A Child-Porn Case That Threatens Us All

[woodlawn]

>Sorry, sir, in England it is trial by judge or jury at the

>election of the accused,

 

Who is talking about England? This thread is about a case taking place in the U.S. right now. Didn't you read any of the earlier posts?

 

 

>and my point is that in determining

>knowledge, the trier of fact whether in the UK or the US will

>be permitted to examine evidence of his past similar acts.

 

That is false. In every U.S. state "prior bad acts" of the defendant are inadmissible on the issue of guilt or innocence. The only exception made by some (not all) state courts to that rule is where there is evidence that the defendant has committed on multiple past occasions the same crime of which he is currently accused. In this case, the fact that Rubens was once caught exposing himself in a theater would not be admissible because it is not sufficiently similar to the offense with which he is charged.

 

 

>I

>think the point here is that there is a difference between a

>lay person's understanding of subjective knowledge, and a

>legal understanding of that term.

 

Oh? What exactly is the difference?

 

 

>I think your post is a bit

>misleading in that it suggests that he could just say "hey, I

>had no idea what was in the pics, or that they were illegal".

 

That suggestion comes from inside your head, it does not appear anywhere in any of my posts. My posts correctly state the legal standard in this country in cases of criminal possession of contraband: the prosecution can't prevail without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the material was in his possession.

[woodlawn]

>>>To answer your first question, I have no doubt that the

>>>commission's opinion sprang from genuinely felt

>objections

>>to

>>>pornography.

 

>I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised

>if

>>a

>>>certain amount of sexual hypocrisy was going on with some

>>of

>>>the members.

 

>>Well, which was it? Both of those statements can't be

>>true.

 

>Sure they can.

 

No, they can't.

 

 

>Senator McCarthy was having homosexual

>liasons while denouncing and persecuting gays. I don't think

>for a minute that the hypocrisy involved his secretly

>believing there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. I'm

>sure he quite sincerely thought it was bad and evil and quite

>sincerely felt disgusted with himself every time he had sex

>with a man, etc. But he was still a hypocrite because he was

>saying one thing and doing another.

 

 

In the first place, how would you be 'sure' about what was going on in the head of a man you never even met? In the second place, how can someone be 'sincere' in condemning behavior that he himself repeatedly engages in? That makes no sense at all.