Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein has Badly Misplaced Sympathies

“Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law” reads the title of the NY Times piece about federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein and his misguided attempt to soften mandatory sentencing guidelines for perverts who download images of child pornography.

Now generally speaking I don’t think private sexual behavior should be regulated, and I don’t particularly believe prostitution should be illegal, but child pornography is something else altogether. Children are sexually assaulted to satisfy the appetites of people like Pietro Polizzi, the defendant in this particular case, who downloaded 5,000 graphic images of children, mainly pre-pubescent girls. Judge Weinstein doesn’t think this guy should go to jail and said:

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

Let me repeat: he said that that “he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.”

Are you fucking kidding me?

Does this guy seriously not get the basic law of supply and demand? Does he seriously believe that children would be molested and photographed if pervs like Pietro Polizzi were not out there?! 5,000+ images this guy had. 5,000+ children sexually abused to satisfy this guy’s disgusting fetish. And Judge Weinstein thinks that the buyers in the supply/demand chain do not present a threat to children. I think we should lock up people like Polizzi and throw away the key. He certainly should never have access to a computer again. Although, left to his devices this disgusting creep would find other ways to get his pictures. And more children would be molested for his needs.

As is typical with these people Polizzi has absolutely no insight into his crime and sees himself as the victim:

“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”

Boo hoo. Poor Pietro. I swear, if Weinstein lets this perp walk, he deserves to be yanked from the bench.

Posted by marindenver on 05/23/10 at 01:18 PM • Permalink

Categories: Messylaneous • Politics • Editorials • Our Stupid Media •

Share this post:

If he was a member of some sort of web site or even a loose community of perverts that produced the images for its members, then yes. Supply and demand. He’s contributing to the abuse, albeit indirectly. But it’s possible to get images of literally anything on the internet without any direct involvement whatsoever (e.g. on Usenet) so it’s hard to make the argument that they are actually contributing to abuse just by possessing the images.

What I would be more worried about is the potential for people who view child pornography to actually abuse children. But you can’t lock people up for being potential criminals, so maybe some kind of treatment is the best solution.

Comment by icruise on 05/23/10 at 03:18 PM

If he was a member of some sort of web site or even a loose community of perverts that produced the images for its members, then yes.

He was.

In 2005, Mr. Polizzi signed up for a child pornography Web site. He began obsessively stockpiling thousands of images, mostly of prepubescent girls.

And simple possession of child pornography is a crime. It really doesn’t matter exactly how he got the images.

Comment by marindenver on 05/23/10 at 04:08 PM

I know it’s a crime. What we’re debating is how it should be punished. I’m not sure that locking somebody up and throwing away the key for merely possessing such materials is the best approach.

Comment by icruise on 05/23/10 at 05:45 PM

I’m not sure that locking somebody up and throwing away the key for merely possessing such materials is the best approach.

Obviously there was a bit of hyperbole there but to suggest that, as the judge said, “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision” is irresponsible. My central point was that these guys create a market for child pornography which results in children being sexually abused!

Honestly icruise, I’m not sure why you’re arguing your point. You said that if he had joined a website that promoted child pornography it would be one thing. I pointed out that he did. Give up.

Comment by marindenver on 05/23/10 at 08:28 PM

I don’t really want to get in to a drawn out discussion about this, but I was talking about a web site or group that actually abused children for its members. We have no idea if that was the case. From what I understand, a lot of the sites just collect stuff that’s been floating around the internet and don’t have a hand in any abuse. That’s the distinction I was trying to make there, but it’s not the main point I’m trying to make, so let’s move on.

My main quibble is with your tone, which seems to imply that people possessing child porn should be treated in the same way as people who have actually abused children. That seems a little off. I agree that it’s not a “victimless crime” and I’m certainly not in favor of letting these guys go scott free, but if some sort of treatment can be effective in these cases, I’d say that’s preferable to throwing someone in jail for years. Does that seem reasonable?