Bizarre legal scenario - aspiring lawyers look here
 

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

Bizarre legal scenario:

Should it be legal to post on GFY while tripping on shrooms?

Discuss

no, your perspective on everything is much different on shrooms. I encourage it :P

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.

Everyone has baby pictures. Now if the pictures are dirty pictures and not the pictures your parents took of you to embarrase you later on in your life.


That simple. If the pictures where perverted then guy gots mad mental issue's

See earlier post. As for possession... mere possession of child porn is a crime.

Unlike regular porn which cannot result in conviction if found INSIDE YOUR HOME, child porn regardless of WHERE it's found is illegal.

So you're saying that he could be charged and put in prison for possessing indecent pictures of himself as a child?

Yes.

Possible options:
Maybe get on the sympathetic/humane side of the deputy DA and, if the defendant does not have any priors, convince him to push only minor misdemeanor charges and plea to THOSE.

Believe it or not, most cases don't go to juries...they are plead out.

or ...work the jury.

Of course, the process would still have to go through a jury. All the defense lawyers need to do is find ONE sympathetic person in the bunch to get a hung jury. Usually, equitable considerations come into play once a DA gets a hung jury. Given the bizarre situation here and the sympathetic story the defense can work on: ie., a young boy who got traumatized is trying to resolve
his issues by confronting his fears which the photos symbolize (blah Robert Shapiro voice blah blah blah). This probably won't get retried.


A former roommate of mine when I was living in Northern California is a deputy District Attorney now so I had quite a bit of exposure to how the justice system ACTUALLY works. :2 cents:

umm if the pictures where of him and where not considered explicit then it woudnt even go to trial they woudnt charge him with anything.

Now if they where explicit then yes he would be charged as he would be with any other picture.

If you can go to jkail for having naked pictures of you as a child that 90% of all familys have then why the hell isnt there more cases like this ????

The key fact here is if the pictures are of ACTUAL sexual conduct.

Unfortunately, even regular nude pics are interpreted by many states as illegal. As long as they are intended to tittilate.

Since most family pics of baby pictures are not meant to do the latter but to preserve family memories, you don't hear these types of cases.

For the purposes of the discussion, assume the pictures are indecent and explicit.

See the options above.

If things go badly wrong... Say hello to Michael J. your new cellmate. :1orglaugh

there was never any mention if the pictures where explicit or not. You would assume the oringal poster meant they where not explicit because who would keep sexual explicit baby pictures of there self under there bed? Im sure the oringal poster meant just normal baby pictures of the baby taking a bath or what not. Pictures you can find at stores.

You started to bring up all out child porn. And ofcourse that is illegal what fuck tard doesnt know that ? You got off topic .,... now stay on topic ;)

and I stand corrected as he just posted the pictures would be explicit.



Now that is just wrong and sick and ofcourse the guy would go to jail ? What is there to think about ? Just because the pictures are of him it would make a diffrence? No ... Porn is Porn. Family baby pictures are not porn.

Hey Chris, see my first post above. Then work down from it. It fits the topic. The guy was asking for an analysis and I gave it to him... both formal black letter law and actual crim justice process.

In my original post I labeled them as "indecent"

now read my post above yours ;)

Indecent is just being naked or nude. Having a nude baby picture of your self is not child porn now as you stated later in this thread for the sake of discussion that the pictures where explicit then it changes the whole story.


God im to tired for this

That is what makes this scenario bizarre, and would be of interest to people that are into legal scenarios

Notice the title of the thread says "bizarre"

I would say "indecent" means more than just being naked or nude.

1. Offensive to good taste; unseemly.
2. Offensive to public moral values

Should change it to

" A case that would never happen in a million years but im sitting here thinking about explict baby pictures in my bed - aspiring lawyers please read "


Bizarre cases happen every day.

What you posted would not fall under that.

It would fall under " A case that would never happen. "

Now do your job , prove me wrong. Find a case where a man was charged with keeping explict baby pictures of him.

Look who you are throwing the words at ... ADULT WEBMASTERS .... When did we start going by the literal term for every word we use ? Make your self more clear.

You sure about that?

Yes ? Are you ?


Any sexualy explicit picture of a minor is child porn no matter who it is.

Whether it would ever happen or not is irrelavent to this discussion. Some people enjoy discussing unusual legal scenarios.

and as much as I have enjoyed this I think im going to bed. :thumbsup

There was never any doubt that it was child porn. That isn't the question.

The question is: Does the situation change under the consideration that the child porn in question was of himself?

hhahahahahahahaahahhahaha
;_)))))))))

Just tell the judge that you were keeping the pics to use as evidence against the guy who abused you.

You're assuming John Smith was abused.

No, that's what the jury will asume. The only thing I'm assuming is that you're John Smith :)

:thumbsup haha :1orglaugh

It should be fairly obvious that John Smith is fictional.

I'm to busy to go through all replies...
but for me:
murder is crime, but suicide is allowed....
you understand ? :Graucho