On Richard Korn

Filed in Delaware by on January 15, 2013

As I said to my colleagues here at Delaware Liberal when this news broke this afternoon, is it possible to be completely floored and not at all surprised at the same time?

Frequent political office seeker Richard J. Korn was arrested Monday for dealing in child pornography and sexual exploitation of children, according to court records. Korn, 62, of Hockessin, was charged with 25 counts of dealing in child pornography following a month-long investigation by New Castle County police.

The investigation began Dec. 13 when officers were called to Korn’s home to investigate an incident involving possible child pornography. Officers returned with a warrant to search the home Friday and seized computers and other digital evidence related to the investigation, police said. [...] The computers had more than 25 images of child pornography, at least one of them depicting a nude adult woman lying underneath a prepubescent female engaged in a sex act, police said in court records. [...] Korn was being held at Young Correctional Institution with $750,000 secured bail pending a court hearing next week.

Korn nearly defeated Republican State Auditor Tom Wagner in 2010 as the Democratic nominee. Prior to that, he ran for NCCo. County Executive and State Representative. Over the last several years since at least 2006, Korn was a fixture at any political event taking place in this state. He was a behind the scenes politico. Indeed, I once met with him and current County Council President Christopher Bullock back when Bullock was considering a run against Congressman Mike Castle in, I believe, 2008. Korn was organizing Bullock’s nascent campaign that lasted all of a few months in the winter and spring of that year, and I gave both some insight into blogging, social media and the blogosphere landscape. I relate that story only to illustrate the extent to which Korn was involved in politics over the last several years. In fact, he was involved in politics to such an extent that I hear he was dating a politician from the other side of the aisle recently.

A transplant from New York, a fact obvious in his accent and manner, Korn had this backslapping close talking way about him. He instantly acted like your best friend the moment you spoke to him. It’s a skill that perhaps comes naturally to politicians and those involved in sales, but not at all common to others. Over the years, I have come to realize that such mannerisms and personality traits are sometimes a facade shielding something. Which is why I say I am floored about these allegations but not necessarily surprised.

I hope these allegations are false, that this is all some big misunderstanding. But if there is but a kernel of truth to them, then I must condemn him and I hope all involved in Delaware politics do as well, and I hope justice is served. Some facts from the News Journal article scream at me. Like the fact that the investigation began in mid December when the police was “called” to the home. I know that Korn had divorced or separated from his wife relatively recently. I know there are young children from this marriage, and thus I cannot help but wonder if the police were tipped off to what was allegedly on his computer from his estranged wife.

About the Author ()

Comments (120)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Holy bleep, SW!

    Does this mean that a certain someone will be returning a ring to him post-haste?

    Or do I mean ‘post-election’?

  2. cassandra m says:

    That is a stunning story about Richard Korn. Is the $750K bail normal? I’m OK with it, just want to know if bail that large is indicative of anything.

  3. SussexWatcher says:

    El Som: Huh?

  4. liberalgeek says:

    Bodie’s bail was set at $250K.

  5. SW: Korn was romantically and politically linked (at least in his own mind) with someone running for public office. A ring was purchased.

  6. Sussex09 says:

    Korn is a Democrat…right?

  7. SED says:

    Richard Korn kissed goodbye his political career. It is a very sad situation. But 25 counts is not looking good for Korn. When these kinds of things happen if you do survive and may be cleared of these charges: his life will never be the same. The people of Delaware will tag him as an individual that took advantage of children. But there are consequences for the decisions you make and when you live in a small state, it makes the front page of the news the next day. There is no doubt in my mind it will probably be on the front page of the News Journal. But there is a lot of shock going up and down the state of Delaware right now.

  8. SussexWatcher says:

    Ah. I thought he was married.

  9. anon says:

    I thought Korn was married already.

  10. anon says:

    SW-Jinx.

  11. liberalgeek says:

    Korn used to be married, but was divorced sometime after his last election. I hadn’t heard any rumors about an engagement, tho.

  12. SussexWatcher says:

    No, I typed first. Therefore, you owe *me* the Coke.

  13. SussexWatcher says:

    Mugshot is up now, and he looks like shit.

  14. anon says:

    “Jinx” doesn’t work that way, you can’t speak (or type) until someone says your name, those are old school jinx rules. I don’t know how “Coke” enters into this.

  15. SED says:

    Korn is a registered Democrat who ran for the offices of New Castle County Executive (in Democrat Primary between Chris Coons few years back) and then ran most recently for State Auditor against Tom Wagner in 2010 and lost. There was a lot of talk, Korn wanted to run again for State Auditor 2014. Clearly this not happening now.

  16. PainesMe says:

    What. A. Creep.

    Never understood the eagerness of DE politicians to seek his advice; at least this will thoroughly remove him from the scene.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  17. To paraphrase Larry King, “Look up ‘oleaginous’ in the dictionary, and you’ll find a picture of Richard Korn.”

    Although, to be fair, look up ‘oleaginous’ in the dictionary, and you’ll probably find a picture of Larry King.

