Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-treatment-than-if-he's-guilty dept.

On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He had refused to comply with a court order commanding him to unlock two hard drives the authorities say contain child porn.

The 3-0 decision (PDF) by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals means that the suspect, Francis Rawls, likely will remain jailed indefinitely or until the order (PDF) finding him in contempt of court is lifted or overturned. However, he still can comply with the order and unlock two FileVault encrypted drives connected to his Apple Mac Pro. Using a warrant, authorities seized those drives from his residence in 2015. While Rawls could get out from under the contempt order by unlocking those drives, doing so might expose him to other legal troubles.

In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.

[...] The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, was disappointed by the ruling.

"The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:09AM (23 children)

    by Geezer (511) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:09AM (#482631)

    "So just because he has child porn doesn't mean he really is a danger to others."

    Except that he and his ilk perpetuate the market for said child porn, thereby encouraging the exploitation of children.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:12AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:12AM (#482646)

    Just like piracy, if he's not depriving the owner of the original, then it's hard to claim he's generating demand. However, if he paid any money for this, that line of argument goes out the window.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:55AM (#482665)

      The funny thing is that they are using opposite reasoning in these cases:

      Movies: Piracy drives down sales, which causes fewer movies to be produced.
      CP: Piracy increases the incentive to produce more.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:26PM (#482716)

      You mean other than the fact that these sorts often trade in them and use their supply as payment for new ones?

      Possession shouldn't be criminal, the trading and creation of child porn is what should be illegal. Having possession be illegal just makes it too easy to frame somebody or to prosecute somebody who might not even know that there's child porn on the device.

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25PM

      by Wootery (2341) on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25PM (#483184)

      Never thought I'd wonder this, but what about ad-funding? Is that something criminals can get away with?

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:13AM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:13AM (#482647)

    Except the God allows men to have female children as brides, including when the man rapes that young girl.
    Dt chapter 22: verse28-verse29, hebrew (discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] ), numbers 31,)

    Your Jesus CUNTRY should be destroyed.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:24AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:24AM (#482652)

      Well, if you are quoting the bible, you should note that the bible also forbids anyone to make images. Even if it is interpreted as only forbidding images of god, then it still says god made man in his image, and therefore it is to conclude that any image of a human is also indirectly an image of god, and therefore forbidden by the bible. Since child porn is by definition the image of a human (indeed, one maximizing what it shows of that human), you still have to conclude that child porn violates god's law.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:48AM (#483165)

        The people persecuting men for viewing child porn are persecuting the men because the existence of the child porn proves that the man is attracted to (usually female) children rather than adult women.

        A pillar of control over females by men is to marry them off "good and young".

        White, Proud, Christian men follow the will of Jesus closely; he protected and elevated women while smashing men into the dirt. Where God (of the Armies, the Eternal one) raised man up as overlord of the female, and unpunished rapists of the girl child: a true ruler.... Jesus rejected the Law of the Eternal One and debased man into a protector of the woman, her foot solider, and a slave who may not even look at a woman, while allowing the woman to have sex with as many men as she wished without punishment.

        The people persecuting men for child porn are not executing God's law, they are executing Jesus' law and the religion of women. The main crux of the persecution is to rid the society of even a hint of man-girl pedophillia as even if all other laws stood: if men could have female children as brides: men would rule over women from that day forward. Animals rarely turn on those whom they knew since childhood, while only Dogs are loyal even if adopted as an adult.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:18PM (#482689)

      But loli haet pizza. :(

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:45PM (#482699)

      American women have the right to bear arms and kill their would-be rapists. God's Greatest Country's Constitution TRUMPS Deuterpastaroni.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:41AM (#483164)

        Incorrect. Females are not members of the militia: only abled bodied men were.
        Females do not have the right, but they have taken it.

        In modern christian societies women have more of a right to arms then mmamamaahaaaalalllleeeesssssss since mmmmmaaaaaaalllleeesss are easily denied the right via a police report by a woman.

        Half of american maaaaallleeess hate their society. This is why they drop out of it. The same goes with many modern countries, Japan included.

        Perhaps one day they will destroy their society. Probably not, but one can hope.
        A dead society means the women who rely on it suffer and die.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:12PM (6 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:12PM (#482802) Journal

      Figures you'd show up here, Mikee. Like flies to shit. I bet you've got yourself a good-size stash of CP on your machine. Hopefully the cops pay you a visit :) It'd be like two kaiju fighting it out: whoever loses, we win, because there's one less awful monster on the loose.

      tl;dr: kono rorikon domome!

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:52AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:52AM (#483167)

        Nope. I wish to have an actual child bride. I do not seek out, view, or collect contraband.

        However if attacked, God willing, I will attack back; only it will be found that I and my adversary died for nothing.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:31PM (4 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:31PM (#483330) Journal

          So come make good on those death threats you made to me a year and a half ago. If you got the balls. Which you don't.

          Funny how you go utterly silent and stop posting on any subthread when I reply with this :) It's almost like you know even a woman--granted, a ridiculously tall one who's almost as heavy as a man--could kick your ass, and the shame of it would make you commit suicide. We can only hope.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:58AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:58AM (#483604)

            I don't know who you are, where you exist, and I would never attack someone in an honourable manner.
            I would strike from the shadows. With you I cannot do that, so why would I?

            Enemies should be shot in the back with a tokarev, not squared off with.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 24 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday March 24 2017, @04:43PM (#483737) Journal

              God, you're pathetic. You can't even face a woman head-on, despite all the shit you talk about us.

              Get it through your mainframe, bro-bot: you will NEVER have sex, EVER, with ANYONE, let alone an underage girl you fucking paedo. Your life is a failure, you have no future, and if you killed yourself now the entire world would be a marginally better place for it.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:00PM (#483863)

                >Your life is a failure, you have no future,
                I know. I have known since I was 6.

                >and if you killed yourself now the entire world would be a marginally better place for it.
                Perhaps such is what women do. I am a male: I do not wish to make the world a marginally better place for you.
                I wish to make the world a worse place for you, and a better place for me. Barring that: a worse place for you.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:22PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:22PM (#484107)

                  #notallanonymouscowards

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:17AM (#482650)

    Except that he and his ilk perpetuate the market for said child porn

    That depends: Did he buy it or did he pirate it? :-)

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:31PM (#482722)

    You seem pretty sure of your position, there.

    Hypothetically speaking, then... when they do get in to those drives, and find every one of those thousands of images they 'know' he has, are cartoons? When every single instance of CP in his possession is an entirely animated, and at no point in his entire CP-consuming career has an actual human being been involved in the production of the content, other than as the artist wielding the pen/pencil? If he went out of his way to keep it that way, doing his best to make sure that he was not contributing to the exploitation of children?

    Assume the existence of an otherwise healthy adult, an upstanding citizen (a police officer, perhaps even of good standing, good at his job), who has recognized he has a deviancy and a problem. He can't effectively treat it through the proper channels (psychologists / medical system) due to the very intense social stigma surrounding the entire issue, for fear word would somehow get out and the hand of the entire world would be raised against him, without even knowing any details of the situation (Exhibit A: You). What does such a person do? If they, being a responsible adult and capable of a reasonable self-control, decide to deal with it privately, ensuring to the best of their ability that no actual person is being harmed, no money is going towards supporting the evils of child exploitation, is that really so bad?

    Apparently it is. Someone happens to get a glance at (the absence of) an animated titty, and word does get out. And then it's straight to a living hell, fueled by the bullshit that is the modern media.

    I do not have any details of this particular case. Perhaps this man is not the man I described. In fact, he probably isn't. Almost certainly isn't. But the fact that I can come up with a scenario such as the above, in only a few minutes of thinking about it, makes it not-impossible that such a person exists, somewhere. "Innocent until proven guilty" should not, and does not, disappear as soon as underage porn becomes involved, despite the best efforts of the politicians and the media to make you believe otherwise. If you want to help the world be a better place? When you hear shit like this come on the news, turn the damn TV off. It's not really relevant anyway.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:57AM (#483169)

      The crux of the matter is to suppress men's desire for child brides and to uphold Jesus' will that women be the ruler and the man the servant. The cop will be punished either way.

      Why do you think all the wedding parties are bombed?
      The families are marrying their female children to men.
      Thus the Jesus' pro-woman society feels the man and the family must die and the bride is better of dead than raped and ruled over by a mmmmaaaallleee.

      Jesus worshipers hate men and hate the God of the Armies: the Eternal one. They pine for Jesus' heavenly father and oppose the father of the Jews whom Jesus called the adversary.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:35PM (#482775)

    yeah, and all porn watchers aid sex trafficking. maybe you've watched porn once. take your ass to jail!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:38PM (#482824)

    "So just because he has child porn doesn't mean he really is a danger to others."

    Except that he and his ilk perpetuate the market for said child porn, thereby encouraging the exploitation of children.

    Then make the exploitation of children illegal (oh, wait... it already is). Generally speaking, the actual social ill is the illegal act, not contributing factors.

    Learning chemistry about how to make a bomb is not illegal (although granted it may get you put on watch lists), making the actual bomb is. Learning how to shoot a gun, shooting somebody is. Looking at pretty women (and men) walking down the street isn't illegal, raping them is.

    Child pornography is one of the few (although far from the only) things things where the "it leads to illegal acts" is itself illegal. One could argue this is thoughtcrime or one could argue that this is prudent precaution, depending on your perspective. It sounds like you would argue the latter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:03AM (#483170)

      "One could argue this is thoughtcrime"

      It is thoughtcrime and is aimed at suppressing the normal practice of men to take child brides.
      Women's power, and men's subservience, is based fully on a woman's sexual market power.
      It requires the women to be shrewd, unattached, professionals.

      When men take child brides, they can have loyal companions. This is how animals act to those they've known since childhood (Dogs being the one exception who are loyal even when welcomed into a house as an adult). This one weird trick destroys women's power as a class and end's men's subservience.

      It was the one gift that the God of the Armies gave us.
      The cultures before (such as sumer etc) didn't have it and Jesus afterwards sought to take it away from men.
      America, England, etc are the armies of Jesus and spurn the Eternal One's Laws and beliefs.
      This is why they kill any culture that follows the culture of the God who Is.