Police are searching for former assistant attorney general James Cameron, 50, in Maine after the former prosecutor cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet and disappeared. The flight occurred after a federal appeals court upheld his conviction on seven of 13 counts for sending and receiving child pornography.
Here is how one of the lower court decisions describes the underlying facts:
On August 23, 2010, at the close of a six-day, jury-waived trial, the Court found James M. Cameron guilty of thirteen violations of federal criminal law against child pornography. Oral Ct. Verdict (Docket # 179). On September 4, 2010, Mr. Cameron moved separately for: (1) a new trial, (2) arrest of judgment as to Counts 12 and 13, and (3) reconsideration of his motion for acquittal. Defense Mot. for New Trial (Docket # 194) (Def.’s Mot for New Trial); Mot. for Arrest of J. as to Counts 12 & 13 on Lack of Jurisdiction Grounds (Docket # 195) (Def.’s Jurisdictional Mot.); Defense Mot. for Seeking Recon. of Disposition of Mot. for J. of Acquittal (Docket # 196) (Def.’s Mot. for Recon.). On September 15, 2010, the Government filed a consolidated response. Gov’t’s Opp’n to Def.’s Post-Trial Mots. (Docket # 200) (Gov’t’s Opp’n). On September 29, 2010, Mr. Cameron filed a consolidated reply. Consolidated Reply to the Gov’t’s Opp’n to Post-Trial Defense Mots. (Docket # 204) (Def.’s Reply).
B. The Government Investigation and [**3] Evidence of Images of Child Pornography
Before, during and now after trial, Mr. Cameron has vigorously asserted that the images of child pornography that were posted on the Yahoo! servers and which the Government traced to him were inadmissible. Mr. Cameron contends, first, that the images had been illegally seized, and second, that the Government failed to produce a proper authenticating witness.
On March 15, 2007, Yahoo!, an ISP, received customer complaints about the existence of images of child pornography associated with the screen name “lilhottyohh.” Yahoo! searched its servers for sites associated with that screen name and reported these images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). In August 2007, after viewing the images, NCMEC referred the matter to the Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit (MSPCCU), directing MSPCCU to images associated with the “lilhottyohh” screen name as well as to those associated with a second screen name, “lilhottee00000.” Later, NCMEC made a second referral concerning child pornography that Yahoo! had discovered in the photographs section of an account under the screen name “harddude0000.” Yahoo! records confirmed that these three screen names were traceable to an Internet Protocol (IP) address, which had been assigned to Mr. Cameron’s wife at a residence they shared in Hallowell, Maine.
On December 17, 2007, the Maine State Police executed a search warrant at Mr. Cameron’s residence and seized four computers. An analysis of the four computers revealed, among other things, that an eMachines computer at Mr. Cameron’s home had been used to access seventeen Yahoo! profiles, including variations of “lilhottee,” “harddude,” and other screen names. Based on this and other information, the Government served process on Yahoo!. 1 In compliance with the subpoena, Yahoo! produced images and discs associated with the identified screen names that contained child pornography. At trial, the Government sought to introduce these images of child pornography with evidence tying the Defendant to the screen names.
In his sentencing motion, Cameron argued for just a 60 month sentence:
Regarding the history and characteristics of the defendant, Mr. Cameron emphasizes his family background, his upbringing in Michigan, his education, and his employment as a prosecutor [*42] with the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office and the Maine Office of the Attorney General, including responsibility for oversight of all drug prosecutions. Id. at 87-89. Turning to the seriousness of the offense, Mr. Cameron admits the “depictions of child pornography are disturbing, inexcusable and unlawful.” Id. at 89. He attributes his descent into child pornography from six causes: 1) the progressive deterioration of death of his parents; 2) difficulties in caring for a third family member; 3) challenges within the Attorney General’s Office; 4) demands from a book that he was writing; 5) lifelong problems with obsessive-compulsive disorder; and, 6) a change of medication used to treat his obsessive-compulsive disorder. Id. Though he admits that “[a]ny involvement whatsoever with child pornography is intrinsically wrong”, he argues: 1) that he never had actual contact with minors; 2) that he never attempted to contact minors; 3) the ratio of child pornography to legitimate images “was very very low”; 4) that there is no evidence contraband was saved to create a collection; 5) that the child pornography was systematically deleted; 6) there is no evidence of wide-scale distribution; and, 7) that his child pornography activities occurred sporadically. Id. at 90-91. He believes that a 60 month sentence will promote respect for law and will allow for atonement and rehabilitation. Id. at 91.
