Ex-ACLU Chief Rust-Tierney Gets Seven Years

This was an especially abhorrent case according to the judge during the trial. But he had a reason. Geesh!

Rust-Tierney says depression and "plummeting self-esteem" led him astray.

A former Arlington County youth sports coach and civil rights lawyer who once headed Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was sentenced today to seven years in federal prison for buying child pornography that prosecutors labeled sadistic and masochistic.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, pleaded guilty in June to downloading hundreds of pornographic images of children as young as 4. Authorities said Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 11-year-old son's bedroom to view the files, which included a six-minute video that depicted sexual torture of children, set to a song by the rock band Nine Inch Nails.

Comments

[nowingker]

I realize Dan's only purpose for posting this is to slam the ACLU and the Democrats and the godless libruls....

But, did anyone talk to his two sons to see if they were abused by him or maybe he only likes the torture of little girls?

Seems to me 7 years is pretty light for child torture porn.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

From the fine article:

Ellis said authorities found no evidence that Rust-Tierney had inappropriate contact with any children.

[ThomasD]

Seems to me 7 years is pretty light for child torture porn.

Since paying for a product promotes the creation of more product I'd say seven years is shamefully light.

[sherlock]

I must disagree with the sentiments re length of sentence.

I wish I did not have to preface that my comments in no way should be taken to dimiss the heinousness of child pronography. But I will do so just to make sure.

My position is that no "information-access crime" should lead to incarceration in and of itself. This man, though despicable as hell, harmed no person. No person. Being despicable is not a crime. This type of judgement ACTUALLY IS a slippery-slope like the phantom ones lefties warn us we are on when we wiretap terrorists.

What to do? Well if we find someone behaving in any way that seems to offer a potential threat to the community, we have ways of placing them on probabtion and restraint. Will this prevent all crime against children - of course not. But there are more appropriate interventions, and the intent of the law is not to prevent all possibility of crime, it is to punish it, and within reason, to deter it through the imposition of punishment. 7 years in jail for victimless behavior like this is not "within reason" in my humble non-lawyer opinion.

There are other kinds of "currently-victimless" actions that ARE "within reason" - such as finding someone preparing or planning to employ a bomb. That is clear intent to commit a crime.

I am prepared to receive disagreements - which I will attempt to respond to if I can. I will not respond to insults, as I have not offered any in my considered comments here.

[Dan Riehl]

Not sure I buy the victimless crime argument here, Sherlock. That's a slippery slope the other way. So, if we're going to err, on thisissue, I say lock 'em up.

[slp]

This is not a victimless crime.

His purchases fueled the demand for more children to be photographed being victimized.

[evett]

7 Years is appallingly light. From the article: "The prison term imposed on Charles Rust-Tierney, of Arlington, is one year less than the minimum sentence suggested under federal sentencing guidelines. But it's more than the 5-year term requested by defense attorneys." The suggestion that this is somehow a "victimless crime" is nonsensical: I consume ZERO amounts of kiddie porn. None. Zip. Nada. Ergo, in a world of "mes" there would be ZERO kiddie porn and thus, NO children being abused and filmed. By creating a market for this grim business Mr. ACLU has a clear hand in the creation of victims to create his preferred porn. To not see this is not logical to my mind as it looks pretty B & W from my position.

[nowingker]

If there was no market for child porn, there would be no child porn. Child porn harms the child, so it is unlike other victimless crimes like buying drugs, prostitutes or gambling. There, we have a willing seller, in child porn, we don't.

While it is true that the viewer of child porn may not escalate to doing vs. viewing, and thus doesn't deserve the same punishment, the punishment must be severe enough to be somewhat of a deterrent.

To let the purchasers of child porn off w/out prison time is tantamount to encouraging the purchase of child porn, so it can't be allowed and must be punished.

[Alex Filides]

I've decided to entertain the audience with some facts that I know of Mr. Rust-Tierney.

He happened to be one of my assistant coaches on a baseball team that I coached in June of 2006. He did something odd with one of the children, although it probably wasn't an illegal act, that's about the extent of it I will get into for now.

It took me a while to realize what had been done after his arrest. Not only was he viewing child pornography, he was supporting a site that involved raping toddlers and babies.

Shame on to the organization(ICE) that was investigating this. Apparently, they had been investigating this guy for years, in the meantime the guy was still coaching youth teams!

From a coaching standpoint, I've encountered many problems with this individual. At times, in my dealing with him, his behavior was very irrational.

And honestly, I don't care who it was, probably coaches and parents that I personally know. However, the 30+ supporters that spoke up for him at the pretrial, should've been thrown in jail with him.

Just for the record, I'm not on either side politically and this isn't a ACLU vs. right wing debate or any such relation.

Knowing him, I know he's sorry for what he's done and I don't wish him any ill harm while he's serving his sentence.