FL- State Court Bungles Porn Ruling

7-14-2008 Florida:

For years Floridians have benefited from a state Supreme Court that has been level-headed, fair and well-reasoned, with rulings right on the mark far more often than not. The court truly is one of the best in the nation.

But Thursday's decision allowing sexual deviants to possess pornography can best be summed up with one word: absurd.

The ruling was in the case of a Miami man who pleaded guilty to three counts of lewd or lascivious battery and exhibition on a teenage boy, a perverted crime. After a short stint in prison, he was released to continue finishing his sentence, which also included house arrest. He was charged with violating it when authorities found pornography in his home.

The disputed state law goes like this: "Unless otherwise indicated in the treatment plan provided by the sexual offender treatment program, a prohibition on viewing, owning, or possessing any obscene, pornographic, or sexually stimulating visual or auditory material, including telephone, electronic media, computer programs, or computer services that are relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern."

The law should be clear to anyone who can read the English language: Absolutely no form of pornography is allowed. But the 5-2 majority, led by Justice Raoul Cantero III, got bogged down with commas, modifiers and antecedents in a 24-page opinion that amounted to a silly grammar lesson and said the law is ambiguous.

The result is that the court decided sex offenders can have access to porn as long as it doesn't relate to a defendant's particular "deviant behavior pattern," agreeing with one lower court's interpretation and rejecting another's. How ridiculous.

This is a textbook example of the majority missing the forest for the trees. Sex offenders should not be allowed to have, view or watch any pornography while serving their sentences, period. Allowing them to view some types is like telling alcoholics they can drink beer or wine but not hard liquor. It's still dangerous.

Justices R. Fred Lewis and Kenneth Bell were right to dissent; they fully understand that the law intends to prohibit all pornographic materials.

The majority obviously didn't put enough emphasis on the type of porn found in the Miami offender's home, either: It was of young males having sex - the same type of behavior for which he was arrested. It couldn't be determined whether the people in the images were underage, according to The Miami Herald, but it shouldn't matter.

Perhaps state lawmakers got a little bit too wordy themselves and also went overboard with their use of commas in crafting the 1995 law and later expanding it. But the intent is obvious.

Based on the court's ruling, lawmakers need to amend the law to remove any doubt, perhaps by simply saying "all sexually oriented material is prohibited." Either way, this matter needs to be resolved as soon as possible. ..News Source.. by The Tampa Tribune