(United States v. Cameron, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24878)
The district court however read his professional and educational history against him on sentencing: “Mr. Cameron’s position as a high law enforcement official is an aggravating factor. As the top drug prosecutor for the state of Maine, Mr. Cameron’s criminality casts an unwarranted shadow on the integrity of other public officials and encourages public cynicism. . . . Mr. Cameron is well educated and is unlikely to benefit from further vocational training.” He was sentenced to 192 months in prison, followed by ten years of supervised release. The sentence reflected the finding of the district court that “at least 300, but fewer than 600” images of child pornography.
The appellate decision below did raise a legitimate issues regarding the confrontation clause. Cameron was right that the trial court had violated his rights regarding the admissibility of evidence. However, while reversing six counts of conviction, the court held the violation to be harmless on seven counts. The harmless error doctrine has often been criticized as downplaying or ignoring the impact of improperly admitted evidence on the overall jury decision. Moreover, with the harsh child pornography sentencing, a reduction in counts is unlikely to amount in a significantly reduced sentence. Whatever the sentence, however, it appeared too much for Cameron to contemplate — particularly as the former chief drug prosecutor in the state who is likely to face many former defendants in prison.
Cameron visited his ex-wife and son shortly before fleeing in his 1999 Audi A6 with license plate number 233PL. With the ruling, he would have had to return to jail and Cameron had 15 years remaining of the original 16 year sentence.
Here is the opinion: 11-1275P-01A
Source: Sentinel
That is not meant as opposition to NickS. Nick is Nick and has my support, for I know where his heart is.
And I am not supporting MikeS as much as I am the argumentation technique.
Hope that is understood by both of you.
Your points stand unopposed by me. I address another issue.
And just when I thought people were actually capable of learning . . .
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
MikeS,
I hope that my approval is not disserving.
But your argumentation is why I came here, looking for it and almost never finding it.
Serving ones own interests, the interest of ones work unit, the fear to report, such as in the “child scalding case” by the unit charged with supervision for essentially self-interest purposes, are all reasons why personal experience, although personal and intense, should not be taken as a basis for decisions.
My unequivocal opposition to child abuse in all forms, and sexual is certainly one of the worst, stands on a rock. My own experiences give me insight into myself, but not necesssarily into societal problems.
There your broad experience is needed, And should be matched by those of opposing views but equal experience. Difficult to find that combination.
MikeS, Here’s something for which I’m thankfull a day after Thanksgiving. We are able to have a disagreement w/o being having negative people making it disagreeable.
(N)ever filed a Child Protective Report.
Finally MikeS, I think you’re combining your extensive experience w/ child sexual abuse w/ child porn. While I agree they are related, they are not the same. Many of the images and violent videos are of children who are unidentified, although my wife has worked cases of parents who made them of their own blood children including whipping and rape. Yourself, my wife, and I have dealt w/ many victims of abuse and violence. I don’t think we need to submit cv’s. We’re all good people who have dealt w/ the dark side of our culture. Let’s agree on that if we can.
MikeS, I don’t believe in the death penalty so I don’t believe ANY executions are legit. My belief is the “innocent” image prosecutions are way below 5%, probably below 1%, but I doubt there are any objective stats on that. I consider the innocent victims meme for the most part a red herring until proven otherwise.
Mike, “personal” means I saw the profound effect it had on my wife. That was pretty clear if you read what I said. Wouldn’t any good spouse take it as personal if it made your spouse sob and lose sleep w/ nightmares?
Regarding supply and demand. You did what you often accuse me of, you took a shot but didn’t address the substance. If people like this are demanding the horrible and violent videos, are they not complicit? Please answer in the harm done to that child? Please answer that substantive question.
Finally MikeS, My wife’s career spanned child porn from the foreign magazine and videos, to VHS, DVD, and then internet. The internet has exploded w/ purchasers of vile and violent videos. The number of child porn cases have increased eponentially in ther past decade because of that. When did you retire?
My apologies for being incorrect on the rehab, I was hasty and wrong. And even more so I was wrong including rafflaw. When I’m wrong I admit it, and apologies to rafflaw.
“If people like this are demanding the horrible and violent videos, are they not complicit? Please answer in the harm done to that child? Please answer that substantive question.”
