My Highschool History Teacher was Arrested

[MisterJackson]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: DonVito
It's odd this is only a misdemeanor. I didn't know any states had misdemeanor child-porn statutes.

He is losing his job of 36 years. And even though he was an uber-liberal(wonder why) he was never a d!ck to me and made class enjoyable.

It sucks that all the people who were his friends are going to pile up on him when he's down.

There seems to be a hidden connotation in your post Amplifier, you sure nothing happened between you two????



Sorry dude, you made this too easy.

 

[wondersteve]

:disgust:

 

[astrosfan90]

I actually had a substitute teacher get arrested by the Interpol when I was in 5th grade. I was going to an American school there, and he'd apparently jumped ship from Canada while on trial for abusing his stepdaughter. Lovely stuff.

 

[duckdown]

wack

 

[torpid]

Hm... what would a trial where all the "evidence" and "witnesses" were files and folders on a computer be like?? It sounds awfully boring to me. Also, do you have to have special jury requirements, you know like people who have some remote understanding of how networks and computers work?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Which is why I believe in certain cases, the names of the accused should be protected until after the trial and acquittal/conviction.

Even if he's found innocent, this man will never teach again, and possibly never find decent employment again.

Agreed. Now that his name has been plastered all over the news, he's screwed.

I also agree with DonVito, there is a distinct (and very important) difference between a man who finds "barely legal" photos arousiing and photos of young children (lacking secondary sexual characteristics) arousing. The former is to a certain extent natural - in many cases I think most guys wouldn't realize the women (or men) were under 18 unless they were told so, and thus are just responding to what is natural sexual attraction. In the former's case it's an arbitrary age limit imposed by society. In the latter, it's easily determinable and really fvcking disgusting and should be punishable as a felony.

 

[RabidMongoose]

My DARE officer was arrested for child molestation of boys. He later killed himself.

 

[chrisms]

One of my teachers got an underage student pregnant, I believe this was the same year a girl got gang raped in the basement bathroom.

 

[Rudee]

According to the RCMP, the cops have websites which they use as bait to lure these people. They also monitor chatrooms and such.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Rudee
According to the RCMP, the cops have websites which they use as bait to lure these people. They also monitor chatrooms and such.

:Q Yikes.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I also agree with DonVito, there is a distinct (and very important) difference between a man who finds "barely legal" photos arousiing and photos of young children (lacking secondary sexual characteristics) arousing. The former is to a certain extent natural - in many cases I think most guys wouldn't realize the women (or men) were under 18 unless they were told so, and thus are just responding to what is natural sexual attraction. In the former's case it's an arbitrary age limit imposed by society. In the latter, it's easily determinable and really fvcking disgusting and should be punishable as a felony.

How about virtual child pornography? (computer generated images of pre-pubescent children)? should it be banned (even tho no-one was harmed in its making)? banning it would almost seem like "thought crime" territory. Should it be illegal to fantasize about prepubesacent children? If we could get inside people's heads, should they be punished for having such thoughts (even if they never act on them)?

 

[bigalt]

Glad I didn't stay for any of his after school 'help' sessions.

i don't think nerdy ATOT posters-to-be are his targets, you were probably safe.

 

[Lounatik]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Rudee
According to the RCMP, the cops have websites which they use as bait to lure these people. They also monitor chatrooms and such.

:Q Yikes.

Orsorum,havent you ever heard of this? Hell, you hear about it at least once a week on the news. Cops set up in a chat room pretending to be a 13 year old boy and then proceed to set up a redezvous with the guy and then bust him. Happened here in Atlanta about a month ago to a middle school principal, of all things.


Peace


Lounatik

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
How about virtual child pornography? (computer generated images of pre-pubescent children)? should it be banned (even tho no-one was harmed in its making)? banning it would almost seem like "thought crime" territory. Should it be illegal to fantasize about prepubesacent children? If we could get inside people's heads, should they be punished for having such thoughts (even if they never act on them)?

My apologies, I was referring to possession of real-world images.

I don't think virtual child pornography should be illegal, I just can't see a compelling argument for it. As for thinking such thoughts, while I think it's evidence of a psychosis, just having the thoughts should not be punishable, only actions.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Lounatik

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Rudee
According to the RCMP, the cops have websites which they use as bait to lure these people. They also monitor chatrooms and such.

:Q Yikes.

Orsorum,havent you ever heard of this? Hell, you hear about it at least once a week on the news. Cops set up in a chat room pretending to be a 13 year old boy and then proceed to set up a redezvous with the guy and then bust him. Happened here in Atlanta about a month ago to a middle school principal, of all things.

Peace
Lounatik

I've heard of the chatrooms but not the websites.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: torpid
Hm... what would a trial where all the "evidence" and "witnesses" were files and folders on a computer be like?? It sounds awfully boring to me. Also, do you have to have special jury requirements, you know like people who have some remote understanding of how networks and computers work?

No more boring than any other trial including a lot of expert testimony. Unfortunately the jury or judge will also normally have to view the pornography. I have had the displeasure of looking at thousands of images of child porn over the years in the context of working on these cases.

The jury is a lay-jury with no special expertise in computers; it's the prosecutor's responsibility to ensure they understand what they need to to reach a verdict. Occasionally, though, the court will appoint a Special Master with particular technology skills to help the judge understand and objectively evaluate the strength of technical evidence like this.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

How about virtual child pornography? (computer generated images of pre-pubescent children)? should it be banned (even tho no-one was harmed in its making)? banning it would almost seem like "thought crime" territory. Should it be illegal to fantasize about prepubesacent children? If we could get inside people's heads, should they be punished for having such thoughts (even if they never act on them)?

The Supreme Court has specifically held that banning computer-generated virtual child pornography is unconstitutional - see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

For my part, I think (separate from the constitutional issues involved) even virtual child pornography arguably works harm to society, in that it promotes an unhealthy sexual interest toward children.

 

[CRXican]

Child porn is tricky and I agree with what osorum was saying. The age 18 limit is an arbitrary creation of the law and that makes it very easy to get into trouble.

Sexual development depends on the individual and there are girls out there in their early teens that are fully developed. Just by looking at them you'd guess they were grown up and as a result, it's natural to want to look at them, naked or not. And I'm just referring to pictures of individual "underage" females, nothing over the top hardcore with older males or anything of that nature.

However when the images are obviously of pre-pubecent children and when they involve older men then there is an obvious problem and in such cases something must certainly be done.