Man who kept sexts between daughter & boyfriend goes to cops for help, gets arrested - Polidicks

[quote]A man who kept sexts sent between his teenage stepdaughter and her boyfriend because he wanted police to act has been convicted of possessing child pornography and placed on the sex offenders register. In a case that could have consequences for parents concerned about sexting, 57-year-old Ashan Ortell was sentenced in the County Court this week after admitting to copying the naked images on to a computer and USB stick. Despite warnings he could be prosecuted, Ortell kept the pictures because he was not satisfied by the response from police and the girl's school. He had informed them about the sexual photos his stepdaughter had sent to her boyfriend. After refusing to delete the pictures, Ortell's computer and USBs were seized in multiple raids by police in 2013. They found 18 images on the devices. At the time Ortell was caring for his ex-partner's daughter and his three younger children. He and the girl's mother had separated sometime earlier. In sentencing Ortell to a 12-month good behaviour bond, Judge Jane Patrick said it was a "very unusual case" which differed from the typical possession of child pornography where images were kept for sexual motivation or the gratification of others. "That is not the case in your situation," she said. "You kept the images, I am satisfied, because you were very concerned about what had been going on and foolishly decided that this was the way to deal with it." The court heard that Ortell had copied the pictures after confiscating a phone from his stepdaughter, who at the time was aged about 15. While Ortell's crime was at the "lowest end of this type of offending in terms of moral culpability", Judge Patrick said the law stated that people may not keep images of a sexual nature of children. "There is no suggestion of any exploitation of them by anybody. You made no attempt to conceal the images," she said. "In fact you were so concerned that you contacted the authorities about the images." Under child pornography laws, Ortell could have faced a maximum five years in prison over the conviction. However Judge Patrick said any sentence must be proportionate to the severity of the crime. The court heard that Ortell had no prior criminal history and had excellent prospects of rehabilitation. Judge Patrick said the effect on the girl or her boyfriend was unclear as no victim impact statement was given. Under his guilty plea, Ortell was told he would have to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders register for eight years. [/quote] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/man-who-told-police-about-sexts-sent-by-stepdaughter-convicted-under-child-porn-laws-20161007-grxsom.html[/url]

I'm not gonna speculate on what might actually have prompted this guy to keep the text records and images, but give me a fucking break. If the fella had any intention of exploiting this "child pornography," why would he have brought it to the police?

[QUOTE]Under his guilty plea, Ortell was told he would have to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders register for eight years.[/QUOTE] What the fuck. The US sex offender laws are so retarded, holy shit. It's like when kids get put on the register for having naked pics of themselves on their phones.

Sounds like the judge was as fair as possible, after the man was given warnings to delete the pictures and refused. The offenders list is still ridiculous, but I wonder how much leeway the judge had by the letter of the law? Sounds like a good time for a pardon, not that it will actually happen.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51177749]What the fuck. The US sex offender laws are so retarded, holy shit. It's like when kids get put on the register for having naked pics of themselves on their phones.[/QUOTE] This is Australian. But either way, both are retarded.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51177749]What the fuck. The US sex offender laws are so retarded, holy shit. It's like when kids get put on the register for having naked pics of themselves on their phones.[/QUOTE] At least it's not for life. In some states it is, and there's no distinction between someone who had a one night stand with a 17 year old that lied about their age, or a confirmed serial rapist. They need to change that shit, there's harsher punishments on sex offenses than there are for murder. Talking about the US, Australia is undoubtedly better at handling it. Here it would be a lifetime registration with so many restrictions that his life would be ruined, and possibly be driven to suicide.

TBH he never should have moved the images off of the phone, if that means keeping the phone and providing a replacement that's more defensible than copying the images to your computer and putting them on a USB drive. Still an excessive punishment but I think it's more done to discourage saving explicit images of children in general than to punish this guy for a crime. Wouldn't want to create a precedent that could be used to get actual offenders off the hook under assumed good intentions.

[QUOTE=Firecat;51177817]Copied pics to computer and USB, warned that he could be prosecuted, refused to delete pictures, nice. In my opinion his punishment shouldn't be huge, but god what an idiot.[/QUOTE] Court should have given him the Darwin award instead; though I suppose him still being alive rules that out.

It's fairly obvious that he kept them solely as evidence, but then again, the court can't know that, even if he did report it himself.

sounds like a typical overbearing guardian who doesn't let his daughter live a normal life, how is anyone defending him after he was even told to delete pictures is completely past me

[QUOTE=Egevened;51178373]sounds like a typical overbearing guardian who doesn't let his daughter live a normal life, how is anyone defending him after he was even told to delete pictures is completely past me[/QUOTE] Sure but I think child pornography charges and being put on the sex offender register are a bit bullshit considering his intentions didn't really have anything to do with that. And his daughter's "normal life" technically involved possessing and distributing child pornography, so under the same logic that got him arrested it would make sense to have reported it.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;51178092]Court should have given him the Darwin award instead; though I suppose him still being alive rules that out.[/QUOTE] Self defeating posts wewlad

[QUOTE=Egevened;51178373]sounds like a typical overbearing guardian who doesn't let his daughter live a normal life, how is anyone defending him after he was even told to delete pictures is completely past me[/QUOTE] because he doesn't deserve to have his career and life ruined over overprotective views on sex

[QUOTE=Flapadar;51178092]Court should have given him the Darwin award instead; though I suppose him still being alive rules that out.[/QUOTE] Social Darwinism is a thing [editline]9th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dissolution;51178540]because he doesn't deserve to have his career and life ruined over overprotective views on sex[/QUOTE] He wouldn't have had either of those ruined had he just complied by deleting said pictures?

[QUOTE=gk99;51178546]He wouldn't have had either of those ruined had he just complied by deleting said pictures?[/QUOTE] yeah, he's an idiot. how does that change anything I said? it's his fault he got arrested but the fact that the court recognized his situation and still decided he needed to be on a sex offender list for 8 years is completely fucking idiotic no matter how you decide to look at it

[QUOTE=Dissolution;51178554]yeah, he's an idiot. how does that change anything I said? it's his fault he got arrested but the fact that the court recognized his situation and still decided he needed to be on a sex offender list for 8 years is completely fucking idiotic no matter how you decide to look at it[/QUOTE] Again, his fault for taking the deal.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51178572]Again, his fault for taking the deal.[/QUOTE] it's the court's fault for offering a disproportionate deal to someone who obviously has no intention of jerking his cock to kids, I don't know why he accepted it, but there's literally no reason this case should have gone anywhere and no reason he should have to fuck himself with legal fees to defend his position

Yknow if both the daughter and her boyfriend had these photos and texts, weren't they also guilty of possessing and producing child porn?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51178763]Yknow if both the daughter and her boyfriend had these photos and texts, weren't they also guilty of possessing and producing child porn?[/QUOTE] In america yeah, im not sure that's the case here, and if it is, if its actually enforced.

[url]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCC/2016/1459.html[/url] It was the daughter of his ex-partner, whom he had split up with before the event. I think that's a bit weird... But this is just an example of why mandatory sentences are a stupid way of dealing with crime. It leaves complete inflexibility. For instance, there is no way that this person should be required to be on the sex offender register. GG you crazy conservatives and your 'law and order' ideas.

[QUOTE=Firecat;51177817]Copied pics to computer and USB, warned that he could be prosecuted, refused to delete pictures, nice. In my opinion his punishment shouldn't be huge, but god what an idiot.[/QUOTE] That's the thing, there is no reason for him to have copies. What's the point of copies? If I'm working on someone's computer and I find child porn, what do I do? Make myself some copies? Or report it to the police and leave the rest to them? This is not a trick question for most people.

Is this retarded, yeah. Is it even more retarded that the dude was given not one, but [I]SEVERAL[/I] warnings that this would happen? Absolutely [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] I mean what a fucking outrage that he defied what the police told him concerning the manipulation of child porn :downs:

[QUOTE=Dissolution;51178554]how does that change anything I said?[/QUOTE] You said "he doesn't deserve to have his career and life ruined over overprotective views on sex." That's not why he's going to jail. He's going to jail because he refused to delete pictures of minors. I mean you say it's obvious he's not going to jerk it to his kid, but how do you [I]really[/I] know?

[QUOTE=Kljunas;51178487]Sure but I think child pornography charges and being put on the sex offender register are a bit bullshit considering his intentions didn't really have anything to do with that. And his daughter's "normal life" technically involved possessing and distributing child pornography, so under the same logic that got him arrested it would make sense to have reported it.[/QUOTE] Punishing minors for sharing nudes consensually between them shouldn't really be a thing IMO, that includes if they are of similar age but both are not minors(for example, a 17 years old with a 18 years old)

surely theres a better way of parenting your kids other than getting the police involved. if shes sending nudes to her boyfriend and you dont like it, sit her down and talk to her about it.

[QUOTE=Dissolution;51178601]it's the court's fault for offering a disproportionate deal to someone who obviously has no intention of jerking his cock to kids, I don't know why he accepted it, but there's literally no reason this case should have gone anywhere and no reason he should have to fuck himself with legal fees to defend his position[/QUOTE] A: Do you have any proof he had no intention of that? B: Do you not think him having it on both a USB and a computer makes it 10 times easier for the pictures to be obtained by 3rd parties and distributed on the internet, which would not be great for the underage parties in question?

[QUOTE=Dissolution;51178601]it's the court's fault for offering a disproportionate deal to someone who obviously has no intention of jerking his cock to kids, I don't know why he accepted it, but there's literally no reason this case should have gone anywhere and no reason he should have to fuck himself with legal fees to defend his position[/QUOTE] You think no father had ever jerked it to pictures of his own kid? You think no father had ever distributed photos of his own kid on the internet? If you think the possibility for this to be one of those cases is nil then you need to reevaluate the way you think the world is. Regardless he's dealing with fucking child porn. Jerking it isn't against the law, possessing child porn, however, is and if he was warned that this would happen and ignored the warnings anyway, then the dude's a fucking idiot.

if someone told you to delete the child porn you had or you'd get into trouble for it, and you didn't, then fuck that you probs deserve it

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51181924]surely theres a better way of parenting your kids other than getting the police involved. if shes sending nudes to her boyfriend and you dont like it, sit her down and talk to her about it.[/QUOTE] Yeah the father is a fucking idiot. If my dad went to the police because he found out I sent a dick pic to a girl then I would fucking hate my dad, like what a total asshole dude you're actually going to try and get your daughter arrested for that? Shitty parenting and he deserves what he got

[QUOTE=Dissolution;51178540]because he doesn't deserve to have his career and life ruined over overprotective views on sex[/QUOTE] The underage boyfriend doesn't deserve to have his life ruined by an overprotective parent either. Parents really need to leave their kids the fuck alone, I bet this dude would have done the same scummy shit at that age.