Forum - View topicNEWS: Voice Actor Scott Freeman Convicted of Possession of Child Pornography
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar  Posts: 16941 |
|
|||
At least in MD the maximum is 7-8 years I believe for having child porn. That's non-negotiable, no early parole. There's a similar law in regards to commission of a crime with a firearm. Minimum is 3 years no early release. Often prosecutors will drop other charges if they're worried about a hung jury and keep that one charge for some guaranteed jail time. That's a different topic though. Now if you're the distributor or creator of the child porn the jail time goes up exponentially. I know the MD state maximum for being caught with it (at least it was the max several years ago, could have changed) because the oldest son of a former boss of mine got convicted of having child porn images and video. FBI were monitoring suspected sites and tracked his IP and then got a search warrant. He was also a first time offender but they still gave him the full max sentence. He had an MBA and a great career. Lost it all. Plus once Mr Freeman gets out he'll be on Megan's List for sexual offenders. You virtually never get off that list and it will haunt you. Plus if he ever moves he has to notify the town he's moving to he's a sex offender and other protocols he'll have to follow. So for those who think 3 years may not seem like much per se this will haunt him and follow him for the rest of his life. |
||||
|
||||
Desa
 Posts: 285 |
|
|||
Precisely. I don't think enough attention is being given to this particular point. How young were the subjects in said child pron? For me, my scale is thus: Category A = 1-11 years old: Unacceptable. Category B = 12-15 years old: Questionable, but ultimately I don't judge. Tens of thousands of years of evolution has resulted in a body that is meant to be sexually active around this age aka puberty.. Most people have at least heard of Jesus and how he was born of a virgin named Mary, but most don't realize that Mary was 12-14 when she was pregnant with Jesus. This was not an exceptional case either, as in Mary's time this was normal. Yesterday it was ok. Today it's a crime. Tomorrow? Who can say? Category C = 16-17 years old: I don't even think of this as wrong. To be clear, I think that harming someone, in a sexual manner or otherwise, is wrong at any age. But assuming no harm is done, and all sexual activity is consensual, and all photographing or recording of said sexual activity is also consensual, I don't see a problem with simply possessing a copy of said photographs or recordings even though the State labels it child pron and condemns it. If Scott Freeman had "Category A" child pron, or if subjects depicted were harmed (regardless of age), by all means, lock him up. If he had "Category B" child pron, a light sentence, or perhaps a fine would be more appropriate. "Category C" shouldn't be a crime in my opinion no matter how socially frowned upon it may be. TL;DR: I personally can't judge Scott Freeman as having done anything wrong in my eyes until more precise details regarding the evidence used to convict him are made clear. |
||||
|
||||
Mr. Oshawott
 Posts: 6773 |
|
|||
|
@Desa
However, that still doesn't change the fact that he voluntarily plead guilty to all eight of the child porn charges. Child pornography is child pornography, no matter how old the victim featured in it is. |
||||
|
||||
Greed1914
 Posts: 4461 |
|
|||
Also, it is worth noting that before a plea is accepted, it must be presented to a judge for final review and approval, which isn't automatic. The judge must be convinced that there is sufficient factual basis for a conviction. And at least where I practice, a felony means that the the defendant goes in front of the judge and the judge walks them through all their rights and checks that they understand what they are pleading to. This is on top of any discussions with the lawyer, and all done while the lawyer is right there with the defendant. Basically, judges are required to make sure the plea is legitimate before the conviction ever happens. |
||||
|
||||
Souther
 Posts: 604 |
|
|||
12-15 questionable (but won't judge) and 16-17 acceptable? Nah bruv, they aren't emotionally mature. Wouldn't it be better to date another adult, where they're more likely to have things in common? Can't think of anything a grown man/woman would get out of dating a teen, not anything good anyway.... |
||||
|
||||
Foxaika
 Posts: 365 Location: Columbus, Ohio |
|
|||
I'm not going to say I agree with Desa completely or anything, but I wouldn't say emotional maturity is as simple as "when you get to this age you are emotionally mature". I wouldn't think that is necessarily the case. I can easily conceive of a scenario where there is a emotionally mature 16 or so year old and because of that, someone could have a romantic interest in them. I wouldn't find that particularly ridiculous. Not that I would say it's a common occurrence or anything, but it seems perfectly feasible. |
||||
|
||||
|
Desa
Posts: 285 |
|
|||
