NY Law Professor "Baby Rapist " Watcher

[BrickCop]

He was convicetd of having over 150,000 child porn pics on his PC. Including clips of girls as young as 3 crying in pain as they are raped!!

His defense was that anybody could have downloaded that material and that it was essentially a 'victimless' crime.

The University immediately fired the 2 computer techies who discovered the stuff on his work PC while reprogramming them.

The Judge said it was a tough decison if he should get any time because he has had "to face" it. He however showed no remorse and actually proclaimed he enjoyed doing it. She gave him 6 months- he could've got 4 years.

Lastly can you believe he had two rows of supporters from the university in the courtroom!

WTF is this world coming to?!

Anyone else hear/read about this sick SOB?

[PeacefulDragon]

WTF?! Do you have a link for this story?

[shooter1201]

WHY did the university fire the computer techs that found it? I assume they had permission to be working on his WORK computer in the FIRST PLACE? THAT smells of COVER UP!!!!!

[BunnyFoo-Foo]

Ya'll keep posting things that make me want to cry.....I dont evenknow why I read it knowing that anything with the words baby and rapist is sure to upset me.....God...how can people like that even exist????

[ 06-24-2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: BunnyFoo-Foo ]

[ProWriter]

I actually had Professor Samuels for Commercial Transactions/UCC when I was a student at NYLS...really brilliant guy as far as law and academics go...Yale undergrad, Columbia Law Review, etc. One of the few professors whose lectures actually challenged me enough to bother preparing for class so that I could participate or contribute to the class instead of doing my bills or just eating until it was over. When he gave me a B- I was proud of having earned it because it was such a difficult class.

My only real interaction with him was standing nose to nose with him (actually, nose to balding scalp) in a very crowded elevator holding my stack of whole wheat bread and plate of tuna salad for class as usual. He asked me in front of a packed elevator to please not eat during his class anymore, so I wolfed it all down before class started instead of all the way through the lecture as usual.

Yes, the school's reaction was to fire the PC techs for reporting him, and they've already filed suit to the tune of 12 million or so against the school for it, which I imagine will be settled for a substantial sum and apologies and reinstatement, etc. The techies only had possession of the computer, in the first place, because he brought it in for them to look at after it locked up on him.

As far as the crime goes, I have some mixed feelings about it. Obviously, anybody who actually touches a child sexually, or who is actually engaged in exploiting and abusing children by producing child porn should have the book thrown at him.

If Professor Samuels was "supporting" child porn by purchasing it and the profits of his purchases turned into more funds for exploiting more children, then I agree it constitutes a crime.

OTOH, if all he did was download pictures from places where they were already posted for free (and I have no idea whether, or to what extent that's true), then I consider it a victimless crime. Like other (semi) normal people, I can't even imagine deriving sexual gratification from infants myself, but I feel more sorry for, than angry at someone with that disgusting interest PROVIDED theirs is strictly a passive interest.

Those of you with LE experience with this kind of thing know that people with his "fetish" are likely to have experienced some kind of abuse themselves at an early age. I do not think that "excuses" anybody in the LEAST who actually ACTS on his urges...but to me someone who has the misfortune of having that urge and who lives a "normal" life and REFRAINS throughout his life from ever acting out or victimizing a child is someone to be pitied rather than despised.

None of us can control our urges, all we can ever control is our actions, so I give "credit" to anybody with similar urges who recognizes how disgusting it would be to ever act on them, and lives a respectful life with all his deviant fantasies locked up secretly throughout his entire life.

I think it's a crime to purchase child porn because it perpetuates a market for it, and obviously, it's a disgusting crime to participate in producing it, or to "commission" it to be produced for you...but morally speaking, as sick as it is to the rest of us, I don't think it's a crime (morally speaking), if all he did was download pictures that we all already agree are sick, if he never funded or otherwise played any role directly or indirectly in producing child porn or victimizing any child.

[ 06-24-2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: ProWritingServices4LEOs ]

[Niteshift]

I'm going to NOT post my initial thoughts to that last response. I'm sure there will be others along to tell you how ridiculous that is soon enough and I don't want to stifle their fun.

[ProWriter]

I'm not defending the guy OK? I think his interest or fetish is as disgusting as you think it is. I'm saying if his disgusting fantasies never leave his own head, if all he does, for example is fantasize about it or draw disgusting pictures in pencil for his own viewing or whatever, then as disgusting as the interest is to the rest of us, he hasn't contributed to victimizing anybody. What if (hypothetically), he never actually possessed any pictures at all but the thoughts were still in his head, nevertheless? Should the thoughts be a crime morally speaking? If all he did was view without contributing money or otherwise supporting the crime of producing the stuff, what's the difference between that and just thinking about it. Have "fun" responding if you want, but if you don't misunderstand my point or you respond as though I'm condoning child exploitation, I don't see the room for "fun".

[BunnyFoo-Foo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteshift:
I'm going to NOT post my initial thoughts to that last response. I'm sure there will be others along to tell you how ridiculous that is soon enough and I don't want to stifle their fun.

