US 200-year porn sentence stands.

[evil_gop_liars]

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by a high school teacher from Arizona sentenced to 200 years in jail for possessing child pornography.

[spain]

If you cant do the time, then dont do the crime.

[The Irish Doggy]

Whoa! Holy cow.

[Ursa Majoris]

I have no problem with this at all.

[Savage Beatings]

the prosecutor had asked for a 340-year sentence but the trial judge imposed the minimum of 10 years for each of 20 images - to be served consecutively for a total of 200 years without the possibility of probation, early release or pardon.

 

Arizona got this right!

[evil_gop_liars]

Does it seem right that rape and murder receive less of a penalty?

[Azazello1313]

minimum of 10 years per picture does seem a bit extensive to me. let's say someone has an old traci lords magazine in their basement...are they a greater danger to society than a rapist or murderer?

[Ursa Majoris]

Does it seem right that rape and murder receive less of a penalty?

 

Depends. What IS right is that someone who wallows in child abuse goes to jail and the key gets thrown away.

[Azazello1313]

Depends.

 

ok, give me a circumstance when rape deserves less of a sentence than possessing pictures.

[whomper]

ok, give me a circumstance when rape deserves less of a sentence than possessing pictures.

 

 

 

A female teacher that sleeps with a 16 year old boy

[Codwagon]

A female teacher that sleeps with a 16 year old boy

 

 

 

BOOM goes the dynamite.

[cliaz]

Does it seem right that rape and murder receive less of a penalty?

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

minimum of 10 years per picture does seem a bit extensive to me. let's say someone has an old traci lords magazine in their basement...are they a greater danger to society than a rapist or murderer?

 

 

 

I doubt that a traci lords pic would get 10 years. The child pron these people are getting busted with isn't just some nudy pics. We're talking abuot 2 year olds being molested on film, infants, toddlers, 4, 5, 6, 7 year olds.

 

There's a huge difference between that and Traci Lords pics when she was 16. NOT that I am saying there is nothing wrong with the Lords pics, i'm just saying that when you hear the term child pron a lot of times it's way worse then you think it is.

 

One of my old school customers worked in that area for 20 years and he told me pretty much what i stated above.

 

Personally I think these people who be Sterilized. No need to put them in jail, cut their sh1t off (or if it's a girl scoop it out) and then send them to some island to live until the child they molested gets to be 21 then bring them back and hand that kid a baseball bat. Shut the door and come back in an hour.

 

any crime against a child should be met with the penalty that this person received. I'd love to see rapist and murders get it as well.

Edited February 28, 2007 by cliaz

[Azazello1313]

A female teacher that sleeps with a 16 year old boy

 

 

ok, i should have clarified, i am thinking more of the dictionary definition of the word, rather than consentual "statutory" rape.

 

rape1 /reɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reyp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.

–noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

 

[Azazello1313]

No it doesn't.

I doubt that a traci lords pic would get 10 years. The child pron these people are getting busted with isn't just some nudy pics. We're talking abuot 2 year olds being molested on film, infants, toddlers, 4, 5, 6, 7 year olds.

 

There's a huge difference between that and Traci Lords pics when she was 16. NOT that I am saying there is nothing wrong with the Lords pics, i'm just saying that when you hear the term child pron a lot of times it's way worse then you think it is.

 

One of my old school customers worked in that area for 20 years and he told me pretty much what i stated above.

 

Personally I think these people who be Sterilized. No need to put them in jail, cut their sh1t off (or if it's a girl scoop it out) and then send them to some island to live until the child they molested gets to be 21 then bring them back and hand that kid a baseball bat. Shut the door and come back in an hour.

 

any crime against a child should be met with the penalty that this person received. I'd love to see rapist and murders get it as well.

 

 

is there anything in the law that says the traci lords pic is NOT child pornography punishable by a minimum of 10 years under the arizona statute?

[spain]

ok, give me a circumstance when rape deserves less of a sentence than possessing pictures.

 

When the girl gets really drunk, the dude bangs her, and then they charge him for rape since she couldnt consent.

 

Or when the girl is really really fat.

[Ursa Majoris]

ok, give me a circumstance when rape deserves less of a sentence than possessing pictures.

 

Possessing pictures isn't the whole story, as you well know. Providing the reason for the existence of this disgusting trade is why these people receive the sentences they do. No customer, no child porn. Not only that, as Cliaz pointed out, we're talking about babies and toddlers here.

 

As for rape circumstances, there is never an excuse for forcible rape. Statutory rape is less clear cut. Who among us has not lusted after the incredibly hot 16.9 year old girl?

 

Murder already has degrees, so clearly there are circumstances where murder is more heinous than in other circumstances. How about the guy with a kid that blows away the porn peddler that is selling the pictures of that kid? I'd let him off, personally.

[cliaz]

is there anything in the law that says the traci lords pic is NOT child pornography punishable by a minimum of 10 years under the arizona statute?

 

 

 

Nope there isn't. The law is cut and dry and i should re-phrase the whole thing to say I doubt a Judge would throw 10 years at your for a traci lords picture.

[Azazello1313]

Possessing pictures isn't the whole story, as you well know. Providing the reason for the existence of this disgusting trade is why these people receive the sentences they do. No customer, no child porn.

 

i agree, and i agree there should be serious legal consequences for engaging in that trade in any way. but i also think it makes sense to differentiate in some way between (actively) producing and (passively) consuming. in my mind, the former is worse than the latter; and forcibly raping any person in far worse than the latter.

 

Not only that, as Cliaz pointed out, we're talking about babies and toddlers here.

 

do we know that?

[SayItAintSoJoe]

....cut their sh1t off....

 

 

I wonder if they gave this creep a choice of 200 years in jail or have your sh1t cut off which one he would choose?

