Believe it or not, I am not an angry person. I just can't stand those who refuse to use common sense, and those who blatantly toss the law aside. Oh, yeah- and I'm not to happy about those who would rape, molest, abuse or otherwise harm a child. Those people really piss me off.
Normally, I am a very delightful person... right up until I have to read something like this:
The defense and three "technology experts" who testified "that a new federal law's restrictions on access to evidence in child-pornography cases would discourage them from working for defendants in such cases", would like us to just skip the parts of the law that would cause them too much burden. Oh, pity the child porn guy who has spent all his funds on high speed internet in order to quickly access all the illegal content his little black seeping heart desires and therefore doesn't have the money to pay for good defense.... and "technology experts" who will investigate and lie for him.
The most annoying part:
No Payne... Congress gave lots of thought to this... it's the child porn people who clearly didn't think things through. Don't like the costs of defending yourself? Don't meddle with kiddie porn. Simple answer to a made up problem.
Special thanks to Lisa Marie
Categories: predators, molesters,
Normally, I am a very delightful person... right up until I have to read something like this:
Attorneys for a Richmond man charged with receiving, possessing and attempting to distribute child porn are challenging a provision that requires that "contraband" in such cases remain in government possession. Courts are required to deny defense requests to copy the evidence, provided the government makes the material "reasonably available" to the defendant.
In the case of David L. Knellinger of Richmond, his lead attorney, Ian N. Friedman of Cleveland, claims defense experts need unfettered access to the evidence to determine its authenticity. Allowing the government to dictate when and where that analysis is done violates Knellinger's constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel, he says.
The defense and three "technology experts" who testified "that a new federal law's restrictions on access to evidence in child-pornography cases would discourage them from working for defendants in such cases", would like us to just skip the parts of the law that would cause them too much burden. Oh, pity the child porn guy who has spent all his funds on high speed internet in order to quickly access all the illegal content his little black seeping heart desires and therefore doesn't have the money to pay for good defense.... and "technology experts" who will investigate and lie for him.
The most annoying part:
Owen, one of three experts, said he would lean toward turning down child-porn defense work under the restrictions imposed by the new statute.
The judge suggested that Congress should have considered the consequences before inserting the provision into the legislation at the last minute at the behest of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Congress gave no apparent thought to this," Payne said.
No Payne... Congress gave lots of thought to this... it's the child porn people who clearly didn't think things through. Don't like the costs of defending yourself? Don't meddle with kiddie porn. Simple answer to a made up problem.
Special thanks to Lisa Marie
Categories: predators, molesters,
Comments