Skip to main content

Reply to "Perspectives on a Child Porn Bust"

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Did anyone see the 60 minutes segment where a guy was sent to prison because child porn images were somehow interlaced behind other images and files that he downloaded on his computer. He didn't know he downloaded them and couldn't see them, but was convicted nevertheless because they were on his PC.


Eek

Possessing child porn is a "strict liability" offense. An element to prove in any criminal offense is the level of culpability. Intent is the highest, then recklessness, negligence, and strict liability. Under SL, you don't need to have any culpability at all; if you possess the porn, whether you mean to or not, you're guilty.

If I were this guy's lawyer, I probably would have considered attacking the legal meaning of "possession." Although mental culpability doesn't have to be proven as an element of a SL crime, I would think that possession has to involve the ability to access and use it, so the fact that he didn't know it was there and couldn't access it should have had some bearing on proving the "possession" element.

quote:
Originally from HonestBro:
The way I see it, it's a matter of degrees. I don't think you disagree with the guy. You just happen to think that not only is he stupid, he's a sleaze.

I take a slightly different angle still. I'd have to see the images first before I even agreed with the state's assessment that they were pornographic.
I actually hadn't even thought about his carelessness until this dude brought it up. He may have been stupid, but the point is, it was the farthest thing from my mind.

And as for your point about whether the images were pornographic, we assume they were for the purposes of this post.

Realistically, the element of doubt in this case isn't whether the images are pornographic, but whether someone may have planted them on his PC. Who puts kiddie porn on a network PC? But again, if he did, then stck
×
×
×
×