Thread: US 200-year porn sentence stands

This strikes me as a touch excessive....

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by a high school teacher from Arizona sentenced to 200 years in jail for possessing child pornography.

Morton Berger had claimed the sentence was so disproportionate to his crime it breached the constitution.
If the 52-year-old had been tried in a federal court or lived elsewhere he would have received a lighter sentence.
But he was living in Arizona when he was caught with thousands of images of child abuse on his computer.
Stark differences
The state has the nation's toughest laws on child abuse and exploitation.
Indeed, the prosecutor had asked for a 340-year sentence but the trial judge imposed the minimum of 10 years for each of 20 images - to be served consecutively for a total of 200 years without the possibility of probation, early release or pardon.
Mr Berger's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal.
They argued the sentence was wildly disproportionate - much longer than that for rape or even second degree murder and claimed it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
The state of Arizona argued each image of child abuse was a separate crime so the sentences had to run consecutively. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal and gave no reason but the case has highlighted stark differences in sentencing policy across the US.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 200-year porn sentence stands

Originally Posted by themook

Murderers get lighter sentences in some cases.

There are crimes worse than murder. Sexually abusing children is one of them. OK, the guy was only convicted of looking at pics, but as Lily points out, someone had to abuse these kids so the dude could get his jollies.
200 years may be a tad over the top; but. One predator off the streets. One less to worry about.

come on FF, we are talking about justice here.
Maybe you also agree that molesters should be burnt alive and their testicles thrown to the dogs, but that is not the point

Justice must be seen to be fair and just, otherwise it will fall into disrepute. The problem with each state having their own penalties, and even each judge having his own axe to grind, leads to unfair justice.

Murderers can be killed in one state and not another, for instance.

it makes no sense

Looking for Justice within the court systems of almost any country is a bit Pollyanna-ish, IMO. I will agree the sentence is way over the top, the viewer of child porn may not be an active predator. The courts see their role not just as the hand of justice but a protector of the people.

I don't recall the state this sentence was handed down in. In some states sex acts (such as fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex) between consenting adults is punishable by stiff prison terms as well. Are the laws archaic? Absolutely. Do they impinge on constitutional rights? Yes. Does this particular case meet any of that criteria? NO.

Can a 200 year sentence be considered cruel and unusual punishment? Grey area, IMO. If the convicted party is fed, clothed and protected from the elements, if he is not beaten or treated "unusually" then the case for Cruel and unusual is not there.

Why the Supreme court refused to view this case is a question with a simple answer. The United States Supreme Court held that laws on morality are to be legislated and enforced locally. There is no case for the Supremes to hear.

You must remember the US is unique in the sovereignty afforded individual states, this was built into the constitution back when, I think it is a good thing, for the most part. Tackling this case, may have been a can of worms the Supremes may not have wanted to open. Federal legislation or rulings limiting the different states ability to govern themselves would go over like a fart in church.

That local laws such as this one go way over the top in many instances is a given. There are many unconstitutional laws on the books, these laws are usually unenforced thus preventing appeals and the feds overturning them. This one is politically hot as hell, getting a ruling in his (the defendant) favor ain't going to be easy.

I believe sentences such as these (50+ yrs) should be eliminated and proper guide-lines laid down. Again this is an interference in State business that is counter to the state rights in the constitution. While the rights of sovereignty have slowly eroded over the years (where are the state-run militias?) some aspects are still held sacred.

Should many of these laws be struck down? Without a doubt. Who is to say what is to be eliminated and what is to remain? Getting the federal government to audit the law books of each state is not going to happen.

The guy got a raw deal. I find it hard to sympathize, but the sentence is insane. The citizens of each individual state must attend to it's own laws. What is right is right; wrong wrong. Some states remain extremely backwards.

My closing statement:

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

One predator off the streets. One less to worry about.

Simply meant to echo what I think is the attitude of the presiding judge, teh Supremes and the citizens of that state. Not saying I agree 100%, not saying I disagree 100%. Sentencing guide-lines declaring 200 year sentences unconstitutional, would be a step in the right direction. They are allowed simply to enable judges to "send a message." This, als, is a function of the judicial system, a deterrent.

sending a message to sick people doesn't fucking work

how a 200 year sentence is going to help the victims or stop the predators ? it doesn't, that's the point.

The verdict is there to amuse the general public for political reasons so the prosecutor can look good for his next election

Like I said disgusting. If you want justice, let the sickos wank to what they like, but find and burn those who abuse children by taking their photos or touch them. This verdict is a disgrace for the victims and an enabler for the predators. is that justice is all about ? enabling offenders ?

Originally Posted by Lily

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

He was arrested for possession of child pornography, not sexual abuse of minors. Both are bad, but in my opinion, there is a world of difference.

In my mind there is no difference.

Some child or children were sexually abused to let this man have his wank watching them be abused.

Even assuming these were pictures of children being abused, as opposed to simply pictures of nude kids I still think there is a difference. Also, provided he didn't pay for the pictures, one could further argue that he was not supporting child abuse (although apparently taking some pleasure in viewing it).

I just find the justice system a bit twisted when a man who rapes a child recieves a lesser sentence than a man who looks at pictures of such a rape (assuming again that this was the type of pictures he was in possession of).

yeah what about the real victims ? the rapist get away with a few years while the one watching get 200 years ? isn't that kind of insulting for the victims ? basically those who committed a bigger crime got to walk ? is watching kiddie porn more harmful than committing rape on children ? no it's not, and I am not convinced that those watching actually create a bigger supply. For all they care, they could take pics themselves, that's why you need to stop the supply by going after those who produce them.

do you really think that those sickos would stop producing if they were fewer to watch ? no they wouldn't and they would probably raise the bar higher to create a new kind of demand. You need to exterminate the producers, not the demand. Demand will always be there. The suppliers are the guilty scums and they are acting on it.