Arizona man gets 200 year sentence for looking at child porn.

[Death Metal Moe]

I saw this story on The O'reily Factor tonight. I apologize for having no story to link to, but I searched for like a half hour and found nothing on it. Maybe I didn't use the right keywords. Anyway...

A man in Arizona, which has extrememly strict child abuse laws, was given a 200 year sentence for having thousands of pictures, computer files and videos of children posing and performing sexual acts.

Now this is an odd thing to me in one respect, and a prefectly right descison in another.

In the 1st, he is a scumbag who through his need for kiddie porn creates a demand for this stuff to be produced. People would still abuse kids if this guy didn't want to look at it, but it creates a type of underground market. He deserves to be raped in jail for a long time.

On the other hand, this guy never actually touched these kids, and there was no evidence that he was selling it or redistibuting it. And I've heard cases of people getting A LOT less of a sentence for actually being the person abusing kids.

Now I in NO WAY want to try and defend this guy, but the question needs to be asked: Is the sentence excessive?

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

I have no idea. On the one hand, he got 200 for just what Moe said...looking. On the other hand, he was looking at kids. I could really go either way. My question is this? What's with giving the guy a specific "200 years"? Why can't the courts ever say, "you shall go to jail until you are dead"?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

Yea, that is gay Mojo. You can't just say that.

So courts have to give a HUGE sentence to make sure that with tie off for good behavior there's no way they can get out.

I remember on several occasions hearing about old criminals who had received life sentences being parolled. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN????

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Yerdaddy]

Man, that's a rough one. On the one hand, he's a sick-fuck pederast. But on the other hand, does he have a homepage?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

200 years is outrageous. I certainly think children must be protected, however I also would be in favor of reviewing just what age should be considered "minor". A girl who is 17 years and 364 days old is only different from a girl who is 18 in the eyes of the law. The youth of today is much more "advanced" than they were 20 years ago, as I am sure everyone who is 25+ would agree; they just didn't make them like that when I was in high school. I can see the "kid toucher" comments now, but that's not what I am espousing, nor would I mess with anyone under 18. I just think that our society has created these artificial boundaries for whatever reason (18 for this, 21 for that, it makes no sense) and there should be some rhyme or reason for it all.

[Arienette]

200 years is outrageous. I certainly think children must be protected, however I also would be in favor of reviewing just what age should be considered "minor". A girl who is 17 years and 364 days old is only different from a girl who is 18 in the eyes of the law. The youth of today is much more "advanced" than they were 20 years ago, as I am sure everyone who is 25+ would agree: they just didn't make them like that when I was in high school. I can see the "kid toucher" comments now, but that's not what I am espousing, nor would I mess with anyone under 18. I just think that our society has created these artificial boundaries for whatever reason (18 for this, 21 for that, it makes no sense) and there should be some rhyme or reason for it all.while it's true that putting age limitations on certain activities is a somewhat arbitrary process, how would you propose it be done otherwise? whenever you impose strict boundaries like that, you are going to both under- and over-reach... but the line's got to be drawn somewhere. and i'm sure that there are some pretty involved findings and hearings undertaken to determine the best places to place these boundaries that will be the most "fair".

on a sort-of sidenote, this debate about setting ages and all reminds me of statutory rape laws. there's an age below which it is presumed that a girl cannot give consent to having sex. it is illegal for a man (who must be a few years older than her, this is all state-dependent) to have sex with her, even if she "consents", and even if he reasonably believes that she is old enough to give consent. that amazes me. even if the guy has every reason to honestly believe that the girl is old enough to have sex with him (like she shows him a fake id, or any number of things), he is still guilty of a crime for having sex with her. the guy has not intended to do anything wrong and yet he's a criminal. that's the kind of thing that i think needs to be reformed, not the setting of an age boundary.

it sounds to me like this 200 year sentence will be appealed as an excessive sentence which violates the 8th amendment. it very well may be overruled. maybe the arizona legislature was just trying to make a point.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/arisnails.gif" height=100 width=300</img>

sometimes the wind blows through the trees
and i think i hear you calling me</center>

[Tall_James]

But on the other hand, does he have a homepage?



http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/

or this one...

http://www.michaeljackson.com



<img src=http://users.rcn.com/jamespatton/boundries.jpg>

the forgotten 98%

[curtoid]

200 years is outrageous and more than likely will be appealed. Did they say how they caught him? Was it one of those sting opperations?

Before the internet, the largest supplier of child porn in the United States was the US Government, who set up many a pervert, only to have many of the higher-profile cases thrown out.

While I wouldn't be surprised that for every sick fuck that acts on their tendencies and actually touches a kid, that there are ten guys who are content with just looking at pics and will go through their entire lives without doing anything more, I won't lose any sleep for him.

Kids were harmed in order for him to get his jerk on.

