http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49141,00.html Incredible. Abso-fucking-lutely incredible. After telling us all about the poor little child pornographer, Larry Benedict, and how the mean old police are out to get him, Declan finally lets the other shoe drop in part 5 of this 5-part series. Benedict pled guilty. He pled guilty, agreeing to a plea bargain calling for 37 months in prison. This "innocent" man agreed to spend 3 years in prison for something he didn't do. He agreed to brand himself for life as a child pornographer, setting himself up for 3 years of hell in prison where child pornographers are the lowest of the low. All this when supposedly all he really did was trade some computer games. One commentator points out the obvious absurdity of this claim: "I think most people, if they were trading computer games and then arrested and charged with very serious felonies involving child pornography -- I don't think most people would wait several years and plead guilty (if) in fact they had done nothing wrong." Wouldn't it have been relevant to let us know this essential fact about the case back when the series began? Wouldn't it have colored our understanding and perception of Benedict's claims, given us perspective to judge the truth of what he is saying? Or is this Declan trying to copy radio's Paul Harvey: "And now you know... the rest of the story!" Surprise endings have no place in serious reporting. Saving the punchline for the end is only appropriate for a joke. Sadly, there's no better word to describe this pitiful attempt at journalism.
-- On 17 Dec 2001, at 14:46, A. Melon wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49141,00.html
Incredible. Abso-fucking-lutely incredible. After telling us all about the poor little child pornographer, Larry Benedict, and how the mean old police are out to get him, Declan finally lets the other shoe drop in part 5 of this 5-part series.
Benedict pled guilty.
He pled guilty, agreeing to a plea bargain calling for 37 months in prison.
This "innocent" man agreed to spend 3 years in prison for something he didn't do.
The alternative being a likelyhood of spending twenty years in prison for something he did not do. The fact that he could plea bargain it down to three years is pretty good evidence that the prosecution had no real case.
He agreed to brand himself for life as a child pornographer, setting himself up for 3 years of hell in prison where child pornographers are the lowest of the low.
During the recovered memory hysteria, lots of clearly innocent people confessed to raping their children. The prosecution in those cases was prepared to agree to almost anything that involved a confession, rather than actually go to court, and use any measures, including horrific criminal threats against people's children, to force a confession. Once a few cases actually did go to court, the scam was exposed, and suddenly people stopped recovering memories. As the prosecutor's fear of trials became more and more obvious, the plea bargains became more and more absurd. Typically someone would admit to extraordinary and hideous crimes against their own children, retain custody, and have to pay a large sum to the "therapists" who had obtained the evidence. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Nnl4bHhk68kyJ8MRgkd6XhgfwHK9RX9+GNHkGXA7 4K6yCjdTmj6MMMd1SW0BmniXLS1SrtLVkrdf5hJt/
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 02:46:14PM -0800, A. Melon wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49141,00.html
Incredible. Abso-fucking-lutely incredible. After telling us all about the poor little child pornographer, Larry Benedict, and how the mean old police are out to get him, Declan finally lets the other shoe drop in part 5 of this 5-part series.
Benedict pled guilty.
In each one of the articles, the link "plea" appeared after the second or third paragraph, so you can read it yourself. My articles were written in rough chronological order, with the guilty plea taking place recently, and the motion to reopen taking place just last month. Don't like it? Don't read it. -Declan
Sadly, the guilty plea says nothing about probable guilt. I don't blame you for thinking so, but I know that many people - some of them known to me personally - have been induced by their own attorneys to plead guilty to a bogus sex crime in a plea-bargain rather than face the instant prejudice of a jury and the anti-accused bias of the legal system whenever a sex crime is charged. When children are alleged to be involved that goes double. Add general public ignorance of matters relating to electronic media and you have a perfect setting for a prosecutor and judge to bring in any verdict they like. Many are cutting their losses by pleading guilty to a lesser offense than that originally charged, despite the fact that they will be branded for life, rather than risk an even larger sentence in a "worse" facility or one in which they won't be guaranteed protected or solitary confinement. It is incredible. It is disgusting. It is also true. Marc de Piolenc Iligan, Philippines "A. Melon" wrote:
Benedict pled guilty.
He pled guilty, agreeing to a plea bargain calling for 37 months in prison.
This "innocent" man agreed to spend 3 years in prison for something he didn't do. He agreed to brand himself for life as a child pornographer
participants (4)
-
A. Melon -
Declan McCullagh -
F. Marc de Piolenc -
jamesd＠echeque.com