Re: Man ordered to pay $200,000 to child porn victim. He didn't make the pics. He just LOOKED at them!!
_ Prof. Jonez _
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> On 25 Feb 2009 01:38:21 GMT, drooli...@live.com (Drooling Idiot)
>>>"Bandied leg chimp loader." <goof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 7:53=A0pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>>> > This makes as much sense as forcing the READERS of a libelous book
>>>> > to pay restitution to the victim.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29353771/
>>>> >
>>>> > Judge orders restitution for porn victim
>>>> > Man convicted of possessing child porn told to pay about $200,000
>>>> >
>>>> > updated 5:04 p.m. MT, Mon., Feb. 23, 2009
>>>> >
>>>> > BRIDGEPORT, Connecticut - A federal judge in Connecticut has
>>>> > ordered a British man convicted of possessing child pornography to
>>>> > pay about $200,000 in restitution to a woman photographed as a
>>>> > child while being sexually abused.
>>>> >
>>>> > Senior U.S. District Judge Warren W. Eginton said his ruling
>>>> > Monday was the first criminal case in which someone convicted of
>>>> > possessing illegal images =97 but not creating them =97 is
>>>> > required to pay restitution.
>>>> >
>>>> > The case involves Alan Hesketh who was sentenced in October to 78
>>>> > months in prison for possessing and distributing nearly 2,000
>>>> > photographs of child pornography. The resident of Stonington,
>>>> > Conn., was a vice president of Pfizer.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hesketh's attorney, Jonathan Einhorn, said he would appeal the
>>>> > order, calling it unreasonable and predicting it would probably
>>>> > lead to similar claims by child pornography victims. He said his
>>>> > client had no contact with the woman and defendants should only
>>>> > pay restitution to victims whose injuries they directly caused.
>>>> >
>>>> > Einhorn also said the woman had not proven she was one of those
>>>> > whose image turned up on Hesketh's computer, and those who
>>>> > actually participated in creating pornography in other cases were
>>>> > ordered to pay less restitution than his client.
>>>> >
>>>> > But James Marsh, the woman's attorney, said there is no
>>>> > distinction between those who produce the pornography and what
>>>> > Hesketh did.
>>>> >
>>>> > "The victim is a victim of sexual exploitation caused by this
>>>> > defendant," Marsh said.
>>>> >
>>>> > (snip)
>>>> >
>>>> > -------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> The way you're defending this pervert makes me wonder if perhaps
>>>> you're defending yourself. Do you like the underage girls, Speeder?
>>>
>>>Yes, of course! If someone doesn't agree with you they MUST be a
>>>pedophile!
>>
>>
>> Interesting. This could open a whole new can of worms.
>> Any one can come along, claim they were that child in the photo and
>> wind up getting paid by the stupid jerk who just happens to have a
>> copy.
>>
>> Now how exactly did this woman find her photo on the guy's computer?
>> She was in his office or where ever and saw them?
>
> She was probably identified by the police.
Who also viewed the child porn, and thereby "abused", the victim.
"We had to abuse the child in order to save it"
-- Sgt. Hypocrisies
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
I think it was the distribution that got him, not the viewing.
In any case, the cops are exempt. Again.