« Notable comments about federal sentencing trends from Senator Charles Grassley | Main | Federal fiscal discipline at DOJ might mean increases in good-time credits »

January 26, 2011

Pedophile who claimed child porn kept him from molesting kids gets two (consecutive!) life sentences for the porn

Especially in the wake of the recent robust debate on this blog concerning police stings and on-line child sex offenses (following this post), I found this new state sentencing story out of Texas quite intriguing.  The piece is headlined "Child pornographer gets two life terms; Previously served 10 yrs in prison for molestation," and here are the specifics:

A 35-year-old Round Rock man is getting two life sentences -- to run consecutively -- after he pleaded guilty to two counts of promotion of child pornography.

The case surrounding Kevin Charles Baley came to light in April 2010 when an undercover investigator from New Hampshire contacted the Round Rock Police Department saying Baley had been corresponding online with the investigator -- who had been pretending to be a 13-year-old boy.

The investigator told police he met Baley on a website frequented by pedophiles and that Baley had sent sexually explicit messages and e-mailed pornographic photos. Based on this and additional information, Round Rock officers got a search warrant for Baley’s house and seized several computers, digital storage devices and printed materials.

Authorities said a forensic examination revealed more than 1,500 photographs and 50 video clips of graphic child pornography. Police also found printed child pornography materials in Baley’s bedroom.

During an interview with Round Rock police, Baley confessed to communicating with what he thought was a young boy.  Police said he admitted he was a pedophile and preferred to talk with prepubescent children.  According to police, Baley said: “I know it’s a messed up way of thinking, but looking at the pictures keeps me from reoffending or finding another victim."

Baley has previously been convicted of indecency with a child in Williamson County, serving 10 years in prison for molesting a 10-year-old girl in 1994.

I believe Texas still has parole, and thus this defendant may still have a chance at eventual release, though perhaps an expert on Texas sentencing law knows the potential impact of the fact that the life sentences here run consecutively.  And if the defendant in fact now has little or no chance of ever getting paroled, there is obvious irony to the possibility that he might have ultimately gotten a lesser sentence had he actualy committed another actual molestation instead of taking his perversions on-line.

January 26, 2011 at 09:25 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20147e202a6bb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pedophile who claimed child porn kept him from molesting kids gets two (consecutive!) life sentences for the porn:

Comments

I am distressing myself, lately. I advocate of the elimination of 99% of crime by eliminating all repeat offenders, with the count starting at the earliest age palatable to the public. This movement should begin with the physical eradication of the hierarchy of the biggest obstacle, the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest criminal syndicate in history, the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. It has fully infiltrated our government and sets 99% of all policy, mostly to its advantage, with the public getting some crumbs to keep its rage within limits. The corruption in Mexico is amateurish compared to the sophistication of these criminals.

I find myself defending heinous defendants. Why? Because the lawyers prosecuting and judging them are lower, slimier, human vermin.

In this case, the science mostly supports the argument of the defendant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

And we have another absence of actus reus, with a fictitious victim. When I see him, I have an intent to hit Santa Claus over the head, my famous cousin, and to steal all his toys. If I am arrested for this inchoate and fictitious crime, the law looks real intelligent doesn't it? Someone explain how this prosecution would differ from the above case.

This profession is really annoying, anti-scientific, fictional, yet dangerously, and irresponsibly permissive of 23 million FBI Index felonies, with only 2 million prosecutions a year. Here is the FBI Index list, real crime.

1. Criminal Homicide

2. Forcible Rape

3. Robbery

4. Aggravated Assault

5. Burglary

6. Larceny-Theft

7. Motor Vehicle Theft

8. Arson

The lawyer has immunized 90% of it. In the 10% it bothers to prosecute, plea deals result in the mildest of sentences, so as to not scare the criminal.

How long can the public tolerate such self-dealing incompetents? This level of incompetence, decade after decade, verges on pure evil.

