Kitna arrested

Saw this earlier without the above details. I was hoping it was some stupid picture that was sent and a misunderstanding. Does not seem to be the case however.

Sad

 

God that’s awful.

 

Personally I don't understand why people abuse children much less view them as sexual objects. With exception of those that are aroused by such content I believe I can safely say the majority of the populace is strictly against such behavior and finds it absolutely appalling. I certainly do. Of all the appalling acts humans commit robbing a child of their innocence is by far the worst in my opinion.

The article references a total of five images two of which were shared. There is not enough information in this article to make sense of what is really going on but it does raise questions that need to be answered.

1. Did Kitna recognize the images he shared as child pornography? Not that I want to see the images he shared but it should be noted what the content is.
2. If Kitna determined these were in fact images of child pornography why did he not report the content to appropriate authorities and delete them?

I want to make clear I am not defending Kitna and his actions but I do believe more information is required to determine Kitna's state of mind.

 

There are countless fetishes, deviances and arousels that I don't understand or relate to. The internet is full of them. As long as it's two consenting adults, well, cest la vie I guess.

Let me be abundantly clear. 'm not excusing this. It's abhorrent, gross, wrong, and terrible. But I think asking why someone is into this is the wrong question. Humans are crazy.

 

Need to make a Too Grim for Swamp Gas forum for stuff like this

 

I agree there are all types of fetishes across the board and the internet makes that abundantly clear. That said one would expect a treasure trove of such material which is clearly not the case at this point. As I said I'm not defending Kitna's actions specifically with sharing such content. For all we know Kitna could have simply been an innocent bystander in the situation he is now caught up in. We have no information of Kitna belonging to any child pornography ring much less participating in such behavior. At this point much more information is warranted and if it turns out that Kitna is involved by all means throw the book at him.

 

I agree. My guess is Kitna is an idiotic young adult and not a pedophile who gets off on this stuff. He should still be charged and treated like a pedophile and it doesn't make his possession of this material any better. Again, this is just my guess based on the rather flippant nature of how Kitna treated this material (based on what we know)

 

If the G'ville police post from yesterday is accurate, Kitna admitted to being the one who reposted the pics, which were "child sex abuse" according to the police. He also apparently told police he found them online and thought they were "legal"... so not an innocent bystander, IMO. Based on how quickly this moved, I'm guessing there is no doubt that these are underaged pics, not some boarderline case where a reasonable person could have thought it was 18+.

 

It might be the worst thing a human can do. Even the murderers and rapists in prison don't put up with their ilk and exact their own justice on the inside. I think that speaks volumes about the level of depravity required to commit crimes like this.

 

I have seen examples where these statutes are used when a male like Kitna (19 yo) has an underage girl of 17 he knows text him "pics" in some state of undress. Knew of a guy drummed out of the Army while overseas because a 16 yo he knew back home was texting him "pics", which he thought was fun. Still very wrong, but not the same moral gravity, IMO.

This does not appear to be that

 

Yeah not even close to the same thing. Honestly there should be a different term used for that sort of crime vs true sexual child abuse.

 

Many states have very different definitions or even exclusion for statutory rape in that scenario. And there may be a difference in these statutes. I don't know. Thankfully I have never had to practice in that area. But either way, this is not that

 

I will also say that for true "pedophiles", i.e. those attracted to prepubescent children, it is the one area that I think we should violate Constitutional limitations on punishing future propensity to crime that has not occurred. From what I have read, and this was years ago when my Church was wracked by abuse scandals (see John Jay Report - John Jay Report - Wikipedia), though the vast majority were ephebophilia (post pubescent), it is a wiring that cannot be deterred by threat of punishment. It will recur when released, no matter how long. There are chemical releasing implants that can reliably suppress such impulses. It seems to me that is merited, though it is contrary to our criminal justice standards. I think they have been used as a voluntary condition of release. Of course, the issue always arises as to the quantum of reliable proof necessary to deviate from legal safeguards. False allegations of abuse in custody disputes are not unknown.

One other thing the research established when I read it. True pedophilia is not linked to adult sexual orientation. Many heterosexual adults will abuse same sex children due to opportunity. Yet bad faith actors will use those occurrences to try to establish a nonexistent link to adult sexual orientation for their own purposes. To link it to same sex orientation is simply a slur

 

Yeah, even in a state like Alabama where the age of consent is 16, a 17 year old can consent to actually having sex but it's a crime to take or possess a sexual picture of that same 17 year old. That's counter-intuitive to me, and I'm surprised the age of consent hasn't been increased to 18 in those places. In any event, I have a feeling that's not what happened here and that the minors are younger. There are tons of guys getting busted using apps like Discord and Telegram. I suppose they don't know that almost everything is monitored.

 

I don't know the current state of the constitutional law on it, but as I recall some images and videos have been deemed illegal even when there is no direct victim - ie, lewd drawings, paintings, or cartoon-ish videos of fictional minors. Presumably, that's because we believe such materials are going to result in the adult being more likely to victimize real children. There are also debates about to what extent sex dolls/robots should be banned if they look too young. Would that lead to more abuse of actual children or might that be an outlet that leads to less abuse?

You're right though; there's a spectrum here - from adults being sexually attracted to babies all the way to 17 year olds. I feel like it's a different profile and the word "pedophile" is often thrown around pretty loosely.

 

There is no First Amendment right to possess any underage pornography that would otherwise be legal if adult oriented.

I am referring to limitations on bodily autonomy and punishing for propensity to crime not yet committed. Presuming we overcome the proof elements, and that is always a big presumption and we all agreed that we had an individual that had either had not been convicted or had been convicted and sentenced according to regular guidelines and is now eligible for release, our system is based on the presumption that fear of future enforcement/prosecution will deter recidivism. Obviously that's no perfect, but we don't permit preemptive lockups just because we deem the individual likely to commit future crimes. We give them a chance to show they can function without criminality.

In the case of those that are genuinely "wired", for lack of a better word, to be sexually attracted to children, my understanding of the research is that they will not be able to refrain unless restrained. In those limited circumstances, again noting the issue of sufficient "proof" of propensity, I would accept what I understand are reliable implants that will prevent arousal. That would normally be a violation of bodily autonomy and the equivalent of prosecuting "thought crimes."

 

Yeah let’s let this thing play out. I have no issue being kicked out of school but I’d like to see the actual facts of the case. It is one thing to be a regular consumer or distributor of kiddie porn, it’s another to take an image you find and pass it on stupidly as a “hey I can’t believe I saw this on the net” - in a car wreck/faces of death kind of way. Not excusing the latter, but I think it probably doesn’t warrant decades in prison.

 

Sadly, brings up memories of Steven Babik.

 

I think that's right. I was thinking about the ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where the Supreme Court held the statute overbroad and unconstitutional on several grounds. One issue was computer-generated content and "virtual child pornography." The Court drew distinctions about materials involving real children versus virtual depictions of what appeared to be minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. It also rejected the argument that such materials could be banned because they might encourage or lead to actual child sex abuse. I don't know if the case is still good law, but I imagine that a law punishing people for a propensity to commit a sex crime in the future would probably require a constitutional amendment.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/234/case.pdf