Guy gets 30 years for taking naked pics of 17 year old relative

[StageLeft]

Link

A Henrietta man drew a 30-year prison term today for taking sexually explicit photos of a 17-year-old relative after getting her drunk.

Personally I think it's completely retarded and disproportionate. How many crimes can you think of that get 30 years for something you did against another person that isn't either of this nature of involves murdering them? Presumably if she was a year older he'd have received some trivial sentence for getting a minor drunk, right?

 

[sciwizam]

Investigators found more than 100 images of child pornography, most of the girl, on Cook?s home computer

This might have weighed into his sentencing, if the photos go back a few years.

 

[apac]

Cook testified during his trial that he lied twice when he told Monroe County sheriff?s investigators in March 2007 that he had sexual contact with the girl. He said he made up the story because he believed they would let him go home if he confessed.

Uh...yeah, right. Even an idiot can infer that his lawyer advised him to say that.

The sentence length is pretty long for just the kiddie porn charges. It'd be different if they'd found him guilty of the statutory rape.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Investigators found more than 100 images of child pornography, most of the girl, on Cook?s home computer

This might have weighed into his sentencing, if the photos go back a few years.

Gotta wonder who was in the other pictures, besides the relative?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

A Henrietta man drew a 30-year prison term today for taking sexually explicit photos of a 17-year-old relative after getting her drunk.

Personally I think it's completely retarded and disproportionate. How many crimes can you think of that get 30 years for something you did against another person that isn't either of this nature of involves murdering them? Presumably if she was a year older he'd have received some trivial sentence for getting a minor drunk, right?

Well, if hanging's not an option . . .

Guy's more than twice her age, and plies her with alcohol first, then takes about 100 pictures (according to the article) of the girl. Seems about right to get 30 years. Imagine if it were your daughter.

 

[theeedude]

Hopefully he gets a chronic condition in prison and ends up costing the state government millions of dollars in health care costs over those 30 years.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

rapists and killers get out in 10.

 

[Desturel]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Well, if hanging's not an option . . .

Guy's more than twice her age, and plies her with alcohol first, then takes about 100 pictures (according to the article) of the girl. Seems about right to get 30 years. Imagine if it were your daughter.

Of course, meanwhile teachers that have sex with 14 year olds get off on probation. Perfectly fair and balanced if you ask me.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Desturel

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Well, if hanging's not an option . . .

Guy's more than twice her age, and plies her with alcohol first, then takes about 100 pictures (according to the article) of the girl. Seems about right to get 30 years. Imagine if it were your daughter.

Of course, meanwhile teachers that have sex with 14 year olds get off on probation. Perfectly fair and balanced if you ask me.

One injustice does not excuse another.

 

[Thump553]

This was federal court-the judge is basically required to sentence him in accordance with sentencing guidelines. Which means that the sentence shouldn't be disproportionately unfair or overly lenient, given the totality of the situation. The judge will set forth all the factors for increasing or reducing his sentence within the range set by the guidelines and the defendant can appeal if he disagrees. I suspect this sentence was at the top end of the guideline range. One thing that worked very much against him was the judge found that he had lied on the stand.

Overall, I think we need more facts than were in that article.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Desturel

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Well, if hanging's not an option . . .

Guy's more than twice her age, and plies her with alcohol first, then takes about 100 pictures (according to the article) of the girl. Seems about right to get 30 years. Imagine if it were your daughter.

Of course, meanwhile teachers that have sex with 14 year olds get off on probation. Perfectly fair and balanced if you ask me.

That's just higher education.

 

[miketheidiot]

there should have been little to no prison time for this, at east based on the information in the article. 5 years would have been borderline excessive. 30 is completely asinine.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's completely ridiculous and the taxpayers of that state will be made to foot the bill for this ridiculous sentence. A sentence of perhaps 30 days in jail and a couple hundred hours of community service seems more appropriate than any jail time.