Ironic. As with prohibition of illegal drugs, the higher prices and profit margins fuel huge criminal enterprises, potentially generating more production than would exist at lower prices. These are likely mostly on foreign territory, and owned by people who are adversaries to the nation. Thus prohibited heroin sales finance the Taliban handsomely. The lawyer caused enrichment of the Taliban is the cause of the deaths of our heroes, not to mention their extreme obstructionism preventing the killing of the enemy. The lawyer is the biggest financier of the Taliban. Cocaine finances handsomely narco-terrorists taking down our allies. Who knows what horrendous, nightmare adversary child porn finances?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 26, 2011 10:33:42 PM

The Supreme Court endorsed Daubert standards in overturning a decision allowing polygraph evidence to exonerate a criminal defendant.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.ZS.html

With its double negative, it is hard to follow.

An appellate court ruled that a defendant had a right to use a polygraph for his defense, and remanded for retrial. The SCOTUS held that the lack of established, and accepted reliability (not meeting Daubert standards) of polygraphy makes it excluded, even if offered for the defense.

If a Daubert hearing on the prosecution evidence failed to take place in this case above, that may be reversible error. Because the defendant brought it up, the burden in a Daubert hearing would lie with the defense.

I am going to bet 10 cents. No one brings up a problem that might interfere with a huge area of prosecution, and massive lawyer employment in the prosecution, the defense, and the bench. Daubert will be completely ignored, despite Supreme Court's decision. Nor will anyone ever point out the crime was inchoate, and the attempt was against a fictional character.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 26, 2011 11:31:58 PM

How do we get from this post to "The lawyer is the biggest financier of the Taliban"? Doug, why you tolerate SC trolling is beyond me. One paltry donation in your name is scarcely worth it.

As for your question about life sentences in Texas, they're eligible for parole after 40 years. Since they're consecutive, this means he'll never get out.

Also, your speculation is incorrect that he would have gotten a lesser sentence if he'd actually molested someone. The penalty categories for both offenses are the same: 5-99 or life.

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jan 27, 2011 10:09:16 AM

hey grits, run your own blog, and let the Professor run his.

Posted by: -- | Jan 27, 2011 1:53:30 PM

anon 1:53, Unlike SC, my response was directly answering specific questions posed in Doug's post.

The professor is welcome to run his blog as he likes, just as I have the right to my opinion that tolerating SC's blather diminishes the usefulness of the comment sections and the general value of SL&P overall.

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jan 27, 2011 2:07:00 PM

Grits: Your criticism stems from partisan political bias. If I were more left wing, you would have lees trouble trying to avoid reading the comments. You refuse to debate to avoid the 10 layers of argument and evidence under each assertion. The left wants censorship because the facts abandoned it 100 years ago. You likely support college speech codes.

Example of one layer: This left wing outlet story on the financing of the Taliban. Evey dollar comes from the mistaken anti-drug public policy run by the lawyer profession and the lawyer protection of criminals, instead of their eradication. Closer to Afghanistan, the lawyer is embedded down to the tactical unit and cancels commanders' orders to kill the enemy. We can defund the Taliban by arresting the US lawyer hierarchy collaborating with the enemy.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132205104/talibans-cash-flow-grows-from-heroin-trade-crime

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 27, 2011 10:44:40 PM

Grits: Do agree with the Supreme Court that Daubert applies to criminal evidence? You are not answering the argument of the defendant that child porn decreases his likelihood to sexually abuse real children. The data across several nations supports that argument. Wasn't that a major point of the posting? See the title in bold font. I tried to address that in a way defense counsel overlooked for some reason.

"Pedophile who claimed child porn kept him from molesting kids gets two (consecutive!) life sentences for the porn"

Then I provided a review article with available references for verification. That is blather to you, however.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 27, 2011 10:51:50 PM

I think Grits is off just a little on the total years. Parole eligibility kicks in after 30 years in Texas, I believe. The result would seemingly be the same though. A minimum of 60 years for a 35 year-old man means he's never getting out.

Posted by: Adam Gershowitz | Jan 28, 2011 12:02:01 AM

Hello, I am Brian, the paralegal student. It is quite shocking to know about the news. The verdict is absolutely right. What was done by Kevin, was merciless. This is the only way to cease this kind of nuisance.

Posted by: George Allen | Feb 2, 2011 6:34:15 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB