- Messages
- 916
I have a friend who served about a decade in prison for child porn, and then he went to the halfway house and got caught with more child porn on his phone.
I guess his lawyer is going to be in quite a predicament. How do you explain to a judge, "My client served all that time and still wasn't deterred from doing the same kind of stuff again, but don't worry, if you give him a slap on the wrist, he'll somehow learn a lesson from such lenience, that 10 years behind bars didn't teach him; and he'll be a good boy from now on"? It's kinda contrary to logic.
What he's gonna have to say is, "My client can't get the kind of treatment he needs in prison, so he needs to be released with a strict regimen of supervision and psychiatric care, and THEN he won't be a danger to society."
Maybe he can get some shrinks to testify in support of this notion, too, because they want those big fees for doing an evaluation and offering treatment. And maybe this will either give a sympathetic judge some cover to go along with giving him a light prison sentence, or make him feel coerced by the pressure of all these "experts" saying their scientific knowledge exceeds his.
The upshot, though, is that this guy is going to get busted AGAIN with child porn if he ever gets released again, because this is now the third time he's gotten locked back up for doing stuff on computers he wasn't supposed to (the second time was when they got him for talking to minors, specifically his kids, on Facebook without permission).
What needs to happen is that lawyers need to just argue, "His constitutional right to free speech was violated," but they already lost that battle in New York v. Ferber and Osborne v. Ohio. Maybe it is time to bring another case like that to the SCOTUS, since it's been awhile since the last one, but lawyers are not just gonna keep making the same losing arguments in case after case; that might not even be allowed because it could be considered frivolous, and a form of ineffective assistance.
So what to do? I don't know, but you're basically getting in bed with the devil when you try to team up with shrinks to accomplish some goal like getting out of prison. I mean, it sorta worked for John Hinckley, but last I heard, he still wasn't a totally free man; the shrinks are going to want to retain some control over him, and the establishment will want that too. For example, they say he's not allowed any contact with the media. https://brightlightsfilm.com/watching-taxi-driver-with-john-hinckley/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/john-hinckley-jr-where-is-reagans-would-be-assassin-now
And he says he's not getting any pussy either these days. I guess the agepill and resulting paunchpill took a toll.
Geez, they won't even let him pursue his interests freely:
That's some bullshit. How are you going to stay motivated if you can't hear from your fans?
I guess his lawyer is going to be in quite a predicament. How do you explain to a judge, "My client served all that time and still wasn't deterred from doing the same kind of stuff again, but don't worry, if you give him a slap on the wrist, he'll somehow learn a lesson from such lenience, that 10 years behind bars didn't teach him; and he'll be a good boy from now on"? It's kinda contrary to logic.
What he's gonna have to say is, "My client can't get the kind of treatment he needs in prison, so he needs to be released with a strict regimen of supervision and psychiatric care, and THEN he won't be a danger to society."
Maybe he can get some shrinks to testify in support of this notion, too, because they want those big fees for doing an evaluation and offering treatment. And maybe this will either give a sympathetic judge some cover to go along with giving him a light prison sentence, or make him feel coerced by the pressure of all these "experts" saying their scientific knowledge exceeds his.
The upshot, though, is that this guy is going to get busted AGAIN with child porn if he ever gets released again, because this is now the third time he's gotten locked back up for doing stuff on computers he wasn't supposed to (the second time was when they got him for talking to minors, specifically his kids, on Facebook without permission).
What needs to happen is that lawyers need to just argue, "His constitutional right to free speech was violated," but they already lost that battle in New York v. Ferber and Osborne v. Ohio. Maybe it is time to bring another case like that to the SCOTUS, since it's been awhile since the last one, but lawyers are not just gonna keep making the same losing arguments in case after case; that might not even be allowed because it could be considered frivolous, and a form of ineffective assistance.
So what to do? I don't know, but you're basically getting in bed with the devil when you try to team up with shrinks to accomplish some goal like getting out of prison. I mean, it sorta worked for John Hinckley, but last I heard, he still wasn't a totally free man; the shrinks are going to want to retain some control over him, and the establishment will want that too. For example, they say he's not allowed any contact with the media. https://brightlightsfilm.com/watching-taxi-driver-with-john-hinckley/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/john-hinckley-jr-where-is-reagans-would-be-assassin-now
And he says he's not getting any pussy either these days. I guess the agepill and resulting paunchpill took a toll.
Geez, they won't even let him pursue his interests freely:
That's some bullshit. How are you going to stay motivated if you can't hear from your fans?
Last edited: