For Release: July 18, 2006
Contact: J. Tucker Martin or David Clementson
Email: jtmartin@oag.state.va.us or dclementson@oag.state.va.us
Phone: 804-786-2071
McDonnell Denounces Comments by Tetterton Attorney
--Attorney Calls Child Porn Charges No ‘Big Deal’—
RICHMOND - Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell today denounced comments made by the criminal defense attorney representing David Tetterton in his child pornography case in South Boston. In his remarks to the South Boston News & Record, the attorney, George Bagwell of Halifax, said of the child pornography charges, “I don’t see what the big deal is.” David Tetterton was formally indicted last week on 27 counts of reproduction of child pornography and 127 counts of possession of child pornography. In Virginia, The General Assembly has made reproduction of child pornography a Class 5 felony, and possession is a Class 6 felony.
Click here for more information on the case.
McDonnell responded to Bagwell’s comments by stating, “For an attorney to deny the seriousness of the reproduction and possession of child pornography is troubling. I fully appreciate that his client is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. But I reject remarks that child pornography is not a serious issue, and that the Attorney General’s Computer Crime Unit should not help prosecute these types of cases when it has been authorized to do so by statute.”
McDonnell continued, “The production of child pornography is a crime that steals children’s innocence and damages the moral fiber of our communities, while creating innocent child victims. It is a shocking characterization that child pornography is no “big deal.” It is a big deal, and our office and local prosecutors take such crimes very seriously. For the Internet to be safe for children to learn and communicate, it must be kept free of sexual predators and child pornographers.”
**Scroll Down for Facts about Child Pornography in the U.S.**
From the article:
Bagwell says the indictments against Tetterton have “elements of overkill and elements of a witch hunt” in them. “This is a matter of a man who never appears to have done anything wrong before in his life, has been looking at dirty pictures, and that’s all he has ever done — look at dirty pictures,” said Bagwell. “I don’t see what the big deal is.”
“Trouble is, it’s not illegal to look at dirty pictures, since that’s an extremely widespread thing,” said Bagwell, “but it is illegal to possess these things, and they’re saying he did so by downloading them on the computer.”…Bagwell suggested that the standard of criminality ought to be higher when “it’s something anybody could do. A six year old could do it, you could do it, anybody could get these things. So there is no clear law at this time.”
...Bagwell said the state’s involvement leads him to “question if they [the AG’s office] need a little more to do. If they’re going to spend time at the Attorney General’s office doing this, what about all the other stuff that needs to be done in the Commonwealth.”
Facts About Child Pornography
###
[1] J. Wolak, D. Rinkelhor & K. Mitchell, Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet‑Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study at 27 (2005).
[1] J. Wolak, D. Rinkelhor & K. Mitchell, Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet‑Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study at 27 (2005).
[1] J. Wolak, D. Rinkelhor & K. Mitchell, Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet‑Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study at 27 (2005).
[1] J. Wolak, D. Rinkelhor, & K. Mitchell, supra note 10, at 4; see also www.protectkids.com/dangers/stats.htm.
[1] Andres E. Hernandez, Psy.D., Self-Reported Contact Sexual Crimes of Federal Inmates Convicted of Child Pornography Offenses (2000).
[1] See Long Island Citizens for Community Values, Harms of Pornography, www.liccv.org/pornisharmful.htm (Dec. 20, 2005).
