Jared from Subway got what he deserved (1 Viewer)

[flapgreen]

Woz loves Jared

 

[Hang 10]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

Are you now insinuating that I'm defending this guy because I have some sort of proclivity for young girls?

You insinuating that you're not a sex weirdo?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

at Woz.....nothing like looking like an ###. Have some microwave popcorn tonight and walk away.

 

[Christo]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

I'm not painting anything how I want to. I'm using things like facts and logic and applying them to this particular situation and the correct definitions of things.

How could you?!?!?1?

 

[Christo]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

 

[McGarnicle]

Woz, I've got no doubt you're factually correct, but this is an instance where you just need to pretend the thread doesn't exist.

 

[cstu]

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Girls hit puberty at 11 - have you done research on that?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. My understanding is that, generally, a person has a proclivity for a particular subset of people. The experts I've spoken with on the subject have identified, and I think with reasonable logic, that a defining characteristic which divides the subset of underage girls is whether said girls have reached puberty or not. I think we can all harken back to when we were young and girls started developing breasts and we thought that was pretty cool. Most of us then progress in our attractions as we age and will continue to prefer females in or very near our own age range. Others, which are identified as hebephiles, may reach that initial attraction level where they like developed girls but don't ever progress beyond that. Others, on the other hand, and for reasons for which I cannot fathom or understand, are just simply into pre-pubescent children. These people are called pedophiles. So, theoretically, age isn't necessary the distinction: a hebephile may be attracted to an 11 year old girl who has hit puberty but not into a 12 year old girl who hasn't. Vice versa for pedophiles. Now, legally speaking, both are bad and it's much easier to create a black and white rule based on age. That said, for policy reasons, statutes are written to punish those where the victims are younger (and in line with puberty) more harshly. Think of the group as "bad" and "worst".

You're a lawyer so I'm sure you understand. If he's attracted to 16 year olds then there's a high probability that he's attracted to even younger girls who have reached puberty. He's even quoted as saying "the younger, the better".

Considering age 11 is the average age most girls hit puberty then it stands to reason that a hebephile like Jared is attracted to 50% of 11 year old girls.

 

[Christo]

Woz, I've got no doubt you're factually correct, but this is an instance where you just need to pretend the thread doesn't exist.

So the monkeys can have a circle jerk?

 

[flapgreen]

No one likes you, Jared.

I like Jared.The guy was fat. He got thin. And he found a way to make a little money off of it. It's a great American story.I don't understand what kind of envy or jealousy causes people to complain about him so much.

Get it?

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced

to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

Are you now insinuating that I'm defending this guy because I have some sort of proclivity for young girls?

You insinuating that you're not a sex weirdo?

I'm not insinuating anything. I asked you a question.

 

[Chaka]

I think we should all just take the pederastohebophile's word when he says he only tried to have sex with 17 year olds. I mean, why wouldn't you trust his word?

 

[Tom Servo]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

I'm not painting anything how I want to. I'm using things like facts and logic and applying them to this particular situation and the correct definitions of things.

Good grief. Woz makes sense and you want to crush him for it? WHAT THE BLOODY HELL CHAKA?!?!!?!

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm going to take up for Woz. He knows the law - probably because he deals with it every day. You guys know outrage. How 'bout you let him lawyer while you carry the pitchforks and torches?

 

[Henry Ford]

at Woz.....nothing like looking like an ###. Have some microwave popcorn tonight and walk away.

Hint: Woz isn't the one looking like an ### in here.

 

[Henry Ford]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

Barely legal is still legal.

 

[James Daulton]

Isn't there a lawyer thread for you smart fellers to lawyer up? Leave us monkeys alone to talk #### about an old dude who paid to sex up a young girl and is going to jail for having child porn.

 

[xulf]

at Woz.....nothing like looking like an ###. Have some microwave popcorn tonight and walk away.

Hint: Woz isn't the one looking like an ### in here.

 

[Chaka]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

I'm not painting anything how I want to. I'm using things like facts and logic and applying them to this particular situation and the correct definitions of things.

Good grief. Woz makes sense and you want to crush him for it? WHAT THE BLOODY HELL CHAKA?!?!!?!

