So the Associated Press says that former D.C.-based FOX News producer Aaron Bruns got sentenced to 10 years in prison today for possession of child pornography, while just a few days before, former NPR science editor David Malakoff basically walked on the same charge, getting only five years probation. What was the difference between these two men? Bruns had a prior kiddie porn conviction from about ten years ago, when he was a college student in Michigan, while Malakoff had no previous record. Malakoff also testified that he had watched the videos in order to relive his own rape, which he said he experienced when he was 9 years-old, and the judge in his case obviously believed his story. Still, that's a pretty big disparity as far as sentencing goes. Without U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle's intervention, Malakoff would have been given six to eight years based on federal guidelines.
Aaron Bruns was sentenced to 10 years in prison for possession of child pornography
Check out local Singer/Songwriter Todd Wright's new project 40x40. He's writing recording and relea
[more]
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In addition to the previous conviction, I think the other factor was that Fox News guy shared the pics, while the other one just downloaded them. I imagine that ups the ante.
Molly's back :)
Sounds like a typical liberal media bias to me...
I'm guessing the NPR guy had the same lawyer as Pete Townshend.
What is with the use of the term "intervention"? The sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are suggestions. Thus, the statement that Huvelle "intervened" connotes that the guidelines "required" something else. This is disingenous at best. Moreover, each case stands on its own two feet. The prior conviction, distribution, and prior circumstances all come into play.
I'm sure he could re-live his own rape by going to jail. It might be more poignant.
So...this exact comparison was posted on Gawker at 2pm today. Not say'n nothin', but if y'all picked up the idea from elsewhere ya gotta cite it!
That's a fair question given the similarities, but it seems very plausible that this is nothing more than a coincidence. I'd wager two bits that Sommer thoroughly reads the Examiner each day and probably saw the Malakoff story on Friday. It's reasonable that when she Bruns story this afternoon, she recalled the Malakoff story, and voila, there's the lede.
"Journo"?
Isn't that the capitol of Alaska?
You betcha!
(Too easy.)
The two cases were treated differently because they ARE different.
Malakoff essentially turned himself in--the justice department didn't even submit a criminal complaint against him but instead a 'filing of information' and he was clearly as much a victim of sexual abuse as the children portrayed in the pornography. Furthermore he did not own any pornography but instead merely watched it via an online source for a period of about five hours. Forensic scientists submitted evidence to this fact.
Bruns on the other hand distributed the pornography on a social networking site, over a prolonged period of time, and evaded capture, only being stopped by an undercover interstate investigation. His prior conviction was also for distribution, not mere ownership, of pornography.
Speaking of porn, while I'm a fan of the American Apparel ads, I'm much less likely to look at dcist at work if you guys keep putting their pantless/shirtless ads on your homepage. If someone sees that photo from afar it sort of looks like I'm looking at something I should not be viewing at work. Anyone else agree?
Yeah, at first I thought the complaints about the ads were prudish, but it's really starting to reach the not remotely appropriate for work point.
Agreed. I know DCist has to pay the bills, but I'm sick of it- time to install Adblock Plus.
Agreed. I downloaded an ad blocker last week because I was so sick of looking at the naked women. And this is on my home computer. I can't look at DCist at all at work.
Exactly.
"If someone sees that photo from afar it sort of looks like I'm looking at something I should not be viewing at work."
Something you shouldn't be looking at - like a blog that's not work-related? :)
The ads don't show up when I check dcist at work, so I have no problems with them.
The American Apparel ads are also blocked on my computer at work. I remember seeing them all over Facebook and getting annoyed.
the aa women are not naked - they are scantily clad. i, too, am sick of looking at them...not!
Not all pervert work at FOX News, but are all FOX News employees perverts? The answer may surprise you!
Give both of these fuckers the chair and be done with it.