tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post115730510992717270..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Child pornography: real and pseudoSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-48432579812174237932010-07-12T18:01:41.688-04:002010-07-12T18:01:41.688-04:00A pedophile takes a pictures of his 6 year old nie...A pedophile takes a pictures of his 6 year old niece engaged in sexual acts with himself. Being an accomplished artist he later makes life like pen and ink sketches of the photographs. He then distributes these sketches on the internet. <br /><br />The victim is clearly identifiable in the sketch. The subject is permanently victimized and yet the artistic medium clearly is protected?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1158676519292549942006-09-19T10:35:00.000-04:002006-09-19T10:35:00.000-04:00So, it sounds like this particular jurisdiction do...So, it sounds like this particular jurisdiction doesn't care about children who are unidentified in pictures. It is absurd for this to be "the rule" since NCMEC's database only has a minute portion of those child victims out there. Too bad we can't go to the media with this because of our position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1158143011530444342006-09-13T06:23:00.000-04:002006-09-13T06:23:00.000-04:00That's a good, and very difficult question.The dec...That's a good, and very difficult question.<BR/><BR/>The decision to prosecute is usually a matter of prosecutorial discretion, which means, as I am sure you know, that it is up to the prosecutor to decide if a case is a "good" case, i.e., is one that should be prosecuted . . . and can be prosecuted with a fair chance of success.<BR/><BR/>I assume this prosecutor feels that unless NCMEC identifies the children shown in child pornography as "real," identified persons, then he/she does not have a good chance of succeeding at trial (and, maybe, also feels that the case should not be pursued absent this kind of very compelling evidence).<BR/><BR/>If you disagree with that view (as yoiu do), then I assume the only option would be to discuss the decision with this prosecutor's superiors, assuming this is not THE, elected, senior local prosecutor. <BR/><BR/>If this is THE senior prosecutor for that county/parish, I suppose the only option would be to look outside that jurisdiction. The POSSIBLE options that come to mind there are (a) the federal system (which means contacting a federal prosecutor in the appropriate judicial district) or (b) possibly going to the state Attorney General's office and seeing if they can (if they have jurisdiction to) prosecute and, if so, if they are interested in doing so.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1158116007481300342006-09-12T22:53:00.000-04:002006-09-12T22:53:00.000-04:00Susan....I have a related question to this issue. ...Susan....<BR/><BR/>I have a related question to this issue. What do you do with a prosecutor who says they will not file charges on a person UNLESS the obvious images of child pornography are actually identified by NCMEC as "real" victims? It is insane to have someone like this prosecuting cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com