  18. SussexWatcher says:

    I play under 1980s version Jinx rules. Sorry. Now roll your 2d20 and post the number to figure out your penalty smack total.

  19. Bookkeeper's Son says:

    El Som@4:33 — Nicely done.

  20. Jconnor says:

    Karma is a beautiful thing.

  21. heragain says:

    Whups. Heard this in person from someone in the loop. Wow.

  22. AQC says:

    I always thought he was slimy and could not understand why people were attracted to him. He’s the kind of guy who makes you want to go home and take a shower after you’ve been around him.

  23. Venus says:

    Didn’t this guy host some talk show out of Wilmington on cable about whatever was going on politically or hot topic in Wilnington, NCC news? I hadn’t seen him around, but then again I’m rarely at a playground anymore.

  24. Delaware Dem says:

    Yes. And I found this gem from the early 90′s.

  25. Roland D. Lebay says:

    “Karma is a beautiful thing.”

    Wait…Did someone who works with a man who has been convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a child aged 1-11 years old just comment (and invoke Karma, for Jeebus’ sake?) on a man who has been accused of posessing images of kiddie porn?

  26. Delaware Dem says:

    Roland brings up a very salient point: Korn is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    Still, given the devastating ramifications such allegations have on one’s career and personal life, hopefully the police and the AG’s office have him dead to rights on these charges before an arrest was made.

  27. JConnor says:

    Karama is indeed a beautiful thing:)

  28. puck says:

    The article referenced “according to court documents.” How do you get hold of those documents?

  29. SussexWatcher says:

    You go to the court and ask for them. Simple.

    All public record. Just have to figure out which court and pay the copying costs.

    Delaware doesn’t put any of that online because our judges are afraid computers will set their houses on fire or something, so you do have to go in person.

  30. dem dementia says:

    typical democrat performance

  31. Aoine says:

    And ummmmm what would you call Bodenweisers performance exactly?

    At least Korn didn’t prance around with a Bibile in his hands and go on his knees in front of County Council

    Nope, looks like your Christian conservatives just do that.

  32. Aoine says:

    Of course, Bodenweisers had a lot of time on his knees- so being on his knees was a rather familiar and comfortable position for him

    N’est pas?

  33. puck says:

    You’d think by now people would be aware of the utter futility of trying to delete something from a modern computer.

  34. Delaware Dem says:

    Dem Demetia is a typical Republican idiot, forgetting the Republican Teabagging Child Rapist he is a fan of downstate.

  35. Aoine says:

    Thanks deldem…….u r absolutely correct

  36. Truth Teller says:

    After watching the tape I have come to the conclusion that both of these women are DIP SHITS

  37. I heard yesterday that Korn’s (ex)wife brought this to the attention of law enforcement. I didn’t know that marriage was over. Nor that there was a new paramour. yuck.

    Irony: Karen Hartley-Nagle – whose long-standing complaint that her ex-brother-in-law sexually abused one of her children – was an incessant supporter of Korn in his run against Tom Wagner. She was his go-between on numerous attempts to get me to publish information against Wagner. Some I did gladly and some I refused.

  38. puck says:

    Child porn charges are especially unforgiving, stretching the common definitions of “possession” and “dealing.” 25 images is not really consistent with dealing. The news and police reports raise a number of questions. I’d have to get my hands on the court documents to form an opinion.

    I do think that suspects in sex crimes should have the same privacy protections as victims until they are convicted.

  39. Mitch Crane says:

    I am compelled to comment on the charges against Richard Korn and the attacks on him, too.
    As a trial lawyer and former judge, I know all to well that, though most people charged with crimes are guilty, there are those charged who are not guilty.
    Removing the name and political involvement of this defendant from the story and applying LOGIC to what I read about the charges, here is what I see:
    1. “Someone” reported that this defendant had child pornography on is computer. Who would report this type of crime? It would be reported by:
    A. Someone who saw the pornography
    B. Someone the defendant told
    C. Someone who “gave” the pornography to the defendant
    D. Someone who placed the pornography into the computer him/herself.
    Knowing the seriousness of these charges and the ramifications of such charges by themselves, it is not logical that this defendant showed pornography to anyone or told anyone. So, we are left with either someone gave it to him and set him up or someone else with access to the computers placed it there.

    The report is that the defendant “lives alone”, leading to the conclusion that only he would be responsible for what is on a computer in his home. While he may live alone in this home, until recently he lived there with his then wife and two children. If the defendant and his wife have since divorced and are involved in a custody fight, charges of this nature would serve to deny the defendant custody of, even visitation with his children.

    The News Journal states that the defendant’s wife is a computer expert.

    Knowing no more than I have read, I draw no conclusions other than there is a reason to doubt.

    As to Richard Korn. He is my friend. If he is found guilty of this crime, he will receive the punishment the law requires for the offense. My friend was a key advisor to my campaign. He gave much sage advice, some of which I followed, some of which I did not follow. I lost my election by 1100 votes. I did not lose because of his involvement. I came close due to his involvement. I do not abandon my friends even when I am shocked at what they have been accused of doing-and I was shocked when I found out yesterday. What he is accused of doing is a crime. It has not always been so. Possession of Child Pornography was criminalized because it is a result of child exploitation. I understand that. However, comparing possession of such pornography to the sexual assault of children is like comparing receiving stolen property to theft.

