Wis. Supreme Court gets child porn case
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state appeals court has asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether viewing child pornography amounts to possession.
The question involves 58-year-old Benjamin Mercer of Fond du Lac. He was convicted of more than a dozen counts of possession of child pornography in 2007 after his employer found images of children on his work computer.
Mercer argues prosecutors must show a defendant viewed images, acted on them and knew the computer would automatically save them to prove possession. Prosecutors countered that viewing the images is enough.
The 2nd District Court of Appeals says no other court in the nation has faced the question and the answer could affect all Internet users.
Supreme Court spokesman Tom Sheehan had no immediate comment on whether the court would accept the case.
Jul 2, 2009 at 12:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Viewing child porn is a federal offense also. Not easy to prove though. Just because the material was at one time displayed on a computer, it can be hard to prove who actually viewed it. Child porn files, found on a computer, owned by suspect X, found in suspect X's house are a lot easier to prove (possession of child porn). Viewing charges are usually brought when the suspect admits to viewing the child porn, which they oft times do.
Child porn laws, enter areas which can be "slippery slopes" constitutionally speaking. Should a person be put in prison for 20-40 years for "looking at a picture or video"? Sounds a lot like the Taliban. The question is, how do we protect children without crossing over the line of reasonableness. It will be interesting to see what the Wisconsin Supreme Court does.
Jul 1, 2009 at 11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
ozzman99, the Supreme Court will not have an opportunity to consider the case until the Wisconsin Supreme Court makes its decision, and then they will have to be persuaded that there is an application to federal law or a constitutional question with the Wisconsin law.
Jul 1, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
My concern is for future purposes. I certainly am not going to be viewing any porn (child or not) on my computer. However I have inadvertently gotten the wrong site now and again. There's no way of knowing you are there until it's too late....
Very sticky interpretation. I'm not sure it should be written broadly...Much more a case by case with parameters.
Jul 1, 2009 at 6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is probably a case that should be handled by the US Supreme Court since this ivolves implications that may go far beyond sickos who find 8yr olds sexually attractive
Jul 1, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
prevention, he was forced to resign (in 2005; he wasn't convicted until 2007). Records seemed to show that regardless of what he viewed, he was doing it constantly while "working" for the city.
.
This is tricky because the law shouldn't be written to convict someone who gets spam or inadvertently views a pop-up ad, but that means that it hinges on the meaning of "possess". It seems he thought that regular deletion might help him avoid prosecution. In some other jurisdictions that has been a charge of destroying evidence. But it's also what someone might do if they did not want to see it.
Jul 1, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I hope he was fired for using a work computer for personal use. SICK MAN!
Jul 1, 2009 at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fry him!!! Anyone who disrespect a child desrves it!!!
Jul 1, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Were the images submitted as evidence and did any of the law enforcement officials or judicial officials view them? One must assume that they have or there would be no case. There is a certain aspect of digital information that is akin to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.