I know the letter of the law is black and white, but this was just about whether or not I personally thought he did something wrong. It is my opinion. With homicides, eight counts would mean eight bodies. With something like child pron, eight counts probably means eight separate videos or photographs, or perhaps eight separate timestamps. There would be little point in contesting them one at a time, much like there would be little point in contesting every count in a copyright infringement case for something like filesharing a music album where it's one count for every track in the album since each track carries its own copyright. Regardless, since we don't know the specifics of ANY of those eight counts, the number itself is irrelevant. As for why he would plead guilty, this may come as a shock to many, but the U.S. justice system is actually *gasp* NOT fair! Those not familiar with the inner workings of the justice system nowadays may not realize this but very few cases lead to trial by jury. I cannot emphasize this enough. Many citizens are summoned for jury duty but only a small fraction actually judge as most often a deal is made before the case goes to trial. The system is heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution such that plea bargains are now the norm instead of presenting your case in front of a jury. Additionally, most cannot afford a prolonged trial, especially if you no longer have a job. When caught between a rock and a hard place, most can only plead guilty, even when they may not be: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ That said, I noticed you used the word "victim" which necessarily implied harm was inflicted. This is not always the case. Child abuse and child pron are mutually exclusive. Case in point, say a person paid two 17-year-old lesbians to have sex in front of a camera. That recording is child pron. Black and white; no ambiguity there. But, had that person waited a mere 4 months, both 17-year-old lesbians would be 18-year-old lesbians and it wouldn't be child pron. Again, black and white. The letter of the law sees in only narrow dichotomies, so yes, "child pornography is child pornography", but to me not all child pron is "bad" i.e. morally reprehensible. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the video of the two 17-year-old lesbians having sex and the video of them having sex 4 months later when they are officially 18, yet one is child pron, and one is not. Black and white. If a 16-year-old highschooler decides to take a nude selfie and then sends it to a classmate, both the sender and the receiver are now complicit in child pornography. Should the two of them have their lives forever tarnished by being put into the system? You decide. |
||||
|
||||
YotaruVegeta
 Posts: 1061 Location: New York |
|
|||
What if he paid for this pornography? What if this pornography involved underage people in forced sexual situations? |
||||
|
||||
|
Souther
Posts: 604 |
|
|||
I'll rephrase since it sounds like I'm dissing teens (not my intention); teens are generally more emotionally (as well as physically and financially) vulnerable/dependent, which makes it easier for them to be taken advantage of. Even if the adult genuinely feels for them, I still think it's wrong. |
||||
|
||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 654 |
|
|||
Scott Freeman is not a 16 year old sending a selfie, and I'm not even gonna touch your "12 years old is questionable" comment with a 10-foot pole. Your attempts to paint convicted pedophiles as the true victims is incredibly apparent and gross, especially since the idea of doing so out of speculation has already been addressed by mods in the thread.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||
OK. I've decided you're a pedophile apologist. |
||||
|
||||
|
revolutionotaku
Posts: 890 |
|
|||
|
I'm still upset that Funimation waited until now to release a statement about terminating their relationship with Freeman.
They knew about what was happening way back in May & said nothing. When Jared was SUSPECTED of doing what he did, Subway immediatly announced on their Facebook that they were ending their relationship with him. The only signs of what was happening with Freeman was when Funimation replaced him on High School DxD Born with the director of the show saying it was because "life just gets in the way". My ex told me that Funimation was probably trying to "save face" over this whole incident. |
||||
|
||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||
|
I think this thread has largely run its course and we're getting emails from survivors of child abuse that this thread is basically a carnival of horrors for them due to the sheer number of apologists making excuses for sex offenders.
Next time this subject comes up we're going to be a lot less permissive when it comes to arguments that are directly in favor of abusive criminal actions. It isn't worth it for us to harbor that kind of discussion here - our community gains nothing from it. |
||||
|
||||
|
YotaruVegeta
Posts: 1061 Location: New York |
|
|||
They're a company, not a law enforcement agency. They probably were waiting for a time when it had to be addressed. Freeman's not a member of their company. He's an actor who was contracted for a role. Imagine the mess it is to learn one of the actors you hired is a heinous criminal. |
||||
|
||||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5865 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
|
Funimation is not required to tell you anything. I have no problem with them keeping a silence about it either.
Just because one of their voice actors in their show is now a criminal, doesn't mean all the other employees who also worked hard in the show are tainted. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group