International Child Porn Ring Found

[MikeWaters]

Out of curiosity, what obscenity cases are you hoping will be brought? Did Bush bring them?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Levin

This issue is tricky in criminal law: they have to be specific enough so that I know what is against the law before hand (due process), but they don't want it so narrow that they miss a lot of bad actors.

Reality is against your wish, Creekster. Take a look at the federal criminal code: talk about broadly worded statutes. But I know, that's just a descriptive claim that has nothing to do with your argument that laws schould be narrowly drafted. I agree they should be, but with child porn, I'll go for the more loosely drafted in order to catch more of the bad actors.

True, given that it is hard to make them narrow, let's just say everything is illegal and leave it all in the hands of the capable prosecutors.

Look, I agree that it is hard and that we need to let prosecutors do their job. I also freely admit I have zero familiarity with the law you are tlakign about except for what you have told me here. Even so, I think it is important to carefully scrutinize the scope of discretion we allow. You may be right, child pron may be an area where more discretion should be allowed becasue it is so horrible that we might want to err on inclusiveness, but I am afraid of that approach, quite frankly. Early inmy career I spent a little time in a public defedner's office and I saw too many career minded asst. DAs prosecute poeple just to pad stats. mOST OF THESE POEPLE ARE GOOD PEOPLE, BUT WE JUST CAN'T TRUST THEM (OR ANYONE) WITH THIS SORT OF POWER. (sorry about allcaps lock there; as you can tell, I am not a good typist)

[MikeWaters]

Creekster, some of the worst DAs and ADAs have been in Dallas County. The amount of corrupt and incompetent prosecutions has been truly staggering. Recently the Republicans were voted out and a black dem was elected as DA.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Out of curiosity, what obscenity cases are you hoping will be brought? Did Bush bring them?

It's a moot point now. Back in the mid-'90s, when Internet pornography was taking off, there was a chance to hold the line at what we all would generally call obscene from that which is irredeemably preverse. The line for obscenity basically has been pushed back to that which is irredeemably preserve. The Court's standard for obscenity is based on the standards of the community in which the suit is brought, and those community standards have now been made uniform by the Internet. Much of what would have been considered obscene prior to the Internet age is no longer. Generally, the Bush administration brings suits against the purveyors of the irredeemably preverse; that involving violence, and you know. But the rest, it's all probably protected by the First Amendment now b/c our community standards have been so degraded by the Internet.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by creekster

True, given that it is hard to make them narrow, let's just say everything is illegal and leave it all in the hands of the capable prosecutors.

Look, I agree that it is hard and that we need to let prosecutors do their job. I also freely admit I have zero familiarity with the law you are tlakign about except for what you have told me here. Even so, I think it is important to carefully scrutinize the scope of discretion we allow. You may be right, child pron may be an area where more discretion should be allowed becasue it is so horrible that we might want to err on inclusiveness, but I am afraid of that approach, quite frankly. Early inmy career I spent a little time in a public defedner's office and I saw too many career minded asst. DAs prosecute poeple just to pad stats. mOST OF THESE POEPLE ARE GOOD PEOPLE, BUT WE JUST CAN'T TRUST THEM (OR ANYONE) WITH THIS SORT OF POWER. (sorry about allcaps lock there; as you can tell, I am not a good typist)

I agree with everything you're saying, Creekster.

You and Mike initially argued against the child porn law b/c prosecutorial discretion is bad. I thought that was a bad place to start an argument b/c our system is based on prosecutorial discretion.

That said, all the points you make are valid and I agree with them. We should try to cabin discretion as much as possible by writing narrow statutes. But in the area of child pornography, I will accept more discretion than I would for other crimes. I would hate to see a helpful and effective law go down b/c of some hypothetical prosecutions. The Lolita prosecution is just not going to happen.

I still think democratic blowback is much better at cabining discretion than narrow statutes, by the way. The cops don't know what the statutes say (let alone what the 4th Amendment requires).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

It's a moot point now. Back in the mid-'90s, when Internet pornography was taking off, there was a chance to hold the line at what we all would generally call obscene from that which is irredeemably preverse. The line for obscenity basically has been pushed back to that which is irredeemably preserve. The Court's standard for obscenity is based on the standards of the community in which the suit is brought, and those community standards have now been made uniform by the Internet. Much of what would have been considered obscene prior to the Internet age is no longer. Generally, the Bush administration brings suits against the purveyors of the irredeemably preverse; that involving violence, and you know. But the rest, it's all probably protected by the First Amendment now b/c our community standards have been so degraded by the Internet.

you think that would have worked? how would this have prevented porn sites hosted in other countries?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Creekster, some of the worst DAs and ADAs have been in Dallas County. The amount of corrupt and incompetent prosecutions has been truly staggering. Recently the Republicans were voted out and a black dem was elected as DA.

Thanks for helping me make my case.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Thanks for helping me make my case.

that prosecutorial discretion should be broad?

Dallas county leads the country, IIRC, in murder convictions in which no jail time is done. In some cases, likely innocent people were told "accept probation for murder or go to trial and get the death penalty". Which would you choose, if you were innocent?

Up until recently, the county jail was so incompetently run that they were actually LOSING people in the jail. The computer records were so terrible. They even had defense attorneys roaming the prison shouting out their clients' name, looking for them.

Civil liberties. Enjoy them while you can.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Creekster's point was best: you say there are plenty of safeguards while at the same time criticizing the Supreme Court and its review process. That is the height of irony.

Don't agree with you here; you guys have misplaced the irony; you guy are swimming in the unintentional ironic soup right now. The Supreme Court's review of statutes for constitutionality is an inherently UNDEMOCRATIC check. The people's democratically elected leaders passed the statute. Nine old, unelected, life-tenured people will be the ones to tell us whether the law can be applied or not. The Court is supposed to be undemocratic, though; that's good. They protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

The check's I was talking about were the democratic checks. But okay, of course I accept the Supreme Court as an important check on prosecutorial discretion to the extent they set the constitutional bounds for police behavior, which they do. How does my hope that the Court rule a certain way on a case conflict with my belief in the Court as an important check? Fail to see the irony completely.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

that prosecutorial discretion should be broad?

.

No, that when conditions get sucky enough, the oppressors will get booted out of office and hopefully some changes will be made.

By the way, we need to set some boundaries: I'm talking about prosecutorial discretion in applying a broadly worded child pornography statute. I am not talking about strong checks on police behavior or procedural safeguards for those under investigation (both of which I'm for). Totally different issues, Mike, so use your pithy phrases and generalities on someone else. I'm not advocating a police state.