Convicted Felon Allowed to View Child Porn In Jail

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in Misc

A legal loophole is allowing a Washington state man accused of child sex crimes to view child pornography while in jail.
There are 54 comments:
Female 418
What a drating loser
0
Reply
Male 38,411
[quote]this is why I am going to move to New Guinea and become the new God of a tribe of pygmies.[/quote]
@Jade_Phoenix: Pygmies live in Africa (mostly) iirc. New Guinea has headhunters, cannibals and lots of Christian Missionaries.

Well blow my lips off! I Wikied it and they DO live there! Have fun JP! Don`t forget to post pictures of your temple & stuff!
0
Reply
Male 38,411
[quote]Cats, you can shield evidence from anyone not involved in the trial (press.)
This is a new trial apart from his previous conviction. He still needs access.[/quote]

@CodeJockey: I`m thinking of Sirhan Sirhan, the guy who "allegedly" shot RFK. He pled guilty to avoid the death penalty, then tried to change his plea.
The judge refused to let him change it, gave him life and sealed ALL the evidence. In all his appeals he was never allowed to see a single bit of evidence against him.
idk if that`s normal, but I`m thinking it would take an order from a higher court to un-seal evidence, not likely in this case, eh?
0
Reply
Female 1,894
hes definitely not guilty
0
Reply
Male 4,902
@Jackson13W, indeed, let him have his jollies now, once he gets to gen pop this guy is going to be every guy on the cell block`s housewife.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]ummm no this is just not right, some times u gotta say fu ck the law there is no way this should be happening[/quote]

There are many situations where there is no option that is completely right all of the time.

You have to look at which option is the least wrong.

I argue that presumption of innocence and the right to review evidence is the least wrong option.

You want to remove those two principles from your country`s legal system. I argue that would cause far more harm to far more people than having them does, therefore your choice would be more wrong.
0
Reply
Male 61
ummm no this is just not right, some times u gotta say fu ck the law there is no way this should be happening
0
Reply
Male 362
that guy is smart!
0
Reply
Male 914
I am so sick of neo-cons finding any excuse they can to strip away individual freedoms and constitutional rights all because of a few bad apples.
0
Reply
Male 155
my solace lies in three facts.
1: he`s getting piles of media coverage.
2: prisoners watch television.
3: even prisoners hate molesters
this problem will solve itself.
0
Reply
Male 1,646
@sbeelz, they will have to make a specific amendment that stops this kind of behavior. when there are sensitive materials involved; that satiate the lust of the defendant in ways that break the law, simply cannot be allowed.

Seriously though, laws aren`t the word of Allah, when poo like this happens it shouldn`t be this hard to go to a judge and put a stop to this type of thing from happening.
0
Reply
Male 1,646
what a sleazebag. It`s alright; he`ll get his fill of rapage in jail. I`m sure he`ll be put away alot longer this time.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@sbleez

Why not just pass a law that requires the defendant to go before a judge and provide a reason, or a hypothesis of what they hope to find or be able to prove by viewing the evidence if it is obscene after say 5 guaranteed reviews? I don`t think that would be a violation of the defendants rights. It`s a violation of the victims rights to continue to let them be exploited.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
BTW- how does the prosecutor propose to "change the law" in order to stop this kind of thing from happening? Take away people`s right to defend themselves in court, or take away attorneys` right to review evidence?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
It`s already been said a bunch of times here- as disturbing as this is, we can`t take his right to adequate legal defense away because we wish not to be disturbed. Angilion, Madest, Gerry etc hit the nail on the head.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]In order to guarantee everyone equal rights, you unfortunately have to give them to scumbags too.[/quote]

That`s it in a nutshell.

Either you keep these ideas:

Innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
A fair trial including review of the evidence.

or you discard them and accept the numerous massive injustices that will result.

Arguing that they should apply to some people but not to others just doesn`t cut it. They`re principles that either apply to everyone all of the time or they`re worthless.

@highonhuffin: Clearly you`re opposed to those principles. Maybe you want to lynch people instead of having a criminal justice system that inconveniently gets in the way of you torturing people to death for your own pleasure?

