Child pornography law, unintended consequences

Afraid not. If it was in his possession when the cops arrested him, the crime would have been hours old, not years.

Naked baby pictures are not porn. The simple fact of nudity does not make something pornographic. Porn is about sexual context.

 

I'm pretty sure they meant to make owning kiddy porn illegal in every instance. Including this one.

Several false statements here. Discretionary power is up to the judge. The only decisions the prosecutor makes are whether to prosecute and on what charges. The judge can shut the whole process down at any time, or tilt it any way he sees fit. They are not simply rubber stamps for the DA. The sad fact of the matter is that when a case comes before a judge, it has been investigated by police, gone to a grand jury, and the DA has reviewed the case and decided he can win it. At this point the defendant is most likely guilty.

The judge does not ever tell the jury how to vote. That would be blatant grounds for a mistrial or reversal on appeal. Not to mention discipline for the judge.

Often the accused is questioned by the Grand Jury. It is true that its proceedings are secret. This is a protection given those not charged.

You don't think the defense should have to support its arguments with evidence?

Common sense does not often prevail in real life.

I have never come across a judge who was indifferent to justice. Most of them could make far more money as a lawyer. There's a reason they want to wear the robe.

I dispute that this kiddy porn law was poorly written. I don't think the prosecutor abused his power in this case. If this man is convicted of possession of kiddy porn and punished, I for one will say that justice was served.