The Thin Blurry… Photo?

Posted on May 15th, 2007 by Christopher.
Categories: Current Events & Politics.

Here’s how a prosecutor could view Sarah M.’s picture: Smoldering eyes; styled, tousled blond tresses; pouty, parted lips; splayed legs; an engorged navel. And that viscous liquid dripping from the wand onto her thigh? Money shot.

Three-year-old Sarah M. is either a toddler in her birthday suit playing in the garden, or a nude temptress with a sultry look who requires protection from the culprits who took this photograph — her doting parents.

The FBI has issued blanket requests to photo processing labs and computer repair shops to be on the lookout for pictures of kids in compromising positions, urging them to call the authorities whether they’re sure or not about a picture’s legality. The big national chains that have photo processing labs — Costco, CVS, Rite-Aid, and Wal-Mart — have company policies that compel them to notify the police about any possible criminal activity they see in customers’ photos. And when children are involved, they’re more than willing to err on the side of caution.

Tragically for a number of people all over the country, innocent family photos turned over to the police have led to financial ruin, divorce, debt, public humiliation, and lifelong scorn as a registered sex offender for mothers and fathers. Some cases involved pictures much less provocative than Sarah M.’s. Based on the way prosecutors interpreted photos in a few of those cases — Marian Rubin, a New Jersey grandmother charged for taking nude photos of her granddaughters, then aged 3 and 8; and Jeffrey B., a New York father who lost custody of his two daughters after he shot pictures of them mooning him — it’s possible to spot red flags where our innocence used to be?

Those who read our blog know that I’m pretty ruthless when it comes to sex offenders.. when someone abuses a child there should be SERIOUS repercussions.. I’m talking physical and public torture… there would be no punishment that is too cruel or inhumane for me, however I have a deep and serious concern about Costco deciding if the pictures I’m developing of my 2 year old child taking a bath is porn.

13 comments.

The Pure Stupidity of It All »« Don’t Drink the Water Christine..

Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

Christopher ruthless about sex offenders? Isn’t he the one who thinks it’s perfectly fine for children in Thailand to be used for prostitution because “that’s their culture and we’re the only country in the world that thinks it’s wrong for children to have sex before they’re 18…”

I’d never put Christopher on a list of advocate for children’s rights… or the rights of any other minority for that matter.

But in this case, I agree with him. Nothing about this picture suggests this little girl is being sexually abused or exploited. Maybe in combination with some other bit of information, it could allude to that, but that’s just the point. The picture in and of itself isn’t enough to suggest she is or isn’t, so it therefore can’t be significant in making such a decision.

I certainly hope our justice system isn’t convicting anyone on such a ridiculously poor lack of evidence. If OJ goes free despite the bloody glove, years of domestic abuse, and a letter from his dead wife saying if I die, OJ murdered me… certainly the truly innocent can be treated as such.

May 15th, 2007

ProphetJoe the Irreverent pontificated

Christine, I think Mara will tell you that it’s not the facts in the case that matter — it’s what facts get included and how they are presented that matter… (well, the OJ and Blake cases aside).

May 15th, 2007

Christopher the Pyro pontificated

In court when you don’t have the facts on your side you argue the law and when you don’t have the law on your side you argue the facts and when you don’t have either, well… then you attack the prosecuter or defendant.

May 15th, 2007

Mara the Peacemaker spake, and sayeth

Oh, totally, PJ but then again, things like this remind how incredibly subjective the criminal justice system really is.

May 15th, 2007

Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

There still has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. If I were on the jury looking at that photo, I’d have to say there’s way too much doubt.

May 15th, 2007

Mara the Peacemaker pontificated

Well proof is a relative term—there are no absolutes even in the criminal justice system.

May 15th, 2007

Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this

The lack of absolutes is a good thing, as it allows for each case to be unique based on its own circumstances. But there are still safeguards (like “beyond a reasonable doubt”– that while they aren’t necessarily absolutes, they do try to keep people who really haven’t committed any sort of criminal act from being prosecuted as if they have).

May 15th, 2007

Mara the Peacemaker added

Well, what I meant was that the “proof” itself is relative — there is a standard yes, but the way the standard is measured is not always constant. So when you say “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it’s not as if you have a composite of what that looks like in a criminal case. You don’t. That “proof” is always going to be subjective.

May 15th, 2007

Christine the Lioness chimed in with

Very true.

May 15th, 2007

ProphetJoe the Irreverent got all philosophical

What’s up, Chris? No new posts in almost 24 hours… give us content!

May 16th, 2007

Christopher the Pyro asserted

Christine gets very jealous when I post to much.. don’t worry I’ve got a couple good ones commin..