How will our Rinos like HHTM sleep knowing this justice is on bench

(no message)

quote:

---

A lady who actually stated she mistakenly thought that child porn predators were pedos....

---

She is not the Justice that I would pick, but that is not what she said.

At the time, she was a member of the Sentencing Commission. To paraphrase, she said in a Commission hearing that she was surprised to learn that not ALL child porn offenders are "pedophiles" in the clinical sense. The literature supports that observation. A small percentage of offenders collect child porn for reasons other than sexual gratification. And she expressed that surprise in reaction to hearing testimony to that effect from an official of the Justice Department.

She further said that she wanted “to understand this category of nonpedophiles who obtain child pornography.” As one of the people responsible for developing the sentencing guidelines, one would hope that she would want to understand both the offenses and the offenders. To do otherwise would be rather irresponsible, IMO.

In short, this particular line of criticism is pure mischaracterization of her words for cheap political gain.

The more interesting questions arise from her tendency to impose lighter sentences for child porn than suggested by the guidelines. This is actually an interesting topic for discussion.

quote:

---

she was surprised to learn that not ALL child porn offenders are "pedophiles" in the clinical sense.

---

It’s a distinction without a difference. Many people collect child porn because they sell it for money. Doesn’t make them any less innocent.

It’s like not all drug dealers are drug users.

quote:

---

It’s a distinction without a difference. Many people collect child porn because they sell it for money. Doesn’t make them any less innocent.

It’s like not all drug dealers are drug users.

---

I think that a better analogy would be two weed offenders (in states that have not decriminalized) ... one who buys weed to get high and one who buys weed to self-medicate cancer symptoms.

Is it not within the purview of a Sentencing Commission to understand the difference between those two offenders? Should we not EXPECT a member of a Sentencing Commission to attempt to obtain such an understanding?

Is it not reasonable for a Sentencing Commission to AT LEAST examine whether those two offenders should be sentenced to identical periods of incarceration?

I sense that this is the sort of forum on which someone will now say that I am equating child pornography with a minor drug offense. No, I am not. Obviously, one offense (child porn) is more serious than the other. I am simply examining a parallel in sentencing issues.

quote:

---

To me, you've explained two situations of purchasing weed, but one includes a mitigating factor (having cancer and trying to treat it with weed).

Outside of being involved in an investigation into child porn, what would be a mitigating factor for possessing child porn?

---

If we are discussing the optimal final result of a Sentencing Commission examination of the distinction, you may well be correct. It may be entirely appropriate to have no difference in the sentencing between the clinical pedophile and the non-pedophile collector, while it might be perfectly-reasonable to see different sentences for the stoner versus the cancer patient.

But that is not the context in which Jackson made the statement. She made the statement in the context of wanting to have the information and to understand the distinction ... SO THAT the Commission could determine whether the same period of incarceration would be appropriate in both instances.

Again, her history of nearly-always sentencing outside the guidelines is perhaps a reasonable basis for challenging her nomination. IMO, her having sought to gather information in order to do her job as a member of the Commission is not a reasonable basis for such a challenge, and this particular challenge is completely disingenuous political theater.

quote:

---

In short, this particular line of criticism is pure mischaracterization of her words for cheap political gain.

---

After what you filth did to Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett, you can just shut the frick up forever.

The republican party is only less shitty than the democratic party. Very high percentage of congress and senate overall are just in it for their own enrichment. I would say the democrat party is more about tricking the ignorant into keeping them in power as they make no bones about policies that obviously lead to economic ruin.

Kinetic_Response
Member since Mar 2022
4 posts


All four posts trying to push the idea that not all child porn aficionados are pedophiles.


You know who comes up with a bullshite diagnosis like that? A leftist psychologist with an agenda.

quote:

---

one who buys weed to get high and one who buys weed to self-medicate cancer symptoms.

---

I’m curious to know what you’d call one who “self-medicates” with child pornography.

I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with shmedophile.

quote:

---

How are you going to create an alter and first post in a call out thread about yourself?

---

Probably is HHTM, trying to argue for a very bad choice for the Supreme Court under a different name to try and change the argument without the automatic negation of the comments because every knows HHTM is a moron