I know we were talking about how technology affects law a few class periods ago, but I came upon an interesting case. Apparently there are cases of "zombie" computers. This is where a virus or worm is introduced to your computer that allows someone to remotely access your computer. In this particular case, the infected computer was holding and distributing child pornography. The computer in question was that of a 16 year old Arizona boy. The cops set up a raid of the boy's parent's house where he resided and forced his mother and sister out of the house. His father was asleep and woken up by gunpoint. The charges of holding one image of child porn on your computer carried up to a 10 year sentence. During the investigation the police refused the parents request to have the hard drive inspected to see if it was a zombie until the state Supreme Court stepped in. Once the hard drive was examined it was discovered that it had many infections. One of the more interesting points is that the inspector of the hard drive couldn't tell who had infected the computer or who had put the pornographic files on to the computer, either the hacker or the actual user. The boy eventually was offered a plea deal, one of many, where he pleaded guilty to "three 'class 6 undesignated offenses.'" This carried a probation period and the boy was classified as a sex offender, this was later dropped after 20/20 investigated the case.
Child Pornography laws are moral laws, or at least that's how I see them. This case shows that moral laws should be scrutinized, if allowed at all. The law stated that since the boy had porn files on his computer he should be imprisoned.
I was wondering what anyone else thought about this case.
(All information was found on a FOX News post, written by Wendy McElroy.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244009,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the case Ryan's citing is a great example of legal theories dovetailing during the resolution of a case. I don't necessarily see law exclusively adhering to legal positivism , natural law theory, or legal realism.
ReplyDeleteCertain sections of the law, though, might relate to one theory more closely than others. My personal opinion is that most law is positivist, but laws relating to the welfare of children generally appeal to a moral standard. To take a modern day pop culture example, in the decision to grant custody of Michael Jackson's children, the judge presiding over the case pretty much solely considers "what's best for the child". His/her interpretation could be subject to idiosyncratic and social biases indicating that legal realism would play a role in the outcome of the case as well.