<p>Wow, that is downright disgusting. He had no business training to be an officer an USNA. I'm glad they caught him and dealt with him accordingly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No way. Pornography and child pornography are two completely different animals. You are trying to tell me that the cameraman related to three ten year old boys having sex is the same as the cameraman photographing two consenting adults having sex? Exploiting a ten year old kid is the same as taking a picture of an adult? I cannot even begin to grasp the similarity other than the fact that a camera was involved.</p>
<p>navy2010, I misunderstood your quote. I thought you were referring to someone in Bancroft Hall who realized that they had a problem and had not been caught. Maybe not even acted on their impulse. That is not out of the realm of a chaplain. I am not sure where else a midshipman who wanted help could turn.</p>
<p>^^^ not a problem.</p>
<p>Curiosity and confusion at this age is not atypical, and seeking out a chaplin is certainly a viable option. Not sure where the "line" gets crossed- 1 pic, 2 pics- one could argue "curiosity." 1000+ pictures goes beyond curosity, and I would submit represents a much deeper problem.</p>
<p>Again, not knowing anything of the facts other than what was reported- but seem to recall reading somewhere that he [and I am paraphrasing here] knew he had a problem but did not know where to turn. If that were the case, then that is sad. However, if what was reported was true- that he was downloading since NAPS- then one would think there was more than enough time to try and seek help on and off the yard- if, in fact, help is what was wanted- and I am of the belief that where there is a will, there is a way.</p>
<p>Again, the chaplins are wonderful- and no doubt could certainly get this kid connected with the help that is needed. However, as the research shows, addiction to child porn is not easily remedied- and the overwhelming majority of cases "treated" end up being repeat offenders. Again, this does not speak to the current case, but the odds are not in favor of sustained rehab- even with years of therapy- and that would, IMO, be beyond the scope of the chaplins. Thus, I don't know of any other solution that could be justified ethically, aside from seperation at a minimum. Not sure I agree that "jail time" fixes anything- that is a whole other discussion- but seperation- definately.</p>
<p>Sad.</p>
<p>Certainly a Chaplain could have helped this young man to see the error of his ways and decide to either a) stop or b) resign and get help before he ended up in jail.
Obviously, he didn't want to stop and never thought he would be busted and land in jail</p>
<p>I still don't understand why the perp does not have to register as a sex offender.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No way. Pornography and child pornography are two completely different animals. You are trying to tell me that the cameraman related to three ten year old boys having sex is the same as the cameraman photographing two consenting adults having sex?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cultural deterioration is a wonderful painkiller. And pursuant denial that there's anything wrong can be even better. These are not nearly so different as you'd try and persuade. They are both sad, despicable, addicting, destructive nearly always pursued and couched in lies, secretive behaviors, shame and guilt, and they're fraught with victims. </p>
<p>And we're not talking about cameramen here willing to video 10 year old boys vs. 18 year old men or women, or even who's having sex with whom. And I am not suggesting that child pornography is not a despicable thing. It is and its victims, as this specific case reveals are NOT merely the actors.</p>
<p>We're talking about those men who engage in pornography, child or otherwise. Specifically one Midshipman and more generally many men, including those young men living in Bancroft. And we're talking about its nature being anything but honorable and true, which as you perhaps rightly noted in one of your earlier posts is possibly the magnifier if not the more devious and severe essence of this Mid's case. He lied. So are pornographers. They are equally deceitful. And we're talking about its practice, even at our beloved USNA. For anyone to defend pornography as anything more than this, either directly or implicitly is substantial denial or a silly attempt to justify and rationalize its practice for some reason. </p>
<p>So is the pursuit of child porn different than other pornographical indulgences? The law and culture say yes. And its young victims certainly need and merit the justice of a society that has already failed to provide that safe and secure life. And the severity of punishment suggests that society, for the moment, agrees. It's a terrible crime.</p>
