That is not true. Using a variety of software that is currently available, one can make a lifelike image purely from imagination. One would be hard pressed to tell a real photo from a digital creation.
and also said that, if it ever becomes technologically impossible to tell the difference, Congress could constitutionally put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that a real-looking image was in fact a virtual one.
But right now the burden of proof is on the police and prosecuting attorneys. Bad idea. And would you really trust our congressional leaders to shift the burden back where it belongs, i.e. the perverts have to prove their images were created on the computer?
I will be back later to pick up my flames.
But right now the burden of proof is on the police and prosecuting attorneys. Bad idea.
...to be quite shocking. Where would you have the burden of proof be in criminal cases? Should we simply assume that people are guilty unless they can prove their innocence? You are aware, I hope, that by doing so, you will have destroyed several hundred years worth of legal tradition, and created a state with powers that can only described as truly frightening....
That is where it has always been under our system of law.
I remember a case in Phoenix last year...police and detectives had sorted through some 10,000 photos to find a kid the porno perp claimed was "virtual." They nailed his stinking carcass only because the prosecutor knew he was lying, and decided to invest the time and manpower to prove his case.
The point being that in child pornography all will become virtual children.