How do you like your style of argument being applied to yourself?
0
Reply
Male 329
Not cool BUT the news is spinning it like he is sitting in jail looking up child porn on the internet and that is not true, he is looking at evidence that happens to be child porn that he owned...he already saw it. Now yes this time it is pretty messed up but the courts will attempt to stop people from representing themselves and seeing the evidence..there won`t be a clause to let people represent themselves and see evidence as long as it is not pornographic. The point being that in THIS case yes it is a crappy situation but changing the laws over 1 case will result in many people who won`t be able to view evidence when representing themselves. The government lives for little hot button issues like this because it gets people fired up and people act irrationally allowing the government to go behind our backs and change the laws so they screw us all!
0
Reply
Male 25,416
thats pretty fd up.. be careful he might be on IAB
0
Reply
Male 303
Agree with paddy, Gerry, Basketcase, NATattack
0
Reply
Female 407
What tha F*CK?? I swear...this is why I am going to move to New Guinea and become the new God of a tribe of pygmies. I would be worshiped and adored and they would bring me gifts of woven clothing and animal sacrifices.
0
Reply
Male 218
facepalm @ jendrian`s "faceplant"
0
Reply
Male 1,206
I`m pretty sure he already knows what`s on the tapes, since they were HIS collection to begin with!
0
Reply
Female 3,696
Throw him in gen pop- He`ll get his.
0
Reply
Female 285
IT is what it is. I think its horrible and sad for these kids but he has a legal right to do this and if we take it away from him we take the right to view evidence from everyone else.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Gerry1of1

WHAT!!?

A man on trial is allowed to wank to child porn he shot himself?

Why should we outrage?

Avalon`s faceplant is seconded
0
Reply
Male 1,182
its not really a legal loophole... its just how the law works.
0
Reply
Male 38,766

WHAT!!?

A man on trial is allowed to review the evidence against him!

This is an outrage!

grow up people
0
Reply
Female 2,927
isnt child porn in itself a crime? what the hell? so you going to let a crack dealer make crack in his cell? what about the poor kids in said porn? this is f*cked up!!
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Innocent until proven guilty. If you take this right away from one man you`ll be doing it to everyone else. This individual case is drated up, obviously, but just calm down safe in the knowledge that this man is going to spend a very long time in a prison full of very violent people who hate pedo`s.
0
Reply
Male 187
AMERICA...facepalm.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
"Place an order from the Judge that the evidence is sealed and cannot be reviewed by ANYONE."
Cats, you can shield evidence from anyone not involved in the trial (press.)
This is a new trial apart from his previous conviction. He still needs access.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
"Personally, I think that if they were confiscated from him, he knows whats on them already"
That`s an assumption. A person needs full access and has to be able to discuss it in detail with witnesses.

It is >alleged< that he is the videos.
He can refute that allegation and the prosecution has to convince a jury of his presence in the videos as well as WHY and WHAT he was was doing. That being said, the jury has to view the videos also.

Most everyone involved will view the videos.
That`s why I said it`s non-news.
0
Reply
Male 38,411
@madest - champion of human rights... for those he agrees with!

Tea Party: Arrest them all! Shoot them in the street! How dare they oppose Obama!
Convicted pedophile: He has EVERY RIGHT to watch child porn!

Nice!
0
Reply
Male 38,411
Declare him a "dangerous offender" and lock him up forever: no appeals no need to view the "evidence". And it`s perfectly legal!

Declare him criminally insane, that makes him unfit to be his own lawyer and he cannot review the "evidence" any longer. Also perfectly legal!

Place an order from the Judge that the evidence is sealed and cannot be reviewed by ANYONE. Also legal, it`s been done hundreds of times.

C`mon America! Smarten up and shut this nonsense down!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Alright. Let him review all the "evidence" he needs to.

But when it`s all over and done with, and he has no defense because everyone can clearly see that he committed the crime, put a f*cking bullet in his skull rather than keeping the sicko around.

Not only does it cost the hard-working moral citizens money to give this freak three hots and a cot every day for however many years he gets, but if he survives until his sentence is up, he can get out of jail and start doing it again, like that one freak that, despite having been in and out of jail countless times, just keeps going around and drinking little boy`s piss.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@highonhuffin, Yeah sure. Anybody who cares about their own constitutional rights must be a pedophile. You have the logic of a fruit smoothie.
0
Reply
Male 368
@paperduck - why is *watching* the videos considered reviewing the evidence? ***because the evidence against him, that he had sex with the boys, is on the video***
- Can a lawyer be allowed to suffocate someone with sock if he`s representing someone who is charged with suffocating someone with a sock, to review whether that works or not? *** No, because the crime is not if it `works` obviously it worked but if there was a video of the accused showing him suffocating the victim with a sock then the lawyer would absolutely be allowed to watch that.
They are not allowing him to have sex with the kids again to `review the crime` they are allowing him to review the evidence that will be used against him so he might make a defense. Now obviously we all know he just wants a chance to relive what he did but unfortunately his rights do have to be upheld no matter how disgusting that may be.
I once got a ticket from a red light camera, I go tot view the video so I could make a defen
0
Reply
Male 1,920
@highonhuffin
"Maybe the two of you share his perversion?" Accusing people making a valid point makes you look like an ass.

In order to guarantee everyone equal rights, you unfortunately have to give them to scumbags too.
Just remember the rights you would so quickly deny this man (as disgusting as what he is doing is) could them be just as easily taken from you.
0
Reply
Male 180
@madest&Calieb : go on supporting this scumbags rights. Maybe the two of you share his perversion?

Gilbert, who appears in several of the videos, was charged with child rape, child molestation and sexual exploitation of a minor in 2007, after the brother of two alleged victims called police, ABC News reported.
Investigators seized from Gilbert`s possession more than 100 DVDs containing 28 hours of pornographic footage, komonews.com reported.
Witnesses told ABC News that Gilbert, 50, would give the boys alcohol and spank their bare buttocks. In several cases, prosecutors told ABC, Gilbert allegedly engaged the teens in masturbation, oral sex and anal sex.
0
Reply
Male 55
as disturbing as it is i agree with madest " You can`t take away constitutional rights because it`s offensive."
0
Reply
Male 3,325
"why is *watching* the videos considered reviewing the evidence?"

Because he filmed some of it himself. His lawyer has to be ready to defend him against accusations arising from those tapes. To do that, his lawyer must know what`s on those tapes. Since he`s his own lawyer, he must watch the tapes to know what is on them, so he can defend against them.

Personally, I think that if they were confiscated from him, he knows whats on them already, and they shouldn`t be viewed again.

Also, a quick and easy way to stop him from viewing them is not to use them as evidence in the trial. If the prosecution decides not to admit them as evidence, he doesn`t need to view them. They must contain some key evidence against him.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
This law and the judge involved is dumb. why is *watching* the videos considered reviewing the evidence? Can a lawyer be allowed to suffocate someone with sock if he`s representing someone who is charged with suffocating someone with a sock, to review whether that works or not?

There`s got to be a law somewhere that says you can`t "review" a crime by committing that crime again.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
I like it. You can`t take away constitutional rights because it`s offensive. This man has not yet been convicted and in America we are innocent until proven guilty. When he is found guilty then his rights will be taken away. Until then he should be afforded every right every other American is granted.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
"why is he not in federal prison serving out his 20 years? "
That`s the thing: He is ALREADY doing 25 YEARS in the clink.
They are using the same evidence to go after him in a different court for similar but different charges.
If someone was already convicted, at what point do charges become excessive?
At what point does someone consider the expense of additional trials?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
This is disgusting and totally violates the victims rights! I don`t disagree that being able to review the evidence brought against you is an important right, BUT there should be some sort of law that requires a reason or a hypothesis of what you hope to find or be able to prove - by viewing the evidence IF IT IS OBSCENE. Maybe he should be granted a specific number of reviews before he has to go before a judge to get permission to review it again. I don`t think that would be a violation of his rights.

It`s just sick to let this happen.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
I agree with CodeJockey. How the heck could you prevent this? Not allow defendants to review their own evidence? So if anyone is ever accused of anything obscene (pedophilia, rape, murder, etc.) they`re not allowed to watch any material related to the act that they`re accused of?

Not that I support the guy watching videos and stroking himself (if that`s actually what he`s doing...doubtful, but it could be true), but if that`s the cost of allowing defendants the chance to review evidence, then I think that`s a worthwhile cost.
0
Reply
Male 670
He gets to view child porn `he filmed himself`?! You can`t tell me he isn`t enjoying it. He probably decided to represent himself just so he could review the evidence over and over and over again. Sick child molesting F#CK!
0
Reply
Female 4,039
How awkward for the guard...
0
Reply
Female 4,086
so he gets to watch his victims on video tape that he shot and then go back to his cell and relive all his sick fantasies?

why is he not in federal prison serving out his 20 years?

and why do we coddle people like this? if you knowingly abuse/exploit a kid you should be taken out and shot twice behind the ear. no reprieve, no appeals, no throwing yourself on the mercy of the court. just die, you filthy scum.

and don`t bother writing in to chastise me on my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
So wrong I lol`d.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
They`re making it out like he`s jerking off to videos while in prison.

He has access to the evidence being used against him.
Change the law about that an mistrials would skyrocket.

If anything, the problem is that he`s being hovered over by a guard and may not be allowed to view the evidence under the same conditions as he would if he weren`t representing himself.

Non-story is non-story.
0
Reply
Male 202
I thought too hard about what kind of loop hole would exist to allow that. . . so simple...
0
Reply
Male 15,510


0
Reply
Female 8,044
Link: Convicted Felon Allowed to View Child Porn In Jail [Rate Link] - A legal loophole is allowing a Washington state man accused of child sex crimes to view child pornography while in jail.
0
Reply