<p>But these are not disparate, somehow disconnected issues, with one being despicable and now growing in society because technology fosters it, and the other being either ok, non-existent, just watching consenting adults, or simply boys being boys, imo. While only one may merit a jail sentence (for now), they both have plenty of victims, deceit, and dishonor to go around. I'm equally confident that the Supe is not fretting about his charges pulling up adult porn on their computers or the need to educate about its dangers for a life lived well and with honor and fidelity ... to loved ones and one's country. And I hope I'm all wrong on that one. Perhaps this sad story will merit a call to some re-education.</p>
<p>btw, jail time is not intended to "fix" him. It's execution of justice and its merited punishment for unlawful behavior and deceitful misconduct, all the result of poor and determined choices by the perpetrator.</p>
<p>Perhaps one of the real victims is the honorable Midshipman who recognized this issue and acted accordingly. That required courage, conviction, knowing what was indeed right according to his calling. All that said, I'm confident he is perhaps angry, very saddened, and more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
btw, jail time is not intended to "fix" him. It's execution of justice and its merited punishment for unlawful behavior and deceitful misconduct, all the result of poor and determined choices by the perpetrator
[/quote]
no arguement here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps one of the real victims is the honorable Midshipman who recognized this issue and acted accordingly. That required courage, conviction, knowing what was indeed right according to his calling. All that said, I'm confident he is perhaps angry, very saddened, and more.
[/quote]
not sure I would agree with "victim" [he/she has control], but would definately agree with it taking courage, conviction and doing the "right thing."</p>
<p>Of courhe should not have to make.se he is. His trusted mate's poor decisions forced him into making a choice that he knew would have severe and unpleasant repercussions for both of them. Life will not be the same for either. While not precisely the same, it's not fully unlike a spouse ... who's just discovered her mate is ogling porn in the middle of the night on the computer. Right?</p>
<p>Have I missed something in re the roommate getting in trouble turning him in?? And no, observing your roommate breaking the law is in no way, shape, or form, anyway similar to discovering your wife copying down phone numbers at 2M from the Shopping Channel.</p>
<p>Again, that's not what the issue is. While your wife's shopping escapades ...and mine ...may be obscene, I'd not call either pornographic. I'd speculate you or I watching Debbie doing Dallas may be, no matter how old we become.</p>
<p>btw, that garbled #1 sentence has to be due to the Russians jamming my transmission. They've a huge investment in the porn world, you know.</p>
<p>what would an example of a false official statement be? is that lying while underoath or is it a military term?</p>
<p>It's a law term, examples are witness statements, testimony, etc. Anything that you say to be true under oath that is not. If you're a fan of baseball, a great example is the Congressional hearings of players accused of taking performance enhancing drugs. The ones who lied under oath committed perjury, which is the same as a false official statement.</p>
<p>I am sure his false official statement, was something akin to "No, Sir, they are not mine, I have never purchased or viewed any porn" If he was asked this by OSI than that is a false statement. It is not uncommon to see this charge with the others, because they want to lie to save their career, which than causes OSI to continue to investigate and then they will eventually have proof that he did lie.</p>
<p>Happens alot in fraternization charges too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is not the same.</p>
<p>Lying to a federal investigator is a crime, whether you are under oath or not. </p>
<p>It has nothing to do with perjury. Ask Martha Stewart.</p>
<p>Lying</a> is a Crime</p>
<p>*Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1001, which states that: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.</p>
<p>Under this statute it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. The falsehood must be material; but this requirement is met if the statement has the natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body which receives the false statement. This statute has an extraordinarily wide scope. Unlike perjury, the false statement need not be given under oath. Any statement, whether made orally or in writing, can violate this law. </p>
<p>The statements need not be made in a formal setting. Any false statement made to any federal agent is enough.*</p>
<p>^^^^
That's why you always preface your statement to a Federal Agent with the words "to the best of my knowledge". Never answer emphaticly and never ask to use or refer to notes. You can always fight the intent to deceive.</p>
<p>What would the probably charge have been if it was just regular porn?</p>
<p>I'll be praying for him and his family.</p>