Maine's Top Drug Prosecutor Indicted on Child P*rn Charges

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Maine's former top drug prosecutor pleaded not guilty to child p*rn charges in federal court today:

James M. Cameron, 46, formerly of Hallowell, was indicted Feb. 11 by a federal grand jury in Bangor on 16 counts of transporting, receiving and possessing child p*rnography between July 10, 2006, and Jan. 26, 2008.

He allegedly uploaded images of child p*rnography to an Internet-based Yahoo photo album using five different screen names. Cameron, according to the indictment, also transmitted digital images of child p*rnography using Google Hello, an Internet-based chat and file-sharing service.

The images were found on his home computer but not his work computer. Check out the terms of his bail: [More...]

Kravchuk set bail at $75,000 unsecured with conditions that he be released to the custody of his brother, Daniel Cameron, in Westland, Mich., surrender his passport, wear an electronic monitor and have limited use of the Internet. Conditions also call for Cameron’s Internet use to be monitored by the U.S. Probation and Pre-trial Services office in Michigan with special software to be installed on a computer at his brother’s home.

Even that wasn't enough for the U.S. Attorney who wanted him detained without bail pending trial:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gail Malone, who is prosecuting the case, asked that Cameron be held without bail until his case is resolved. She argued that Cameron should be detained due to the serious nature of the charges, because the alleged victims in the case were minors and because the alleged conduct lasted more than a year.

Malone also said that the defendant posed a flight risk because he had traveled out of the country over the past several months and back and forth between Michigan and Maine on several occasions. She also said that “wiping software” appeared to have been used “to erase evidence” on the seized computers.

The possible penalty he's facing: a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence, up to 20 years.

The cost of incarceration in this country is insanely high. Detaining non-violent offenders prior to trial is one of the worst of the 80's crime bills (The Bail Reform Act of 1984) (pdf), and so are the double-digit sentences the Government keeps seeking. These aren't cookies we are tossing around, they are years of peoples' lives and the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill.

< Tuesday Evening Open Thread | How HOLC-y Is HASP? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Maine's Top Drug Prosecutor Indicted on Child P*rn Charges | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Aha (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:56:17 PM EST

I think this is the same statute I was just reading about a few weeks ago. Apparently if you're accused of being a sex offender, federal law makes a number of onerous requirements absolutely mandatory as a condition of pretrial release. Among these are travel restrictions, no firearms... both of which are constitutional rights, of course.

Detention without bail for ordinary child porn charges, give me a break. The prosecutor doesn't even have the excuse that the statute made her do it.

Jeralyn wrote: (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by weltec2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:54:27 AM EST

These aren't cookies we are tossing around, they are years of peoples' lives and the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill.

On the other hand, the lives of the children used by these "non-violent" criminals, as you call them, will in many cases NEVER be the same.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:29:44 AM EST

I'm pretty sure owning a dirty magazine is a nonviolent act.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:00:28 AM EST

I'm pretty sure weltec2 was referring to the harm caused to children in the production of those photographs (which is a violence perpetrated upon them). But maybe not...

[ Parent ]

Sure (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:13:21 AM EST

I'm not going to be the one to argue that it shouldn't be a crime, etc. But bear in mind that the issue here is pretrial detention, where there's been no adjudication of guilt and the only legitimate concern is making sure the public is protected.

If the only thing the guy is accused of is looking at dirty pictures, it's absurd to have him on an electronic tether, prevented from possessing a firearm, restricted from traveling, etc. It's beyond absurd for the government to ask that he be held without bail pending trial.

Remember that transit cop from the Bay Area who shot that kid on the train platform, on video? He was let out on bail. In comparison to that accused murderer, here the government is arguing that this guy who looks at dirty pictures is such a menace to society that he should get no bail at all. Crazy!

[ Parent ]

"Dirty pictures" (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:53:35 AM EST

I would replace that phrase with "child p*ornography".

I agree about what the excess of what they're doing to him. I was just responding to the trivialization of what the demand for these "dirty pictures" does to children.

[ Parent ]

I employ euphemisms (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:21:00 AM EST

not to downplay the offense, but merely in an abundance of caution concerning the filter issue.

[ Parent ]

: OK :) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:02:50 PM EST

I only made the distinction because "dirty pictures" implies no harm whereas "child p*rnography" implies victimization of children.
I see a lot of people (not you) blurring the distinction intentionally in order to trivialize the victimization part. (Just explaining.)

[ Parent ]

That's exactly (none / 0) (#28)
by weltec2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:17:27 PM EST

what I was referring to.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:52:39 AM EST

The Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a good synopsis of why child p*rn is more than just looking at dirty pictures and how it victimizes children and can have long lasting effects.

And here's an excellent behavioral analysis of child molesters and child p*rn.

The correlation between those who view this stuff and those who molest and victimize children is high enough that these people who possess and view this stuff should be treated as dangerous criminals.

Prison is a vastly overrated and overused (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by MKS on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:38:57 PM EST

remedy.....

: Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 05:06:29 PM EST

Sometimes there are people so evil and so depraved that prison is too good for them.

[ Parent ]

P*rn? (none / 0) (#2)
by Jacob Freeze on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:02:00 AM EST

Should I already know about this unusual spelling?

