![]() |
Yours truly (L) with Terry Rose (R); photo by Leo Martin |
In Wisconsin ,
possession of child pornography carries with it a three year mandatory minimum sentence. In other words, when
the statute applies, the judge must put you in prison for at least three years
upon conviction for possessing a single image.
(Yes, the legislature usurped the much-hyped “judicial
discretion” in sentencing.) And actually, you don’t
even have to “possess” the image or even have it on your computer’s
hard-drive! Merely seeing the image on the web could be enough to lock you up in the state pen. It’s a good thing, therefore, that mere child
nudity might not be enough to constitute child pornography. If it was, then every mother with a picture of her kid taking a bubble bath would be guilty and sentenced to prison. And every major cable network would be guilty
of distributing child porn for showing the movie Pretty Baby, starring
a 12-year-old Brook Shields who played a child prostitute and appeared naked in
the film.
In a recent criminal case in Kenosha ,
my fellow criminal defense attorney Terry Rose got a child porn case dismissed
on those very grounds: the image allegedly possessed by the defendant did not
constitute child pornography. This upset
some Kenosha residents who
took to “social media” to condemn Terry and express their uninformed and dangerous opinions. I’ll address their specific complaints below,
while incorporating some basic lessons about our criminal
justice system.