Sonoma County D.A. wants Karr to face child porn charges from '01

The Press Democrat ^ | 8-29-06 | LORI A. CARTER

[Tamar1973]

Sonoma County authorities will seek to have John Mark Karr extradited to California to face child pornography charges on hold since he failed to appear for a court hearing five years ago.

District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua said the decision was made Monday after Colorado authorities dropped their case against Karr in the JonBenet Ramsey killing.

Karr, a one-time substitute teacher in Petaluma area schools, is wanted on a no-bail warrant issued by a Sonoma County judge after he failed to appear at a December 2001 court hearing in a misdemeanor child pornography case.

Sheriff's detectives said they found five photos of children in sexual situations on a computer seized from Karr's Petaluma residence in April 2001.

If convicted, Karr, 41, may not face any more jail time than he served in 2001, but he would be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

That led to the unusual, and potentially expensive, move to extradite a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, Passalacqua said.

"This is an unusual case, which warrants unusual actions," he said .

[Tamar1973]

I agree with the DA on this one. Even though it's a misdemeanor, if he's convicted, he will have to register as a sex offender, which will help us protect our vulnerable children from attacks.

[Uncle Hal]

I live in Sonoma County and I guess the media circus will move here. Hopefully all the publicity will die down.

[paddles]

Concur, but extraditing this creep over a six y/o misdemeanor smacks of yet another runaway DA who wants headlines.

[omega4412]

Better that the DA get headlines now for doing this than that he get headlines later for not having done this.

[Rte66]

No kidding! Like the judges in FL that let the killers of Carlie Brucia and Jessica Lunsford go the *first few* times - and the juries in CA who let Samantha Runnion's killer back out on the streets.

That also goes for the families of these perverts who stick up for them, lie for them, enable them to keep on offending until some little child dies.

[BaBaStooey]

This guy is to children what John Malkovich's character from "In the Line of Fire" was to Presidents.

If he can be charged and locked up on anything, it would be a good idea. Of course, some other judge will inevitably let him walk in about a year or less, but still, any day he is behind bars is a day he isn't out there doing something unmentionable.

[Continental Soldier]

Good point.

[proxy_user]

As I understand, the definition of a misdemeanor is a crime with a maximum sentence of less than one year. The judge will follow the law as it is written.

[Continental Soldier]

"Children in sexual situations." What does that mean? Were the children naked? Were they simulating intercouse? Were they posed in sexually provacative positions? Why can't we ever get the facts from the police! Why are we so often expected to assume that the police and the DA know what they are doing? Make no mistake about it, this fellow is definitely a 'sicko' and we should all be glad he has been identified and will be tracked as such. But what do the real charges against him actually amount to? Can anyone clarify this one?

[Republicus2001]

Hopefully all the publicity will die down.

can you pass me what you're smokin'?

[Enterprise]

"That is a very significant consequence. We take child pornography very serious and expect that to happen in this case."

The DA is probably doing the best he can in this case. At the time, child porn involving children under the age of 14 was a misdemeanor, per California Penal Code 311.11. The updated law changes it to being under the age of 18, but it is still a misdemeanor. It is a felony if someone has a prior conviction.

[Enterprise]

Here's the current law in Kaleefornia on child porn:

311.11. (a) Every person who knowingly possesses or controls any matter, representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, the production of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 years, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both the fine and imprisonment. (b) If a person has been previously convicted of a violation of this section, or of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 311.2, or subdivision (b) of Section 311.4, he or she is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for two, four, or six years. (c) It is not necessary to prove that the matter is obscene in order to establish a violation of this section. (d) This section does not apply to drawings, figurines, statues, or any film rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, nor does it apply to live or recorded telephone messages when transmitted, disseminated, or distributed as part of a commercial transaction.

[wagglebee]

Even though it's a misdemeanor, if he's convicted, he will have to register as a sex offender, which will help us protect our vulnerable children from attacks.

If people don't know to keep their children away from this pervert by now, I don't think having his name in a data base will change anything. I would like to see him locked up for the remainder of his life though.

[Continental Soldier]

Thank you very much for the clarification. Appreciated here.

[rivercat]

This section does not apply to drawings, figurines, statues, or any film rated by the Motion Picture Association of America

So Hollywood gets a free pass, of course

[BaBaStooey]

Basically it means Brooke Shields gets a free pass.

[Enterprise]

I thought the same. If it's child porn but it's rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, then it's ok. Good grief!

[valkyrieanne]

I thought the same. If it's child porn but it's rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, then it's ok. Good grief! A film with 17 year old actors engaging in simulated, not real sex as part of the story would be considered 'child pornography' under that statute the way it's written, if that exception wasn't there. The statute already says that the filmed depiction does not have to be considered obscene. It does not say the actors have to be nude. The Zeferelli Romeo and Juliet movie would be actionable, as would the film Summer of '42, with a fifteen or sixteen year old boy having an affair with a 30 something woman, and including a sex scene. Clearly there has to be some way to distinguish between legitimate stories about teenagers that involve sex, and pornography with young children.