Meanwhile, I can't help feeling a wee bit of schadenfreud about a drug prosecutor getting busted. How many non-violent pot smokers has this guy put away?

And the last time I checked, nobody from the Mexican cartels was serving time in Maine.

All this crap continued while the USA revived a moribund opium industry in Afghanistan, doubled the global supply of heroin, and introduced New York to the cheapest high in the history of the world.

TalkLeft doesn't want to get certain visitors (none / 0) (#4)
by daryl herbert on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:44:01 AM EST

coming from Google, looking for pr*secutor p*rn.

So they don't spell the p-word properly.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:47:35 AM EST

Filters block the site for certain words. Law firms, schools, etc use those filters and TL does not want the site blocked.

[ Parent ]

thanks, that's exactly right (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:33:57 AM EST

it's the filters used at law firms and other places that will block TL if those words come up with it.

[ Parent ]

: Naughty words (none / 0) (#10)
by Jacob Freeze on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:52:43 AM EST

I thought the only words that law firms blocked were "pro bono."
(I probably should have spelled that "pr* b*n*.")

[ Parent ]
: Filters (none / 0) (#16)
by ricosuave on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:57:59 AM EST

Does the law firm defending the prosecutor use these kind of filters? That would be fabulously ironic.

[ Parent ]

In Calif. we sure could use some new way to handle (none / 0) (#3)
by thereyougo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:22:16 AM EST

the kind of crime, its costing us taxpayers a bundle, so much that some counties are looking at a sales increase of 1% to 9.25-9.50 when and if the legislature decides to pass a budget.

I recall the same happened to a popular talk show host here, in SF, Bernie Ward.He said he was writing a book, but in the strict letter of the law, he was guilty and is now doing time in the fed.pen. I think he only sent about 150 images.

It saddens me that there couldn't be a form of restitution to society without the major costs involved to bring this type of crime to justice.

As an aside, are the current USAs still on the j.o.b? I know they were supposed to hand in a resignation.

Concern for the (none / 0) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 05:18:02 AM EST

taxpayer? come on, throw another stimulus in there.

Makes the drugs... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:57:05 AM EST

look not so bad by comparison, eh?

Child pron is some nasty sh*t, no doubt...but 5 years min. for pictures? That's a little nuts. I could see if he was the guy taking the pictures, that's a violent sex crime, but mere possession of photos? I know, he enables the sickos who actually take the pictures and harm the kids, but were talking 5 freakin' years minimum! 5 months sounds more in line with the crime and is enough to deter, imo.

Child pron question (none / 0) (#14)
by samtaylor2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:23:19 AM EST

When these cases go to court are they so extreme that there is no question as to the child/ person's age? How do you know what the age of the person is by a picture? How do you argue that in court?

Also don't certain countries have lower age limits (I think Australia is 16). What are the legal rules for someone in the US looking at pictures taken legally in another country?

: I believe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:30:30 AM EST

it doesn't matter where the pictures are taken, it is still illegal in this country to view, own, or possess those kinds of pictures.

[ Parent ]

I agree, Jeralyn, and it's rare (none / 0) (#15)
by Joelarama on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:43:50 AM EST

to see someone express the opinion that this mandatory sentence for child porn is ridiculous.

Could this put his convictions in question? (none / 0) (#20)
by 1980Ford on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:23:15 AM EST

Any guesses on that?

Absurd (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:35:26 AM EST

To treat a non violent crime, looking at pictures, so severely is insane. Soon the technology will exist so that if they suspect someone is thinking dirty thoughts they will be able to scan his or her brain and lock them up.

Thought crime already exists, write down some fantasies that are improper and you go to jail.

On the other hand this guy is a suicide risk, imo. And he will have to be separated from the prison community pre trial and if convicted because he will be tortured and killed in jail. I do not think this guy is long for this world.

The government's crimes (none / 0) (#23)
by Sumner on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:22:28 AM EST

We could have avoided all of this present-day unpleasantness with this deliberately engineered global economic crisis if this government was not so rogue, outlaw and insubordinate. The early intervention, the maintenance, the fix, was here.

If we had anything other than a dysfunctional US Supreme Court, this gross violation of the First Amendment could never have devolved into the global travesty it is today, with our modern-day prudes strong-arming other countries.. These laws fomenting moral panic came about to provide the cover of diversion, distraction and misdirection from the financial crimes of the richest and most powerful, the New World Order.

My fix, was usurped and misapplied as "bailouts" to further prop up those that engineered the global economic crisis in the first place, with even greater advantage.

The first thing to do is to scrub the DoJ, top to bottom, the DoJ engaged in crime to bring these egregious laws about. The next is to embrace Patrick Leahey's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Then we must make sure laws are in place to prevent the money that is being lavished on the very engineers of this mess, from circulating the "bailout" money and "stimulus" money right back to the politicians in that familiar ugly greed loop, (lobbying), they exercise now.

Since they have gutted the manufacturing base of this country, I am loathe to admit, but must, that the financial rescue of the automobile industry is probably vital, and so I at least embrace that.

As an aside, by this site not spelling out child porn properly, it genuflects at the alter of government madness.

Exemplars of depravity (none / 0) (#27)
by Sumner on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 06:05:06 PM EST

of the deliberately engineered global economic crisis found here are hardly unique.