The Court found the statute prohibiting felons from having pornography was ambiguous. The statute states:
``Unless otherwise indicated in the treatment plan provided by the sexual offender treatment program, a prohibition on viewing, accessing, owning or possessing any obscene, pornographic or sexually stimulating visual or auditory material, including telephone, electronic media, computer programs or computer services that are relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern.''
The court holding said that the highlighted phrase did not mean a total prohibition on pornography but only that which related to the offense itself. In this instance Donald Kasischke pleaded guilty in 2001 to three counts each of lewd or lascivious battery and exhibition on a 15-year-old boy. But when the pornography involving male sex acts could not be established as between underage males, the court said he had not violated his conditions of probation.
One can only hope that the Florida legislature will immediately clarify the statute to state that absolutely no pornography is allowed.
Allowing any convicted sex offender to have any type of pornographic material in his home or on his computer makes no sense whatsoever.
Do you agree with my feeling on the subject? Please post your comments.
Posts
1 comment:
I believe the fault here lies more with the legislature than the courts. It seems that the court followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit. Why in the world did the legislature feel the need to include "relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern"?? Why is it that legislative bodies comprised of highly educated men and women cannot come up with concise and unambiguous language to keep convicted sex offenders from legally possessing pornography??
Post a Comment