    Finally, I write this understanding that I may now be attacked. I have been advised to keep quiet. I will take that chance in the hope that the readers and bloggers of Delaware Liberal will put aside their feelings for Richard Korn ( and Eric Bodenweiser, and Vance Phillips-not even charged ) and remember the most basic tenants of liberalism and the criminal justice system-in this country an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury of his peers.

  40. puck says:

    I’m not defending Korn and I don’t know him. He may be guilty as hell. But I do know the law gives authorities incredible latitude and potential for abuse when it comes to child porn.

    The saying in geek circles is “The root password to the Constitution has been discovered – it’s “child porn.”

    Dealing charges normally arise when a law enforcement agent is able to download even one image from your computer from an external location. This happens when the suspect is using peer-to-peer software that also uploads while it is downloading, and continues to make the image available after the download is done (unbeknownst to the non-expert user). (I don’t know that this is what happened with Korn. )

    It is interesting that “possession” charges were not mentioned. I’d like to know more details about the forensics.

    The NCCPD report says “multiple images of child erotica and child pornography.” If that erotica doesn’t meet the criteria for pornography, why was it mentioned? Was it included in the 25 images? It is possible that “25 images” were alleged in order to create a $750K bail. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is reduced to one count. And then it will be necessary to determine whether that one image was actually pornographic.

  41. Confused says:

    “he was dating a politician from the other side of the aisle recently”

    So…..who was it that he was dating?

  42. cassandra m says:

    All I have to add to this thread is thanks to Mitch Crane for his display of decency.

  43. Delaware Dem says:

    I agree. It is a shame Mitch is not in office and other more craven people are.

  44. Charlotte Garrison says:

    You do not need to be a computer expert to dispose of the infected computer.Looks like he was given a month to get his act together but chose not too do so. Interesting.

    I admire Mr. Crane’s loyalty in this matter however, setting someone up is one thing ruining someone’s life is another matter.

  45. puck says:

    I think at the first visit you are probably warned not to destroy evidence, while they go get a warrant to take the computers. The fact that it took nearly a month to execute the warrant suggests there may have been some doubt.

    Korn needs a good lawyer with tech knowledge who will question everything starting with the warrant, and take into account what is apparently a nasty breakup with the wife still having physical access to the computers.

  46. Confused says:

    @Mitch Crane – the NJ does not say his wife is a “Computer Expert”. They note that Richard Korns campign literature claims she “specializes in the analysis and designs of computer systems”. According to her LinkedIn Profile (which was not recently changed) she is in fact a Quality Assurance Analyst, which would not necessarily give her any computer expertise.

    Yes, Korn is innocent until proven guilty, but careful about dropping inuendo’s against his wife

  47. anon says:

    I hate to play “Devil’s Advocate” against a lawyer and former Judge who I admire greatly, but another consideration other than his wife is setting him up could be that his wife left with the kids because of his affinity for child porn.

  48. Delaware Dem says:

    Both scenarios are equally possible, for all we know.

  49. puck says:

    A very real possibility. But an “affinity” would leave more evidence than 25 images (if they are in fact pornographic).

    25 illegal images could end up on your computer without your knowledge while looking at ostensibly legal porn (downloading a zip file, or looking at a page of thumbnails, for example). But the law on this issue makes no allowance for intent.

  50. anon says:

    Yesterday’s News Journal:

    The computers had more than 25 images of child pornography, at least one of them depicting a nude adult woman lying underneath a prepubescent female engaged in a sex act, police said in court records.

  51. puck says:

    A jury will decide what those people in the picture are doing.

    Prediction: Charges reduced to a single count.

    (thank God for spell check)

  52. Confused says:

    “A jury will decide what those people in the picture are doing.”

    @puck – sorry, but either that picture does not exist, or there is no explanation. Again, I do not know what is or is not true here, but if in fact (IF in fact) that picture is as described, Atticus Finch, Clarence Darrow and Johnny Conchran combined could not convince a jury that it is innocent. Again, IF that picture is as described

  53. CR says:

    He’s always been one of the creepiest people I’ve ever encountered probably inside or outside politics. The college students — particularly the women — interning and volunteering for Coordinated in 2010 were always super uncomfortable being anywhere near him. I registered no surprise, unfortunately, on hearing this news yesterday. I hope his kids are and were safe.

  54. heragain says:

    Mitch, honestly. ” What he is accused of doing is a crime. It has not always been so. Possession of Child Pornography was criminalized because it is a result of child exploitation. I understand that. However, comparing possession of such pornography to the sexual assault of children is like comparing receiving stolen property to theft.”

    That is the most clueless statement about child porn I’ve read in the last 15 years. Clearly you do NOT “understand that.”

