No Suppression of Fact
Now here’s an interesting headline…
Ex-UN weapons inspector faces child sex charges
“PHILADELPHIA – A longtime UN weapons inspector who blamed a 2001 sex-sting arrest on his criticism of the Iraq war has again been charged in an online child-sex case, and this time he was caught on camera.
“Scott Ritter, 48, of Delmar, New York, engaged in a sexually graphic online chat with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl nearly a year ago, police in northeastern Pennsylvania said.”
I recall much being made about this in 2002-3, with Ritter claiming he had been smeared by the Bush regime. For a short while Ritter was the poster child for the evil doings of Dubbya and his henchmen. Now it appears that perhaps there was more to it than a dirty tricks campaign. In fairness, Ritter’s beef was not with the original charges but with the suspiciously convenient release of sealed court documents containing those charges at a time when he was certainly making a nuisance of himself (in the US government’s eyes, at any rate).
Anyway, what I find interesting is not the prurient details of Ritter’s sex life – real or imagined. Nor is it the irony of being arrested for similar charges under a president whom you really can’t claim is smearing you. It is the fact that this information can be found freely and easily. Could you imagine the same thing in New Zealand? Ritter would probably have name suppression, anyway, but his two previous arrests would be completely suppressed. After all, we have had people on trial for rape, while being in prison for rape and still the jury was not informed. Yet the US thinks that Ritter can still get a fair trial even though the New York Times is carrying an article on him, detailing his past. Ritter lives in New York.
Makes you wonder if we Kiwis are being just a tad precious about our suppression laws…
Related posts:
- Cryptic Yep. That’s Whale Oil’s newest attempt at breaching name suppression...
- Guilty Until Proven Innocent The Justice Ministry have put forward a troubling suggestion in...
- Dubious Depositions Criminal lawyer Greg King is trying to make out that...
- Indifference It is good to hear that someone has been arrested...
- And Justice for Some… I have long thought that the current adversarial system we...
Jan 16 10 10:11 am
All of which makes me wonder – if a Pennsylvanian Plod can fool Scott Ritter into believing he is a fifteen year old girl then he never really stood a chance against Saddam Hussein.
Andrei´s last blog ..Scott Ritter’s weapon of personal distruction
Jan 16 10 10:58 am
Andrei, I watched an interesting doco on Sky the other night. It was called Perverted Justice. http://www.perverted-justice.com/
They are a group of volunteers who pose as underage girls and boys. The way it appears to work the predator has to make the first approach online. This is followed up by a phone call. The decoy is often a woman who can sound like a young girl or boy. It can progress to a meeting which is a sting operation. The have caught some very clever professional men including teachers, a doctor and a Rabbi.
I am almost certain such a sting could not succeed in New Zealand. It is against the law to try to entice someone underage for the purpose of sex over the internet. However, to the best of my knowledge if the decoy is an adult no law has been broken. Decoys are sometimes used in NZ but initial contact has to be made to a minor. A decoy is sometimes brought in after a parent complains.
In the US, Canada and I believe that decoys may be used provided the predator make the initial contact.
What do others think? Should the law be changed in New Zealand to allow the use of decoys to help catch these people who prey on venerable children? If there was no decoy the predator would be talking to an actual child.
Jan 16 10 11:28 pm
It’s just the usual conservative/liberal game being played in America all the time. Ritter doesn’t really matter in the scheme of political play. When his usefulness is exhausted, another villain/victim will be found. Nothing to see here tomorrow. Move along.
Jan 17 10 8:06 am
Mara, what is your point? Do you think it should be legal for a 48 man to try to contact a minor over the internet for the purposes of sex?
It is a crime in many states in the US. If Ritter made the initial contact he is committing a criminal offence.
I would like to see it an offence in NZ.
Jan 17 10 12:53 pm
CB, no I don’t think it is OK to have sex with minors and I would be happy about the decoy idea. I saw that prog. too.
I quess I’m just cynical about the political capital being made from polititians crimes/foibles, both real and immaginary.
In the headlong rush to victimhood status by all and sundry, sometimes the real victim is overlooked.