USA: No Trial Needed for Lolicon Life Imprisonment

• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-05-18 05:36

  The US Supreme Court has ruled that a law which allows “sexually dangerous” prisoners to be jailed forever without trial does not violate the Constitution.
  
  The case centres on Graydon Comstock, who was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He apparently never actually had sex with any children.
  
  Six days prior to the end of his sentence, the government branded him a “sexually dangerous” paedophile who might reoffend, and denied him release, placing him into indefinite “civil commitment” in a federal prison.
  
  He has since spent nearly three years in prison despite having been convicted of no further crime, and having served his sentence.
  
  Release of such “committed” prisoners is possible only if they are deemed to be no longer dangerous – without a treatment program recognised as being capable of this, their imprisonment effectively becomes indefinite.
  
  The law responsible for extending this practice to the federal level, the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was soon challenged by prisoners now being denied release indefinitely, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
  
  Supreme Court justices finally ruled 7 to 2 in favour of the law:
  
  “It is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners.”
  
  Democrats are delighted by the victory – Obama even recently promoted the lady who argued for indefinite sentences on behalf of the federal government, Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court herself.
  
  She is on record as having argued that the government should be able to restrict any speech it considers “harmful,” irrespective of the First Amendment
  
  A Democratic senator holds forth in support of the decision:
  
  “The process to enact this law to protect our children from those who would do them harm was difficult. I am heartened to see an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court uphold this important child protection law.”
  
  Some states already operate similar laws, but this decision ensures the federal government can now freely override sentences throughout the land.
  
  The solicitor general for Kansas, Stephen McAllister, a supporter of the law, suggests that allowing indefinite civil commitment for all kinds of criminals might now be possible:
  
  “Constitutionally, it might be possible. I don’t have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law.”

  
  
  Seriously?
  
  According to the government, watching loli hentai will instantly turn you into a dangerous pedophile that cannot be changed.
  
  Reading some related news, the sentences passed for lewd possessions or acts are even worse than ones passed for murder. Who the hell is the real victim here?
  
  

  A woman has been sentenced to life in prison after she “forced” a 13-year-old boy to touch her breast.
  
  The 34-year-old Nevada woman was accused of kissing a friend’s 13-year-old son in 2008, asking him if he would have sex with her and placing his hand on her breast. She denied the charges, saying she was drunk and had not forced him to touch her.
  
  The boy is said to be undergoing therapy after this ordeal.
  
  In a week-long trial, she was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 and ordered to serve a life sentence, based on Nevada’s mandatory minimum sentence for this class of crime. She will be eligible for parole in 10 years.
  
  Jurors were not allowed to know that she faced a life sentence if convicted.
  
  Even the judge appeared aghast at the sentence he handed down, saying he had no choice to impose a life sentence but was not sure why the prosecution was insisting on charges under laws which would attract the minimum sentencing requirement (they could have charged her with a lesser offence).
  
  The district attorney who prosecuted her defends the sentence, saying she was “convicted of precisely of what she did” and that the sentence is simply in line with state mandatory minimum sentences.
  
  There is some dispute over why she was not offered a plea bargain.
  
  The defence claims the district attorney did not offer a plea bargain, whilst the district attorney claims she did not want to negotiate a plea bargain as she felt being forced to register as a sex offender would ruin the rest of her life more surely than a conviction would.
  
  However, even if released on parole she would now have to register as a sex offender.
  
  The defence asserts that this extreme sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment:
  
  “This is cruel and unusual punishment. She put his hand on her boob while she was wearing a bra, now she’s getting life.”
  
  The defence notes that “she is getting a greater penalty for having a boy touch her breast than if she killed him.”

• Kazuni wrote on 2010-05-18 05:37
  It's raining government fail everywhere these days.
  
  Where's the love? :gloom2:
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-05-18 05:47
  More related bullcrap.
  
  

  A federal appeals panel has upheld the 20 year sentence of a lolicon found to have received illustrations of underage sex by email, saying that “it is not a required that the minor depicted actually exists”, and so ruling art not to be universally protected free speech.
  
  The court also insisted that purely textual email containing incest related material was not constitutionally protected free speech, and so also upheld his conviction on these grounds.
  
  The man concerned (55), a resident of Richmond, Virginia, is serving a 20 year sentence after being convicted in 2005 of “receiving 20 Japanese cartoons, called anime, illustrating young girls being forced to have sex with men”, which he rather unwisely received using a public computer at the Virginia Employment Commission.
  
  Additionally, he was found to have sent and received incest related emails of a purely textual nature, which were judged to be obscene and therefore not constitutionally protected free speech.
  
  Clouding the issue further, the man apparently also received unambiguously illegal photographs of underage sexual conduct.
  
  All this resulted in a jury convicting him of 74 offences, including receiving obscene materials, receiving obscene visual representations of underage sex, receiving child pornography and sending and receiving obscene emails. His sentence of 20 years was the maximum possible.
  
  The notorious PROTECT Act of 2003, which permits arbitrarily stripping material of its First Amendment protections if it can be judged obscene according to the criteria of the Miller Test, was instrumental in securing these convictions; in fact this represents the first successful conviction under it.
  
  In his appeal against the convictions, he claimed that the illustrations were protected by the First Amendment, as they do not depict real children. He also claimed the PROTECT Act was unconstitutional as textual emails cannot be considered obscene.
  
  The judges would have none of it, holding that the act was made for the protection of imaginary children:
  
  “It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.”
  
  One of the three judges did accept his arguments, though this had no impact on the majority ruling. The convictions for the photographs did not come into question.
  
  The man intends to continue elevating the appeal, to the Supreme Court if necessary, in order to get the relevant parts of his conviction quashed.
  
  It is not his first brush with the law: in 1999 he was sentenced to nearly four years for possessing pornography depicting minors, so clearly he is not the most charismatic appellant.
  
  This via AP, brought to my attention in the forums.
  
  The PROTECT Act of late seems to be coming to the fore in relation to cases involving loli manga; there is also the recent case of an Iowa man facing similar convictions, although in his case without any real imagery involved.
  
  Given that so much anime and manga, both mainstream and erotic, revolves around sexual situations involving participants clearly under what US law would regard as a legal age for such depictions to not constitute child pornography, just how much of mainstream anime and manga, to say nothing of actual pornography, will eventually come under the remit of such laws should they go unchecked?
  
  With lower courts and national politicians gleefully stripping both speech and art of Constitutional protections using the evils of underage sex as a lever, we have to wonder whether the Supreme Court will actually rectify matters at some point?

  
  
  Court: "FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T COUNT IF THE CONTENT IS OBSCENE HERP DERP"
  
  Then why does the first amendment even exist?
• Axx wrote on 2010-05-18 05:49
  Eh, the guy in the first article actually had real Child Porn in his possession, in addition to loli-hentai. (Edit: that might've been the guy in the article above me, instead. Meh.)
  
  The second article is more troubling. Rape is the only thing that should be punished harsher than murder.
  
  Also, who are these retards in power? 14 yr-old boys do not need therapy for touching breasts. Some 12 year old boys aren't virgins. Fcking do something about that one, will ya?
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2010-05-18 05:54
  Politicians don't actually give a crap
  The supreme court are somewhat politicians
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-05-18 06:00

  Quote from Axx;38404:

  Eh, the guy in the first article actually had real Child Porn in his possession, in addition to loli-hentai. (Edit: that might've been the guy in the article above me, instead. Meh.)
  
  The second article is more troubling. Rape is the only thing that should be punished harsher than murder.
  
  Also, who are these retards in power? 14 yr-old boys do not need therapy for touching breasts. Some 12 year old boys aren't virgins. Fcking do something about that one, will ya?

  
  
  The issue with article 1:
  
  He ALREADY SERVED FOR POSESSION OF CHILD POROGRAPHY.
  Keeping him in jail AFTER that with retarded reasoning like that is like saying EVERY criminal is dangerous and should ALL serve an indefinite jail time.
  
  The issue with article 2:
  
  It was a grope, and she was drunk. A crime? Yes. Worth a life in prison? No. Not even close.
  
  The issue with article 3:
  
  Excuses for ignoring the first amendment. Its sickening.
  And its loli hentai? I could fine some on 4chan right now. This could easily happen to anyone.
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-18 10:36
  Then people ask me why I hate the US and wouldn't even stand within 10 miles of the border.
• NewbieNub wrote on 2010-05-18 12:02
  You know, I would be knee high in deep **** right now if I'm in America.
  
  
  Thank god, I'm not. Other than the lack of snow, the overly abusive latency for Mabinogi, the NX, the crappy laws and fats, I doubt I'm missing much.
• Drago wrote on 2010-05-18 12:10
  seriously considering moving countries now >.>
• starpaw7 wrote on 2010-05-18 12:22
  Idiot, watching that on public computer :srsly?:
  
  I'm sure this falls under the 8th Amendement with "no cruel or unusual punishments", seems they're screwing that over too :fail:
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-18 16:06
  Technically the constitution's been thrown out the window ever since the patriot act. Now they're just stomping on it for good measure.
  USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-18 17:28
  Not too sure on this one, but I think it's cheaper in terms of time and money to lock prisoners away forever than to give them appeals. Might be an issue of resources rather than freedom.
  They gave us very little information on the prisoner, only stating that he was "sexually dangerous". Maybe the Comstock was a complete and utter sociopath. Regardless, using one case to seal the fate of all other prisoners hardly seems fair though. I wish actual psychologists had an actual say in these particular cases. The ruling judges were trained in law, so they're very likely to be a little removed from the reality of some of the cases they rule upon because they may have a hard time comprehending the criminal mind.
  
  Not too much to say about the second and third cases other than the fact that they breached the eighth and first amendments respectively. It's been a sad 9 years for our constitution.
• Drifter wrote on 2010-05-18 18:05
  And this, is why I'm studying law -.-
  Honestly, this is getting WAY out of hand.
• Laconicus wrote on 2010-05-18 18:40
  Wow this is... just wow... ok, first off, it's just pictures of imaginary kids. Liking loli is NOT the same as being a pedophile. Similarly being a furry is not the same as being a beastophile. It's the same as all fetishes, I'd think. I'm gonna steal this quote from the same-sex thread:
  

  Everybody's got their own sick, twisted sexual fantasies that they don't tell other people about. I doubt a bit of homosexual romance [in this case, loli] is dreadful compared to the things that go on in most people's minds.

  
  Secondly, where the heck did our rights go...
  
  Isn't the UK doing something similar too?
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-18 19:20
  Bye bye loli's D: