re: Ketanji Brown Doubles Down on Defending Pedophilia & Distribution of Child Porn

quote:

---

As most things around here, her response was taken out of context. The fact is Judge Jackson's record is entirely consistent with what judges did across the country. In some child porn cases her sentence was higher and in some cases her sentence was lower depending on the facts. A carte-blanche argument can be made that all judges are too soft on crime, but that'd just my opinion. I'm just here to set the record straight.

---

She should've been forced to answer the questions to be able to sit on the highest court in the land.

She said she applied the law. What more can she say? Being a judge is not about your personal feeling on a matter, it's about following what the law tells you to do based on precedents.

quote:

---

She said she applied the law. What more can she say? Being a judge is not about your personal feeling on a matter, it's about following what the law tells you to do based on precedents.

---

Ok, fine. Then what about her saying that looking at and/or distributing child porn for 15 minutes on the internet shouldn't get you 30, 40, 50 years? I want you to pay attention to the actual law below and explain the 3 month sentence.

quote:

---

Federal law prohibits the production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography using or affecting any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce (See 18 U.S.C. § 2251; 18 U.S.C. § 2252; 18 U.S.C. § 2252A). Specifically, Section 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.

Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. This includes, for example, using the U.S. Mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the child pornography image itself did not travel across state or international borders, federal law may be implicated if the materials, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD-ROM used to store the image, originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.

In addition, Section 2251A of Title 18, United States Code, specifically prohibits any parent, legal guardian or other person in custody or control of a minor under the age of 18, to buy, sell, or transfer custody of that minor for purposes of producing child pornography.

Lastly, Section 2260 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any persons outside of the United States to knowingly produce, receive, transport, ship, or distribute child pornography with intent to import or transmit the visual depiction into the United States.

Any violation of federal child pornography law is a serious crime, and convicted offenders face severe statutory penalties. For example, a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251, face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison. A first time offender convicted of transporting child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, faces fines and a statutory minimum of 5 years to 20 years maximum in prison.

---

First, you'll need to brush up on the pertinent sentencing guidelines. Some of them can be found here.

https://guidelines.ussc.gov/gl/%C2%A72G2.2

Here is the pertinent computer portion.

quote:

---

(6) If the offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer service for the possession, transmission, receipt, or distribution of the material, or for accessing with intent to view the material, increase by 2 levels.

---

Without doing much research, it sounds like she finds some of the guidelines to be outdated. Think about her example and this similar example.

You've got a person peddling in 1996. The primary method, which would be punished by the base guideline, would be hand distribution of vhs, photographs, and maybe a 5.25 floppy disk. This was the norm. However, because a sophisticated kiddy diddler could use a computer, which would allow a person to distribute child pornography more widely, more quickly, etc in the new ages of the internet, the law wanted an enhancement to stop these few sophisticated.

Fast forward to the internet age, and the internet would probably be used in 98% of cases. So, she's asking why are we still enhancing what is now normal?

I'll use the following hypothetical to try to further explain the computer position and the number of image position.

quote:

---

defendant was indicted on possession of child pornography charges. This person had 200 images of child pornography in their possession, which they downloaded using their home computer. The images depicted toddlers as well as young children under the age of 12 years old.
Applicable Guidelines
Based on the hypothetical situation described above, the following guidelines would apply:

Base level offense of Possession of Child Pornography – 18 points §2G2.2(a)(1);

Material of age under 12 years old – 2-point enhancement §2G2.2(b)(2);

Materials involving exploitation of toddler – 4-point enhancement §2G2.2(4);

Offense involved the use of a computer – 2-point enhancement §2G2.2(5); and

At least 150 images but fewer than 300 – 3-point enhancement §2G2.2(7)(B).

---

And, the 150-300 section would have a 4 point and a 5 point above it. I can't disagree with her this might lead to punishments that don't fit the crime.

A guy in 1993 having and/or distributing 150-300 images took up a large part of his life. He likely spent hours a week procuring and distributing his stash.

The 2022 guy might click on a single p2p file on Kazaa titled "Sexy Highschool Cheerleaders," thinking he was getting the normal 27yo meth head looking bitch in a cheerleader outfit, and, end up with most of his life in prison, because this zip file had 1000's of 16yo hacked snapchat pictures, with 3 of the files adding extra enhancements to his number of files enhancement.

She's just saying the 1993 guy is much worse, and our law has the 2022 guy going to prison for longer. I can't disagree.

With that said, she is a long way from being qualified for this job. I could literally walk into law schools and find 3ls that would blow this bitch out of the water on constitutional and federal substantive and procedural law.

100% being appointed as the token black woman, who can easily be controlled and will advocate from the bench.

She's no bueño, but her position on the enhancements isn't retarded.

Maybe she used some of that #BlackGirlMagic they won't shut the frick up about to see in the pedos' hearts and understood they weren't bad guys...

quote:

---

850SaintsGator
Florida Fan
Pensacola
Member since Sep 2021
486 posts

quote:

---

i argue all the time with the trumpers on this site

---

---

You must give up easy. Actually, I don't recall ever even seeing your name.

What trouble? It's clearly displayed under your screen name.

quote:

---

Hawley then started reading her remarks at sentencing where she said she was sorry that the defendant went through this ordeal…that she was sorry that his family had to sit through court??? WTF…some of them were images of 8yos performing sex acts??? What?

She also said that these were his peers, insinuating that he was just watching 16-17yos and not 8yo…10 yo and 11yos ….ummm mam, no! He has a sickness

---

Did you know the 18 year old is black? Might explain a few things about his jail time and her comments.