In two cases in the news, loony thoughts are used to criminally punish males.
FIRST CASE: A man in Erie, Pennsylvania was convicted of possessing child porn. That is indefensible, of course. What's peculiar about the case is that a federal judge allowed testimony that the man chatted online with the mother of a 4-year-old girl about his desire to breed a "society" of sex slaves. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11054/1127326-100.stm#ixzz1EnTRVW37 He wasn't charged in connection with the on-line chats, and his lawyer argued "that sexually explicit online chats and e-mails the FBI has attributed to [the man] should be excluded as trial evidence because the writings represent free speech. The FBI is alleging [the defendant] in the writings detailed a plan to create a colony of child sex slaves." His lawyer noted: "The government seeks to have the Defendant tried for his alleged thoughts and free expression of speech. As all of this activity is perfectly legal behavior its introduction should be prohibited."
The government claimed the evidence was relevant because the defendant's defense was that a disgruntled ex-girlfriend planted the child porn on his computer, and the "sex colony" writings, though not the subject of the criminal charges, are relevant because they illustrate the man's mindset. "This defendant wants nothing more than to terrorize children," a government lawyer said. http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110127/NEWS02/301279911
SECOND CASE: An eleven year old boy was handcuffed, arrested, and charged with “interfering with staff and students at an educational facility,” a third-degree misdemeanor for drawing pictures that depict violence against a teacher. See here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/79160.html
COMMENT: My concern in the first case is that the loony thought was all that was needed to convict the man on an unrelated charge (I say "unrelated" because it wasn't evidence of child porn). These are tricky issues, but note that in rape cases, we have developed an entire body of law that excludes evidence that is often just as "relevant" -- called the Rape Shield Laws. Those laws sometimes keep out otherwise relevant evidence that would prevent men and boys from being convicted of rape. I do not advocate keeping out relevant evidence just to keep someone from being convicted of a crime, and I realize even suggesting that the "sex colony" evidence might not have been properly admitted in this case -- given the vile conduct alleged -- will not be popular.
But -- and here's the point -- sometimes evidence has only slight relevance, and sometimes the probative value of evidence is so clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect that it is proper to exclude the evidence. I wonder if it was even possible for this man to get a fair trial on the child porn charges after the loopy "sex colony" evidence was admitted. Even if he didn't put child porn on his computer, it would be pretty much impossible to convince a jury of that after hearing about the "sex colony."
My concern in the second case is more fundamental. A boy was branded a criminal for thoughts that cried out for counseling, not handcuffs.
And that seems to be the solution for any aberrant male conduct nowadays: don't bother helping him. Toss him in jail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
This is a good way to weed out the bad males. Did he think about raping? Guilty!
disgusting.
Are violently anti-government emails/texts relevant in a charge of conspiracy to commit murder? (not analogous to this case) Yes.
Are they also relevant in a charge of unlawful possession of a weapon? (somewhat analogous to this case)...I don't want to flatly say "No". It's iffy, and I can see evidence of "wanting to kill someone" as motive for obtaining illegal things.
These are tricky issues. I don't like the fact that the boy was arrested. I know that some "zero tolerance" law and order types will disagree. But, hell, if lying about rape is a cry for help, then why isn't a legitimate cry for help treated as such? We have young women who cause men and boys to be arrested, and they aren't charged, but an 11-year-old boy is taken away in handcuffs -- for a violent DRAWING? They have got to be kidding. (That same picture could be respectable modern art in some spaces -- given that it fits the sole category that matters today: it's intrusive.)
Or maybe this sick child can be treated before he kills somebody, like the attempted murder in AZ?
"Or maybe this sick child can be treated before he kills somebody, like the attempted murder in AZ?"
Agreed that might need counseling. But I'd be careful about assuming he's going to kill someone.
The latter is disgusting but I don't object to the former. He wasn't being arrested for having the conversation, they were using the fact he said he wants to have child sex slaves as evidence that the child porn on his computer was not placed there by somebody else. I think it's very relevant.
I belive that current child porn laws are largely 'thought crimes', as do other anti-feminists, such as Steve Moxon.
This is particularly so given the present definition in Europe (and increasingly in America) of possession amounting to simply viewing illegal material (something which is almost impossible to avoid completely if you go to a porn tube site or perform an adult search on Google images).
The online world is increasingly becoming an extension of one's personal thoughts. In fact, within a decade or so, you will literally be able to search the internet simply by thinking (brain/computer interfaces). In that case, you may as well charge somebody with being in 'possession of child porn' for simply picturing in his head a naked image of the sexy jailbait who smiled at him in the street earlier that day.
[QUOTE] He wasn't being arrested for having the conversation, they were using the fact he said he wants to have child sex slaves as evidence that the child porn on his computer was not placed there by somebody else. I think it's very relevant. [/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to be a smartass but I don't see how that conversation can be used against him. No article I read ever said that he wanted child sex slaves. The sex slave he wanted could be MILFs for all we know.
And the only way the cops even got involved in this case was because of the ex girlfriend telling them about his fantasies. That is what I read from the articles.
He could have done the crime but the conversation shouldn't have been used as evidence.
That story about what they did to the eleven year-old boy who did nothing wrong is very, very disturbing. That's child abuse of the worst kind, as far as I'm concerned.
About the child porn defendant... I don't know.
But I do find it incredibly disturbing that in the Scott Peterson murder trial, they used his cable porn channels as evidence that he was guilty! The system does stupid things like that all the time.
Colorado is notorious for being anti young male.
There are "certain cops" that are out to get boys. It 's as simple as that. (I was informed of this by a "good cop").
Boys are bad. Girls are good.
It isn't uncommon or unusual if a boy and girl are caught doing something together, (example two 8 year olds breaking windows or graffitti-ing) only the male will be charged and prosecuted.
Even if the kid wasn't involved directly they will be told to accept a guilty plea or go to (an expensive) trial where they will be harshly punished if found guilty - and they WILL likely be found guilty, since there are no jury trials for juveniles.
This is a fear-for-your-sons state.
Boyhood, and manhood, has been essentially outlawed.
We are hunted.
We are few, and getting fewer.
Pay attention gentlemen:
The Singularity is fast approaching
Post a Comment