A couple of years ago the
Federal marshals who were responsible for escorting me to and from
court in Boise, Idaho, searched the jail cell I was in and found a
document about Jewish child sex laws in the Talmud. Though
the document was part of my case (and in an envelope marked clearly
as «confidential legal material») and contained nothing
«pornographic» at all (it was strictly a discussion of historical
law), apparently the title of the document alone was enough for them
to confescate it as «child pornography» (see: "Child Porn" Found In My Cell). And now, here in
USP Terre Haute, Indiana (Federal «Death Row») the guards have
again prejudicially found so-called «child pornography» in my cell,
only this time they want to severely discipline me for having it, in
order to «teach me a lesson». The only problem is that like last
time (and times before when I was in state prison as a «child
rapist») the material they found does not even come close to being
«child pornography» by any standard, legal or otherwise. It is only
«porn» in the minds of those who accuse me, and then only because
of what THEY imagine it represents to me, not because of what it IS.
And, like all the times before, and regardless of what the material
may actually be, a record is being established that indicates
(falsely) that I have a habit of collecting child pornography, even
while I'm incarcerated. It's a perfect example of a self-fulfilling
criminal profile.
In the case at hand, my
girlfriend has sent me a few pictures that she printed from the Vogue
Paris Website of a beautiful and famous child model named Thylane Blondeau. My girlfriend prints pictures for me in almost every
letter of stuff she finds interesting and/or related to what she is
discussing in her letter. She normally does not send pictures of
children, and I have never asked her to do so. But, in this case the
«determined» look on Thylane Blondeau's face caught my girlfriend's
interest. So, she sent several images of Blondeau famously dressed,
made-up, and posing as an adult for various advertisements. In every
photograph Blondeau did indeed have a very stern and «determined»
expression. But, none of the images were pornographic, unless you
think a shirtless prepubescent girl (with no breasts or even hint
thereof) is pornography. It just so happened that one of the images
showed Blondeau posing with no shirt, and that was the image
that the «correctional staff» here in Terre Haute thought «appears
to be child pornography».
You have to remember that
this picture was sent to me through the mail. So it was opened and
inspected by the mailroom before it was issued to me. I had no reason
in the world to think anything was «wrong» with it. In fact, I have
seen far more arousing pictures of children in popular magazines like
Reader's Digest, or National Geographic. And if I do find a picture
of a child particularly arousing then I get rid of it. I don't keep
pictures of children in my cell for sexual reasons and I never have
(despite my «criminal profile»). So, you can imagine how
flabbergasted I was when I found out that once again I was being
accused of having child porn in my cell. And it doesn't matter if I
am «found guilty» or not, because the «record» has been
established and even if somewhere down the line someone officially
admits that a «mistake» was made and the picture isn't child
pornography after all, this «disposition» will be burried and
effectively lost beneath the initial accusation. So, there's nothing
I can do now except try to avoid the disciplinary repercussions.
Because of the
«seriousness» of my offense, the «Unit Team» referred the incident report (informally called a «shot» around here) to the
«DHO» (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) with an explicit
recommendation that I lose all my «privileges» in order to «deter
any futher violations of this nature». Never mind that this is the
first «shot» of any kind I've gotten in Federal prison, and never
mind that it was only one picture that according to B.O.P. policy and
Federal Law isn't even close to being «pornographic» much less
«child pornography». Apparently, the accusation alone is what makes
the «offense» so «serious».
I prepared a written
two-page statement in my defense that explains why I had no
reason to think the image was «unauthorized». Along with this
statement I included copies of B.O.P. Policy («Program Statement
Inmate Correspondence») and Federal Law (18 USC 2256)
that clearly defines «child pornography». I also made some copies
of pictures of children in magazines and other materials (books and
letters) issued to me through the mailroom that might «appear» to
be child pornography (if you consider bare-chested little girls and
naked baby butts pornographic) but, of course, are not. My hope here
is to establish a pattern of what I have been «authorized» to have
in the past (so they can't say I received the picture in the mail by
mistake and should have «reported it» or something).
I don't know when I will
see the «DHO» for the final disposition. But, my written statement
with all the supporting documents has been submitted, so they should
have no excuse to find me «guilty» of anything. They may decide
that this image of Thylane Blondeau is «inappropriate» for
«security» reasons (and even that would be a stretch), but that
still doesn't make it «child pornography», nor does it make me a
culprit. In fact, the «shot» alone, because of what it implies I am
guilty of, is more of a «threat to institutional security» than the
picture itself could ever have been. The only threats and abuse I
have received since I've been in Federal custody have all come from
staff, not other prisoners at all. And a «shot» like this only
reinforces prison staff's reasons for threatening and harassing me,
regardless of what the picture itself is or isn't.
So, we'll see what
happens. I may still be «found guilty» simply because of what I'm
on «Death Row» for. But, if I am found guilty it won't be because I
am guilty of anything, except being a «sex offender».
