different thing all together.
Yes, attempt is also illegal (8 USC 2252(b)(1)) but, I'm sure you've heard, possession is 9/10 of the crime. Attempt is difficult to prove - much more so than "knowlingly" possessing it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Had the postal inspector merely thought, "I'm gonna mail this guy some kiddie porn and then report it" then, yeah, I would have a BIG BIG problem with it. But this indicates to me that the guy wanted kiddie porn, solicited for kiddie poinr, paid for kiddie porn, and received and possessed kiddie porn. That's a different thing all together.
QuoteI'd feel a lot more comfortable had they done it by busting the guy for *attempting* to buy the child porn, assuming that is illegal.
Yes, attempt is also illegal (8 USC 2252(b)(1)) but, I'm sure you've heard, possession is 9/10 of the crime. Attempt is difficult to prove - much more so than "knowlingly" possessing it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,991
>If the government had not sold that porn to him, he would not have
>been in possession of it.
True of most undercover operations.
Had the john not propositioned the undercover cop, he would not have been trying to solicit prostitution.
Had the drug user not bought cocaine from the undercover cop, he would not have had possession of it.
Had the underage woman (working undercover with police) not bought alcohol from a bartender, the bartender would not have been guilty of serving a minor.
I understand the distaste of using porn (or drugs) to get criminals, but I don't see much difference in the basic issue whether it's porn or drugs.
>been in possession of it.
True of most undercover operations.
Had the john not propositioned the undercover cop, he would not have been trying to solicit prostitution.
Had the drug user not bought cocaine from the undercover cop, he would not have had possession of it.
Had the underage woman (working undercover with police) not bought alcohol from a bartender, the bartender would not have been guilty of serving a minor.
I understand the distaste of using porn (or drugs) to get criminals, but I don't see much difference in the basic issue whether it's porn or drugs.
The gov't isn't making new child porn, just using material that already exists to the best use possible (other than destruction). In my mind, it's no different than agents using nabbed drugs to set up deals to catch other criminals (you can tell I just saw Miami Vice). They're not making new drugs, just putting what's already made to use.
Distasteful, I agree. But necessary.
elvisio "Crockett and Tubbs are da bomb" Rodriguez
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites