Forum - View topic

NEWS: Twins, 20, Jailed for Child Porn Including 'Manga' Images

Maybe Dom is comfortable living in a world where people are punished merely for fantasizing about things and enjoying certain kinds of fiction, but I'm not.

P.S. Plus, all this effort being put into protecting fictional children is time that could be spent protecting real children.

...this is the Canadians' way on how to break the bad habit known as pedophilia.

DomFortress wrote:

...this is the Canadians' way on how to break the bad habit known as pedophilia.

I don't believe I've seen anyone say anything that opposes that statement Dom. I think those of us in the "ignorant" masses have been stating, to put it simply, that Canada's laws regarding fake drawings/videos are stupid.

I find it rather disturbing that you categorize pedophilia as simply a bad habit though.

Then how should you define those who ended up supporting the mental disorder known as pedophilia because their habitual chronic ignorance led them to think "that Canada's laws regarding fake drawings/videos are stupid"? Some sort of divine intervention?

One of these brothers is apparently innocent, yet you seem to feel it's fine for him to fry with his brother. Why would you support punishing an innocent man? ANYONE being railroaded into confessing to a crime they did not commit is a sin against all of us because it can happen to ANY of us.

The brothers were charged last November after their sister-in-law saw some “distressing” images of children “as young as two years of age” on two computers in the New Glasgow home where the twins resided, special Crown attorney Craig Botterill told New Glasgow provincial court Wednesday.

Both men admitted to downloading images.

“It’s impossible to tell which young man did what from a forensic perspective,” Botterill said. “Both acknowledge they had been accessing and downloading these images.”

The images included “videos depicting sexual assaults of barely pubescent boys, around 12 years old, some pictures and cartoon drawings,” Botterill said. Approximately 90 per cent of the images were of cartoon drawings called Japanese Anime, while the remainder were of actual children. An examination of the computer showed that one or both of the Hammond twins had done Google queries to see if anime was legal, Botterill said. While it is legal in the United States, Canada has taken a firm stance that the representations constitute child pornography.

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

The Crown recommended both twins receive the same sentence, although the mode of trial was different for both boys.

A mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days in jail is required for a summary conviction of this crime – which David is subject to – while the mandatory minimum sentence for an indictable conviction, like Corey’s, is 45 days.

The Crown pressed for four months in jail, saying the sentence has to serve as a deterrent for others and denounce the crime publicly as well as punishment for the brothers, but both defense attorneys argued against the sentence. Both defense attorneys pushed for a lighter sentence. Corey’s lawyer, Steve Robertson, expressed concerns about how the twins would handle jail.

Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada.

CCSYueh wrote:

One of these brothers is apparently innocent, yet you seem to feel it's fine for him to fry with his brother. Why would you support punishing an innocent man? ANYONE being railroaded into confessing to a crime they did not commit is a sin against all of us because it can happen to ANY of us.

Simple; they used their home computers to gain access for the exact same illegal content via the internet, according to forensic:

Quote:

The brothers were charged last November after their sister-in-law saw some “distressing” images of children “as young as two years of age” on two computers in the New Glasgow home where the twins resided, special Crown attorney Craig Botterill told New Glasgow provincial court Wednesday. Both men admitted to downloading images. “It’s impossible to tell which young man did what from a forensic perspective,” Botterill said. “Both acknowledge they had been accessing and downloading these images.” The images included “videos depicting sexual assaults of barely pubescent boys, around 12 years old, some pictures and cartoon drawings,” Botterill said. Approximately 90 per cent of the images were of cartoon drawings called Japanese Anime, while the remainder were of actual children. An examination of the computer showed that one or both of the Hammond twins had done Google queries to see if anime was legal, Botterill said. While it is legal in the United States, Canada has taken a firm stance that the representations constitute child pornography.

Therefore, regardless the individuals' backgrounds and natures, the fact still remains that both committed the exact same crime under the Canadian criminal code:

Quote:

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

And I think that unless the twins didn't live in the same house, then at least one of them should get a lighter sentence. However:

Quote:

The Crown recommended both twins receive the same sentence, although the mode of trial was different for both boys. A mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days in jail is required for a summary conviction of this crime – which David is subject to – while the mandatory minimum sentence for an indictable conviction, like Corey’s, is 45 days. The Crown pressed for four months in jail, saying the sentence has to serve as a deterrent for others and denounce the crime publicly as well as punishment for the brothers, but both defense attorneys argued against the sentence. Both defense attorneys pushed for a lighter sentence. Corey’s lawyer, Steve Robertson, expressed concerns about how the twins would handle jail. Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada.

The fact that Corey admitted that he's pedophile who needs help while David isn't notwithstanding, there's just no way to tell forensically which one of them possessed the most child pornography. That's why the Crown made equal sentence to both of them, because it's just like you said "the world isn't quite so black & white".

And as an afterthought, I don't think age gap has anything to do with romantic relationship. When mental maturity should be the barometer for an individual's emotional control.

Therefore, regardless the individuals' backgrounds and natures, the fact still remains that both committed the exact same crime under the Canadian criminal code:

Quote:

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

And I think that unless the twins didn't live in the same house, then at least one of them should get a lighter sentence.

Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada.[/quote]

So both have to fry to protect virtual anime children?
We need to make an innocent man an example?


[quote="DomFortress"]The fact that Corey admitted that he's pedophile who needs help while David isn't notwithstanding, there's just no way to tell forensically which one of them possessed the most child pornography. That's why the Crown made equal sentence to both of them, because it's just like you said "the world isn't quite so black & white".

And as an afterthought, I don't think age gap has anything to do with romantic relationship. When mental maturity should be the barometer

for an individual's emotional control.

DomFortress wrote:

Therefore, regardless the individuals' backgrounds and natures, the fact still remains that both committed the exact same crime under the Canadian criminal code: Quote: (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction. And I think that unless the twins didn't live in the same house, then at least one of them should get a lighter sentence.

Wow.
And we can only search the common areas & the areas our guys sleep in so if the contraband is stashed somewhere else, we can't pin it to our guy unless the person possessing it says something.

Quote:

Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada.

So both have to fry to protect virtual anime children?
We need to make an innocent man an example?

DomFortress wrote:

The fact that Corey admitted that he's pedophile who needs help while David isn't notwithstanding, there's just no way to tell forensically which one of them possessed the most child pornography. That's why the Crown made equal sentence to both of them, because it's just like you said "the world isn't quite so black & white".

So if someone in your home possessed illegal drugs, you should go to jail? After all, there really is no way to tell who the drugs belong to. Anyone could be using them, just because they're in the possession of one person just means that person maybe used them last. You might have used them

DomFortress wrote:

And as an afterthought, I don't think age gap has anything to do with romantic relationship. When mental maturity should be the barometer

I'm agnostic.
Why should I subscribe to something off a website with a religious connection? You saying the Hindu religion is more correct? I don't think they have anything to do with Canadian law.

Frankly maturity really has squat to do with sexual preferences. The DJ's I listen to in the morning were having people call in witgh their fetishes--everything from gals likeing guys who smell like sweat, beer, or pot to a gal who enjoys her b/f tying her down while his 7 ft python licks her naked body.

DomFortress wrote:

for an individual's emotional control.

Most newspapers have a slant. Didn't actually see anything on the columnist's credentials--just a list of what he's written. What's his degree in? What makes his opinion worth more than mine?

Seriously, do you want to discuss about this case with me or not? When you obviously don't know the Canadian offense classification between a indictable offense as to a summary conviction offense. While you forget that it was "their sister-in-law saw some 'distressing' images of children 'as young as two years of age' on two computers in the New Glasgow home where the twins resided"

Do I have to remind you again that "ultimately the point for Canada to ban virtual child pornography is to send a clear message that it's wrong for individuals to express only pedophilia on written, drawn, or even spoken medium"? While at the same time how can both of you and Triley here had also forgotten that "Both men admitted to downloading images"(citation)

What do illegal drugs in one's home have to do with illegal child pornography on one's computer?

And I'm an individualist. Therefore if you don't like a Hindu website talking about adult mental maturity with such objectiveness like "Do not accept any suggestion or information, however trivial it may seen, unless you are convinced that they stand the test of reason and reality"(citation) under inquisitive mindset. You can however compare your mental maturity with a 9 years old.

It's your call, or you can ask the DJ you listen to about your mental maturity. If he's not too busy masturbating while listening in on his callers' sexual fetishes.

Because he wrote a forum article, not a news report. Or are you simply one of those people who only believe in whatever the newspapers wrote? But selectively ignore facts for your convenient.

Tell you what, when you're ready to discuss this case with me like a mentally matured adult, who's willing to deal with all facts with an inquisitive mindset based on reasons and reality. Let my know by replying to this post.

DomFortress wrote:

Seriously, do you want to discuss about this case with me or not? When you obviously don't know the Canadian offense classification between a indictable offense as to a summary conviction offense. While you forget that it was "their sister-in-law saw some 'distressing' images of children 'as young as two years of age' on two computers in the New Glasgow home where the twins resided"

Did you not READ Triley's comment it was NOT a sister-in-law, but a g/f who may have been trying to plant evidence on the boys? Maybe YOU don't know manipulative chicks, but I've meet more than a few in my time. My question is IF you are a family member, why do you run straight to the cops & not try to talk the boy into counseling? It sounds as though someone nudging Corey just a bit might have sent him to seek help. It seems no boys had been molested, so wouldn't it be better to send the boys for help rather than prison UNLESS you had ulterior motives?

A key component of the adversarial system is the principle of “ a case to meet”. The Crown bears the ultimate burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused need not assist the prosecution in making the case against him. The right to remain silent, the right to counsel and the voluntary confession rule are bound together by a common element, the right of individuals to make choices on whether to speak to the authorities or not. The purpose behind the right to counsel is to enable the accused to learn about his legal position, in particular about the principle against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to counsel. Section 10(b) of the Charter holds that “everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right”.

DomFortress wrote:

Do I have to remind you again that "ultimately the point for Canada to ban virtual child pornography is to send a clear message that it's wrong for individuals to express only pedophilia on written, drawn, or even spoken medium"? While at the same time how can both of you and Triley here had also forgotten that "Both men admitted to downloading images"(citation)

I've downloaded images such as my icon over there. I gamble a healthy portion of people using the internet have downloaded images, yourself included. The issue is WHAT images were downloaded.

"Distressing"? I have naked pix of my daughter. Does that make me a pervert? I OWN Dragonball!!!!OH NO I HAVE NAKED BABY GOKU!!!! And Gohan for that matter.
Obviously I'm a pervert. I mean, that mother in Maryland or wherever was so upset her 9 yr old saw naked Goku they had to pull Dragonball from the shelves of the K-12 school libraries.
And you don't know how cute naked babies are to a parent. There is something so natural & wild about a naked child. I can't say how many times I sent my daughter into my fenced back yard to play that she was naked, her clothes in a pile, when I looked out 10 minutes later.

DomFortress wrote:

What do illegal drugs in one's home have to do with illegal child pornography on one's computer?

If your logic is both boys fry because one cannot prove who downloaded what onto the computer, then contraband is contraband, is it not?

DomFortress wrote:

And I'm an individualist. Therefore if you don't like a Hindu website talking about adult mental maturity with such objectiveness like "Do not accept any suggestion or information, however trivial it may seen, unless you are convinced that they stand the test of reason and reality"(citation) under inquisitive mindset. You can however compare your mental maturity with a 9 years old. It's your call, or you can ask the DJ you listen to about your mental maturity. If he's not too busy masturbating while listening in on his callers' sexual fetishes.

I thought the moderator said something about insulting one another. If you have the need to demean me to make your point, you have just blown yourself out of the water. The reason I do not like taking religious points as arguable fact goes back to the fact I was very much a faithful little Christian girl until I discovered the people running my religion & other Christian radio talk shows were lying thru their teeth about heavy metal song lyrics & if they were lying about something as STUPID as Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast"'s lyrics, what the hell else are they lying about? We have no proof, do we? Look at how people talk about Elvis. Look at how people are talking about Michael Jackson. How do we know Jesus wasn't his era's Elvis? And the same goes for all religion. Wise words are wise words, but prove me they are right or they are just a theory as valid as any other quantum theory.

DomFortress wrote:

Because he wrote a forum article, not a news report. Or are you simply one of those people who only believe in whatever the newspapers wrote? But selectively ignore facts for your convenient.

No, when people contribute regularly to a site, they often have a mini-bio. This guy didn't. Why not? So why should I listen to an editorial? An editorial is simply an opinion & you know what they say about those.

DomFortress wrote:

Tell you what, when you're ready to discuss this case with me like a mentally matured adult, who's willing to deal with all facts with an inquisitive mindset based on reasons and reality. Let my know by replying to this post.

In a debate one discusses the points made. One does not attack the person making the points. One undermines what their points say such as pointing out the "fact" is an opinion, not a real fact.

A bad law is a bad law. Slavery was legal in the US for many years until enough people were brought over to the side that it was a bad law.
Canada's law is a bad law. It needs to be changed. Even if it isn't changed, crucifying David just because he lived with his brother is a horrible sin against human rights.
People are unreasonable when it comes to children. There is no proof virtual child porn harms real children and if it does not, then banning it is just paranoid hysteria not unlike the witch hunts in which thousands of innocents were slaughtered. A couple hundred years ago witches were deemed as real a threat as these viewers of virtual child porn. I believe virtual child porn, given a chance, will be cleared of being harmful. All it takes is looking at it objectively & not emotionally

Triley, hopefully you can get a rights group interested in David's case. Hang in there.

In the alternative, Southin J.A. stated that even if Parliament has the capacity to
criminalize the simple possession of expressive materials, the subsection fails the proportionality
aspect of the Oakes test for two main reasons. First, she said legislation criminalizing possession
of materials that advocate a behaviour which itself may not be criminal “lacks all reason”.9
Southin J.A. agreed that the definition was too broad because it would include images involving
no actual children in their production, and that the definition criminalizes pictures of acts which
themselves are not necessarily criminal, such as consensual acts between youth aged 14 to 17.
Second, to criminalize the private possession of expressive material of any kind “ought to require
the most compelling evidence of necessity”.10 For these reasons, Southin J.A. found that
subsection (4) failed the proportionality test and therefore the legislation was unconstitutional.

That's because he never said anything about the UNITED NATIONS STANDARDS REFLECTED IN THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, which specify that:

Not to mention is the fact that ever since 1984, Canada had adopted mandatory electronic recording of interrogations(citation), while OTOH as of September 15, 2009, the US as a whole has not.

Straw-man much?