Easy now I recognize the realities of the situation

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

 

[kutta]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

 

[Hilts]

I haven't followed the details of this, but isn't the whole catalog of 8 year olds speculation at this point with zero actual evidence behind the statement?

Also, great work in here Woz.

 

[flapgreen]

Jared is a great human being

 

[bakes]

Jared is a great big human being

 

[elguapo07]

F him, fat loser,

 

[RC94]

He's the galleria of pron.

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

If true, certainly that's something to consider. Also, if it hasn't been obvious, I haven't been speaking in absolutes. Jared could very well be into little kids. But we really can't draw that conclusion with any near certainty based on what he was convicted of doing. And, since we cannot draw that conclusion with any near certainty, it's irrational overreaction to label him things he may not be or call for him to be put to punished beyond what the statutes call for his punishment to be.

Regarding the possession of child porn, while that is certainly a horrible thing to even be in existence and there are very valid policy reasons for why we punish just simply possessing the stuff incredibly harshly, that's always puzzled me a bit and, in my opinion, is distinguishable from somebody who actually may engage in sex with a pre-pubescent child. I say this for several reasons. First, internet porn is ridiculously accessible. One could, in his travels into the darker corners of the internet, merely come across these images by accident. Perhaps he searched for them one time just to see what it looked like (this would be an incredibly stupid decision, but somewhat understandable). Heck, I remember being in college and a few buddies and me looking up a scat video just to see if people actually did that stuff. As such, I don't think a brief period of curiosity implies a particular attraction. Second, similar similar to my first point, a lot of cases involving child porn also involve the defendant possessing pretty much every other type of porn. I've seen several situations where a person possessed a few dozen images of child porn. On its face, that sounds horrendous. However, those several dozen images were found along with up to hundreds of thousands of other pornographic images. So, when you consider that a only a fraction of a percentage of a person's pornography collection is child porn, it's probably more likely that the individual was just simply perversely into anything he could find on the internet (bestiality, bukkake, S and M, etc.) -- suggesting though that he's not specifically a pedophile into children. Finally, and this argument is certainly controversial, in my opinion there's a difference between merely possessing a picture and actually taking substantial steps to physically engaging in such behavior. While this may not bolster my argument that the viewer isn't specifically attracted to that behavior, in my opinion the former is less culpable than the latter. Look at it this way: a happily married man views "normal" pornography and becomes aroused at the female on the screen and the casual, perhaps recreational sex the actors are engaged in. While the viewer may be attracted to what he is watching and a small part of him desire to engage in casual sex with another female, does this mean that he's definitely going to cheat on his wife? I think not. Similarly, a person like Jared who may be in possession of images of pre-pubescent girls but has only ever been known to engage in sex with post-pubscent girls does not mean that he's a pedophile and punished the same as somebody who is actually trying to or accomplishing having sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

He's the galleria of pron.

Words a woman does not want to say about her man: "He went to Jared".

 

[James Daulton]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

If true, certainly that's something to consider. Also, if it hasn't been obvious, I haven't been speaking in absolutes. Jared could very well be into little kids. But we really can't draw that conclusion with any near certainty based on what he was convicted of doing. And, since we cannot draw that conclusion with any near certainty, it's irrational overreaction to label him things he may not be or call for him to be put to punished beyond what the statutes call for his punishment to be.

