Forum - View topicNEWS: Missouri Man Sentenced to 3 Years for 'Obscene' Comic Possession
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brent Allison
 Posts: 2444 Location: Athens-Clarke County, GA, USA |
|
|||||
People change. Loving spouses turn vindictive and abusive, or just indifferent. Marriages fail. Spouses become vilified on anime message boards after threatening fundamental first amendment rights. These relationship problems happen. This is why you get a pre- or post-nuptial agreement, people. Not that it will keep you out of the slammer, but it helps in those squabbles over property. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11406 |
|
|||||
From the other article linked, it sounds like he did have actual child porn. He pled to the drawings, i.e., the obscenity charges, to reduce his time, and they took it, so it wouldn't be challenged. "Bee originally was indicted for receiving child pornography, based on a different set of images, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal." |
||||||
|
||||||
HyugaHinata
 Posts: 3505 |
|
|||||
|
Didn't the US Supreme Court already declare this a thoughtcrime when the Amber Alert brought this to their attention?
Throw the book at him, chuck him in with a bunch of rapists, bank robbers and serial killers for the real stuff he has, which was created through child exploitation. But don't anyone dare try to equate drawings with the real thing. We never have any issues with novels depicting child rape (Lolita, A Time to Kill to name but a few), so why are a few lines on paper considered to be the same as kidnapping and child rape? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
revolutionotaku
Posts: 889 |
|
|||||
|
There has been a recent report from Denmark stating that Lolicon/Shotacon do not cause people to commit pedophilia or other crimes against children.
http://cbldf.org/2012/07/danish-report-discredits-link-between-cartoons-and-child-sex-abuse/ |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
No, if he did, then they would've had a sure fire case and would not have offered a plea bargain for a different and lesser charge of obscene drawings. I cannot imagine a prosecutor/DA that would drop the original charge if it were true. They use this tactic all the time in various crimes (e.g. drug laws) to threaten people to submit in order to get an easy victory without appeal. Because technically, obscenity is a crime relative to "the community" and cannot be proven without a trial (the same material or evidence can have different results in different communities). Prosecutors get around that process with plea bargaining. The District Attorney's office in the article also stated that was all they found. That original charge was from a grand jury (see the pdf linked)--a bunch of random people brought together to determine whether someone should be charged and for what--and it is likely they just threw whatever they thought was fitting. His wife and most people make no distinction between real and virtual. This is the original report from the police themselves and what they found animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-10-18/missouri-man-pleads-guilty-to-possession-of-cartoon-child-pornography
Last edited by configspace on Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:05 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
TitanXL
 Posts: 4036 |
|
|||||
|
The thing is for all you know "child pronography" and "lolicon doujins" are being used interchangeable which is why it's hard to take what the news or reports say as fact. When they say child porn they may just be referring to the manga, which is why it's always a confusing mess.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
gorilla491
Posts: 64 |
|
|||||
|
Why didn't the Wife just try to work things out with her husband? You know go to counseling together? She just goes and ruins his life. There can and could be various reasons for his actions. But they never get to the root. It's always. You do bad? Go to jail! Repeat. Nothing SOLVES it. And the law: and...wait for it...obscene! Geez...
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
bemused Bohemian
Posts: 404 Location: central Mizzou (Moral Oralville) |
|
|||||
|
Sad to say Monett is located near one of those pockets in this fly-over state where many residents believe cleanliness and righteousness should be taken verbatim from the Bible. For years a neighboring small town named Purdy forbade their high school from having dancing permitted in senior proms. Google the words Purdy, Missouri and dance bans. This was quite an issue back in the mid-'80's. The article posted in the Los Angeles Times dated April 6, 1986 describing that situation also suggests the stranglehold (for lack of a better term) local religious leaders held trying to protect the morals of their flock.
This area has steadily gained a diverse population over the last few decades from immigration and many of these more stringent mores are receding presently though the majority of the citizenry still remain stoic as ever on the surface. So it comes as almost zero shock that such a verdict would be handed down to this hapless individual regarding loli and underage porn. Too bad he also managed to marry a lady who maintains a very clear sense of what ethical boundaries are. As for the suggestion they seek counseling: this area is largely rural in nature and the populace possesses a strong work ethic. The largest employer in Purdy is Hudson Foods, a chicken processing plant while Monett has Schrieber Foods, a regional cheese processing plant plus other ancilliary privately held small businesses that cater to light manufacturing and foods processing. From my experience working with people in the helping professions in that corner of southwest Missouri it was found the segment of the population that would seek help from counselors rather than pastors or close relatives came from either Joplin proper (before the recent tornado) or the Springfield SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), not the rural municipalities or burgs. That idea is an option not chosen and the path never, ever taken; very problematic. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11406 |
|
|||||
It's hard to know without seeing the other set of images, but if all of it was drawings, why bargain excluding that one set? You said it yourself why they would bargain down to an obscenity plea instead of trying him over a cp charge: easy victory, no appeal - and no making the god-fearing citizens have to look at it. Also, the dismissed indictment says, "the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," which doesn't sound like mere artwork to me, unless they thought the artist had to use live models or something. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
But they would NOT do that if the original indictment from the grand jury were actually accurate, since the original is actually a much easier conviction, with practically 0 chance in appeals, and it bolsters the DA's resume. From the DA's perspective it would be almost negligent to drop it, and they never have in actual cases. They used it as a bargaining device because they knew it wouldn't actually stick at trial; either it's not actually accurate (which is likely given the nature of grand juries), or they had live pictures but no way to prove the person was under 18. When bargaining, you automatically loose any rights to appeal. But you do not have to bargain down to a lesser charge. You can bargain for lesser punishment time. This was why Handley and others took a plea bargain. Therefore, if the original charge in this case of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) were actually true--meaning they were confident it would hold up in trial--they would have presented him with a plea bargain of reduced sentenced instead of bargaining down to 18 USC 1466(a) He had no lawyer, no representation to challenge it, and I would not trust any grand jury indictments at all. Just look at Julian Assange's Grand Jury indictment. But even domestically, I've seen cases of grand jury indictments used to throw completely bogus charges at people the DA deems uncooperative |
||||||
|
||||||
LUNI_TUNZ
 Posts: 809 |
|
|||||
Or... maybe they were in a loving relationship, until she found his hidden stash of "child pornography". And therefore wasn't ding it out of spite, but doing what she thought seemed like the right thing to do. Let's not assume. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Didarina
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||
I'm pretty sure there's definitely a point in a relationship between "finding hubby's porn stash" and "three year prison sentence" where spite becomes a distinct and significant factor. |
||||||
|
||||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14790 |
|
|||||
If she didn't report it, maybe she can be charged as an accessory if the police ever finds out? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11406 |
|
|||||
Regardless of what the reports indicate, if this is true, then the prosecutor is an idiot. One of the explicitly defined outs to contesting the conviction is "ineffective assistance of counsel," and if he had none, that's the definition of ineffective. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
LUNI_TUNZ
Posts: 809 |
|
|||||
And, there's a difference "finding hubby's porn stash", and "finding hubby's 'child porn' stash". |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group