 

[OCGuy]

Yea hes fucked.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Thump553
This was federal court-the judge is basically required to sentence him in accordance with sentencing guidelines. Which means that the sentence shouldn't be disproportionately unfair or overly lenient, given the totality of the situation. The judge will set forth all the factors for increasing or reducing his sentence within the range set by the guidelines and the defendant can appeal if he disagrees. I suspect this sentence was at the top end of the guideline range. One thing that worked very much against him was the judge found that he had lied on the stand.

Overall, I think we need more facts than were in that article.

I don't need any more facts to say that I think the sentence was grossly excessive.

Some human beings have sexuality-related problems, and some act in harmful ways.

We need to get far better about how we deal with these situations than mob-mentality throw away the key sentences.

How about, for one idea, free therapy - focused less on 'curing' what seems possibly incurable, but on behavioral control - something far cheaper than long sentences.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
It's completely ridiculous and the taxpayers of that state will be made to foot the bill for this ridiculous sentence. A sentence of perhaps 30 days in jail and a couple hundred hours of community service seems more appropriate than any jail time.

It's too bad how politically useful this sort of prosecution is, greatly encouraging the law enforcement system to pursue it. What'd happen to a polician who ran for lower sentences?

 

[MovingTarget]

30 years is excessive, but that still doesn't mean he isn't a sick sonofa...well, you know. The sentence should involve less prison time and some sort of direct compensation to the victim, considering the age involved. However, something tells me that this isn't the whole story, so 30yr may not be too far out of the ballpark afterall.

 

[Modelworks]

The way I think of crimes like this is, when the person was doing it, did they know it was wrong ? If they knew it was wrong and did it anyway, then they deserve whatever they get. It isn't a crime like accidentally hurting someone. He had a choice and chose poorly.

Under the law they also charge each image as a separate count, so it isn't being charged with child porn, it is being charged with 100 counts of child porn.

 

[Superrock]

30 years is high imo.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Can we not have some sort of legal classification between child and adult? 17 is certainly not a child and shouldn't qualify as kiddie porn. Not to excuse anything this guy did, but 30 years is just excessive.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Can we not have some sort of legal classification between child and adult? 17 is certainly not a child and shouldn't qualify as kiddie porn. Not to excuse anything this guy did, but 30 years is just excessive.

17 may not be a child , but the law defines child porn as:


(1) ?minor? means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(8) ?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where?
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

A Henrietta man drew a 30-year prison term today for taking sexually explicit photos of a 17-year-old relative after getting her drunk.

Personally I think it's completely retarded and disproportionate. How many crimes can you think of that get 30 years for something you did against another person that isn't either of this nature of involves murdering them? Presumably if she was a year older he'd have received some trivial sentence for getting a minor drunk, right?

Well, if hanging's not an option . . .

Guy's more than twice her age, and plies her with alcohol first, then takes about 100 pictures (according to the article) of the girl. Seems about right to get 30 years. Imagine if it were your daughter.

It does not matter if she is your daughter; the point to sentencing is not to make you feel better.

In other news, the girl in this case is 17, not 7! It's unlikely this victim is a child in anything other than the legal sense. Thirty years is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[chess9]

This was mostly out of the judge's hands. Mandatory minimums and all. Good argument for reducing the lengths of sentences for many crimes and for more pardons.

Five years would have been the maximum reasonable range, IMHO.

-Robert

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
rapists and killers get out in 10.

In most U.S. states, the age of consent is 16 or 17 (a few are 18, such as Arizona, California, Idaho, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin).

So a 43-year-old man can have sex with a 17-year-old girl with impunity in New York. But if he gets her drunk and takes a nude photo of her, it's 25 years hard time.

Wow.

 

[piasabird]

He should just claim to be an artist. It worked for Playboy. Taking pictures of naked people is just a form of appreciation for the artistic appreciation of the female form. So are we going to arrest people at the museum of art for the same thing?