"Actor Paul Reubens – best known for his role as Pee- wee Herman – was charged today with misdemeanor possession of child pornography, authorities said.
And also
'The filing came one day after the arrest of actor Jeffrey Jones … Jones also is accused of a misdemeanor count of possessing child pornography. ’
(The above is from an unlinkable newswire service, though it states that Jones [Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Amadeus, Ed Wood] was also arrested on a felony charge- CNN has the story at http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/15/actor.arrested/index.html
So my question: is it only a misdemeanor to possess child pornography? I thought pretty much anything involving it was a felony. Does anybody know the law on this?
(Perhaps if the “child” was 17 or so and appeared legally of age, it would be different, but it seems disgusting that owning kiddie porn is only a misdemeanor.)
IANAL but IIRC Making child pornography is a felony, posession of the finished product is a misdemeanor. Even with child porn I would have a hard time as a juror locking someone up for 5+ years for being in posession of a kiddie porn mag. A fine, and or a couple months in county lockup and mandatory counseling will probably make enough of a mess of someones life. I am operating under the assumption that this is the only crime the person is being charged with, and has no related priors.
Depending on the jurisdiction, there is also the possibility of there being “degrees” of possesion of CP, similar to the way that if you have more than X grams of dope on you, it becomes “possesion with intent to distribute”.
Many (if not all) judges/prosecutors/defense attorneys prefer having a wider range of options than just one absolute one-size-fits-all action=offense=penalty set for any given situation. Besides, the relative worth of “misdemeanor” vs. “felony” tends to vary by jurisdiction – and both mean being charged with a criminal offense, it’s not as if “misdemeanor” meant a mere administrative infraction (like a parking ticket). We sometimes forget this.
I think Pee-Wee’s case involves some kind of ‘artsy’ depiction of minors engaged in sexual acts. IOW it may be drawings or paintings rather than photos. Reubens is known to have a big art collection. If this is the case, being that the Supreme Court struck down that law about ‘simulated kiddie porn’, I don’t see the charges sticking.
Jones on the other hand was not only charged with possessing child pornography but with attempting to hire an underage boy to pose for sexually explicit photos. If this turns out to be true not only is his career over, but he will do prison time.
The pity is that Jones has two kids (young adults) who are actors, and regardless of their innocence (or his) their careers suffer as well. Of course if he’s guilty I have no sympathy for him, but if he’s innocent he’ll still be teeing off with O.J. at the Hollywood Exiles club.