Regarding the possession of child porn, while that is certainly a horrible thing to even be in existence and there are very valid policy reasons for why we punish just simply possessing the stuff incredibly harshly, that's always puzzled me a bit and, in my opinion, is distinguishable from somebody who actually may engage in sex with a pre-pubescent child. I say this for several reasons. First, internet porn is ridiculously accessible. One could, in his travels into the darker corners of the internet, merely come across these images by accident. Perhaps he searched for them one time just to see what it looked like (this would be an incredibly stupid decision, but somewhat understandable). Heck, I remember being in college and a few buddies and me looking up a scat video just to see if people actually did that stuff. As such, I don't think a brief period of curiosity implies a particular attraction. Second, similar similar to my first point, a lot of cases involving child porn also involve the defendant possessing pretty much every other type of porn. I've seen several situations where a person possessed a few dozen images of child porn. On its face, that sounds horrendous. However, those several dozen images were found along with up to hundreds of thousands of other pornographic images. So, when you consider that a only a fraction of a percentage of a person's pornography collection is child porn, it's probably more likely that the individual was just simply perversely into anything he could find on the internet (bestiality, bukkake, S and M, etc.) -- suggesting though that he's not specifically a pedophile into children. Finally, and this argument is certainly controversial, in my opinion there's a difference between merely possessing a picture and actually taking substantial steps to physically engaging in such behavior. While this may not bolster my argument that the viewer isn't specifically attracted to that behavior, in my opinion the former is less culpable than the latter. Look at it this way: a happily married man views "normal" pornography and becomes aroused at the female on the screen and the casual, perhaps recreational sex the actors are engaged in. While the viewer may be attracted to what he is watching and a small part of him desire to engage in casual sex with another female, does this mean that he's definitely going to cheat on his wife? I think not. Similarly, a person like Jared who may be in possession of images of pre-pubescent girls but has only ever been known to engage in sex with post-pubscent girls does not mean that he's a pedophile and punished the same as somebody who is actually trying to or accomplishing having sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

Ugh.

 

[Insein]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Slippery slope

 

[Insein]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

Barely legal is still legal.

Besides barely legal are usually young looking 26 year olds.

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

If true, certainly that's something to consider. Also, if it hasn't been obvious, I haven't been speaking in absolutes. Jared could very well be into little kids. But we really can't draw that conclusion with any near certainty based on what he was convicted of doing. And, since we cannot draw that conclusion with any near certainty, it's irrational overreaction to label him things he may not be or call for him to be put to punished beyond what the statutes call for his punishment to be.

Regarding the possession of child porn, while that is certainly a horrible thing to even be in existence and there are very valid policy reasons for why we punish just simply possessing the stuff incredibly harshly, that's always puzzled me a bit and, in my opinion, is distinguishable from somebody who actually may engage in sex with a pre-pubescent child. I say this for several reasons. First, internet porn is ridiculously accessible. One could, in his travels into the darker corners of the internet, merely come across these images by accident. Perhaps he searched for them one time just to see what it looked like (this would be an incredibly stupid decision, but somewhat understandable). Heck, I remember being in college and a few buddies and me looking up a scat video just to see if people actually did that stuff. As such, I don't think a brief period of curiosity implies a particular attraction. Second, similar similar to my first point, a lot of cases involving child porn also involve the defendant possessing pretty much every other type of porn. I've seen several situations where a person possessed a few dozen images of child porn. On its face, that sounds horrendous. However, those several dozen images were found along with up to hundreds of thousands of other pornographic images. So, when you consider that a only a fraction of a percentage of a person's pornography collection is child porn, it's probably more likely that the individual was just simply perversely into anything he could find on the internet (bestiality, bukkake, S and M, etc.) -- suggesting though that he's not specifically a pedophile into children. Finally, and this argument is certainly controversial, in my opinion there's a difference between merely possessing a picture and actually taking substantial steps to physically engaging in such behavior. While this may not bolster my argument that the viewer isn't specifically attracted to that behavior, in my opinion the former is less culpable than the latter. Look at it this way: a happily married man views "normal" pornography and becomes aroused at the female on the screen and the casual, perhaps recreational sex the actors are engaged in. While the viewer may be attracted to what he is watching and a small part of him desire to engage in casual sex with another female, does this mean that he's definitely going to cheat on his wife? I think not. Similarly, a person like Jared who may be in possession of images of pre-pubescent girls but has only ever been known to engage in sex with post-pubscent girls does not mean that he's a pedophile and punished the same as somebody who is actually trying to or accomplishing having sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

Ugh.

He asked a question so I answered it.

