Enclave posted...
The logic the court used is sound if you ask me.
I probably agree that a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison is not justified in the case of an 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.
This is the problem with mandatory minimum sentences, there's no discretion in sentencing allowed.
Sure when you think of somebody who has child pornography you're typically thinking of some fully grown ass adult having images and video and shit of children. You don't tend to think of some 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.
Yeah, I think this is more a case of their CP classifications being ridiculously broad rather than the idea of minimum sentences for CP being too cruel. Stuff like two teens and Im assuming fiction being classified as CP is probably what led to this. imo they should work on those instead.