This frikkin' insane!

[MikeH]

Why the sudden change? Has everyone just noticed the kid is black?

[Arrian]

Is he? Oh, well hang him then!

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Except in L.A. at least, we have charging [Deputy] D.A.s and then also the ones who try the cases.

A few years back, I was talking to a D.A. buddy of mine, who told the story of being sent into trial--he took a look a the file and exclaimed, "Who's the idiot who decided to charge this #@^&! case?!" So he thumbed ferociously through the file to see who the charging D.A. was. "Oops, it was me...before my recent transfer. Funny, this case looked a lot easier when I wasn't the guy who had to try it."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
OK look at the facts of the case before you totally slam Georgia. 5 17 year old boys take a 17 and 15 year old girl to a hotel room.

They took a video tape recorder with them - so I would say there was some premeditation to film the 17 and 15 year old girl. I doubt the tape was meant to stay locked in a drawer. Taping and distributing sex acts with a 15 year old girl could certainly be considered production and distribution of child pornography. They weren't even charged with that.

They were not charged with that because...GASP... they did not do that. I agree the filming was bad however tons of couples take intimate photos which they do not intend to be seen by the general public. You do not charge someone with a crime until they commit that crime even if you see the possibility of a crime being commited in the future.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MikeH
Why the sudden change? Has everyone just noticed the kid is black?

I didn't know that and it doesn't matter. But if you trying to imply my opinion is racist let me ask you a question. Assuming the 15 yr old is black, and I have no idea, could I call you racist for not trying to protect a 15 year old black girl?

Race is a non-issue, what happened is the issue.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They were not charged with that because...GASP... they did not do that. I agree the filming was bad however tons of couples take intimate photos which they do not intend to be seen by the general public. You do not charge someone with a crime until they commit that crime even if you see the possibility of a crime being commited in the future.

I think you're right on distribution, but not on production. They filmed a person below the age of consent, a 15 yr old, engaged in sexual activity. That's pretty much the definition of production of child pornography.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They were not charged with that because...GASP... they did not do that. I agree the filming was bad however tons of couples take intimate photos which they do not intend to be seen by the general public. You do not charge someone with a crime until they commit that crime even if you see the possibility of a crime being commited in the future.

But since she is 15 it is a crime.

Here's the Federal Statute:

{SIZE=1] 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; [/SIZE]

OK here's the penalty for producing the tape:

{SIZE=1] 163.2 Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

163.3 Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
[/SIZE]

And now the penalty for just possessing the tape:

{SIZE=1] Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
[/SIZE]

By statute it meets the definition of child pornography. He certainly meets the possession statute. Was there intent to distribute it - that I guess would be up to a jury. So the tape itself is worth anywhere from 5 to 15 years.

EDIT: That was the 1985 law. In 1996 the penalty for possessions and/or production/distribution went from not to exceed 5 years and not to exceed 10 years to the new penalty of a 5 year minimum and 30 year maximum.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Race is a non-issue, what happened is the issue.

Race is usually an issue. One look at how blacks tend to get harsher sentences for doing the same crime tells you racism is still at play.

[Arrian]

It's not an issue in this thread. Or wasn't, until Provost brought it up.

The posters in this thread were not reacting to race. We were discussing the crime and the punishment, and I for one never even considered what race the people involved were. Until Provost brought it up, that is.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Bump.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Bump.

Okay Dino, so you found a three-month-old thread. Is that any reason to bump it??

[DinoDoc]

Yes.