[Azazello1313]

Who among us has not lusted after the incredibly hot 16.9 year old girl?

 

so you think having naked pictures of a 16 year old girl should carry a stiffer penalty than having sex with her?

 

Nope there isn't. The law is cut and dry and i should re-phrase the whole thing to say I doubt a Judge would throw 10 years at your for a traci lords picture.

 

 

the 10 years is a statutory minimum. the judge has no discretion whatsoever to go below that minimum.

[Ursa Majoris]

i agree, and i agree there should be serious legal consequences for engaging in that trade in any way. but i also think it makes sense to differentiate in some way between (actively) producing and (passively) consuming. in my mind, the former is worse than the latter; and forcibly raping any person in far worse than the latter.

One differentiation that would work for me is to give child porn consumers like this guy 200 years without hope of ever being released and cut the nuts off child porn producers, force them to eat them, THEN give them 200 years without hope of parole.

 

 

do we know that?

 

Dunno. I would bet it isn't Traci Lords.

[spain]

Just say no to pron:

 

 

[cliaz]

 

the 10 years is a statutory minimum. the judge has no discretion whatsoever to go below that minimum.

 

 

 

I didn't read the article closely so I didn't see that part.

[Azazello1313]

ok, i actually feel a little better about the sentence after reading this article. even though the article argues the point that his sentence is absurd.

 

In June 2002, Phoenix police arrested Berger on a state warrant charging him with sexual exploitation of a minor. Specifically, he was charged with possession of 20 photographs depicting, among other things, children being raped by adults, children engaging in sexual acts with other children, and children in sexual acts with animals. The 20 images introduced at trial were part of a large collection of pornographic images accumulated over a period of at least six years.

 

A jury found Berger guilty on 20 counts of sexually exploiting children under the age of 15 and sentenced him to 10 years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively. Last May the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. One justice dissented; another expressed reservations. Last month counsel filed Berger's appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court. We will know by mid-November if the court will hear it.

 

There is no question of Berger's guilt. He emerges from the record as an almost classic "dirty old man." There is no evidence that he himself ever engaged in distributing, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing, electronically transmitting or even "exchanging" pornographic images, all of which the Arizona law forbids. He was convicted solely of "possessing" such images. He collected them.

 

These facts should weigh in your calculus, for good or ill: He is 52 years old, married, a father of four, an award-winning teacher of world history. He has no criminal record of any sort. The state offered no evidence that he has ever created pornography or improperly touched a minor.

 

 

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, his counsel rely upon a single argument: The unservable sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment decrees that courts may not inflict "cruel and unusual punishments." The 200-year prison sentence imposed on Berger is plainly "unusual." At that punitive level, Arizona stands alone. Its minimum 10-year sentence for possession of a single piece of child pornography is greater than the maximum sentence for this offense in 35 states. It is equal to the maximum in nine others.

 

Is the 200-year sentence also constitutionally "cruel"? Who is to say? Manifestly, the question is hypothetical, or academic. On the record, Berger is a middle-aged, dirty-minded, part-time pedophile. But also on the record, he has never physically harmed anyone. He never even bought any of this stuff. He merely downloaded it.

 

In the Supreme Court of Arizona last May, Justice W. Scott Bales held that the sentence imposed on Berger must be affirmed unless it is "grossly disproportionate" to the crime. To answer that question, he said, judges must consider (1) the sentences imposed by Arizona on other crimes of comparable gravity, and (2) the sentences imposed by other states for the same crime, i.e., possession of pornography involving juveniles.

 

After weighing the state's "compelling interest" in protecting children from sexual exploitation, Justice Bales voted to affirm. Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz not only concurred, he "fully" concurred — but he "reluctantly" concurred as well. If he were a legislator, he would be free to find such a long sentence "shocking to my conscience and vote for a less draconian sentencing scheme."

 

Justice Rebecca White Berch, dissenting in part, had the last and most sensible word. She agreed that courts must defer to legislatures on the fixing of criminal sentences, but the Constitution prohibits sentences that are "grossly" disproportionate. In this instance, Arizona's sentence for possession of pornography "is by far the longest in the nation." It is more severe than sentences imposed in Arizona on first offenders for rape or aggravated assault.

 

In the federal courts, Justice Berch observed, where sentencing guidelines are fixed by an extra-judicial commission, Berger would have faced only five years in prison. Arizona's sentences for possession of child pornography are "not merely disproportionate, but grossly disproportionate to the crime."

 

She concluded: "I do not condone Berger's crimes. Child pornography is a serious offense. ... Nevertheless, we are asked to determine in this case whether 200 years is just punishment for a defendant who possessed child pornography but directly harmed no one. The sentence provides no opportunity for rehabilitation and provides no second chance."

 

This is a case the high court ought to hear. Morton Berger may be a creep, but on the record he's a pretty sad creep. The sentence is absurd.

 

 

so the law he violated was specifically to protect children under 15, which does away with my traci lords objection (i think ). also, the prosecutors took the 20 most awful pictures out of a much larger collection, and they sound pretty bad.

 

still, i don't like this sort of sentencing law, because it essentially gives ALL the discretion to the prosecutor and NONE to the judge.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

still, i don't like this sort of sentencing law, because it essentially gives ALL the discretion to the prosecutor and NONE to the judge.

 

Over the years, there have been a ton of complaints about inconsistency between judges when sentencing for (on the face of it) the same offense. Who hasn't been shocked when some do-gooder judge sees "remorse" as a reason to give probation to a thug who beat up and robbed an old lady,for instance?

 

Legislators took that inconsistency out of the picture when they took away judge's discretion and they did that as a reaction to public concern. This is the result, for good or ill. On balance, I still have no sympathy whatsoever for someone that gets off looking at pictures of children being raped.