The Twinkie Defense
Posted: January 31st, 2007 | Author: Catherine | Filed under: Uncategorized |Sometimes, the email surprises me. This is especially the case with some of the email about the Julie Amero case that has been discussed on these pages and links given on FlyingHamster. A number of the correspondence have centered on the theme that I (and people who are drawing attention to the Amero matter) are “bleeding hearts”. We are supplying to those people using child pornography with what is, in essence, a Twinkie Defense. This is a defense that avoids personal responsibility and blames the actions on an external factor. For example, the sugar in the pastry caused diminished capacity and therefore the defendant is not responsible for the criminal action.
From my perspective, the Amero matter has a valid defense in that the computer was compromised by malware. Can this defense be used by others who are charged with having child pornography? Certainly, it can. However, good professional forensic review of the hard drive is telling. In the Amero case, this was not done.
In fact, a valid and reliable forensic review can strengthen a case. It is possible to specify how the computer was used. The Amero case is not an example of a ‘free pass’ for those involved in the use of child pornography. Instead, it is a matter of the courts and law enforcement being aware of the intricacies of the evidence before them. The Amero case is important because all the factors were not considered - and, moreover, it may be Julie Amero on trial (and waiting on sentencing) but it easily could be you or I.
Catherine
Catherine,
I fully agree with you. Based on what I’ve read of this story, Julie Amero did not knowingly or willfully download child pornography, nor did she show it to the children. She is being made a scapegoat for the school system’s failure to adequately secure their PCs from malware, and for the legal system’s poor investigation of this case.
What I find shocking is how little her lawyer has done to try and protect her. From what I’ve seen he didn’t go to any great efforts (if any efforts at all) to get an understanding of what happened from anyone who is computer literate or has an understanding in the right fields. It’s almost as though all he did was turn up at court that day, now he doesn’t care in the least what happens despite the whole case being made a fool of.
I believe people who comment on this case must study up on the facts before commenting.
I doubt that very many of the folks that would just as soon see Julie Amero go to jail have bothered to read how malware compromises PCs, or how this particular PC was proven to be infected long before Julie Amero set foot in that classroom.
Even the network television coverage I’ve seen of this case features commentators (including a former prosecutor) that admit they know nothing about computers or the effects that malware has on them, but these same people believe they are somehow qualified to comment and condemn Julie Amero’s actions.
At the very minimum, the online Wiki encyclopedia should be required reading for all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware .
It is absolutely inexcusable that the school administration and the judiciary hung her out to dry. They have just taught an inexcusable lesson in shirking responsibility. Shame on them.
It’s important to clarify something here. The Amero case never involved “child pornography,” i.e. sexualized pictures of minors. There have been no allegations that any of the pictures shown were of anything but adults, or were illegal for an adult to possess or distribute.
I know Gonzales and crew have been trying to blur the distinction, using “child pornography” in such a broad sense that it encompasses a 13-year-old sneaking a peek at his Dad’s Playboy or a 17-year-old college freshman looking at nudie pics on the Net. But please, let’s reserve the term for the actual sexual exploitation of children to produce porn.