Jalen Kitna - plea deal

While I don’t have any information nothing I’ve heard makes me believe he is a pedophile routinely sharing kiddie porn.

 

Yeah ... seriously ... if the police had it this wrong, part of the peal deal should have been that they publicly retract their statements and Kitna won't sue them ...

 

Counter question: If Kitna had information that could show this in a significantly more favorable light for himself, what would be the upside of withholding the information? How does that upside compare with the downside of presenting the information?

To be clear, nobody (literally) owes anybody an explanation, but then again, people are only able to formulate an idea based on the information that has been presented to them. Withholding the information in effect justifies the speculation (at least as a matter of formulating an opinion).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Another factor could be how old he was when the offenses were committed and how long the pictures were there. Also, whether the person in the pictures was known to him and who it was shared with and in what context. And maybe the the reports were inaccurate

 

I know, but a lot of those things were addressed in the arrest report, where the police said all the pics were prepubescent girls, and that he said he found the pics on the internet (and I know that could have been a lie he told the cops to cover for the girls if he knew them). I'm open to the idea that the police report was wrong, but they did spell it out pretty clearly, from what I recall. I mean, it's more than just "rumors" anyway, when the Tampa Bay Times is quoting the arrest report and describing some pretty nasty pictures, as quoted above by @BigCypressGator1981.

 

Seems light to me, but who knows what went into the decision.

I haven't searched recently, but when the story broke, I remember the reporting, but I never actually found the arrest report/information itself. Could have been part of a sting operation, whether official or private (though they obviously use younger looking adults as decoys and aren't using illegal material as bait).

I also recall how Justice Jackson was interrogated about her purported light sentencing of such crimes during her confirmation hearings. I think the guidelines may draw distinctions between people who have a handful of pictures or videos all the way up to those who sexually abuse minors and/or create the illegal material themselves? And that was for Federal Courts, which are typically not where you want to be as a criminal defendant.

Some of these guys caught in sting operations trying to actually meet what they believe to be children have gotten decent plea deals as I recall. I have no idea what sort of sentence an average 19-20 year old in state court receives for possessing or even sharing a relatively small quantity of CSAM if they didn't produce it or ever talk to any minors themselves.

 

For an unpopular opinion--is there really any good reason that first time offenders sharing child porn over the internet should get a lifetime on an ostracizing registry? And this goes double for someone under age 21

I don't dispute it's a awful crime. Most felonies are. But 90% of child sexual abusers are family or aquaintances of the victim. I think it's highly questionable these registries are really needed except for high risk offenders. And instead, we overpunish largely because of the unpopularity of the criminal rather than the necessity of preventing future harm.

 

Why does that go double for someone under 21? Seems a fairly arbitrary age limit given one becomes an adult at 18.

 

It is "arbitrary" as is any age really. But synapatic pruning is still going on at that age. We may call that person an adult, but they are more like any other teenager in judgement than a 40 year old.

 

Doesn't synaptic pruning continue into a person’s late 20’s hence it’s suspected role in the onset of schizophrenia? Are you just selecting 21 because he’s 20? Seems like unless we are willing to give a pass to anyone caught with kiddie porn in their 20s, 18 makes more sense because it already serves as a demarcation for adulthood.

 

I chose the age 21 number arbitrarily. And yes it does. Someday we will update the penal code to become a lot more consistent with science.

And I don't intend to give him a pass. He should still be charged as an adult. I do think, however, that permanent placement on a registry is especially unfortunate for younger people who might be within dating age of subjects of the pornorgraphy, though you could make the same argument for an older adult as well. Incidentally, for statutory rape, states often do treat adults over 18 differently for purposes of prosecution.

 

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about punishment, or suggesting Jalen should be treated differently than any other defendant, based on his age.

The sex offender registry is supposed to exist out of necessity, to protect the public. And for that, it has turned into an absolute joke.

My favorite is an article I read about a female teacher who had sex with 17 year old. She received a suspended jail sentence, but still had to be put on the SO registry. The registry should be reserved for dangerous people who likely can't control themselves, not as a punishment/deterrant for the activity.

 

Would you feel differently about that situation if it was a male teacher who had sex with a 17 year old female student? I think it's a bigger deal when adults cross the line of having sex with minors, and the fact it was a teacher doesn't help.

While sharing child porn may seem like a lesser offense than having sex with kids, the point that child victim advocates make is that adults who view child porn contribute to the market for the product and cause more kids to be abused. That's a pretty solid argument as to why possessing child porn isn't an offense that deserves a light sentence.

 

Absolutely not. That person should be charged in accordance with law. But, without other circumstances, I see no justification for putting that person on a registry for life. None.

 

As I already addressed, there is no question that downloading/uploading child pornography is a crime that harms children. That isn't in dispute. And I didn't suggest it deserves a "light sentence," which should depend on the individual circumstances. The question is the necessity of placing the offender on a lifetime registry.

 

I’m in favor of the registry…. maybe not making it a life time registry is better, let people earn their way off the list. Stay out of kiddie porn trouble for some court defined time, while allowing your internet use to be monitored, and you can be removed….

 

I'm in favor of the registry where needed. I don't think it's always needed for people like Jalen. It certainly shouldn't be mandatory. That teacher example I cited was the perfect example of the absurdity that results. Sex between an adult and 17 yr old is legal in my state, but because it was a teacher, it became statutory rape. Which is fine. That person deserves their punishment. But the punishment doesn't need to include a permanent scarlet letter.

 

It’s not a strict liability offense and likely they would have difficulty proving he knew he possessed child porn. No amount of “money changing hands” gets these charges reduced.

 

And yet...
Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book’ to remain secret after judge warns against ‘needless’ namedropping
Evidently, our society only wants to bury the supposed small time pedos.

 

This day of age unless I witnessed something first hand I honestly can not believe anything “reported” in the media anymore. Sorry but there is so much hate and hidden agendas it’s become toxic.