It doesn’t matter how many images of child pornography you have, your sentence is death.

Ten images or ten-thousand images, you can only be killed once.

It completely equitable and has a guarantee of 0% chance of re-offending.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

6 thoughts on “My sentencing guidelines makes this very simple”
  1. One has to remember that most (but not all amazingly) Democrats view raping little kids as fine and the parents of those children who oppose should have their children taken away, imprisoned if not outright executed by the state for their opinion. That those who rape children should be protected from society.

    Every Democrat that votes for her basically is saying that they are either indifferent to or support grooming as well as the sexual exploitation of children. But one has to remember that Democrats do not view children as human beings. They view them as democrat party property and only exist for furthering the agenda of Democrats and nothing else. Probably why they oppose parents having a say and people criticizing them teaching the crap that they do. And that every single parent of every single child in the United States that opposes grooming or the sexual exploitation of their children by Democrats should all be killed or minimum have their children taken away by the government and every single parent who has the non-approved opinion should have the same done to them.

    You would think what I just said sounds insane. But so are most of the things I tend to say. Problem is it’s not hyperbolic anymore. I admit I sound like a madman but the problem is based upon their actions and opinions I don’t see any other possibility.

  2. A caution, though: some jurisdictions have at one time or another had very vague and flexible definitions of “child porn” – which could be read as including images in which “child”, “porn”, or both are implied (or purely in the mind of the beholder) rather than actually present.
    A completely nonsexual portrait of a naked baby on a bearskin rug, a cartoon implying a sexual situation between two “5 years old for the last 60 years” characters… even an inkblot. Any of these could be interpreted as child porn when the law is badly written and the prosecutor has mental issues. And consider the mental issues that our elite legal class has been exhibiting of late!
    Look what’s being done with “sedition” now and tell me that child-porn laws won’t be used against enemies of the State – especially given how easy it is to sneak images into people’s browser caches without their knowledge. (Yes, that’s trivially easy. I put up an example on my blog several years ago, with a photo of a dead skunk masquerading as the period at the end of one sentence.)
    You need a clear, unambiguous, and appropriate definition of what constitutes child porn, and proof that the accused knew what he had (and hadn’t, e.g., received an unsolicited image, said “ick!”, deleted it, but neglected to use a secure-delete app to make sure it was really gone).

    1. There were also cases were a 18 year old was sentenced for having pictures of his GF on his phone. The pictures were taken when both were together and underage.

      So yeah, the law is sketchy.

      But the cases where she argued for soft sentences were, afaik, clear cut child pornography cases.

      1. “There were also cases were a 18 year old was sentenced for having pictures of his GF on his phone. The pictures were taken when both were together and underage.”

        The Romeo and Juliet “clause.” I know some states are making considerations for stuff like that, but it is not a “you are free from blame” thing rather conditions sort of a parole guideline to follow and avoiding Sex Offender registration and other woes.

  3. And with this statement she disqualified herself as a judge. She is perfectly within her rights to have this opinion, stupid ass it may be, but when she is sitting on the bench, her job is to apply the law as written, not as she thinks it should be.

    It amazes me that there is an ongoing push to get Thomas removed from the bench because his wife expresses her opinions. But this person says she rules according to her opinion is just fine.

    Must be the quality of those opinions.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.