I read this over at /r/news on saturday via CNN. It's quite disturbing, could barely fall asleep; Saturday's article was nauseating to say the least.
I would appreciate if Russie (whose brother is a lawyer) and/or others involved directly or indirectly with U.S Law could clear my doubts about this issue: This man was caught with child-pornography; substantial, indisputable, evidence of possession of illegal pornographic material; however, authorities collected snippets of eavesdropped chat-dialogue where this person described his 'plans' of caging the children; torturing; castrating; raping, and finally eating them. (in no particular order)
If you take away the child-pornography, could you take into custody someone who 'vacillated' a potential intent to commit a crime? Are chat conversations enough evidence to stand in court? I thought in order to prosecute anyone, you had to have 'indisputable evidence' that this person was indeed guilty of committing XYZ crime. It seems, however, without child-pornography, authorities would approach this individual as a 'potential criminal', in other words: a crime-prevention mechanism? If so, are there civil liberties violated by doing this? The plaintiff would accuse this man of potentially endangering a group of children, but is that really the case? Is chat-dialogue indisputable evidence of criminal activity? It seems like certain legal boundaries would be blurred; I, by no means, support this monster, he should be raped incessantly by gigantic black men until the day he dies, but I wonder (devil's advocate) if it would stand in court (without the child pornography).
Last edited by Lagrangian on Sep-18-2013 at 01:22