Court rules child pornographer’s 120-year sentence is neither cruel nor unusual

[DonViejo]

By Scott Kaufman
Monday, April 14, 2014 9:40 EDT

Last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of “a 120-year sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of production, possession, and transportation of child pornography, in connection with his sexual molestation of a four-year-old boy.”

James Robert Cobler was arrested in 2012 after police discovered him sharing child pornography on a publicly available peer-to-peer network. After computer forensic investigators used Cobbler’s Internet Protocol Address to track the files’ origin to his grandparent’s home, they executed a search warrant.

According to the affidavit, “Cobler admitted to possessing numerous images of child pornography, and using the P2P file sharing software that was used during the above-referenced downloads.” He also “indicated that he was aware of the fact that the files, including the child pornography images that were in his ‘shared’ folder were available for download by others using the peer-to-peer network.”

The most serious charges against him, however, stemmed from his admission that he not only molested a four-year-old boy he regularly babysat, but that he had taken photographs of himself doing so. Police found a folder on Cobler’s computer labelled with the victim’s first name, and it contained 11 images and one video of him performing sex acts with the child.

more
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/14/court-rules-that-120-year-sentence-is-not-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/

[catrose]

1. Quite a contrast with the treatment of the Dupont heir

who was sentenced to parole and treatment that he didn't show up for (with no consequences, as far as I know)

[Hip_Flask]

2. Absolutely...

... but the point should be that the DuPont asshat should receive similar treatment as this guy and not that the 120 year prisoner deserves a sentencing more in line with the Dupont fucko.

[Orrex]

3. Oh, stop it. That situation was totally different.

Prison wouldn't have been good for Dupont, so obviously he couldn't go to jail, see?


Presumably 120 in prison will be great for the sick fuck in this story.

[catrose]

6. My bad

Of course they're different, like the difference between azure and cerulean. Perfectly obvious.

Oh, wait. This guy took pictures!

[cthulu2016]

8. He didn't take pictures, which is what this case is about.

The big crime is not raping children. It is pictures of raping children.

As you note with the Dupont heir, raping children might get a slap on the wrist.

But if someone was in possession of a photograph of the Dupont heir raping a child they might be facing a stiffer sentence than the actual rapist.

It is a distorted area of law. I would suggest that a picture of an act should never be a bigger crime than the actual act itself.

But here we are. The Dupont heir is free because he merely raped a child, versus taking a picture of himself raping a child.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Am I supposed to be mad about this guy's sentence?

Because I'm not.

[cthulu2016]

5. That the sentence is greater for pictures than for child rape is absurd

Most people will read this and say, "Big sentence for child molester. Good."

But nowhere at issue in this case is the question of whether raping children is bad.

Of course this man should be removed from civil society, precisely because raping children is bad.

The only entity here that doesn't think raping children is all that bad is the government that handed down the sentence.

A clear-minded person would (one hopes) see the greatest offense in raping the actual boy. But our government, as embodied in its laws, does not think raping children is all that big a deal unless you take pictures. Then it's a big deal.

Which is quite distorted, as a legal issue.

[NickB79]

7. But he did rape a child

one video of him performing sex acts with the child.

[cthulu2016]

9. Of course he did. What suggested otherwise to you?

You seem to have formed the opinion that my reply said that he did not rape a child.

My reply, of course, said nothing like that.

The man indisputably raped a child, which is why he should indisputably be in prison.

[DonViejo]

10. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but,...

The most serious charges against him, however, stemmed from his admission that he not only molested a four-year-old boy he regularly babysat, but that he had taken photographs of himself doing so.

That seems to be reporting he got it for the molestation + taking pics of himself doing the molesting.

[cthulu2016]

12. He did molest the boy.

Nobody questions that.

The issue is that molesting the boy, which one assumes most of us would consider the paramount offense, is a relatively minor infraction.

The most serious charges against him stemmed from his admission... that he had taken photographs of himself doing so

That is the issue—that the most serious crime here (in the government's view) is not molesting the boy, but the vastly more serious crime (in the view of the government, of congress, of the system) of taking pictures of the act.

It is bizarre to have created a system where child rape is not the most serious charge.

[dionysus]

11. poor guy, maybe he should appea-- naw fuck that... rot in jail asshole!

[NCTraveler]

13. Court got it right. nt.