Nick,
Again, where in the story was there mention of “horrible and violent videos”? This is an assumption you’re making not backed up by the facts presented in the blog. Perhaps there were such materials present, but you ASSUME that was the case. Perhaps when you do your investigations you ASSUME someones guilt or innocence without evidence. Child pornography has been defined very loosely. People have been arrested because somebody at Walmart, developing a roll of film, saw one picture of a naked child on the roll.
My interest is not in preventing the prosecution of people who do this vicious exploitation of children, but in ensuring that this very sensitive subject is not used in a widespread crusade fueled by the popularity of the cause and the disgust of all of us with those who do it. Over zealous prosecution for publicity purposes has been a hallmark of constitutional excesses in our country’s history and it is that I oppose.
Perhaps you remember the McMartin Day Care travesty from 1983?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial That trial came about because the public’s indignation about child sexual abuse was at fever pitch.
Check this out for further facts about the Child sexual abuse witch-hunt in the 1980’s and early 1990″s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria This time was the same time I worked in child abuse and it was a topic of discussion at the Agency’s highest levels, that I took part in. Especially because we were all trained in how to properly interview potentially abused children. Much of the interviewing done in those cases were examples of the worst practices possible.
“Mike, “personal” means I saw the profound effect it had on my wife. That was pretty clear if you read what I said. Wouldn’t any good spouse take it as personal if it made your spouse sob and lose sleep w/ nightmares?”
“Personal” does NOT mean that one becomes an expert on the issue by some kind of empathic transference.
“You did what you often accuse me of, you took a shot but didn’t address the substance.If people like this are demanding the horrible and violent videos, are they not complicit?”
Where is your evidence that this particular man was demanding horrible and violent videos, or even child sexual videos? It isn’t there in the story Nick, maybe it is there in fact, but you’re making an assumption beyond the given facts. Where is your substance in this particular case Nick?
“MikeS, I don’t believe in the death penalty so I don’t believe ANY executions are legit. My belief is the “innocent” image prosecutions are way below 5%, probably below 1%, but I doubt there are any objective stats on that. I consider the innocent victims meme for the most part a red herring until proven otherwise.”
As far as the “death penalty” goes I know your opposition from past comments by you. That was why I used the analogy here to perhaps get through to you and understanding of the logical fallacy of your position. Looking at the next part of your quote you begin by stating your “belief”, with no factual backup and end up by in essence say that someone accused is guilty until you presume them innocent.
“Finally MikeS, I think you’re combining your extensive experience w/ child sexual abuse w/ child porn. While I agree they are related, they are not the same.”
Nick, they are both the same in each is involved the disgusting, abusive abuse of children. That the children in videos are sometime anonymous, does not make the fact of sexual abuse any different.
What I also know about the sexual abuse of children is that there are people in the Child Abuse Field who are self-serving, even if they are also against that abuse. People build their careers in this field and it is in their self-interest to make it seem like this is a problem that is running out of control. you know I find it amusing that you who are such a crusader against PC, is actually a proponent of PC on this issue.
One of my seminal experiences in the field was with a very famous hospital in NYC called NY Foundling. It was run by a Doctor who was the first to comment in the press and TV when any child abuse case made the headlines. He was a Rock Star of Child Abuse. He had a program called “I Care” that took in Child Abusers and their children and “rehabilitated” them.
One woman he took in has callously murdered one of her children, a one year old male that she had slammed against a wall. She was left with two other young children. She spent 1 1/2 years in that program and they monitored after her release to her home. I became involved in her case when another two year old child, born after her time in “I Care” showed up at the hospital with Third degree burns on her body below the waist.
I went to investigate with my worker and her story of a four year old putting the three year old into the high tub and turning on the hot water scalding the two year old didn’t make sense. We removed the other children and did further investigation building the case. At that time the Sex Crimes Unit of the Brookly DA worked on all serious abuse cases. I worked with the ADA and she got me the woman’s history. By their own records the “I Care” program had visited the woman for a year after her release, saw and documented evidence of suspicious abuse and ever filed a Child Protective Report. Had they done so this two year might have been spared the pain and the scarring. They didn’t report because they were afraid that their whole program would have been called into question.