---

AAAWWWW, come on....I started, but stopped.
When I log on to my computer every day all sorts of info is trickling out. Nick Jr.com knows I visit them often..so does PBS.com.....and that helps let them know that what they have to offer appeals to X amount of people.
When moron, slime of the earth visit sites with child porn and babies being brutally tortured as they are raped by grown men....they know how many visits they get in a day and with each visit, the demand for this trash goes up. They know which photos are downloaded frequently so they know what the viewers want It is bait and I will bet money that this darling prof pays for this stuff in the privacy of his own home. What next....he will claim he was doing research on pedophilia for a briefing session with his law students and needed some jpg.s of babies being raped...it is gross..... whether he paid for it or not. He is a deviant waste of life if he did download anything of that nature; I dont care if he went to Yale or not. He is supporting that site everytime he downloads anything for his victimless pleasure. Those children are raped over and over everytime someone downloads those free photos...how can he say there is no victim. Tell that to the children who are physically and emotionally scarred for life.....

[ 06-24-2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: BunnyFoo-Foo ]

[ProWriter]

Bunny, I'm not disagreeing with your feelings on the topic of child porn or how disgusting it is. I don't know if he visited any web sites (probably he did), and I don't know if he paid for it (I'm guessing he might have, although he's claimed he didn't). Nor do I particularly care about the guy just because I happened to have him for a professor. I think he's a sick bastard ok?

I just think there's different degrees of sick bastarditis and from what he claims, all he did was DL from newsgroups or whatever. I still think it's sick, but there's a difference if that's what he did. It's still sick, but that's exactly the same principle why the law recognizes the difference between cartoons and other artificially created SICK pictures and real SICK pictures. Drawing sick pictures doesn't victimize anybody and downloading free sick pictures is closer to that than it is to actually victimizing a child. I think you're all reacting from emotions and not discussing the point I tried to raise, because (again) I wasn't defending him just 'cause he was a good professor.

[Mike Tx]

quote:

---

The University immediately fired the 2 computer techies who discovered the stuff on his work PC while reprogramming them.

---

People that do that sick stuff are out there. The above action is what troubles me.

[n567]

I'm ignorant here, exactly how is this a victimless crime?

[Niteshift]

all he did was DL from newsgroups or whatever."

IF that was all he did.......

Experience, both mine and others on this forum, shows that pedophilia is not something you control. It controls you. It never gets better, it only gets worse.

The flaw in your ridiculous theory that it was free, is that there are plenty of pedophiles that will fulfill requests for pictures depicting certain acts, and if they don't have them "in stock", they will make them. So f*cking what if no money changes hands, there is still a victim.

[ProWriter]

Mike, when I heard the school's reaction I was more shocked than when I heard it was Samuels in the first place.

N567...I'm not saying child porn is "victimless", obviously. I think the people who physically victimize children deserve to be executed. I think people who organize, solicit, and create the machine that is responsible for victimizing children deserve to be executed. I think people who knowingly finance the production of material victimizing children deserve to be executed. I think people who create and perpetuate the market for the victimization of children by paying to join child porn sites or purchasing it by mail order, etc deserve to be punished severely, and mainly as a detterrent to others so inclined.

The material itself is nothing BUT "victims" and people whose sexuality somehow got so screwed up that they sexualize victimization, or children, and in the foulest situation, the combination of the two.

Even though I understand that nobody "chooses" to be aroused by victimization, and even though I know that nobody "chooses" to be sexually aroused by children, I believe such a person has a moral and legal duty not to ACT on his urges. If someone is sexually attracted to children or to brutalizing children I think he has a moral and legal duty to seek mental health counseling, or to have himself locked up voluntarily, or to kill himself before he allows himself to touch a child.

When it comes down to someone who--for whatever reason--realizes he's excited by the suffering and victimization of others, I think he has a moral duty to make sure that he never ACTS on his urges, and he has a moral duty not to contribute indirectly to it.

It sends chills up my spine to think about what else was going on in that bald head while I was listening to him teach the Uniform Commercial Code by day. But if the guy truthfully didn't indirectly support it by buying any of it, or paying to view any of it, and the sick bastard was locked in his study masturbating privately to a bunch of sick pictures of victimized children that he found on-line while his own daughters were applying to colleges...and if he never victimized them, and he never victimized (or instigated anybody else to victimize) any other child...I still think he's sick, but I give him credit for locking himself in his study to gratify himself...and I don't consider him personally responsible for doing anything that caused anybody to be victimized. I have no idea whether he was just too cheap to pay for downloadable filth, OR if that's the line he actually drew in his own head and the reason he only downloaded from newsgroups as he's claimed.

Nite, I'm not sure exactly what a guy who "only" downloads free posted filth brutally victimizing
innocent children deserves...but I don't think he deserves to be executed...and I don't really think he deserves to be punished as severely as anybody who CAUSES any child to be victimized...and I'm not saying one can't contribute to victimizing children unless one "pays" for it.

I'm not sure what a person deserves who uses his natural talent as a painter to paint or sketch 100,000 canvases of similar fictional filth that he sells to sick bastards who masturbate to it in the privacy of their own homes instead of putting their hands on children, either...I just don't see them as all that different from Samuels. But it's not because "there aren't any victims", OK?

[ 06-24-2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: ProWritingServices4LEOs ]

[auntysuz63]

I'm just enough of a cynic to believe if he downloads it on the computer for his jollies, it won't be very long when the pictures won't be enough to satisfy his sick urges. Before too long, he won't want to be an observer anymore, he'll want to be a player, if he hasn't started already and we just haven't found out about it. And six months in jail won't do a thing to curb his appetites.

[ 06-24-2003, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: auntysuz63 ]

[ateamer]

Looking at child porn is not victimless. As long as there is a demand, whether paid for or not, children will be victimized. What he did was morally wrong. No one in his right mind who gives a damn about the victims could argue that what he did was in any way acceptable.