Assuming that this fact pattern occured within US jurisdiction,
depending on what the pics show, the guy might be in trouble.
Child porn is defined by most statutes as involving 1) an underage child 2) engaged in ACTUAL sex
You mentioned that the pics were his childhood pics. So element 1 is satisfied. As for element 2 this depends on the pics ... if they show him having sex then this is satisfied also and it is a chargeable offense.
The defense would probably argue that since the DEFENDANT was the person being VICTIMIZED in the pictures as a child, then the defendant should be immune from prosecution since he is part of the protected class the statute is supposed to protect.
This defense would work if he IS CURRENTLY a member of the protected class...in this case, minors. Unfortunately, he is an ADULT now. Protective class defenses work only if the minor is having sex with another minor, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by BRISK
This is a strange legal scenario that I'm not sure has ever happened, but would be very unusual if it did.
Here it is:
Police receive tips that John Smith has a collection of child porn. The police raid the home of John Smith and find a picture collection of child porn in a shoe box under his bed. John Smith is arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. However, on appearance in court, it is discovered that all the indecent pictures of children are in fact pictures of John Smith when he was a child.
Considering possession of child pornography is illegal. Does the law still apply in this case? Is it illegal for John Smith to possess indecent pictures of himself that were taken when he was below the age of consent?
Discuss
|