Like the “War on Drugs” and the other initiatives where people make a buck as experts, it is to their advantage to make an issue more frightening than it might really be. Child Abusers are definitely scumbags and those who even enjoy merely naked pictures are mentally sick in my opinion. However, we must constantly be on guard when people spew statistics and push problems and punishments. Too often our Constitution has been violated in the process of their ill-directed self righteousness.
Mike, I have to disagree with you on this one, though I understand where you can be coming from on several levels
It is a supply and demand issue. If child pr0n is readily available and easy to obtain it will create a demand and a profit motive that wil entice others to satisfy that demand and this will lead to more exploitation of the children by increasing the numbers of those who participate in the making of the images. In order to curtail this industry it is necessary to prosecute both sides of the business.
In the case of this defendant, it was not merely a few pictures of their son or daughter in a scrap book. It was hundreds of child pr0n images. This is not a case of accidental downloading. It is a pattern of felony criminal behavior.
I will agree that it might be unlikely in perhaps this defendant or probably others who will after getting off on child pron they will take it out on some little child but that is not the full intent of the law, though it is one of the reasons for it. There does come a time where a society has a right to decide what is unacceptable, based upon constitutional constraints. Protecting children from becoming the objects of sexual desire or violence I feel is one of them. Children can be traumatized very easily by being
Treatment for the offender can work in some cases but this is one example of the 1 strike in you are out will resonate with the public which views this as such a high crime that the rehabilitation potential is not worth risking. And I know that it does get tiring to hear “if one child could be saved” as an excuse to punish or regulate everything with even slight risk.
I read somewhwere recently where one approach would be to provide an outlet for chester the molester to look at simulated child pr0n using computer images of imaginary people. It might be worthwhile to look into this as a possible treatment or at least a bandage to curtail them from engaging in actual pr0n. It would espouse much heated and contentous debate, but I would think it might be worth at least looking into from a medical and legal point of view.
As for this former prosecutor breaking custody; of all people he is aware of what he has done and knew all along about the risks of his actions. So, I will take satisfaction in seeing him go to prison for a long time, even if he believes in his appeal he could have prevailed on his admissability argument, taking flight to avoid confinement is not a defense or a valid legal recourse that should be offered him. He would have to spend time in prison on the other counts, even if they were reduced in length, and during that time he would have the opportunity to pursue his appeals to that state’s supreme court.
“There does come a time where a society has a right to decide what is unacceptable, based upon constitutional constraints. Protecting children from becoming the objects of sexual desire or violence I feel is one of them.”
Darren,
Of course I agree that society must draw a line. It must, however, be with reasonable constitutional constraints. I’m concerned that there is to much over zealousness occurring since prosecuting these offenders guarantees public approval. Unless care is taken constitutional excesses will occur and might well be occurring.
test
CaptainRatty’s favorite tune is Ramblin’ Man.
Having images on a computer does not mean that the person tagged with control of theat computer is guilty of possessing the images. Lets take the example of getting puttled over in your big chevy with that big trunk by some state trooper in some large place in the midwest like Missouri or Mizzou according tot he SEC, Say there is a hole, which looks like a bullet hole in the deer’s head. I might have a rational explanation, one of two polarities here and assert the defense of bi polar. I was driving tdown the road and the deer was laying out in the traffic lane. As a good samaritan and person of litter awareness (having jsut read a thousand signs about litter awareness along that stretch of I-70, I pitck dead deer up and put it in my trunk to remove it from the road and the ugly sight it would present to children. Killing the deer out of season with a weapon might be the offense but here there is no proof that I killed the deer with a weapon and there is no calendar attached to the deer to say when it got shot– in season or out.
Do a security scan on your own computer. When you are done with the full scan look at the number of files scanned off of your computer. Close to a million? Please telll me,under oath, what each file was. I think that the defendant here sould take the deposition of the judge’s court clerk and while the depo is going on have her scan her computer for virus and illegal entries. Put her on the stand and ask her to recite every file on her computer.
Now this schmuck may well indeed have put some child porn on his computer. And, what did he do with it? Dont know do ya? Maybe it was exhibits A through G from that case that came through the office about child porn defendant named Jackmehoff. Maybe he did not know it was on his computer. Can someone put some images on the judge’s computer while we are at this? I bet someone could do that,
There is probably some good evidence objections here. I wager that the pigs took the images off of his computer to save them over on some other medium as an exhibit for the Grand Jury and later trial. Rule 1002 talks about Best Evidence I believe. Its somehwere up there in the lexicon of Federal Rules of Evidence. Let us analogize it to the dead deer no longer in the road but in schucko’s big Chevy trunk. The deer carcass in the trunk has no bearing on who shot the deer, where and when and for what purpose (self defense perhaps). If he buried the dead deer in a cemetary would the cemetary be liable for anyting other than includng an animal in their lexicon of dead bodies?
I think that it would be good if some computer nerd would transmit some child porn images to the computers of each judge on the court of appeals who gets assigned to this case. How did you become a perp judge? Childhood exposure, mom mean and vicious?
Surprise…..
And, my wife worked about 70 or so of these cases, NONE of the “kids in a bathtub variety”. They were of such an explicit nature that all but a few pled guilty. Do those “innocent” images cases exist, I’m certain they do. But, those are the exception, not the rule. And from experience my wife never encountered the exception.
Wow! I guess no one here understands supply and demand. These vile images are produced and distributed because of demand. Guys like this are complicit w/ whatever harm was done to a child. This is personal for me. My wife did Federal presentence investigations on scum like this guy. I didn’t have to ask when she walked through the door @ the end of a long day. I could tell by her face she had worked on a case like this, requiring her to look @ the images and videos, including but not limited to, ones where children are tied, whipped and raped. And, my theoretical fellow commenters, those are the hottest sellers in this vile world. You do know that these folks are almost all beyond rehabilitation. Ask them under sodium pentothal, although many have told my wife they can’t stop on their own.
Interesting take on this story Mike. I agree that if he is not a danger to children that prison might not be necessary. However, when child safety is involved, I tned to error on the side of the safety of children. I do have a problem with his alleged mitigating circumstances argument. If you have the child porn on your computer and you admit that you put it there, I don’t think it matters what alleged good deeds that you might have done.
“I do have a problem with his alleged mitigating circumstances argument.”
Raff,
The “mitigating circumstances” are crap, but that wasn’t the argument I was making. I realize it is a difficult argument for most to hear, which is why I had to present my credentials and beliefs in making it, lest people think I hold any brief for these people. The other side of my background in children’s protective services was that I was the investigating member of NYC’s Human Resources “Death Panel”. We investigated the handling of known child abuse cases that ended in death, particularly from the perspective of how we as an Agency handled the known case, both prior to and after the death.
I’m well aware of the mistakes that can be made and some lost their jobs as a result of my investigations. However, in some instances, rare as they might be, some people’s guilt was not established and their rights trampled.
“Wow! I guess no one here understands supply and demand.”
Nick,
What about what I wrote didn’t you read? Now I know of course that you and anybody associated with you have the bulk of expertise on anything (by your definition at least) but perhaps sometimes, somebody else may also have equal or greater knowledge.
“This is personal for me. My wife did Federal presentence investigations on scum like this guy.”
Wow personal. Then I guess your wife took you out in the “field” with her to homes and hospitals where abused children resided. See I didn’t do “Federal presentence investigations”, I actually saw those involved in the home and in the hospital. You want to talk personal I know personal, not second, or perhaps third hand.
“And, my theoretical fellow commenters, those are the hottest sellers in this vile world. You do know that these folks are almost all beyond rehabilitation.”
Well I guess in your hasty reading you neglected to read the following:
“I am a “one strike you’re out” believer because I don’t believe one can be rehabilitated, only controlled and segregated from their victim.”
There is no rehabilitation and I’ll argue that with any supposed experts in the field, but then when you state:
“And, my wife worked about 70 or so of these cases, NONE of the “kids in a bathtub variety”. They were of such an explicit nature that all but a few pled guilty. Do those “innocent” images cases exist, I’m certain they do. But, those are the exception, not the rule.”
Well Nick, in my eight years time I probably worked well over a thousand cases from the ground up counting those I directly supervised and those where I ran the investigation side by side with my caseworker because the situation was so vile it would have been unfair for the caseworker to go alone. Now as to the number of innocent images, the “bathtub” cases that do exist the figure is low. However, if “low” means a figure like “5%” or “10%” then my point was clearly that before we are so quick to criminalize everyone, that we neglect the cause and the rights of the innocent, perhaps we should clearly define our purpose. Perhaps though you are the type that believes if one or two people get executed, that is fine, since we’ve gotten the murders off the street. If you again read what I wrote my argument was not so much for this man, but for the need for law and justice to prevent a mob vengeance mentality from prevailing just because some crimes disgust us.