    There is no way for a child to consent to be in porn. EVERY SINGLE PICTURE of child porn is the result of a child being exploited by adults. EVERY SINGLE reuse, download, etc. of such pictures normalizes this behavior and supports the market that puts money into it. If you really understood the impact on children of child porn you would see those pictures in a different light. To you they would look like videos of people setting dogs on fire. You would be OUTRAGED that anyone with ordinary responsibilities in life, a mortgage, and job, the ability to operate a vehicle, (let alone someone who wants to influence the political system,) would not react with horror to seeing even one of them.

    You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself. Get educated.

  55. Geezer says:

    Get educated yourself, heragain. The penalty is the same even if the images are drawings or computer generated.

    Research shows that 1 in 10 viewers of child porn moves on to molesting children. For every potential child molester, we are locking up another 9 porn viewers because we don’t know which 1 of the 10 will go on to commit the far more heinous crime. Our knee-jerk response has put in prison lots of people who haven’t hurt anyone and don’t deserve to be there. Name me another situation where we would put 10 people in prison to prevent 1 crime.

    You argument essentially could be used against every potential source of criminal behavior in society. You’re the one who, because she hasn’t thought through her emotional reaction to the crime, has abandoned reason. You, madam, should be ashamed of yourself.

  56. Geezer says:

    “EVERY SINGLE reuse, download, etc. of such pictures normalizes this behavior and supports the market that puts money into it.”

    Link to the research, please.

    When you’re done with that, please explain how these difficult-to-access illegal images are “normalizing” “this behavior” (which behavior? the images, or the molestation?) but the constant sexualized use of children in our entertainment industry is not.

    Thanks in advance.

  57. Confused says:

    Geezer, you are cherry picking. You are taking one sentence and rebutting it – ignoring that that sentence was put in the context of a larger point. The full comment that was made was:

    “There is no way for a child to consent to be in porn. EVERY SINGLE PICTURE of child porn is the result of a child being exploited by adults. EVERY SINGLE reuse, download, etc. of such pictures normalizes this behavior and supports the market that puts money into it. If you really understood the impact on children of child porn you would see those pictures in a different light. To you they would look like videos of people setting dogs on fire. You would be OUTRAGED that anyone with ordinary responsibilities in life, a mortgage, and job, the ability to operate a vehicle, (let alone someone who wants to influence the political system,) would not react with horror to seeing even one of them.”

  58. heragain says:

    40% dual offenders. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=2451 of those arrested. So you have research showing 6 out of 10 aren’t arrested?

  59. V says:

    The rationalization for the strict punishments and charges for possession of child porn was accurately described by heragain. You can’t make it without child abuse. You just can’t. A child has to be exploited or assulted in a sexual way for it to exist. Therefore laws seek to criminalize possession in an attempt to reduce the demand. Just the act of viewing and sharing the images is participating in harming a child. You give that monster an audience and a market. Exploitation of children in our pop culture (while gross) can be made without abuse. They’re related, but not the same.

  60. heragain says:

    Also see Seto, Cantor, Blanchard “Journal of Abnormal Psychology” “Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia.”

  61. Geezer says:

    “The rationalization for the strict punishments and charges for possession of child porn was accurately described by heragain. You can’t make it without child abuse. You just can’t. A child has to be exploited or assulted in a sexual way for it to exist.”

    Really? Even if someone creates such an image without using actual children?

    “Therefore laws seek to criminalize possession in an attempt to reduce the demand.”

    That is a poor excuse for laws in a free society. Apply that standard to any other behavior and you’ll begin to understand my point.

    “Just the act of viewing and sharing the images is participating in harming a child.”

    Just as the act of sharing a joint is participating in murders in Mexico. Should we lock up pot-smokers for accessory to murder?

    “Exploitation of children in our pop culture (while gross) can be made without abuse. They’re related, but not the same.”

    Says you. One is widely viewed, one hardly ever viewed. Which one does more harm to the most people?

  62. V says:

    how do you create child porn without children? by defintion it then isn’t child porn.

    you’re just trolling for entertainment now. I’m just telling you the rationalization why those laws are there. also child porn is viewed by our society and courts as different than all other kinds of behavior. it’s the only thing that no question the courts won’t consider first amendment rights on. google it yourself if you don’t believe me.

    also it’s not about more harm to more people. it’s about that one kid, that gets raped. In the other situation no kids get raped.

  63. Geezer says:

    @heragain: Your first link is to a single one-year study, but is valuable in its finding of 40% of those arrested being dual offenders, that is, they are also abusing children.

    The second link, however, illustrates my point, not yours. All it says is that people who view child pornography are sexually stimulated by child pornography. They measured their tumescence to prove it. That’s all. “Pedophilia” in the paper means “aroused by pedophilic images.” It says nothing about how many of them had actually abused children and, in fact, states that possession of such pornography is a better indicator of who is aroused by such images than pedophilia arrests are.

  64. puck says:

    When does money actually change hands?

  65. V says:

    does it need to?

  66. puck says:

    If you are claiming that downloaders “support the industry,” yes. Without money then downloaders may be guilty of perversion, but not of providing a market.

  67. V says:

    i wasn’t talking about money or an industry. i was talking about demand. different.

    community is probably a more apt word.

  68. V says:

    there’s a market/demand for pictures of cats on the internet too. I dont pay for those either.

    I think grumpycat is adorable. If I see pictures of him, I will click on them and show my friends. This gives his owners more incentive to take more adorable pictures of him to put on the internet for me to see and show my friends for free. because then they can brag about how popular their pictures/cat are. get it?

  69. Geezer says:

    @V: “how do you create child porn without children? by defintion it then isn’t child porn.”

    Incorrect. Follow heragain’s first link. It reads, “child pornography” is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means…” In other words, drawings and computer-generated images count, even though they involve no children.

    “you’re just trolling for entertainment now.”

    No, I’m pointing out that your, and society’s, emotional reaction to the crime of child molestation has overruled reason, not just among folks like you but among politicians and law enforcement agencies as well.

    “I’m just telling you the rationalization why those laws are there.”

    I’m well aware of why those laws are there. My concern is that we’re locking up people for decades who would never have taken their pedophilia to the level of actually abusing children. Six people are locked away needlessly so we can prevent crimes by the other four. Please signify if you understand this point, which all of you seem determined to miss.

    “also child porn is viewed by our society and courts as different than all other kinds of behavior.”

    Yes, that’s my point. I suggest asking the people who ran the McMartin preschool in North Carolina if they agree we should treat it that way.

    “it’s the only thing that no question the courts won’t consider first amendment rights on. google it yourself if you don’t believe me.”

    If you’re comfortable with that, fine. But you ought to double-check your “progressive” bona fides if you’re OK with locking people away for decades over pictures.

  70. Confused says:

    @puck – money changes hands with ad revenue

    Someone who watches NBC supports the network. People who view child porn support that industry – wether they intend to or not.

  71. puck says:

    No, there are no ads on file sharing networks or darknets (which is where most of this porn is distributed). What advertiser would dare put an ad on a child porn website? Try again (I really don’t know the answer). They also don’t return stats to the originator, so no bragging rights.

  72. V says:

    you go down to sussex and tell the parents of Dr. Bradley’s patients that we’re overreacting as a society when it comes to molestation. go ahead. I’ll wait.

  73. Confused says:

    “No, there are no ads on file sharing networks or darknets (which is where most of this porn is distributed). What advertiser would dare put an ad on a child porn website? Try again (I really don’t know the answer). They also don’t return stats to the originator, so no bragging rights.”

    And how do you know that is what happened here, file sharing? Also, I don’t thing you understand how syndicated web advertising works – most ads are not actually placed by the advertiser themself

    Also – what exactly is your overall thesis?

  74. V says:

    to be fair to puck (even though i dont agree with him) tons of people use darknets and file sharing for other stuff like pirating movies and music.

  75. Geezer says:

    “you go down to sussex and tell the parents of Dr. Bradley’s patients that we’re overreacting as a society when it comes to molestation. go ahead. I’ll wait.”

    See what I mean? Pure emotion, zero reason.

    There’s a reason we adjudicate criminal violations of law as “the people” vs. the criminal — because the victims can’t be counted on to react rationally.

    And the overreaction isn’t against molestation, it’s against child porn. The understandable visceral hatred of one is being transferred to the other, creating “heinous criminals” of people who are guilty only of having twisted sex drives.

    Again, please set aside your righteous indignation long enough to signify if you understand that we are locking up 10 people to prevent 4 criminals.

  76. V says:

    you said molestation in your original comment. scroll up.

    we locked up 10 people who broke the law and knew it. the end. I don’t care if it insults your political sensibilities or bonafides. they knew the law and broke it. people’s sex drives existed before the internet and they got by. They’re being punished for breaking a known law. that’s rational. You want to be a crusader for their rights be my guest.

  77. puck says:

    Go tell these people we aren’t overreacting and our prosecutors aren’t overreaching. Where do they go to get their reputations back? (and their jobs too).

  78. Confused says:

    @geezer

    “And the overreaction isn’t against molestation, it’s against child porn.”

    So what is the proper reaction to child porn?

  79. puck says:

    Apparently, $750K (Korn) vs. $250K (Bodie).

  80. liberalgeek says:

    It is possible that the higher bail was set because of flight risk. I suspect that Bodie’s passport had fewer stamps in it in the past 10 years.

  81. Geezer says:

    “you said molestation in your original comment. scroll up.”

    Yes, in the sense that molestation is the crime that triggers reason-free reactions like yours. Sorry if I was unclear.

    “we locked up 10 people who broke the law and knew it.”

    Thank you for making clear that you are an unthinking supporter of law and order. Quite the progressive thinker you are.

    “I don’t care if it insults your political sensibilities or bonafides.”

    Me either. I only care that six out of every 10 people we’re locking up — for decades, in many cases — are guilty of nothing beyond looking at disgusting pictures.

    “You want to be a crusader for their rights be my guest.”

    And if you want to be a right-wing, knee-jerk, lock-’em-up asshole while you pretend to be a progressive, be my guest.

    “So what is the proper reaction to child porn?”

    Don’t know. Put them on a registry? If every time a child was molested the police looked at them first, it would provide just as much deterrence as the current laws do.

    But I’m under no obligation to come up with the right solution — that’s pissing up a rainpipe. I’m pointing out the injustice that even self-identified progressives support as long as it coincides with their emotional biases. Thanks for playing.

  82. V says:

    i know nothing about the finances of either of these men, does Korn have more money and is therefore a bigger flight risk? it would explain the higher bail.

  83. anon123 says:

    From 2006 – the back story on the problems in New York and the “A Current Affair” segment – Korn sued for $102 million and it was settled for $50k:
    http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/6-06korn.asp

  84. geezer says:

    Ah, yes, the breathless Celia Cohen hit piece. She acted like she found the Ark of the Covenant when the material was widely known already. Which explains why Celia Cohen writes a newsletter for her funders, whom she won’t name, and got her ass canned from the News Journal.

  85. V says:

    “And if you want to be a right-wing, knee-jerk, lock-’em-up asshole while you pretend to be a progressive, be my guest”

    haha i’m laughing too hard to do anything else to combat you. your lack of emotion and rational responses have struck me dumb. you win. about pedophiles. you totally win. bask in your intellectual victory.

  86. Geezer says:

    No, you were dumb when you started. Let me know when you learn to think.

    By the way, I also defend the rights of drivers caught in roadblocks and drug dealers who have their money confiscated before conviction. Little quirk I have.

  87. V says:

    let me know when you grow some compassion for human beings over political philosphy and we’ll compare notes.

  88. SussexWatcher says:

    Ceila’s funders are listed on the left side of her site.

    And I thought she retired from TNJ.

  89. Geezer says:

    V: I am talking about human beings. They don’t stop being human beings because you hate them.

  90. Geezer says:

    If they let her retire, it was on the day before she was going to get canned — and she compromised several people on her way out the door.

    Glad to hear she’s finally listing her donors. Has she gotten around to calling it a blog yet?

  91. anon says:

    Lots of people get “canned” by TNJ. Celia, though, left.

    Glad to hear she’s finally listing her donors. Has she gotten around to calling it a blog yet?

    She’s listed her donors since she rebooted the Grapevine a few years ago, and she doesn’t call it a “blog” because she doesn’t take comments.

  92. V says:

    i dont hate them, a lot of them are victims of abuse themselves and have serious emotional/mental issues/trauma they need to work on (as do a lot of people involved in crimes). but people who act on those desires have a high rate of recidivism, much higher than other crimes, and our society has deemed those desires dangerous because of that recidivism.

    This is exactly like your thoughts in the gun thread. A person’s right to a gun is a higher priority than a person’s right to not be shot. A person’s right to look at pictures of abused children is a higher priorty than the child’s right to not be abused.

    I have to respect your consistency.

  93. Geezer says:

    V: OK, then. I’m glad you don’t hate them. I am trying to point out, on both issues, that our emotions don’t outweigh their rights, just as the emotions of conservatives on just about every issue don’t outweigh the rights of those (women, for one major example) whose rights don’t seem to matter to them.

  94. V says:

    they don’t but a large number of laws in our society are determined by balancing tests. your feelings come down on one side of that scale, mine on the other.

    because i want to leave my computer at sometime today, I’m going ignore that you just compared women’s rights to the rights of pedophiles.

  95. Geezer says:

    anon: If she left, it was only as a face-saving move. She was on the 86 list, and if she left it was at the last minute, IIRC after she was switched to reporting on courts.

    She was hardly alone. The same thing happened to several people at the same time (Ted Caddell and Chris Donahue, for two examples), as Gannett forced Bennie Ivory to clean house to prove he’d grovel and kiss corporate ass for the Louisville job. He was known as very pro-staff at his every previous stop, and Gannett didn’t trust that.

    Virtually every time her name came up, he would say to me, “Does a newspaper this size really need a political columnist?”

    As I said, she compromised several people in her effort to save her job as political columnist, which was eliminated as part of the effort to facilitate her departure.

  96. Geezer says:

    “a large number of laws in our society are determined by balancing tests”

    Almost all of them do. I don’t think you are really on the opposite side on most such cases. I suspect we both support the rights of a pregnant woman over the rights of her fetus, for example. It’s just very hard for most people to set aside emotions when dealing with child molesters, or drunk drivers, or dope dealers. And by singling out such unloved constituencies, and having very few people defend their rights, the 4th Amendment now lies in shreds.

  97. V says:

    well im a right wing knee jerk lock em up asshole. so you never know.

  98. Geezer says:

    You sounded like one for a while there.

    As for the Bradley case, I have no sympathy for someone who’s actually producing child porn with real children as victims. I do, however, believe we do ourselves a disservice when we simply lock away such people without using them for more research on what produces such aberrant behavior. From his family history, with an uncle jailed for child molestation, odds are he, too, was once a victimized child.

