May 21, 2010

"I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge."

"I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court."

54 comments:

edutcher said...

Another one of these left wing doofi who think they know better than everyone else. Next, he'll be talking about victimless crimes.

The article mentions that he's one of the longest-serving federal judges. Along with term limits for Congress, maybe it's time to look at mandatory retirement for federal judges.

Fred4Pres said...

Collecting child pornography is not a victimless crime. There is a reason this is criminalized. While the photographs are just that, there was a real child often exploited to make them.

That said, provided you are not producing it and the photographs collected are vintage--it is rather hard to justify years in prison for that.

I do not have problem with judges having some lee way on sentancing. Harsh minimum sentances are a mistake. But so is treating this as they are just engaged in a harmless hobby. It is most of the time hardly that.

danielle said...

weird.

very very weird.

even if this man is under tremendous stress, and thinks of his savior has his father who will 'set him free', still very weird for an adult to say such a thing to a reporter.

yes, therapy is in order. oh hell yes. and yes, probably better than a whole lot of jail time, as daddy said.

former law student said...

A bunch of us discussed the issue of "no actual harm to children" back when liberal SF radio talker was arrested for transmitting and receiving child pornography.

But I argued that aggregate demand would create its own supply. And I would seem to be right, because the defendant was not satisfied to collect and gloat over one or two images, but he needed to own thousands.

Unless there's a credible argument that someone shot 10,000 child porn images before 1970 or so, I'm going to say that today's kids are being molested for the sexual gratification of creeps like the defendant.

save_the_rustbelt said...

As I remember sentencing guidelines came about because people got sick and tired of lefty judges using the socio-babble of the 60s and 70s to justify short sentences. (see the first couple of Dirty Harry movies for a quick illustration)

Flexibility in sentencing has some value, but can we trust the judges?

danielle said...

fls -- which came first, the molestation or the people into viewing the molestation ? if the people producing the child porn were not into it themselves or knowing of people that are into it, why was it first produced ?

supply-demand arguments are useful with regard to price ... they're not enough for an existence proof.

former law student said...

rust brings up an excellent point.

Sentencing guidelines provide uniformity across the country.If five years seems too harsh to tolerant New Yorkers, imagine how lenient it would seem to residents of, say, Alabama or Utah. Should one's punishment for a Federal crime depend on which state you live in?

former law student said...

I can't explain the origin of the first image of child pornography. But becoming bored with what you have -- whatever it is -- and wanting more seems to be a universal human trait.

danielle said...

but you argued that aggregate demand would create its own supply.... how does that argument hold water; it in itself contains a starting point that you cant justify.

and the propensity of the defendant to collect thousands of photos doesnt prove that aggregate demand creates a supply; all it shows is that the product was priced such that the defendant would acquire 10,000 photos. it doesnt conclusively say anything about the reason the first photos were taken.

James said...

Not going to argue against harsh penalties for the pedophiles, but regarding the sentencing guidelines: A lot of the time, the penalties are as harsh as they are because railing against crime is one surefire way to score political points among your constituents. You're not going to find tons of people saying "Will we please think of the pedophiles," while if you tackle something more tricky, it can create real problems for your reelection.

WV: shwinges - as in, Wayne and Garth experienced many "shwinges" while looking at the ladies

Seven Machos said...

I find this case very interesting. On the one hand...

He began obsessively stockpiling thousands of images, mostly of prepubescent girls.

So we aren't talking about fully developed 16-year-olds flashing for their boyfriends.

On the other hand...

Judge Weinstein declared that Mr. Polizzi had a constitutional right to have a jury know the punishment that would accompany a guilty verdict, a right he said he had violated.

It's late and I'm not going to comb the Constitution to see about this right. But jury nullification is a powerful, useful thing. It combats bad law, which is a serious problem.

So, this judge is using a good principle but he seems to have picked a pretty terrible time and place. Not sure what to think here...

former law student said...

danielle: consider that these people enlarge their collections by trading. You have to give some to get some.

MadisonMan said...

It does seem out of whack if the punishment for possession exceeds that for taking the photographs or for physically harming the kid. But as James notes, passing a law/bill for the CHILDREN!!! is a sure-fire way to ease re-election (even if the politician genuinely believes in the penalty; I'm sure that some might!)

But the Judge is wrong to say it's a victimless crime, as others have stated.

Beth said...

I have never understood the argument that those who possess but don't produce child porn are somehow not culpable for the harm that occurs to the children. That's the market - people make child porn for their own pleasure, but they also make it because there are buyers for it.

Seven Machos said...

Here's a novel idea: the federal government with all its money should start a task force. The feds obviously have this child pornography in their possession at some point. Find out who the kids are and allow their parents (or, if their parents are part of the crime, a guardian ad litem) to sue for civil damages based on the theory that the children own the image of themselves. Make damages absolutely unlimited and make possession de facto guilt.

It doesn't seem like the threat of prison is much of a deterrent here. Maybe losing every single thing you own and all the wealth you can create in the future save for your basic subsistence can deter ownership of pictures of prepubescent children.

Would that be "too harsh"? Just thinking out loud here...

Seven Machos said...

Beth -- As someone who has never sought out child pornography, I wonder what we are talking about here. Are we talking about, like, the standard cute little picture of a two-year-old running around the house nude, which I would imagine most people have of themselves or of their children. If that gets out, it's sad that some grown man is masturbating to it, but I think we have to admit that it's pretty much a victimless crime. Or are we talking about taking little kids and putting them in sexual situations? That's obviously a terrible, terrible, very victim-ful crime.

As an aside, I have two children and a Flickr account. I post pictures (nowhere near nude) of my kids on my Flickr account. Any time I have used the term "boy" or "boys" in the title or a tag, I get a ton of views. The pictures aren't really that great, so my theory is that the people looking at the photos are probably perverts.

Anyway, if I'm right, it suggests that this is pretty big problem and I try to avoid using the terms boy or boys now.

former law student said...

Maybe losing every single thing you own and all the wealth you can create in the future...

These people are addicts, and addicts don't change until they actually hit bottom. Local radio talker Bernie Ward was on top of the world -- nightly radio show, physician wife, kids, known in the community for his charitable work -- he threw it all away to swap dirty pictures of children. At the time even a law professor was caught, with images found on his own university-issued laptop.

Seven Machos said...

What a strange, strange thing to get addicted to. I just don't get it. Most addicts can fall back on the defense that they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. In this case -- assuming we are talking about graphic depictions of children who are not choosing and certainly do not have the legal capacity to choose their plight -- these people are obviously hurting people.

How do you do that? How do you look yourself in the mirror?

former law student said...

Here's an article about "The Professor and the Porn," from New York magazine. The capper -- the law school's IT contractor fired the employees who found the porn while transferring files from the professor's broken laptop.

former law student said...

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_8815/

Seven Machos said...

The first thing the FBI’s Crimes Against Children Unit will tell you is that child porn is not Lolita. Or Sally Mann. “It’s not just little children playing naked or little girls in their underwear,” says Belisa Vranich, a clinical psychologist who has worked with FBI child-porn experts. “A lot of it is extremely violent, and the images show children obviously in a terrific amount of pain. Because it involves children, the sexual acts recorded are always rape. Some of the victims appear to be unconscious; a lot of them are drugged and bound. It’s not so much sexual as it is extremely violent.”

Well, there's the answer to my question. Awful.

Lem said...

This is not a pipe. This is [LemWacodotcom]

I posted a joke (that happened to be true) that when Michael Jackson's Never Land Ranch was raided, the authorities found an open bible in Michael's bedroom with a highlighted passage from Mathew 19:14.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

As I have reported earlier, Al Qaeda types believe that when they blow themselves up, they are going to go to haven and get a number of virgins.. I'm sure you heard.

To confuse matters even further, a tea party singer by the name of Belinda Carlisle sang a hit song that said that "Heaven is a place on Earth".

So you see, until we find this place that keeps women and children sexually repressed, we are not going to solve societal worst ills.
Terrorism and child pornography.

I know where where this haven is, but does anybody listens to me?

Come to my site and find out ;)

Beth said...

Seven, I have no problem with the law specifying that child porn is more than simple nudity, as you describe.

Beth said...

And I just finished reading this thread - yes, awful.

I don't see how people who create the audience for those performances can plead that they don't victimize anyone. They contract out their sexual violence. They rape by proxy.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I understand Danielle a little better now. It's easier to be a liberal when you don't even possess the concept of entrepreneurship.

Roman said...

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

I don't think his opposition to possession of child porn is obvious. In a very helpful way this man is facilitating production of child pornography.

edutcher said...

Lem said...

...

To confuse matters even further, a tea party singer by the name of Belinda Carlisle sang a hit song that said that "Heaven is a place on Earth".

Don't know about her politics, but Belinda Carlisle was the lead singer of The GoGos, a very popular group in the 80s.

PS FWIW, the infant science of computer forensics was built, in large part, investigating child porn.

AllenS said...

"Thanks, dad for getting me out of prison. Can I have the car tonight? I want to go take some pictures."

HT said...

Please at some point, you gotta write about The Trial currently going on in Washington!

TRO said...

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,”

It's not so obvious to me, but let's assume he doesn't, his indifference to it is just as appalling.

Capt. Schmoe said...

I wonder if the good judge would have the same position on collecting of images of judges being brutalized? I mean, they are only pictures right?

What an idiot.

knox said...

Nauseating.

The internet has created a huge market for child pornography. How can anyone think that the buyers haven't increased the demand, and therefore, the suffering?

They contract out their sexual violence.

Exactly.

Adding insult to injury is the judge's ridiculous admonition that: "At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision." At the most.

If the whole country adopted this attitude, we would be telling people "Go for it. You can possess these images and face virtually no consequences. PLUS we will help you to define yourself as person suffering from a condition that needs treatment, instead of the sadistic fuck that you are.

Unbelievable.

paul a'barge said...

Weinstein is a creep ...

creep the creepy creep of creepy feet, creeping about the court room trying to let creepy child predators creep about, stealing their innocence.

Weinstein is a creep ...

HDHouse said...

@paul a'barge...another succint and completely drug induced conclusion about a topic that when your "knee-jerk" facist spasm rattled your brain..well fill in the rest.

Sentencing guidelines are not a deterrent to crime. They are not know in advance of conviction and interviews with the i think parole officers or someone who makes a recommendation to the attorneys who then haggle it out and forward a sentencing recommendation to the judge. How can a potential criminal have any idea whatsoever as to what the sentence would be if he committed a crime and it ran its course through the courts.

Weinstein has long been opposed to guidelines as they tie his hands one way or the other - too loose or too tight - and that makes the judge a robot. That's his point Paul...but you can't read and think and synthesize anything other than oatmeal.

Salamandyr said...

I agree with the judge. He does not seem to be saying that this behavior is not criminal. He is not saying that viewers of child pornography are not criminally liable.

He is pointing out that the sentences for looking at pictures, many of which eclipse those handed out for actual abuse of children, are too severe for the crime committed. And he's right.

bagoh20 said...

5 years seems about right to me.

Fred4Pres said...

I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children. They are dangerous individuals who should be seperated from society.

I am for treatment and lesser sentances for some guy who apparently did not act on it but collected photographs in his attic for years. I am not for ignoring it or saying it is a harmless diversion. It is not. But it is not the same at the former.

And while I understand the frustration of a judge who is too lienent, the potential injustice of overly harsh sentancing guidelines is not necessarily better.

William said...

Just below there is a posting about Daniel Earl Bradford. Bradford raped an eight year old girl, cut her throat, and left her to die. Bradford was a paroled rapist when he did this. He had served three years for that previous rape before being released on parole....Bradford thus got less time for an actual rape than is proposed for this crime. My guess is that a record of an actual rape is a greater predictor of future crimes than possession of child pornography.... I think people who possess child pornography participate in something evil and should be punished. Nonetheless, I'm with the judge on this. There's somethig self indulgent in the condemnation of this evil while much greater crimes are shrugged off. It seems to me that a convicted rapist who walks after three years is a greater cause for outrage than this man and his shabbly little crime.

New "Hussein" Ham said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children."

I am for life terms for judges who intervene to protect pedophiles and child porn collectors, instead of doing their job ... which is to sentence these people to the terms the Legislature demands.

The Judiciary cannot be allowed to usurp powers granted the Legislative Branch.

These activist judges working to aid the pedophiles should be stripped of their jobs, arrested, tried and then imprisoned. So, clearly, we need some new laws targeting these rogue judges.

Robert Cook said...

Shockingly, I am in agreement with Seven Machos for once: jury nullification is a powerful tool to combat bad law, and it's too bad more jurors--more citizens--don't know about it. Of course, this is because the authorities don't want us to know about it as it would allow jurors to have the power we were intended to have--to determine not merely the facts of a case as to whether a defendant is or is not proven guilty of the charges against him, but also whether the law he is charged with violating is itself a just or unjust law, or whether the sentence for the crime is just or unjust.

"Child pornography" is too much a hot key term; most here are focusing on that aspect of this story. In the larger sense, the crime itself is irrelevant to the principle: juries should be informed of the required sentences that will pertain if they convict a defendant of the charges against him.

Some laws are unjust, and they shouldn't be on the books at all. More typically, laws may themselves be "just," or have a basis to exist, but the mandatory sentences for them are often too harshly disproportionate to the crime.

Judges should have more leeway in making sentencing decisions; that's why they're judges...to make judgement as to what punishment best fits the crime according to the facts of each unique case and defendant.

If citizens want to stupidly strip judges of this discretionary power, then citizens themselves--we who sit as jurors--should claim that right for ourselves. If we know that a defendant will receive a minimum sentence of 10 years to life, say, for a crime that we would consider should carry a much less severe punishment--say 2 to 5, or even probation in the case of a first time or non-violent offender--then we can determine whether we prefer to acquit the defendant--even if we accept that the facts in evidence prove his guilt--than to condemn him to an unjust punishment.

knox said...

The possession of child pornography does not in a vacuum. If you own these images, you have essentially paid someone to abuse a child.

Ann Althouse said...

@Ham I am pretty sure you are wrong about what was on Kozinski's website. If you post a link to a news story verifying your assertion, you can make it. For now, I am deleting your comment.

PatHMV said...

As harsh as this judge may think the mandatory minimums are, it's minor compared to what most people in the community would do to him, if we could. The law needs to reflect the values of the community, generally, or there will be no reason for us to restrain ourselves from taking care of scum like these.

The judge is arrogant (ok, he's a federal judge, occupational hazard) and thinks he's better than the riff-raff who passed the laws. Screw him.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I am pretty sure you are wrong about what was on Kozinski's website. If you post a link to a news story verifying your assertion, you can make it. For now, I am deleting your comment."

Yea, I knew you'd protect Judge Kozinski, Ann. And that you'd censor my comments about this obviously very sick man.

Here's Boing Boing on Judge Kozinski's public porn stash (which included a video of an obvious minor sucking his own dick):

http://boingboing.net/2008/06/12/judge-alex-kozinskis.html

Here's the Wall Street Journal on Judge Kozinski's porn collection, which included a graphic image of what I believe is without a doubt to be a young boy sucking his own dick:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/11/report-judge-alex-kozinski-maintained-porn-on-personal-web-site/

I defy you, Ann, to watch the video in question, which Kozinski possessed and was sharing out on his home computer to anyone who wanted to download it, and tell me it is not child porn.

Wall Street Journal: "Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”

Why are you protecting this corrupt judge, Ann?

Here is the L.A. Times covering the fact that a trial had to be stopped because Judge Kozinski's porn stash was uncovered:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/local/me-kozinski12

It is trivial to produce compelling evidence that Judge Kozinski maintained a publicly-available stash of inappropriate pornography, including at least one video of a child auto-fellating himself and this judge has never even been admonished by the bar, much less arrested for his crimes.

I also predict that you'll delete this post in order to protect Judge Kozinski.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Here's Patterico, with links to all the porn so you can judge for yourself what it represents:

http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/

Note the commenter's reactions to the porn in this thread, who actually watched the child porn video:

http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/poll-are-the-kozinski-images-worse-or-better-than-you-imagined-from-their-description/

Everyone who has see Judge Kozinski's porn stash, which included the child auto-fellating hiimself, believes it to be child porn.

Seven Machos said...

Ham --

1. Here is what your own link said: Looking at the photos, they're clearly standard-issue viral emails.

2. You spend a little too much time here talking about this alleged minor auto-fellating himself.

3. Do you really believe that a federal judge with a highly politicized job would get to keep that job and not go to jail if he owned a a publicly-available stash of inappropriate pornography?

4. You are a delusional moby.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

2. You spend a little too much time here talking about this alleged minor auto-fellating himself.

Ann Althouse never deletes comments ... but she deletes any comments that are derogatory of Judge Kozinski's porn collection.

I talk about the child auto-fellating himself because it is the most egregious example of the kind of pornography this federal judge was collecting on his home computer and sharing out to the public.

That's why I talk about it. I talk about it because Ann asked for links to demonstrate the veracity of my comment.

I predict, in advance, that this judge is protected and that Ann will delete these comments also.

Judge Alex Kozinski is untouchable. But he's also the prime example of how some people in our society are free to commit crimes and bring disrepute upon the bench and get away with it.

jaed said...

Repetitive is one thing. Creepy is another thing. Ham, with this combination of repetitive and creepy, you're starting to bear an alarming resemblance to Jeremy and his many alter egos. Up your game, please.

George said...

A Federal judge blowing off child porn and protecting a holder of the stuff. The NY Times writes a puff piece on him.

The Eastern elite mindset couldn't be more fully at work here.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

We are shocked about all this hate regarding so called child pornography. So much we dedicated over 50 posts to the Child Porn Witch Hunt

It would be too long to repeat all my reasoning, but let us name a few:

The UN manipulatively changed the definition of a child. A 17 year old's photo is "child" porn

Fully dressed 15 year olds dancing provocatively is child porn (Knox vs. USA)

16 year olds doing soft-core or hard core in the 1970's, legally in Holland. Now video stores in Germany are raided because they inadvertently forgot to pull one of these videos.

Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)

Human-Stupidity.com said...

It is interesting that the anti-child porn crusaders are ashamed to tell the jury the truth: that a normal guy will go to jail for a decade for possession of a few nude 16 year old photos. This is one of the main issues of judge Weinstein. Tell the jury the truth!

We go much further then judge Weinstein:

liberating child porn has been PROVEN to reduce sex crimes against children.
Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii) 


Most of the anti-child porn logic is absurd:

"Watching child porn victimizes the child". The Voodoo science of child pornography laws"Watching child porn victimizes the child".

Human-Stupidity.com said...

There are entire web sites showing other people's disgrace. Minor children compete to produce the worst jackass movies where adolescents hurt, damage, endanger themselves to gain attention.

Finally we are destroying the lives of millions of children. Cute advertising pictures seduce children to eat crappy food that gets them obese and diabetic for life and kills them prematurely. These pictures are legal.

"Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy


It is hilarious (and sad): Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV

As someone said: if the concern really was with abuse of children being promoted by CP then

nobody would jail a 35 year old man for privately possessing pictures of himself masturbating when he was 12

Nobody would arrest someone who inadvertently has a nude 17 year old thumbnail in his recycling bin

There would be no absurd situation that in many places you can legally have sex with a 16 year old, but you cannot photograph her nude.

I think the only discussion we should have is about HUGE collections of true porn with true children. This is disgusting, but once more: showing these children being physically abused, mutilated, beaten and more is totally legal.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

Capt. Schmoe said...

I wonder if the good judge would have the same position on collecting of images of judges being brutalized? I mean, they are only pictures right?


Right. These pictures are protected. They will be shown in the eventing news. Maybe some sexual organs blanked out. Just as they show terrorist beheadings on prime time News.


Fred4Pres said...

I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children. They are dangerous individuals who should be seperated from society.

I am for treatment and lesser sentances for some guy who apparently did not act on it but collected photographs in his attic for years. I am not for ignoring it or saying it is a harmless diversion. It is not. But it is not the same at the former.


Good point. One of Weinstein's gripes is that the latter gets higher penalties then the former.

Beth -- As someone who has never sought out child pornography, I wonder what we are talking about here. Are we talking about, like, the standard cute little picture of a two-year-old running around the house nude, which I would imagine most people have of themselves or of their children.

parents get arrested for this, but have a good chance of escaping after financial and professional ruin.

Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution


If that gets out, it's sad that some grown man is masturbating to it, but I think we have to admit that it's pretty much a victimless crime. Or are we talking about taking little kids and putting them in sexual situations? That's obviously a terrible, terrible, very victim-ful crime.


Sadly the law makes no difference. Or almost no difference.

The people with the nude bath tub photos only got away because they were the parents. They even got their children back, after a few months.

A pervert that only masturbates to these photos and never touches a child would have been imprisoned for 10 years of anal rape by he prison gangs.