- Messages
- 916
We hear about cases in the news all the time where the cops are like, "The guy was found with photos of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." They may even describe what that conduct was, but we can't see for ourselves whether his description is accurate. The only people allowed to see that evidence are the cops, prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc. There's no oversight besides that; and actually, most cases will never go to a jury because the defendant is scared to risk a harsh sentence for exercising his Sixth Amendment right to a trial; plus even if he does go to trial, he may worry that jurors will feel socially and morally pressured to vote to convict and punish harshly a known pedophile even if his pics weren't technically child porn.
This isn't just a theoretical issue. It happens all the time that there are pics that are in a gray area where the "sexually explicit conduct" is kind of borderline. It could just be nudists playing, or maybe they're being coy, or seductive, or whatever. Maybe they're not even nudists; maybe it's just a girl doing gymnastics in her leotard, like in the Knox case.
The point is, we, the members of the public, are not allowed access to that evidence. Probably not even the accused is allowed access; probably only his lawyer is able to look at it, when he goes to the prosecutor's office to see what the evidence is, and try to strike a deal or whatever.
If members of the public had access, then we could not only argue that the laws are being applied abusively, but we could also use the evidence for propaganda purposes, like any other evidence. E.g., people use the crime scene photos of Dylann Roof in fashwave. Or, they use images of nigs committing crimes to make a point about how criminal nigs are. We're not allowed to use child porn images for these kinds of purposes, even though if it were any other kind of crime, we could exercise our First Amendment rights to use that evidence to make those kinds of points in such ways.
It's a sad state of affairs. And this became an issue in my life most recently when the cops seized a laptop from my house and claimed they found child porn in the recycle bin. It won't be possible for me to say, "I think they're interpreting 'child porn' too broadly; maybe it was just child erotica" and go to the press and have them get to the bottom of it and show their proof to the public that the cops are overreaching, because they're not allowed access. Nor can I show that evidence to the public myself, the way I could if it were some other kind of discovery in a court case.
This lack of transparency means there's not really a lot of accountability. And it means that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is being somewhat denied. After all, a key part of a trial is revealing the evidence; yet the public is denied the right to see it. Maybe the rest of the trial has integrity, but if that one key part doesn't have integrity, then the rest is moot.
This isn't just a theoretical issue. It happens all the time that there are pics that are in a gray area where the "sexually explicit conduct" is kind of borderline. It could just be nudists playing, or maybe they're being coy, or seductive, or whatever. Maybe they're not even nudists; maybe it's just a girl doing gymnastics in her leotard, like in the Knox case.
The point is, we, the members of the public, are not allowed access to that evidence. Probably not even the accused is allowed access; probably only his lawyer is able to look at it, when he goes to the prosecutor's office to see what the evidence is, and try to strike a deal or whatever.
If members of the public had access, then we could not only argue that the laws are being applied abusively, but we could also use the evidence for propaganda purposes, like any other evidence. E.g., people use the crime scene photos of Dylann Roof in fashwave. Or, they use images of nigs committing crimes to make a point about how criminal nigs are. We're not allowed to use child porn images for these kinds of purposes, even though if it were any other kind of crime, we could exercise our First Amendment rights to use that evidence to make those kinds of points in such ways.
It's a sad state of affairs. And this became an issue in my life most recently when the cops seized a laptop from my house and claimed they found child porn in the recycle bin. It won't be possible for me to say, "I think they're interpreting 'child porn' too broadly; maybe it was just child erotica" and go to the press and have them get to the bottom of it and show their proof to the public that the cops are overreaching, because they're not allowed access. Nor can I show that evidence to the public myself, the way I could if it were some other kind of discovery in a court case.
This lack of transparency means there's not really a lot of accountability. And it means that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is being somewhat denied. After all, a key part of a trial is revealing the evidence; yet the public is denied the right to see it. Maybe the rest of the trial has integrity, but if that one key part doesn't have integrity, then the rest is moot.