  99. heragain says:

    Here’s an explanation for why computer generated images are also at issue. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1139&issue_id=32007

    “naughty pictures” are actually crime scene photos. “child porn” is depiction, if not actual proof, of torture. Do I want the people who get off on depiction of torture of children locked up? Yeppers, sure do.

    You have what you consider a “larger issue” than protecting children. We don’t agree. And, fortunately for me, I don’t recognize your right, as a blog commenter, to stamp or deny my credentials for anything. :D

  100. kavips says:

    My two takes are first, that the description the News Journal printed of the image taken off the computer, is odd, in that I have never seen a newspaper print such explicit descriptions before. Is it just me, or has a new line has been crossed here?

    Second, because of this thread, every time I cross the words “child pornography”, I will forever think of someone setting their pets on fire. In all my years, I have never heard a better description.

  101. Dave says:

    “I’m going ignore that you just compared women’s rights to the rights of pedophiles.”

    Actually, he did not make that comparison at all. Geezer compared emotions of conservatives to rights of individuals and used women’s rights as an example where that is the case.

    This is often an outcome when an emotionally charged topic is being discussed. It’s a propositional fallacy known as commutation of conditionals. A relatively common tactic in discussions.

  102. V says:

    well i was never on debate team.

  103. dem dementia says:

    I am so glad Beau Biden was elected in 2006 to protect children, he is doing a great job. I am so glad Democrats talk about the children and then ignore them except to use them as pawns for political purposes.

    Yup, the one state D rule is working in Delaware.

  104. liberalgeek says:

    ummm… wouldn’t and AG that wants to protect children arrest, charge and prosecute predators (like Bradley, for example). Oh, wait… he did.

  105. anon says:

    demented r: Bradley is put away for life, Bodenweiser is facing hundreds of charges, and Korn is sitting in prison. Looks to me like our AG is doing a fine job protecting our children.

    And if you want to see someone using “the children” as “pawns for political purposes”, look in the mirror, dickwad, that’s exactly what your comment does.

    If you want more Rs in Delaware’s government, run better candidates and stop throwing away the good ones like Mike Castle for nutjobs such as yourself.

  106. Dave says:

    It doesn’t originate with debate teams. Comes from inductive and deductive reasoning course of study. I guess a lot of the folks in those courses might wind up on debate teams though.

  107. Cpj711 says:

    Korn is innocent until proven guilty. End of story!

  108. John Berryhill says:

    “the most basic tenants of liberalism and the criminal justice system-in this country an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury of his peers”

    That’s a rule of procedure which determines the presumptions in a trial.

    Those are not “words to live by”.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the prosecutor, by opening his presentation with the assertion that the accused is guilty, is violating some kind of rule? Nonsense.

    Are you seriously suggesting that if a guy comes up to me on the street, punches me and takes my wallet, that I’m supposed to walk away wondering whether or not he is guilty? Nonsense.

    Mitch, why does anyone ever call the police to report a crime?

    “Hello, 911? My innocent husband just innocently beat me up during an argument. I’m just calling to let you know, since I surely wouldn’t want to suggest that he committed a crime or anything like that.”

    Outside of a jury box, anyone is entitled to hold and express whatever opinion they’d like.

    The notion that any member of the general public is somehow required to personally consider anyone to be not guilty of anything is horsepucky.

  109. Delaware Dem says:

    Korn is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, it is usually the opposite.

  110. puck says:

    “The notion that any member of the general public is somehow required to personally consider anyone to be not guilty of anything is horsepucky.”

    You must have it confused with the rules for American Idol.

    That was a really dotty rant.

  111. SussexWatcher says:

    Hey, Mitch: How much rent do the tenants of liberalism pay each month? Does that include utilities?

  112. Mitch Crane says:

    Yes, but the tenants live on leased land

  113. SussexWatcher says:

    ;-)

  114. Aoine says:

    See, that why I love Mitch, that wit is amazing. Sharp and true

    Sometimes, we just find people that resonate with us, from the day I met Mitch and he said

    ” do u want to fix the problem or complain.” I was hooked.

    Good comments Mitch. Before we condemn anyone, including Bodenweisers , they r innocent and are presumed so under the law.

    That’s why vigilantes are a bad idea. And lynch mobs.

    Opinions are like a***holes, everyone has one and they all stink. So, while it looks bad, I’m reserving comment

    Lets wait and see, less crow to eat later.

  115. kavips says:

    I look over this thread, and get the feeling that almost all upon hearing of the arrest, are under the cloud of feeling he is guilty and will be punished. Scattered across this thread are the occasional high minded reminders that the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is there for a reason.

    I think it takes something like this as we look into ourselves, for us to realize how rather odd it is to have a basic tenant defining all the law of the land, that a criminal who we “feel” is guilty be allowed to resume his life as an innocent for quite a long while before he sees his day in court, and is… pronounced guilty…

    It is just unnatural, and probably for that reason, over most of the history of civilized man it was never used. Most countries today rely on the premise that a person if arrested is guilty, otherwise the state would not have reason to arrest him… Now if in court, he can prove the state made a mistake, well that happens occasionally and he can go free…..

