LEGAL Man facing 30 years in jail on child porn charge for pics of 17 YO girlfriend when he was 20

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/05/sexy-pictures-17-child-porn-arrest

Man Faces 30 Years in Prison on Child Porn Charges for Taking Sexy Photos of 17-Year-Old Girlfriend When He was 20
Since Ohio's age of consent is 16, it was legal for Edward Marrero to have sex but not to sext.

Robby Soave Jul. 5, 2018

"A 27-year-old Cleveland man faces between 15 and 30 years in prison for allegedly producing child pornography. But no children were harmed by his actions: The man merely took consensual, sexually suggestive pictures of his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 20.

The age of consent in Ohio is 16, so it was legal for the man, Edward Marrero, to have sex with his girlfriend. It was a crime, however, to photograph her the in the nude, because the federal definition of child pornography covers images of anyone under the age of 18.

According to Cleveland.com, Marrero accidentally admitted his conduct while on the stand in federal court, testifying in defense of a roommate who was also facing child porn charges. (The article does not clarify whether the roommate's alleged crimes were as farcical as Marrero's, and it does not give the context of Marrero's inadvertent confession.) As soon as Marrero had finished testifying, the feds arrested him.

FBI agents later interviewed Marrero's ex-girlfriend, who confirmed that she was 17 at the time the pictures were taken. A conviction will force Marrero to register as a sex offender and could land him in prison for up to 30 years. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's guide to federal child pornography law, "a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography...face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison." Under Ohio law, which also sets the cutoff for child pornography at 18, Marrero would have faced between six months and eight years.

It defies all reason that a man could go to prison for three decades for taking a sexy picture of a teenager who was deemed fully capable of consenting to sex. This is a travesty of justice, a violation of consenting adults' sexual freedoms, an abuse of mandatory minimum sentencing, a blow to states' rights, and an absurd waste of the FBI's time."
 

Snyper

Veteran Member
It defies all reason that a man could go to prison for three decades for taking a sexy picture of a teenager who was deemed fully capable of consenting to sex.

This is a travesty of justice, a violation of consenting adults' sexual freedoms, an abuse of mandatory minimum sentencing, a blow to states' rights, and an absurd waste of the FBI's time."
It's simply following the statutes as written.

He won't go to jail for 30 years.
He will probably get a suspended sentence and probation.

People get too worked up over every little thing.

Either laws have to be enforced as written, or they should all just be ignored.

It can't work both ways.
 

rlm1966

Veteran Member
It's simply following the statutes as written.

He won't go to jail for 30 years.
He will probably get a suspended sentence and probation.

People get too worked up over every little thing.

Either laws have to be enforced as written, or they should all just be ignored.

It can't work both ways.

Based on how unequally they are applied depending on who you are, who you know or if you can afford a private attorney or not I would suggest that they be ignored. Now if they were applied equally to all I would take a different opinion on ignoring them and I suspect that we would have far fewer laws and a bit more common sense if everyone faced the same result when violating a law.
 

Elza

Veteran Member
Based on how unequally they are applied depending on who you are, who you know or if you can afford a private attorney or not I would suggest that they be ignored. Now if they were applied equally to all I would take a different opinion on ignoring them and I suspect that we would have far fewer laws and a bit more common sense if everyone faced the same result when violating a law.

Pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Of course there is a proper answer to any legal travisity: Jury nullification. It's a shame so few people understand this concept.
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
Pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Of course there is a proper answer to any legal travisity: Jury nullification. It's a shame so few people understand this concept.

every time I go into a jury veneri and the judge asks if any questions I hold up a FIJA phamplet and ask him about jury nullification. Boom he dismisses me, every single time, and I'd love to sit on a jury and work towards justice as opposed to just us.

Usually I get a warning about contempt of court, then the judge notices that there are some phones with cameras rolling and just says how he's doing me a favor and dismissing me instead of contempt charges.

I have nothing but contempt for the current system of just us.

Not a snow balls chance in a Alabama Summer of me ever getting a day in court, cause first thing I'd do was make sure jury nullification was brought up in front of the jurors. Fun and I have the time to mess with em and the judges all know me and don't want that kind of stink, they gotta stand for election.
 
every time I go into a jury veneri and the judge asks if any questions I hold up a FIJA phamplet and ask him about jury nullification. Boom he dismisses me, every single time, and I'd love to sit on a jury and work towards justice as opposed to just us.

Usually I get a warning about contempt of court, then the judge notices that there are some phones with cameras rolling and just says how he's doing me a favor and dismissing me instead of contempt charges.

I have nothing but contempt for the current system of just us.

Not a snow balls chance in a Alabama Summer of me ever getting a day in court, cause first thing I'd do was make sure jury nullification was brought up in front of the jurors. Fun and I have the time to mess with em and the judges all know me and don't want that kind of stink, they gotta stand for election.

How much shit would you be in if you didn’t mention it until deliberations began?
 
Top