 

[kutta]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

If true, certainly that's something to consider. Also, if it hasn't been obvious, I haven't been speaking in absolutes. Jared could very well be into little kids. But we really can't draw that conclusion with any near certainty based on what he was convicted of doing. And, since we cannot draw that conclusion with any near certainty, it's irrational overreaction to label him things he may not be or call for him to be put to punished beyond what the statutes call for his punishment to be. Regarding the possession of child porn, while that is certainly a horrible thing to even be in existence and there are very valid policy reasons for why we punish just simply possessing the stuff incredibly harshly, that's always puzzled me a bit and, in my opinion, is distinguishable from somebody who actually may engage in sex with a pre-pubescent child. I say this for several reasons. First, internet porn is ridiculously accessible. One could, in his travels into the darker corners of the internet, merely come across these images by accident. Perhaps he searched for them one time just to see what it looked like (this would be an incredibly stupid decision, but somewhat understandable). Heck, I remember being in college and a few buddies and me looking up a scat video just to see if people actually did that stuff. As such, I don't think a brief period of curiosity implies a particular attraction. Second, similar similar to my first point, a lot of cases involving child porn also involve the defendant possessing pretty much every other type of porn. I've seen several situations where a person possessed a few dozen images of child porn. On its face, that sounds horrendous. However, those several dozen images were found along with up to hundreds of thousands of other pornographic images. So, when you consider that a only a fraction of a percentage of a person's pornography collection is child porn, it's probably more likely that the individual was just simply perversely into anything he could find on the internet (bestiality, bukkake, S and M, etc.) -- suggesting though that he's not specifically a pedophile into children. Finally, and this argument is certainly controversial, in my opinion there's a difference between merely possessing a picture and actually taking substantial steps to physically engaging in such behavior. While this may not bolster my argument that the viewer isn't specifically attracted to that behavior, in my opinion the former is less culpable than the latter. Look at it this way: a happily married man views "normal" pornography and becomes aroused at the female on the screen and the casual, perhaps recreational sex the actors are engaged in. While the viewer may be attracted to what he is watching and a small part of him desire to engage in casual sex with another female, does this mean that he's definitely going to cheat on his wife? I think not. Similarly, a person like Jared who may be in possession of images of pre-pubescent girls but has only ever been known to engage in sex with post-pubscent girls does not mean that he's a pedophile and punished the same as somebody who is actually trying to or accomplishing having sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

Would it be reasonable to assume that a guy who regularly looks at gay porn is probably gay? Or at the least, he finds gay porn sexually exciting? Which I guess would mean he's gay...

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Zow, does his supposedly looking at child porn of children around the age of 6 (I think) have any influence on your statements? I get that if he was "only" having sex with teen girls. But what about the pics?

If true, certainly that's something to consider. Also, if it hasn't been obvious, I haven't been speaking in absolutes. Jared could very well be into little kids. But we really can't draw that conclusion with any near certainty based on what he was convicted of doing. And, since we cannot draw that conclusion with any near certainty, it's irrational overreaction to label him things he may not be or call for him to be put to punished beyond what the statutes call for his punishment to be. Regarding the possession of child porn, while that is certainly a horrible thing to even be in existence and there are very valid policy reasons for why we punish just simply possessing the stuff incredibly harshly, that's always puzzled me a bit and, in my opinion, is distinguishable from somebody who actually may engage in sex with a pre-pubescent child. I say this for several reasons. First, internet porn is ridiculously accessible. One could, in his travels into the darker corners of the internet, merely come across these images by accident. Perhaps he searched for them one time just to see what it looked like (this would be an incredibly stupid decision, but somewhat understandable). Heck, I remember being in college and a few buddies and me looking up a scat video just to see if people actually did that stuff. As such, I don't think a brief period of curiosity implies a particular attraction. Second, similar similar to my first point, a lot of cases involving child porn also involve the defendant possessing pretty much every other type of porn. I've seen several situations where a person possessed a few dozen images of child porn. On its face, that sounds horrendous. However, those several dozen images were found along with up to hundreds of thousands of other pornographic images. So, when you consider that a only a fraction of a percentage of a person's pornography collection is child porn, it's probably more likely that the individual was just simply perversely into anything he could find on the internet (bestiality, bukkake, S and M, etc.) -- suggesting though that he's not specifically a pedophile into children. Finally, and this argument is certainly controversial, in my opinion there's a difference between merely possessing a picture and actually taking substantial steps to physically engaging in such behavior. While this may not bolster my argument that the viewer isn't specifically attracted to that behavior, in my opinion the former is less culpable than the latter. Look at it this way: a happily married man views "normal" pornography and becomes aroused at the female on the screen and the casual, perhaps recreational sex the actors are engaged in. While the viewer may be attracted to what he is watching and a small part of him desire to engage in casual sex with another female, does this mean that he's definitely going to cheat on his wife? I think not. Similarly, a person like Jared who may be in possession of images of pre-pubescent girls but has only ever been known to engage in sex with post-pubscent girls does not mean that he's a pedophile and punished the same as somebody who is actually trying to or accomplishing having sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

Would it be reasonable to assume that a guy who regularly looks at gay porn is probably gay? Or at the least, he finds gay porn sexually exciting? Which I guess would mean he's gay...

Of course (save for your last sentence).

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Woz, how many accused pedophiles or people in possession of alledged child porn have you voluntarily defended?

Most of what you're saying is obviously true in an academic sense for certain, but the zealousness of your assertions seem like you're trying to convince yourself of something more than anybody else.

 

[Henry Ford]

Woz, how many accused pedophiles or people in possession of alledged child porn have you voluntarily defended?

From his statements in the lawyer thread, I'm going to go with "a lot."

 

[James Daulton]

Woz, how many accused pedophiles or people in possession of alledged child porn have you voluntarily defended?

From his statements in the lawyer thread, I'm going to go with "a lot."

 

[Zow]

Woz, how many accused pedophiles or people in possession of alledged child porn have you voluntarily defended?

Most of what you're saying is obviously true in an academic sense for certain, but the zealousness of your assertions seem like you're

trying to convince yourself of something more than anybody else.

Enough where I can make these arguments with ease and no emotional reaction to the subject matter. That said, nothing prepares you for the pictures no matter how many you see.

 

[Tom Servo]

Great work in here Woz. It's gotta suck having to wade thru that as part of your job. I appreciate your efforts in that regard as well as attempting to bring reason to a thread that stokes such passion.

 

[James Daulton]

Woz, how many accused pedophiles or people in possession of alledged child porn have you voluntarily defended?

Most of what you're saying is obviously true in an academic sense for certain, but the zealousness of your assertions seem like you're

trying to convince yourself of something more than anybody else.

Enough where I can make these arguments with ease and no emotional reaction to the subject matter.That said, nothing prepares you for the pictures no matter how many you see.

Serious question, are some/most of these folks obviously guilty and if so how can you justify to yourself to defend them? Is it just the money?

 

[sublimeone]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

 

[Hang 10]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

 

[Sinn Fein]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

Can't speak for Woz, and I never did any criminal law stuff, but I think most would tell you its for the money (they would be lying otherwise) but also to ensure the system works. We have a system in place that requires the prosecution (state) to meet certain burdens before we deprive anyone of life/liberty. Defense lawyers are in place to ensure the state meets that burden in all cases - not just for the likable defendants. Because, if you let the system slide in certain cases, you might as well let it slide in all cases.

 

[Henry Ford]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's my understanding that Woz is assigned a number of cases by the courts that he handles for lower-than-normal fees. I could be wrong on this.

 

[dutch]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's my understanding that Woz is assigned a number of cases by the courts that he handles for lower-than-normal fees. I could be wrong on this.

Even still, can't Woz just tell the court to go eff itself when he gets sent a case he doesn't like? I mean, honestly, defending creepy people just because they have a constitutional right to counsel so he can make a buck is the lowest form of low. He must be a pedo, no other explanation.

 

[James Daulton]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's my understanding that Woz is assigned a number of cases by the courts that he handles for lower-than-normal fees. I could be wrong on this.

Even still, can't Woz just tell the court to go eff itself when he gets sent a case he doesn't like? I mean, honestly, defending creepy people just because they have a constitutional right to counsel so he can make a buck is the lowest form of low. He must be a pedo, no other explanation.

WTF is wrong with you? Hopefully that was your sad attempt at a joke but regardless you owe Woz an apology. That is uncool at the highest level.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

All things considered, the new subway commercial is maybe the worst commercial I've ever seen.

 

[dutch]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's my understanding that Woz is assigned a number of cases by the courts that he handles for lower-than-normal fees. I could be wrong on this.

Even still, can't Woz just tell the court to go eff itself when he gets sent a case he doesn't like? I mean, honestly, defending creepy people just because they have a constitutional right to counsel so he can make a buck is the lowest form of low. He must be a pedo, no other explanation.

WTF is wrong with you? Hopefully that was your sad attempt at a joke but regardless you owe Woz an apology. That is uncool at the highest level.

sorry

 

[Henry Ford]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's my understanding that Woz is assigned a number of cases by the courts that he handles for lower-than-normal fees. I could be wrong on this.

Even still, can't Woz just tell the court to go eff itself when he gets sent a case he doesn't like? I mean, honestly, defending creepy people just because they have a constitutional right to counsel so he can make a buck is the lowest form of low. He must be a pedo, no other explanation.

Yeah, part of law school is when they tell you what a good idea it is, as a lawyer, to tell the court to go f itself. It's a brilliant strategy.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know how stupid everyone thinks it is when a Muslim clerk won't ring up bacon at the grocery store? That's about where "court appointed criminal defense attorney won't work on certain crimes" goes in the lawyer community. At least where I am.

 

[Zow]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's certainly not the only area I practice. I carry a predominantly criminal caseload (which are a mixture of privately paying clients and court appointed clients like Henry mentioned) and also a family law caseload. Child porn cases are not super common so at any given point I usually only have one or two.

As for why I take them, Henry ford kind of alluded to it earlier - a good defense attorney handles all sorts of cases. I've done everything from defending people of low level petty misdemeanors to murder. And I view my job as the last bastion of hope for the innocent and, for the guilty, the one lone speed bump to slowing down the overreacting public and ensuring that the rights of everyone, even the guilty, are followed. I'm not a magician. If a person does something bad and the state can prove it I can't make it go away. But I can ensure that they're given a fair sentence accordance with the law and, at the very least, got their side of the story told if the case does goes to trial. I think this thread is a great example of why that's important b/c without that speed bump the people like those in here literally calling for Jared's head would have their way.

That said, I specifically don't shy away from these cases in my jurisdiction b/c I find my jurisdiction's sentencing guidelines to be utterly absurd. A person is supposed to get ten years for each picture and those ten year sets must run consecutive to each other (I.e. Possess ten pictures you get 100 years). While I still haven't been able to desensitize myself to seeing these pictures and I personally find them disgusting and believe possessing them should be a crime requiring some incarceration, the idea that somebody can go away for life for possessing some pictures is an injustice to me. So, I choose to fight the fight most others never would.

 

[kutta]

What do you call the guy who graduated last in law school?

Pedophile Attorney

Just kidding Woz... but seriously of all the law you could practice why this?

It's certainly not the only area I practice. I carry a predominantly criminal caseload (which are a mixture of privately paying clients and court appointed clients like Henry mentioned) and also a family law caseload. Child porn cases are not super common so at any given point I usually only have one or two.As for why I take them, Henry ford kind of alluded to it earlier - a good defense attorney handles all sorts of cases. I've done everything from defending people of low level petty misdemeanors to murder. And I view my job as the last bastion of hope for the innocent and, for the guilty, the one line speed bump to slowing down the overreacting public and ensuring that the rights of everyone, even the guilty, are followed. I'm not a magician. If a person does something bad and the state can prove it I can't make it go away. But I can ensure that they're given a fair sentence accordance with the law and, at the very least, got their side of the story told if the case does goes to trial. I think this thread is a great example of why that's important b/c without that speed bump the people like those in here literally calling for Jareds head would have their way.

That said, I specifically don't shy away from these cases in my jurisdiction b/c I find my jurisdiction's sentencing guidelines to be utterly absurd. A person is supposed to get ten years for each picture and those ten year sets must run consecutive to each other (I.e. Possess ten pictures you get 100 years). While I still haven't been able to desensitize myself to seeing these pictures and I personally find them disgusting and believe possessing them should be a crime requiring some incarceration, the idea that somebody can go away for life for possessing some pictures is an injustice to me. So, I choose to fight the fight most others never would.

I, for one, think you are a hero. Everyone deserves a defense under our judicial system, and defending these kind of guys must be very tough. "Innocent until proven guilty" are more than words, and if we really believe that, we need people like Zow doing the dirty work.