Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.
Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.
The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail? So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?
In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.
Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.) You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two. Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized. Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).
The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.
Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.
In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, “he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million.”
Capricious cruel senseless punishment
Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank. And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?
Is this not senseless, capricious, cruel, unnecessary punishment for photographing perfectly legal acts that harm nobody? Big government infringing on individual freedom without any need whatsoever? Is this not a human rights violation?
But, this is the essence of victimless crime. Punishing people for private use of fairly harmless drugs, or for consensual polygamy among Mormon adults is similar.
Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.
Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.
The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail? So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?
In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.
Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.) You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two. Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized. Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).
The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.
Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.
In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."
Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank. And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?
Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.
Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.
The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail? So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?
In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.
Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.) You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two. Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized. Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).
The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.
Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.
In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."
Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank. And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them” »
Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can H…
» continues here »
s
Rape trial without evidence
This restraining order has the same effect as if a tsunami or tornado had passed over one’s home. Immediate homelessness, living on the street. But it is worse. After a tsunami, one can go back to the remnants of the home and try to find one’s Identification papers, and also has a chance to find a shelter. And all this basically with no due process, with no proof, and for crimes as simple as allegations of annoying a woman, without corroborating proof.
1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support
It fixes our perverted system in which
b) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth
While your car is sinking you hold your kid by the pant legs to have a chat? Probably she tried to hold him by the pant leg so he would drown too. My suspicion is confirmed by the MSNBC TV report. Obviously she was not sorry enough so she would try to save the kids.