hehe :) being recently single (more or less, ok more) I've been out to the pub with friends (similar age + older) and one thing we all notice we have in common - we have absolutely nothing in common, socially at that point in your life and the way to look at it because of experience and knowledge, with anyone under the age of about 25. lol Different (crap) interests in music and what's 'trendy' or whatever... not that we talk about mortgages and stuff lol, but holding a conversation with the majority of them is like pulling teeth for the things they don't know or understand... and I'm only 34! :haha:

Guess I'm just grumpy; I know enough to know there's not a damn I can do about the things I have no control over that interfere with me and mine.

At least I still have a healthy regard for cleavage. And if that lawyer guy is anything to go by, I'll be all right for a good few years yet :har:

I didn't read the linked article here, but I read another one somewhere else, which said he had a mother-in-law. Ergo, married.

I'm definitely all for keeping work and play separate, and portable drives are a good way to do that.

I may be a lawyer, but I'm also a libertarian, and I'm not inclined to make excuses for anyone. Personal responsibility and all that. But my inner lawyer will still look for motives (and means, and opportunity) when a person is accused of malfeasance.

But no, I don't think "being male" is a better explanation, because said male can still please both his heads by loading up the home PC. There really isn't any need to look at that stuff at work unless it's the only place you feel you can.

Why keep the stuff on your computer anyway? All you need is a net connection and you've got acess to all could want and more?:doh: Private browsing settings anyone? He deserves to be whacked cos hes too dumb to not keep the stuff hanging about where it can be found.

Hmm yeah made having relationship with a girl of those kind of age ehm rather unexciting and dull and more like parenting . . . .it's amazing what 6-8 years can bring to a person.

People in their early 20s talk about taming and conquering the world.
People in their 30s have conquered themselves and now really ready to conquer the world. FOOORWARD!!!:yeah:

It's about from this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...rised_face.jpg
"WTF?!"


To this
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3N2FVQpNvc.../lion-8423.jpg
"Meh"

^^
lol :arrgh!:

Meh.... righting the thread now.. :woot:

An honest lawyer. And here I thought I was going to start a trend once I could enter the profession. Well said, sir. Well said.

Still, I'm confused. I'll elaborate below.

Good point, but it doesn't explain away the "disability" hypothesis. Your attitude is decidedly prosecutorial. Innocent until proven guilty, no? And there are so many ways one can be innocent. Unless I miss my guess there are any number of psychologists/psychyatrists who would readily attribute such behaviour to some kind of uncontrollable behaviour maladjustment. They certainly have on many previous occasions. Why not now? How do you fight that? Where is the criminal intent? How do you, as an attorney, distinguish impaired behaviour from the behaviour of a rational and intelligent liar? Does it come with experience? Does that experience translate into a case made before a jury? As happens so often in my classwork, I'm a bit lost.

Furthermore, the judge resigned once the allegations were made public. Does this indicate that he knew he did something wrong and has a good sense of justice or that he is a weasel trying to escape retribution? I honestly have no idea. Given the former, there's a great case to be made for a disability, provided the judge goes along with it, or that it is the truth to begin with.

Of course, this isn't really a legal issue at the moment, but I'm completely befuddled, and your opinion doesn't clarify much. No offense intended, but I just don't get it. How would you prosecute this case? How would you defend it? Would you give the guy the benefit of the doubt, or kick him out? What does either response say about you as an attorney? Once again, I'm lost.

Not really relevant to what I was saying. The issue is what would make a person do something stupid, and there are a lot of stupid people doing this and getting caught. Even if it turns out this particular individual is innocent, it doesn't change the discussion.

"Impairment" doesn't excuse criminal responsibility. Standards for legal insanity vary from state to state, but one example I can give you is (approximately/paraphrased) "a mental defect that renders a person unable to distinguish between right and wrong and unable to conform his conduct to the standards of the law." Psychosis can meet that standard in some cases (but not always!). Maleness does not.

I'd say the latter, solely for the reason that the magnitude of this wrong isn't sufficient to justify someone losing their job on the first offense, at least not without any evidence that job performance was affected. For all we know, he was only wanking on his lunch breaks. He's not going away b/c he deserves it, he's just taking the path of least resistance.

I would not prosecute this. There are more important things for prosecutors to do, and his resignation is already more than adequate to fill any moral "holes" in the universe his wrong created. But I guess that's not really what you're asking. So, first you need a statute to charge him under. Let's assume there is one that makes it illegal to use a government 'puter for unauthorized purposes, such as surfing for pr0n. To prosecute, you just introduce network traffic logs and any cache found on the HD. To defend, you pretty much try to convince the jury that someone else was using the computer when the content was DLed or that the evidence is a fabrication. This sort of case would be very, very straightforward and is pretty much a guaranteed conviction unless many people had access to that workstation.