What would you think of this case?

[TheLoneGunman]

A potential client of mine has the following situation and I figured I would try it in the court of public opinion.

D. was charged and ended up pleading guilty (although he has always maintained his innocence) to a federal charge of possession of child porn (just random pix, no one who was ever identified). He ended up serving several years in the pen (it was his first offense) and also served a term of supervision (like probation) that lasted several additional years. He completed both without incident.

D. is now a "free" man although he has to register as a sex offender and has some other conditions for the rest of his life.

Suddenly, evidence has come forward (similar to Tim McVeigh's case) that the information for the search warrant was known by the FBI to be false.

All D. is looking for is to get rid of the conviction and no longer have to register.

Would it bother you if he tried to fight this case?

Would it bother you if he won?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

[psycho-]

I personally would fight for it, since I would otherwise be faced with a lifetime of problems (employment, etc). Personally I would fight to the end


As to whether it would bother me or not if this guy did it or not, I wouldn't know what to say. You appernatly know him, and you can probably make a judgement on it. From what it seems like, you might have reservations if he went through with it.



Victor


[Edited by psycho- on 05-31-2001 at 12:59 PM]

[stupidzbu]

well.... in order to have JUSTICE... you need to COMPLY with the laws you right!

if you choose not to comply with said laws, then why should ANYONE ELSE comply ?

even though the crime is really bad.... it still doesn't justify them breaking the law.. a good friend of mine could have gone to jail for at least 10 years .. if it wasn't for the money the parents had to hire some big name lawyers for the murder charges against him... he served only 3 months and had all the charges dropped, but if it were not for all the money spent on lawyers.. he would DEFINATLY still rot in jail....


if he was innocent... why plead guilty!? i mean.. if you plead innocent... and lose... whats the difference?

if this guy just downloaded a porn pic off the net.. and it happened to be child porn... is different.. than a sick bastard taking the pictures himself.... in the end ... curiousity causes us to do a lot of things we otherwise wouldn't even consider...

it doesn't justify the act.....

but...

I think he should fight it.... because the LAW is the LAW... and if those who make the law don't comply.. why the hell should WE?!

it would bother me.. if he won.. only if he actually TOOK pictures ... or if it was for something OTHER than a one-time curiosity thing....

[topane]

I would be bothered by someone fighting if he admitted guilt. McVeigh has confessed to the bombing and deserves to be punished for it. And even thought his lawyers have filed a motion for a stay, he did confess, so he will have to bear the burden. I don't know anything about "D." or his circumstances--was he constantly seeking child porn? Did he happen to accidentally run across a site but there were files in his cache? I would have reservations about helping someone in his situation, but I do see where he would want to fight it (even if what he did was way wrong).

http://www.ehap.org/

[zenbooty]

The whole plea bargaining system is an affront to justice. Our judicial system encourages people to give in to the whim of those in power by not fighting for their freedom, but instead buying off a few years of time with your plea, and giving up the rest without a fight. And if you do fight, you will be made to regret it one way or another.

Are we citizens, or subjects???

[DeepTrout]

More like a 'programmed' response

Can you say,"Manchurian Candidate"?

Lone bomber my butt![and no i'm not forgeting terry nichols]

Anyways, I guess 'justice' will be done

[plutarcho]

Do you know this guy?

If you do and you know that he is not a predator to children (molestation or exploitation through kiddie porn), then you take the case and do what you can.

If you don't know him or are not willing to take the chance that he is not a threat, then you politely tell him that you don't have time for the case.

If you do think he poses a threat to children you take the case and botch it so that some opportunistic lawyer doesn't let him get away without notification to neighbors.

Yes, I am saying that you should risk your career to protect innocent children from potential harm. Be a hero!

Moral dilemmas suck!

[psycho-]

Originally posted by plutarcho
If you do think he poses a threat to children you take the case and botch it so that some opportunistic lawyer doesn't let him get away without notification to neighbors.

Yes, I am saying that you should risk your career to protect innocent children from potential harm. Be a hero!

Moral dilemmas suck!

