# Why do jurors have to look at child porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 3, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633 "2012-02-03T05:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/61 "2012-02-07T20:48:58Z")
> [@Boris\_Allen](#): > > Frankly the entire jury system is completely flawed and always has been. Imo, every criminal trial of significance should be before a panel of, say, 3 professionally qualified, highly trained judges who can cope with such evidence and have the correct experience to differentiate between fact and bending of the truth. Wishful thinking, and a costly implementation perhaps, but there is no price too high to pay for real justice and fair trials. As things stand, letting 12 randomers decide the truth based on facts and manipulations presented by barristers (of varying competence), is it any surprise when you hear of horrendous miscarriages of justice??? If the jury system was designed to get convictions then yes that would make sense, however it is really designed to limit government power. There is a long past of governments who use the legal system to intimidate and oppress people and juries are supposed to act as the finders of fact to midigate the conflict of interest of having the government act as prosecutor and judge. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/62 "2012-02-08T00:09:27Z")
> [@Boris\_Allen](#): > > I think what I’m struggling to understand is why it would cause a lot of people to become upset. I wouldn’t classify myself as a particularly unsensitive chap, but I’m perfectly capable of seeing images that depict graphic horror/violence without breaking down. I just don’t understand how this would generate a different reaction if it is merely like porn just “replace the sexy adult with a naked child doing the same thing”. There really are people who cannot cope with some kinds of visual stimuli. This comes up often regarding pictures of dead people, from war zones, genocide areas, riots, the situation in Syria, etc. Some people can look at such a photo and say, “Hm. A deader. So it goes.” Others throw up, faint, have panic attacks, etc. Same with child porn. You’re lucky enough to have a kind of toughness, an ability to keep the horror from being emotionally overpowering. But not everyone is. (I can’t watch horror movies, of the modern “splatter” variety. I know it’s all just actors and special effects, but I can’t cope. I start having panic reactions. You wouldn’t have wanted me on, say, the O.J. Simpson jury.) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/63 "2012-02-08T01:18:13Z")
> [@Boris\_Allen](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > IMO, it was not being able to talk to anyone about it that was making him drink. He’s sober again. He hasn’t shared details about what he saw, and he probably won’t. He’s never shared details about combat either. > > Ah a retired marine. It’s very possible that during his service he would have seen amongst many horrors, elements of child abuse etc - such is the nature of war zones. Is it possible he is sensitive to this because it triggers memories of bad stuff he has had the misfortune of witnessing in person himself? Same thought I had when I read that statement, specially with the thing about never talking about his war experiences either and the matter of not being able to talk. That he’s is carrying with him something heavy and painful and this just hit the right (wrong) buttons. Thinking of it, truth is I have no idea what my own tolerance for heinous evidence would be if acually faced with it. I’ve seen some pretty twisted shyte in my time but I know the creativity of human depravity seems bound only by the laws of physics. ---
**Author:** ![kjckjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kjckjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kjckjc)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/64 "2012-02-08T13:34:20Z")
Quick and idle question. Why is it not ok to say “The defendant is charged with possessing 140 child porn photo’s, and here is a representative sample of 14 of them”, but if you are charged with possession of 140 kilos of cocaine, the lab doesn’t have to test all of it? Has a defense attorney ever tried to argue that the parts tested by the lab were actually coke, the rest was baking soda? ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_Allen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@Boris\_Allen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_Allen)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/65 "2012-02-08T18:58:03Z")
> [@kjckjc](#): > > Quick and idle question. Why is it not ok to say “The defendant is charged with possessing 140 child porn photo’s, and here is a representative sample of 14 of them”, but if you are charged with possession of 140 kilos of cocaine, the lab doesn’t have to test all of it? Has a defense attorney ever tried to argue that the parts tested by the lab were actually coke, the rest was baking soda? Because the law is grotesquely biased and unfair? Every one of those images needs to be confirmed, as should every last ounce of cocaine be tested. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/66 "2012-02-08T21:09:30Z")
Also the prosecution may seek “140 counts of CP” meaning 140 distinct individual instances so as to extract a plea by threatening to pile up concurrent/consecutive sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633/67 "2012-02-08T21:51:20Z")
> [@kjckjc](#): > > Quick and idle question. Why is it not ok to say “The defendant is charged with possessing 140 child porn photo’s, and here is a representative sample of 14 of them”, but if you are charged with possession of 140 kilos of cocaine, the lab doesn’t have to test all of it? Has a defense attorney ever tried to argue that the parts tested by the lab were actually coke, the rest was baking soda? A large bag of powder has a kind of homogeneity that a collection of photos does not. Also, the question we’re talking about is 140 separate charges of possession. If the defendant were under only a single charge of possession, then, certainly, only one photo would be required. 14 would be more than sufficient to warrant conviction. When a person is charged with possession of cocaine, there isn’t a separate legal charge lodged for each pound in the bag. If there were, then you would have a valid point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jurors-have-to-look-at-child-porn/611633.md?page=3)