If this new suspect is, in fact, guilty of Jacob's death, you can expect it to be a blow to anyone advocating for reduced sentences for CP.

His guilt would ramp up the problem of CP and don't think the victim's advocates and the media would not have a field day reporting that the guilty party of one of this nation's most horrific crimes against a child was heavily into CP.

The myth that viewing CP is almost synonymous with child molestation would certainly be exploited.

rewdiazepam

I agree that will add more fuel to the fire. So will this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-informant-shares-lurid-details-of-jared-fogle-secret-recordings/

Yes these will make it harder for people to advocate on CP or any sexual abuse with all of this in the headlines. There is just so much of CP and sex abuse in the news lately.

That is all true (and I know they will not consider this at all) but the experts that have studied CP possession etc. say that the ones that are CP and molestation crimes are almost always career criminals and this guy fits that profile. In other words the ones that are likely to escalate or also be molesters are ones that do robberies, burglaries, and the like.

Also, keep in mind that they have absolutely no evidence that he is connected with Jacob at all (not that the public will acknowledge that). Just think how convenient this would be if he is already going away for a long time on the CP charges to pin these other crimes on him. - Case Closed. They did something similar with the Adam Walsh case. Isn't it interesting that two of the cases that are responsible for this mess we are in are 2 cases (Jacob and Adam) that have never really been solved? And the registry would not have helped in either one ....

I don't entirely agree with CP advocates but I do think Justice should be Just.

So why "ask for witnesses" now? Well, it's Halloween: LE may "have absolutely no evidence that he is connected with Jacob at all (not that the public will acknowledge that)." True, but this is the time of year when LE gets all dressed to dance and goes on TV to remind us they are out of the donut shops and hard at work keeping everyone safe. This a perfect LE poster-guy, made for TV. Shame on them but what better time to go public even if all this drags stuff up for the parents of Jacob Wetterling all over again without actually producing nothing?)

After all this show-boating, all the Halloween "publicity" this guy is going to be convicted of a Capitol Offense, no matter what he actually did or did not do. . .

I am curious - how do you define a CP advocate? I do not think anyone would say CP is ok (although it is legal in a few countries) - I myself though do not buy the whole victimizing garbage - as I have said before you cannot have it both ways - if re victimizing is a factor in CP then it is for every type of victim.

I'm not sure what you're asking? WAR (women against Registry) just put out an announcement re victimizing those convicted of Watching CP on the internet because, I think, their argument is that catching and criminalizing those who only watch internet CP is now the "new cash cow" fueling growth of the collateral damage to all Reistrants and their families viewed / googled on the internet? Sounds a little circuitous but perhaps true never the less?

I just think,(for arguments sake) except for advocating for less prejudice in charging and sentencing everyone and therefore relulting in fewer automactic convictions across the board... (i.e. Justice should be Just for everyone no matter what) that it is sort of hard to advocate that internet porn/ CP (simply viewing children being victimized) is a little bit OK while also arguing vehemently against the googling and viewing and "victimizing) of every one whose face is placed on the internet as a result of the Registry because it
"harms" offenders and their families?.
Such "advocacy" arguments ingnoring one "internet victim" while arguing in favor of another seem to me to be double edged swords and a little dis-ingenuous.(We now hurt worse, so whats ome of us did do should be brushed aside and the blame transferred to an unjust justice system?)
At the very least, perhaps likely to back fire on all of us when least expected? .
Should not we all advocate (together) for a Justice system less fueled by prejudice but which is Just across the board to on and all? Lest we see only our tree and advocate ignoring all others in the process?
Mixing metaphors...Focusing only on one "tree" we ignore the forest we are (all) lost in.

Janet - I am sorry I am not sure exactly what you said - I am pretty sure that what WAR was talking about (did not read it) is that CP viewers DO NOT re victimize the victims by looking at the photos. I am just not exactly sure what you are saying but what my question was about what you mean about those who advocate CP? Advocating for those convicted of CP is not the same as advocating CP itself

As far as CP goes I think the first conviction for possession/minimal distribution (like passive file sharing through limewire but not actively sharing) should be a misdemeanor while any and all secondary convictions afterwards should be felonies. I would think a sentence for first time CP conviction should be something like 1 year probation, therapy but not being put on the registry.

Thoughts?

OK, Advocate2, My post was probably clear as mud.... But complaining about damage done to us by publishing and viewing our faces even JSO faces on the internet and Then arguing that little harm is done to children viewed on CP sites (then passed around for reviewing on a "passive" sites like "lime-wire" does not re-victimize the children viewed and re-viewed? (So if I just " actively" view each child once and then save thousands of CP pictures to a "passive" file, no harm done? it's OK? Just a mis-demeanor?
It all sounds like "I'm better than" hair-splitting to me. What ever the "judicial sense" of WAR's argument, it seems to me to be a slippery slope to worry about harm to one child but not another? .

Certainly while the entire country is in a over-drive when it comes to "Offenders." Over-Charging is the name of every ambitious prosecutor's game but to risk linking "collateral damage done to families of SO with degree of harm done by those watching CP and then saving their favorites to a "passive file"???

Does anyone really want to risk going there at such a time?

First I did not complain about any harm done that I remember? I think we are going around about 2 different things maybe? I do not ever play the better than game - ever. All I said was that I do not believe and never will believe that CP victims are re victimized every time some sees the image. Nor do I believe that a murder victim is re-murdered when someone looks at a pic of the crime. You certainly misunderstood me because I was not talking about the levels of the crime at all etc.

I really do not understand the stuff about harm to one child and not the other?

Fair points all?

We just posted the Required Halloween sign on the door "NO Candy" and are awaiting "visitors dressed up like a Swat Team in search of dance partners. Happy Halloween!