Personally, if I knew this guy was predatory, then I know I would never be able to take the case with a clear conscience.

I think, most of us would deep inside know what to do when a situation arises, but would be hindered one way or another. Most of us know "the right thing". But, the right thing isn't necessarily the easiest to do either.

[cruelpupet]

while, i havnt noticed any child porn pic popping up on my pc, I do believe its possible that he never even saw the pictures in question.


when porn surfing, I know i come acroos sites that pop up over 40 windows, and i dont see what pics they are downloading...i just close them.

I dont believe he should have to register as a sex offender, i there was no prior convictions, or incident during probation.




As a matter of fact, I have a similar story...
My friends thought i was into rape for a while. Fortunatly one of them mentioned it to me, if he didnt they would still all thinkn i was. Turned out someone had been using my PC when i wasnt in my room. Fortunatly my friends are all CS and were able to see and understand the proof when i found it ( the web visits were logged as the time when we had our weekly math mettings, the night before calc HW was due).

So its entirely possible the pics werent his.

[stupidzbu]

i presented this to my room mate... and he INTAMITLY(sp?) believes that I am 'missing something'

I told him... a guy did hard time for having kiddie porn....

he said it was IMPOSSIBLE because, why would they bust him for having a couple of pictures?

I explained to him.. that it was ILLEGAL to possess, distribute, or make kiddie porn... in disbelief.. he is making me ask.. becuase I don't know.. the EXACT laws on kiddie porn..

basically... how much of it can get you in the slammer.. and for how long?

if you have one pic... would that give you 5 years in jail? or do they have to prove something MORE?!

whats the shortest and longest term one can serve for this?

[TheLoneGunman]

You can potentially get 20 years. The minimum is house arrest (according to Federal criminal laws). The state penalties vary.

Also, in California and other states, simple possession of porn is a crime that you do have to register for life.

The part that I left out is that D. is a high ranking, fairly well known executive in the Internet game. I am sure that the average person hanging with him doesn't even know. (Plenty of people "take time off" or are "self-employed" for periods of time so that is how his "absence" was explained)

Chance of re-offending is not a really valid criteria for taking a client. If I was a lawyer, I would not really have a choice.

Generally accepted (and published by Law Enforcement) statistics say that 87% of "sex offenders" do NOT commit another sex crime and a MINIMUM of 57% commit NO other crimes of any type. Strange how the "public" raises such a ruckus about things like Registration and Megan's Law when it won't work by definition (i.e. Why would you register if you planned to re-offend)

I was worried that there is so much hatred of child molesters that it carries over to people that are simply perceived to be in the same category. That was why I asked this question. I have heard people muttering things like "baby raper" when they heard that I was thinking of taking this case. I hoped that most people were more forgiving.

[plutarcho]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Chance of re-offending is not a really valid criteria for taking a client. If I was a lawyer, I would not really have a choice.

If you are not a lawyer, why are you asking this question? I understand that this is not a "valid criteria". This may go against the ABA's guidelines and may be unethical for a lawyer. But if you are asking what you should do, I choose moral over ethical anyday.



Generally accepted (and published by Law Enforcement) statistics say that 87% of "sex offenders" do NOT commit another sex crime and a MINIMUM of 57% commit NO other crimes of any type.

Depends on what types. There are lots of data showing lots of different things. Check out: http://www.ussc.gov/scac.htm
"It appears that a significant portion of child pornography offenders have a criminal history that involves the sexual abuse or exploitation of children and that those with such histories are at greater risk of recidivism."

But none of that matters. If this guy salivates when a 5 year old walks by, knowing that 87% of "sex offenders" do not recidivate will not help you sleep at night. So the questions remains, "Do you think that this guy is a threat?"

[cruelpupet]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The part that I left out is that D. is a high ranking, fairly well known executive in the Internet game. I am sure that the average person hanging with him doesn't even know. (Plenty of people "take time off" or are "self-employed" for periods of time so that is how his "absence" was explained)


Are you talking about the Intel guy that was caught about 4 months ago. This is starting to sound like his case