Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT"and being being court ordered as 100%
irrelevant"While Steven Powell's are irrelevant to the
voyeurism charges he is on trial for they are not irrelevant to the overall
picture that includes Susan Powell.The Deseret News is placing this
story in the Utah section of the news because of his linkage to his
daughter-in-law, and because of our local interest in the story.
Walt,Please read the Washington State law below and show me where it
states voyeurs are protected as long as they are on their own property. You will
find your assertion is wrong. Mr Powell's actions are not ok and for this
reason the law is on the books. (2) A person commits the crime of
voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any
person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films: (a)
Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person
being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a
reasonable expectation of privacy; or (b) The intimate areas of
another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under
circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether
in a public or private place.
Interesting - nearly a 1,000 miles away in Washington State,Steve Powell
stands trial for a series crimes committed there.while a media
delegation from the state of Utah - and being being court ordered as 100%
irrelevant - just can't seem to get enough of it.
This guy needs to be gotten off the streets and placed where he can't do
any more harm. He also needs to get some sort of therapy to help him to own up
to his unacceptable behavior and stop doing it, if possible. If he can't
control himself, then he needs to be kept away from people PERMANENTLY so he
can't do any more damage.
I don't take Walt's comments as "defending Stephen Powell"at
all. The comment seems to be defending the law. That is not a bad thing to
defend. When due process disappears, so do our freedoms.Some people
from Arizona are so overzealous, they not only have pre-judged this case and
determined Powell is the devil, but they would do anything to get him
convicted.In response, I just have to paraphrase:"
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you,
where would you hide, AZRods, the laws all being flat? This country is planted
thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think
you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give
the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "
And what home computer doesn't have thousand of family and public picture
of naked babies and half dressed children? Hope is a apt description of this
trial and injustice.It's a good thing this judge is a former
judge, he as well as some of the readers here don't seem to know the
difference in fact and fiction. Judges are supposed to make sure the laws are
properly applied and nothing else. He cannot pass judgment or even be a tie
breaker, this judges comments are out of line and his mind to serve on the bench
and should be disbarred. Remember, circumstantial evidence is
created, not fact. The fact that they have no facts is the fact and only
evidence they have which is nothing. Courts don't care about the truth,
they care about "conviction", as the judge states. Conviction by any
means available even to the point of wrongful deaths. Now who is the real
criminal?I firmly believe truth is still supreme and circumstantial
trials was invented because truth and fact is too restrictive. I think the word
circumstantial being left out of the constitution was intentional.
Walt, interesting that you appear to be defending Mr Powell's actions while
minimizing the evidence obtained by authorities.Easy to say when the
pictures were not of your children or wife.I suspect you would be
among those bashing the criminal justice system for not taking action, if later
on Mr Powell committed some physical act of aggression or abuse on one of your
loved ones.Remember, officials have thousands of pictures they
obtained from Powell's home computer.The guy has some serious
problems. Just ask his x wife and children.
No doubt that Mr. Powell has serious problems. But this prosecution is
punitive. The definition of child pornography precludes prosecution on that
count, and the prosecutors knew it - but hoped. The accusation of voyeurism is
precise, and not met by the prosecution - but they hoped. Taking pictures of
things which can be seen from a location where you have a legal right to be is
not against the law, and the prosecutors know that - but hoped. The pictures
themselves, though lewd, do not show children depicted in sexual acts. The
prosecutors knew that - but hoped.And what were they hoping for?
Hoping that the prosecution itself, or its horrible consequence, would elicit
from Mr. Powell information about the demise and whereabouts of the remains of
Susan Powell.I am ashamed of what has been done by the criminal
justice system in this case.
It would seem to me that at some point, a decent person would finally break down
and just admit to their problem and acknowledge their behavior.And if they
had any portion of a conscience remaining, they would see this as an opportunity
to confess everything before it's too late.It would also appear
that Steven Powell is now "past feeling" or in other words, beyond any
decent behavior that might help the few remaining victims some peace and
closer.The far reaching effects of a life so full of filth seems to
have endless consequences.So much for porn being a victimless behavior.
"He [Judge Paul Cassell] said circumstantial cases are common in criminal
matters and prosecutors have been very successful in getting
convictions."Unfortunately the Utah DA was apparently unaware of
that, as the circumstantial evidence against Josh Powell was certainly strong
enough for an arrest, but for lack of a body, nothing else mattered...and likely
cost the lives of two innocent boys.