Man sentenced to 200 years for possession of child pornography.
Basically this man was caught with 20 images of illegal child porn. He was sentenced for 10 years in jail for each image.
He was tried in Arizona where the laws are toughest. If he had been tried in another state or in federal supreme court he would not have been punished so harshly.
Do you think the 200 year sentence is just?
By the way if he had raped or murdered someone he could have been sentenced for less years.
Child porn is bad, but 20 images shouldn't put a person in jail for life. My god how trivial.
I think child porn is ludicrous. However 200 year sentence in prison is also ludicrous for this crime. I am not hoping for the man to be free in 5 years or so but the punishment should suit the crime. Porn is a worlwide business and paedophiles I think are the perpetators of child porn so maybe we put another paedophile off the streets; but the law should be sane when giving out sentences.A more ludicrous sentence was the one for a teenage boy who is to serving time for 10 years for having consential sex with an underage girl who was probably like 16 or so.This was just because of a small statute in Georgia law. Some laws just needed to be rewritten.
Maybe these 20 pictures where so absolutely disgusting and that a 200 year sentence is appropriate. I agree if he didn't actually do anything to any of them and his crime was only looking and not actually offending that is harsh. The jury may have been completely applauded by the pictures though and you have heard the saying “Pictures Speak 1000 words.” Maybe the pictures said what he intended to do.
It may be harsh but I have a hard time finding sympathy.
Read more from me at: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jewels07-0
Even if the pictures were of hard-core child pornography (and it's possible they were not - for instance they could've been of children masturbating or even just posing provocatively), he received FAR more time than he would've if he had 'merely' raped a child.
I don't see how we can rate a picture disgusting or not... if a child is naked or acting in a provocative way then its child porn no matter what the child is doing. We can see many pictures of dead people and dying people but supposedly thats legal, its just gross.
I don't see how anything could justify a person going to jail for double (possibly triple) his lifetime for pictures which only proves a nasty curiosity. The ease of hiding pictures would mean that many people are looking at porn and such getting away with it easily. Bad luck for the guy who probably never touched a kid, only was curious or addicted the thought of it. People who actually touch kids and rape others should be the ones in jail for life.
I agree here. While I don't mind perhaps a possible pervert being locked away, I'm angered by the fact that this is not the same or worse for a man who raped and molested children instead.
I just don't see the point. -_-