    The notion had to have come from a shared common experience at one time, where justice was reduced to the whim of a magistrate and considerable numbers of people got swept up in dragnets, charged, and punished. Otherwise how could a person even think of setting up an entire justice system where innocence prevailed all the way until proven guilty, instead of the other way around?

    But it is brilliant. To have powers that falsely prosecute, wait a considerable time between the arrest and the trial, can if the charge is completely unfounded make for a very stressful time for that person accusing falsely. It serves as a deterrent if one is considering removing another over a false accusation to have that guy, standing right beside you the very next day.

    There was a case on the Rick Jensen show when hosted by the Flattery Bros, which covered a guy who was accused of horrendous crimes against a woman, none of which were true. It has inspired a pointed letter from a Delaware state representative to Beau Biden which I believe is now common knowledge. If you hadn’t heard he was proven innocent because the data on his ankle bracelet conclusively proved he could not have committed a crime on which the accuser swore in secret family court, he was guilty.

    It is to preserve hope for the cases like this, that we work hard on all those guilty cases to keep the presumption of innocence still viable and real until officially proven guilty…

    It is a thought process that works, sort of like quantum mechanics. I can only hope that all here who read this, will continue to work hard to keep that philosophy at heart for it is bigger then Mr. Corn, Mr. Bodenweiser, or Bradley and Sandusky, or even O.J. Simpson. It is so big, and we are remarkably lucky to live in a world where it is not just whispered, but is the strongest pillar supporting our justice system. Because societies like that among mankind, are exceedingly rare.

    If we aren’t vigilant and we don’t keep the dark emotions at bay so we one day lose this wonderful, rare, brilliant tenant of justice, … it will be a long, long time in hell before we can ever get all the pieces to fall just right, to get it back…

  116. SussexWatcher says:

    To the contrary, a speedy trial is a right enshrined in the Constitution. The time between arrest and trial is, generally speaking, extended to allow the defense sufficient time to prepare. Don’t go blaming that on the prosecution tying to destroy a reputation.

    And for God’s sake, it’s tenets, not tenants.

  117. geezer says:

    “You have what you consider a “larger issue” than protecting children.”

    No, we disagree about the rights of pedophiles.

    “child porn” is depiction, if not actual proof, of torture. Do I want the people who get off on depiction of torture of children locked up? Yeppers, sure do.”

    Got it. You want to criminalize desire rather than action.

    Are you aware that criminalizing sexual desires was also the driving force behind anti-homosexual laws for all those years?

    Your emotional reaction to the “torture” of children — nice little piece of sophistry there, by the way — should not trump the rights of criminals, let alone perverts who do not attack others.

    The rationale at your link is exactly what I expected — they couldn’t win in court unless they rigged the rules. That’s exactly why our police departments are now allowed to seize money and property from suspected drug dealers, whether or not those arrested are later convicted. They passed the law because dealers were hiring top-notch lawyers and the government kept losing to them in court.

    I find the attitudes on display here most illiberal. I don’t give a crap whether you like that label or not. It’s entirely accurate.

  118. socialistic ben says:

    Perhaps this is yet another mental health issue. Perhaps Richard Korn was, himself, abused as a child and that explains his attraction. I certainly dont want pedophilia to be a naturally occurring and uncontrollable sexual orientation. Because if it is, (it isnt) should we be prosecuting people for something they cant help? (in this case, yeah… probably) But if it isn’t (it isn’t) then there surely must be some cause behind it, and we owe it to every potential victim… and to the afflicted adult (who hasn’t acted) at least effort to try and cure the sickness.
    Once a person acts on those feelings, they have given up their rights as far as im concerned, but if we are going to treat the murder of children as a sickness, maybe we should take the same approach to exploitation of children.

  119. John Berryhill says:

    “a criminal who we “feel” is guilty be allowed to resume his life as an innocent for quite a long while before he sees his day in court”

    Nobody is saying he can’t go on about doing whatever he was doing with his life.

    Here’s the deal – I thought Bodie was an odious nutjob before he was arrested, and I still think he’s an odious nutjob. Am I allowed to resume my life of thinking he is an odious nutjob? Sure.

    My thinking that Korn is a weirdo doesn’t affect his “life as an innocent” – not even one little bit.

    No, I’m not entitled to show up with tar and feathers, but I’m entitled to believe whatever the heck I want about him, and that does not interfere with “his life as an innocent”. My belief does not deprive him of a single right he held prior to his arrest. Not one.

    But you still haven’t explained under what circumstances it is okay for me to call the police if an innocent person sticks a gun in my face and steals my car.

    Just what is the procedure here, “Hello 911, an innocent person just stuck a gun in my face, ordered me out, and took off with my car. I can’t say for sure whether he committed a crime, and I certainly don’t want to interfere with his day to day life. Is there someone I can call to maybe get my car back from this innocent person?”

Switch to our mobile site