A very interesting summary of the Gordon Lee case:
To any comics fan this case has been an interesting, if horribly long-running one. Very good/interesting interview here detailing many of the facts. This passage here deals with the idea as to why the case is necessary and why Lee should definitely not plea-bargain:
The only person who can decide to take a plea is Gordon, were one offered that he would find acceptable. The Fund doesn’t support cases where the defendant opts to plea from the outset, because we don’t support the establishment of bad precedent that could harm other members of our profession. That said, we’ve never taken any measures against a client who said, “I can’t take this anymore,” and plead out. Pleas are not something we pursue or support, but if the client believes its in his best interest we respect that.
A plea may be the most expedient way to close a case, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do, and here’s why: a plead conviction is still a conviction. It still reflects as an admission of guilt, and can still create harmful precedent. Nobody should feel the need to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit in the interest of expediency.
I’ve seen people who are torn up on a personal level because they took a plea to end a case, and then had to live with the black mark of a conviction on their life. And on a business level, it can be a very real problem for a businessman in a small community to show a conviction on a matter that could harm their enterprise, especially if it’s a conviction for something they didn’t do.
We believe, and we believe we can prove, that Gordon is not guilty of the crime he is accused of committing. The prosecution has yet to show any evidence that Gordon actually distributed Alternative Comics #2 to either of the minors in question, and we do not believe they can prove that the material in that comic, taken as a whole, meets the standard necessary to be legally harmful to minors. We also do not believe they can prove that he knowingly distributed that material. So, if there isn’t any evidence that he committed a crime, why should he take the rap for doing so? Because it would be cheaper? Because it would be easier than standing up for his rights, and his innocence? Where is the justice in that?
Except of course Lee already has a conviction on his record for the distribution of obscene materials. He is already living with the black mark that Charles Brownstein spoke of.
I just wish they would come out and say if the prosecution actually ever offered a plea deal or not.
Well yeah,that would be nice. But from reading the article I get the impression that whatever plea deal was offered was so bad that he couldn’t take it..
And referring to the prior conviction - that’s under a law that was found to be so absurd (at least as I understand it) that they removed the law from the statute books.
And tbh,given that the prosecution have screwed this up so many times (changing the story as to who the book was ‘given’ to, prejudicing the jury etc.) I get the impression that they KNOW the case isn’t that strong and are attempting to just bankrupt Lee into accepting a guilty plea which is wrong …
That law and the conviction from that law still stand. In fact one of Lee’s lawyers said that he thought Lee would be possibly facing a stiffer penalty if convicted because of the prior conviction.
You are right though. The prosecution has screwed up in this case.
Which really makes me wonder how strong the case against him is.. It still seems to me to be rather unjust to prosecute him for a crime that he ‘didn’t commit’ (it seems) and then to threaten him with a greater sentence over a crime that is no longer a crime!
John, I don’t think he has been threatened with a greater sentence. It’s something his own lawyer said was a possibility.
What makes you think that what he was convicted of in the 90’s is no longer a crime?
Well, if they took it off the statute books as being ‘incorrect’ I would imagine that it was the ‘wrong’ law then, so therefore it wasn’t a crime
Also, Rick just something I came across here: http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/11/29/the-natives-are-getting-restless-and-laughing-too/
would you agree that the pictures shown are ‘harmful’ to minors? And if not,what’s the difference between that and what Gordon Lee ‘may’ have given that child? I mean this case is getting somewhat ‘Simpsons-like’