Military Officer charged with child pornography

[Korus]

Hang him by the nuts..

 

[1feral1]

I think sickening is too good of a word.

I find people are people whether an Officer, Priest, Judge, Teacher or Constable, the only difference between some is positions of authority and trust, and as far as I am concerend they should be made an example of.

Throw away the key, or better yet, let the victims families have their way with them.

:rage:

Wes

 

[Infanteer]

I find people are people whether an Officer, Priest, Judge, Teacher or Constable, the only difference between some is positions of authority and trust, and as far as I am concerend they should be made an example of.

I've always been convinced that public servants, politicians, military and police officers, judges, etc, etc should be tagged with an additional "Public Accountability Statute" clause if charged with something - essentially giving them a bigger sentence because they were in a position of authority which entailed extra responsibility to the public good.

 

[Freddy Chef]

If this suspect is convicted, forget Club Ed; he will get a roof over his head, 3 meals a day, and medical care, all from DND's pocket.

If convicted, release him from the CF (dishonourably), have him registered as a sex-offender with the civie police, and let the citizens sort him out. Mobs of people will try to throw him out of every town he tries to move into.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Come on, you don't believe that?  He would just blend into society.  I say send him to prison, and let the characters there sort out this reprobate.

tess

 

[Freddy Chef]

That's right, it's the convicted child molesters that the angry mobs throw out of town, when they get released to a half-way-house in their community. This guy is just a wanna-be with the internet kiddie porn.

OK, civie prison,(no financial burden on DND) and let the bikers and drug-dealer-pimps sort him out.

 

[camochick]

What about public hangings , charging admission and making money to help the victims. Anyone who watches, buys, or engages in anything to do with child porn or the expoitation of children in anyway should be forced to suffer. Hey, we could publicly torture them and sell tickets, whatever works.  >

 

[TCBF]

Fourteen is the age of consent in Canada, yet if a fourteen year old girl put a nude picture of herself on the internet and this clown downloaded it, he can be charged with downloading kiddie porn.  Lets wait and see what the specifics are, before we sentence him to "Death with Severe Reprimand."

Even militia Captains deserve a fair trial.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

Just curious as to what, legally, constitutes Child Porn?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm no IT expert, and am not sticking up for anyone. If you hit the wrong site, whether on your own, or by automatic computer misdirection, it can drop .jpg's into your hard drive without you knowing it. If you surf alot, hit the "Find" command on your home computer and type in *.jpg or *.bmp and see what you've got that you've never dowloaded intentionally.

 

[Infanteer]

Internet can be a scary place - especially with the simplicity of Google....

I just tried to Google "Legal Definition of Child Pornography" to answer my previous question and I couldn't really find it - the links brought up (which I never followed) led to "user-groups" which disputed the laws around the whole topic.  I can only imagine what the links contained.... :threat:

 

[MissHardie]

Infanteer,

I, too, was curious as to what exactly constitutes child porn under Canada's Criminal Code, so I looked it up.  This is what I got from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41422.html#section-163.1 :

Part V, section 163.1 (1)

In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.


I guess I was lucky; I found this link innocuously enough on cbc.ca. 

Miss Hardie

 

[Slim]

Probably a good idea that you didn't follow that to its logical conclusion...Remember Pete Townsend of The Who got done for child porn. He claimed that he was doing research because of his own troubled past...

There seems to be little tolerance for this sort of thing, which is good, unless the person is not guilty and still "convicted" in public opinion...

Scary subject.

Slim

 

[Infanteer]

Not that I'm disputing it (hey, my Girlfriend is older then me), but I could see the grey area around "Child" causing some unintended problems.   Consider that my Grandparents were 25 and 17 when they married.

Technically, someone could get dinged for having pictures of their young girl/boyfriend.

If the letter of the law may have a "gray area", the spirit most certainly does not - I am pretty sure that most cases of Child Porn prosecution involve some form of exploitation in them; these are the cases where a hanging is justified, figuratively or literally.

As well:

163(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

Definition of "crime comic"
(7) In this section, "crime comic" means a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially

(a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or

(b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.

I guess my Grand Theft Auto III game and my copy of Heat is up for grabs here....

 

[Gunner]

The Edmonton Journal brought up an interesting point this morning while describing  a trial for a 40 year old man on charges of child pornography.  He paid money to a 14 year old girl to take photographs of her.  They met in a hotel room, he took pictures of her, and posted them to the internet.  The statement was made that it is legal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old but he/she can't take pictures of them.

This has come up before on the radio talk show circuit with liberals wanting to decrease the age of consent to 12 and conservatives wanted to raise it to 16.  Whether its 12 or 16 I don't think it is right for a 40 year old to be having sex with them (much less taking pictures of them).  Am I getting prudish in my old age? 

 

[Kat Stevens]

A fitting punishment would be as follows:  Lock him up in a room with the fathers of all the kids he had pictures of for 30 mins.  They can then discharge with disgrace from the CF whatever is left...

CHIMO,  Kat
PS... IF he's found guilty of course...

 

[PeterLT]

If convicted, release him from the CF (dishonourably), have him registered as a sex-offender with the civie police, and let the citizens sort him out. Mobs of people will try to throw him out of every town he tries to move into.

I agree, but if convicted he should do time in the CFDB first then toss him. At the risk of sounding "out of touch", what the heck is the world coming to?



Peter

 

[pcain]

Absolutely disgraceful. I hope he gets dishonorably discharged and sent to general population in a civvy prison.

March the guilty b*stard in!

You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.

If I were a mod on this board, I'd look very carefully - very carefully   - at posts presuming the guilt of a defendant before conviction, if only as a CYA issue. Among other things, the officers who will end up trying this wretch in June are drawn from the pool of potential readers of this board.

There are a couple of issues here that nobody here wants to get entangled with (or if they do, I'll stand back and watch) - one is defamation, the other is the potential contamination of a jury pool.

CP's story is carefully worded for a reason.

 

[Cloud Cover]

March the guilty b*stard in!

You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.

If I were a mod on this board, I'd look very carefully - very carefully   - at posts presuming the guilt of a defendant before conviction, if only as a CYA issue. Among other things, the officers who will end up trying this wretch in June are drawn from the pool of potential readers of this board.

There are a couple of issues here that nobody here wants to get entangled with (or if they do, I'll stand back and watch) - one is defamation, the other is the potential contamination of a jury pool.

CP's story is carefully worded for a reason.

Look at the wording of the offence reproduced by Miss Hardie below. This is a "Strict Liability" offence - not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is advanced he didn't have possession or any of the other actus requirements of the offence. This wipes out your tainted pool of jurors theory. As for defamation, don't get me started...   

 

[pcain]

Look at the wording of the offence reproduced by Miss Hardie below. This is a "Strict Liability" offence - not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is advanced he didn't have possession or any of the other actus requirements of the offence. 

It's not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is made establishing innocence, which could potentially lead to acquittal? That gets us back to where we started.