I’ve been uncomfortable for awhile with the enforcement of Child Pornography laws and this case makes me uncomfortable. The problem though with even raising a protest about these laws is that almost all of us feel a horror at the exploitation of children sexually. Since I spent eight years in NYC’s Special Services for Children as an investigating supervisor,
an investigations expert and then as an executive, my prejudice lies against those who would abuse or exploit children.
My dislike of the people who would perpetrate harm to children sexually was such that when I was offered in the late 1980’s the Directorship of the Agency’s new innovation, a City-wide placement of five exclusively Sexual Abuse Investigation Units, I turned it down. My reason was that within the Unit’s mandate was rehabilitation of the offender and work towards their reunification with the family. When it comes to child sexual abuse I am a “one strike you’re out” believer because I don’t believe one can be rehabilitated, only controlled and segregated from their victim. Intellectually and emotionally the thought that I would have to supervise these doomed attempts at rehabilitation offended my sense of justice.Therefore my mixed feelings on these Child Pornography prosecutions would seem a dichotomy.
What bothers me in these prosecutions is that there is no differentiation between those sick individuals who in the privacy of their homes would view such garbage and those who actively abuse children sexually, create and distribute Child Pornography. The former would seem to me to be pathetic sick individuals. The latter, vicious criminals of both actions and exploitation’s. The theory no doubt regarding the passive viewer of Child Pornography is that they have the potential to become active abusers and/or are already active abusers. There is some statistical suggestion that is true in a percentage of instances. By the same token then, since some users of Adult Pornography do become vicious rapists should we prosecute all those who view Adult Pornography? I don’t believe we should prosecute people for their potential to commit a crime, but for their actual commission of a crime.
I this instance there seemed to be no evidence of this man engaging in sexual abuse of children, or even in distributing Child Pornography. I my opinion if one needs to view Child Pornography there is a pathology. Yet all pathological behavior doesn’t necessarily lead to active criminality. I believe the Child Pornography laws do not make enough of a distinction between the passive viewer and the active criminal.
The problem with all pornography prosecutions (both of adults and children) historically has been that the passage of the anti-pornography laws have always been based on protecting children, because obviously we all abhor any intrusion of sexuality on children’s innocence. It is this abhorrence that has allowed for popular support for passage of the current laws. Sometimes when our public buttons are pushed to produce various laws, the laws themselves are written in draconian fashion that could trample on individual rights and also be defined too broadly to capture people into their net that perhaps are not guilty of truly criminal behavior.
When I was an infant and when my brother was an infant eight years before me, there were pictures take of us bare-assed naked on a sheepskin rug.
This was a wide-spread tradition all across this country at that time and I am positive that it was innocent in intent. There were also pictures I remember of various cousins, in infancy, taking baths together also done with no sexual intent involved. Today such pictures can and have been in certain cases deemed pornographic. This indicates why I think our search for Child Pornography has gone too far afield and the impetus has led to encroachment on some individual’s rights. Whether it was true in this instance I don’t have enough evidence to judge, but if the man’s defense that alleges:
“1) that he never had actual contact with minors; 2) that he never attempted to contact minors; 3) the ratio of child pornography to legitimate images “was very very low”; 4) that there is no evidence contraband was saved to create a collection; 5) that the child pornography was systematically deleted; 6) there is no evidence of wide-scale distribution; and, 7) that his child pornography activities occurred sporadically.”
If the above could be proven true in this, then is any benefit to be gained by sending him to jail and are society’s best interests being served.
Dredd – that particularly was on my mind. Those folks are supposedly trained so the commission of physical violence should be LESS forgivable not more.
Frankly 1, November 23, 2012 at 9:35 am
The idea that being in the law enforcement side of the business as a compounding factor instead of a mitigating one is interesting. Does that happen often? It seems to me that usually it works in the defendants favor earning reduced prison time. But I don’t have that much knowledge of past examples.
The precedent could be a good thing if it makes those responsible for enforcement think twice before committing crimes
=========================================
How good it would be if police brutality was introduced to or included in this concept you articulated.
The idea that being in the law enforcement side of the business as a compounding factor instead of a mitigating one is interesting. Does that happen often? It seems to me that usually it works in the defendants favor earning reduced prison time. But I don’t have that much knowledge of past examples.
The precedent could be a good thing if it makes those responsible for enforcement think twice before committing crimes