[KOP]

[Bergalad]

Kids were harmed in order for him to get his jerk on.
How many guys in here got their jerk on to Britney before she turned 18? Or the Olsen Twins? These "children" are willingly portrayed to America as sex objects, yet if you bang one of them, jail. Girls should be girls, and women should be women; we should try to stop mixing them together. I don't have an answer for what the line should be on appropriate ages, and neither does society have a hard-fast rule for it. Really, only 200 years ago it was completely acceptable to marry at 13. Hell, the Virgin Mary is thought (by many) to have been around 12-14 when she had Jesus. I am all for the laws to protect children, but if Hollywood ("allowed" by the government) wants to portray these teens as viable sexual objects, then the laws should be modified to allow the actual sex. Enough with this ultimate cocktease stuff.

[TooCute]

This is retarded. Violent criminals (including child abusers) don't always even get sentences that long. Just for LOOKING at child porn?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[TheMojoPin]

Who wants to lay odds that the scumbags who MADE the porn are running around, free as a bird?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

This is retarded. Violent criminals (including child abusers) don't always even get sentences that long. Just for LOOKING at child porn?
Right. This guy just looked at the stuff, but this guy http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=796&ncid=799&e=4&u=/eo/20030522/en_celeb_eo/11851 was actually fucking a 12 yr old girl and here's what he might get:
According to Washington state sentencing guidelines, Bairstow, as a first-time offender, would most likely face between six and eight years in prison if convicted.

Fuck a minor and get a prison sentance 25 times less than if you just look at her naked. Yup, the laws make sense to me.



This message was edited by Bergalad on 5-23-03 @ 12:39 PM

[HBox]

Before the internet, the largest supplier of child porn in the United States was the US Government, who set up many a pervert, only to have many of the higher-profile cases thrown out.


WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anyway, I do have a problem that rapists will get out of prison but this guy never will. Doesn't seem like priorities are in order.

[curtoid]

Bergalad - No argument that we (as a country) have a double standard with what we sell and what we preach, however there is stuff out there on the net that is out and out evil. Not talking about teens, and not talking about nude or naked kids, but real children who have been (and continued to be) abused simply for enjoyment.

Mojo - Agreed! I'm sure many of these rapists are free and clear.

HBox - In the 1980s the government used the US Post Office to set up stings all over the country. Using porn seized from the 1970s, they would target people who they suspected might be into it.

Despite the cases that were thrown out, they kind of had a lid on kiddie porn - until the internet.

[KOP]

[Bergalad]

Not talking about teens, and not talking about nude or naked kids, but real children who have been (and continued to be) abused simply for enjoyment.
I agree completely. This doesn't seem like that sort of case though, at least not yet. I saw this German shiesse video that I could have done without viewing...

[curtoid]

From today's news, people are amazed how *harsh* this ruling is:

"Pleas for leniency didn't sway a Montgomery County judge who today threw the book at a doctor who killed his wife. Ignoring sentencing guidelines, the judge agreed with prosecutors in handing down Zakaria Oweiss the maximum 30 years in prison.

Oweiss was convicted of the August 2001 murder of his real estate agent wife Marianne, who was beaten to death with a hammer in the family's Potomac home. Prosecutors say one of their sons heard his mother screaming and found his father with the hammer in his hand, telling him not to call police until he got rid of the murder weapon."

30 years for killing your wife with a hammer = "Threw the book"?

Sick.

[KOP]

[schmega]

he should be put away for life. even if he never physically harmed any of those children, he is in fact a consumer who CREATES DEMAND for the most vile product/service out there. we're talking thousands of pictures and videos. he'll need all the time he gets to reflect on what a sick fuck he is.

[Def Dave in SC]

Well, the term is excessive, but not unjust.

Bergelad, I totally agree that it is rediculous that 17 and 364 is so much different than 18.

But, there has to be a specific cutoff as far as age goes. Otherwise you could say "she's only 17 363, and that last guy didnt get anyhting and his girls was 17 364"

This, could easily spiral (especially in our legal system) to a point where 12 or 13 year olds arent being protected because of a situation like what i said above.

It is far fetched, but out of the realm of possibilities in any way

Abba Zabba, you my only friend
<img src="http://members.aol.com/TheToddsterLSP/sigpics/defdaveindc1.gif">
Much Love to my Homies dcpete, Todd EVF, PanterA, and Tall_James

UCF:AYBABTU

[Death Metal Moe]

I'm glad all of you discussing this.

I didn't want to make it seem like I was sticking up for a molester, but people in our area who brutally kill others get a few years and are out in a lot less with good behavior.

He should be punished. But 200 years just seem excessive for a man who just looked.

And yes, at the end of the segment the people from the Arizona Gov. said he was appealing.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[HBox]

I'm not at all into defending this guy (he deserves jail time) or criminals overall, but this is indicative of a larger problem; the inconsistent sentences handed out today. This also happens with issues like drug possesion. It seems like politicians try to take advantage of an issue that is at the public's attention, try to prove they are tough on the issue by passing a law like this with huge sentences, then the issue fades away and anyone who tries to undo the law is portrayed as soft on the issue, whether it be drugs or child porn.

Meanwhile murderers are getting out of prison early for good behavior and some kid who was growing pot in his basement is in jail for 60 years.