Man Convicted Under U.S. Sex Tourism Law

[ZaZu]

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - An 86-year-old man was found guilty Friday of attempting to travel to the Philippines to sexually molest girls, in violation of a new federal law aimed at fighting sex tourism.

A judge found John W. Seljan guilty of six counts, including attempting to travel for the purpose of having sex with minors and possession of child pornography.

Seljan faces a minimum term of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 270 years when he is sentenced in March.

The retired business owner is one of about a dozen men who have been arrested under the Protect Act, which was enacted last year. The law made it easier to prosecute those who molest children overseas and increased penalties.

Seljan was the first to go to trial on charges brought under the Protect Act, though at least two men have pleaded guilty.

His defense attorney, Allan Stokke, had argued that the government presented insufficient evidence that Seljan intended to have sex with two girls with whom he exchanged sexually explicit letters.

The lawyer said Friday he had not decided whether to appeal.

Seljan, who sat in a wheelchair during the non-jury trial, was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport, where he allegedly attempted to board a flight with child pornography, sexual aids and nearly 100 pounds of chocolate.

A federal agent testified that Seljan told investigators he had ``sexually educated'' young girls in the Philippines with their parents' consent since 1983, and that he believed it was legal and culturally accepted in that country.

Authorities said they began investigating Seljan after Customs investigators opened a letter with his name on it during a random inspection of packages destined for overseas. An agent testified that he noted the sexual nature of what appeared to be a letter to a child and notified a supervisor.

Source (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20041119/1851211788.htm)

He should get the max sentence considering how long he admits having been at this...

[vidcc]

When it comes to getting these sick people out of circulation i agree they should be hunted wherever they go in the world

[ahctlucabbuS]

Definitely,

you can only wonder how many sick fucks do this every year.

[Arm]

Eh lucky for him he'll probably die in prison before his sentence is up. Unfortinatly. :dry:

[Busyman]

I totally disagree with this law.

He was arrested for what he intended to do?

Total bullshit!!

Arrest him for having child porn not some trumped up intention law.

In the future there will be more laws like this.

They will pass because no one would dare, for instance, stand against a law against child molesters, for example. Next thing you know we'll a Patriot Act where one could get swept off the face of the Earth by the government with no oversigh...oh may bad we are already there. :dry:

Because everyone jumps on these bandwagons we will have more bullshit.

[BigBank_Hank]

So B in your eyes arresting drug dealer who was caught with loads of drugs for possession with intent to distribute is wrong?

[Busyman]

So B in your eyes arresting drug dealer who was caught with loads of drugs for possession with intent to distribute is wrong?
He can't smoke it himself.

Intent to distribute = you've got too much drugs = here's more jail time for ya, here...there ya go.

The same as I have multiple copies of the same Shrek 2, maybe about 100.

To be clear, I'm not saying all intention laws are bad but this one is ridiculous.

Good question btw.

[ZaZu]

So B in your eyes arresting drug dealer who was caught with loads of drugs for possession with intent to distribute is wrong?
Depends on what you mean by 'loads of drugs',there are people being charged with 'intent to distribute' who've been caught with 2-3 ounces of pot...when I smoked it I'd buy it by the pound for my own consumption..

[BigBank_Hank]

The guy had nearly 100 pounds of chocolate on him at the time he was apprehended. Now what do you and B think he was going to do with that much chocolate? Keep in mind that he has already admitted to “sexually educating” young girls.

[Busyman]

The guy had nearly 100 pounds of chocolate on him at the time he was apprehended. Now what do you and B think he was going to do with that much chocolate? Keep in mind that he has already admitted to “sexually educating” young girls.
Is bringing 100 pounds of chocolate illegal?
:huh:

[Busyman]

Depends on what you mean by 'loads of drugs',there are people being charged with 'intent to distribute' who've been caught with 2-3 ounces of pot...when I smoked it I'd buy it by the pound for my own consumption..
I don't know what the poundage is nowadays for intent to distribute but it's probably bullshit too.

[Samurai]

I agree with Busyman. It's one thing to do jail time for a crime you have done, but it's a totally seperate incident when it's based on intention.

With that, they could arrest anyone for the intention of anything. It's like a legal loophole. Can't get you for one thing, so they use the fallback position and do you for intention of something or another.

[BigBank_Hank]

Is bringing 100 pounds of chocolate illegal?
:huh:

The guy had child pornography, 100 pounds of chocolate and had exchanged sexually explicit letters with young girls and we should just slap him on the writs? Come on B your being naïve you know damn good in well what he was on his way to do. This guy is a monster and needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.

[Busyman]

The guy had child pornography, 100 pounds of chocolate and had exchanged sexually explicit letters with young girls and we should just slap him on the writs? Come on B your being naïve you know damn good in well what he was on his way to do. This guy is a monster and needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.
You are generalizing. Don't be coy about me being naivete. I could say "you know Bush wasn't in Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people.....Come on."

You don't go from, "He had 100 pounds of chocolate" to "We all know what he was going to do."

We agree that he should be locked but should he be locked up? :blink:

He won't get a slap on the wrist due to the child pornography.

[BigBank_Hank]

Ok B in your opinion what should we do with him?

[Busyman]

Ok B in your opinion what should we do with him?
Arrest him for possession of child pornography. :ohmy:

:dry:

[Biggles]

As he is 86 and in a wheelchair - it might be advisable to charge him with crimes that are easy to prove and not subject to lengthy appeal processes. As it is, any custodial sentence is liable to turn into free nursing care anytime soon.

[BigBank_Hank]

Arrest him for possession of child pornography. :ohmy:

:dry:

That's it? Even after admitting to “sexually educating” young girls? :blink:

[freak]

I agree with Busyman... Bust him for having child porn... You could even bust him on the previouis offenses but the Intent thing is total crap!

[Busyman]

That's it? Even after admitting to “sexually educating” young girls? :blink:
If I go into a police station and "admit" to educating young girls in Britain, I wouldn't be convicted of anything," should I?

[Busyman]

I agree with Busyman. It's one thing to do jail time for a crime you have done, but it's a totally seperate incident when it's based on intention.

With that, they could arrest anyone for the intention of anything. It's like a legal loophole. Can't get you for one thing, so they use the fallback position and do you for intention of something or another.
Minority Report.

:helpsmili

[BigBank_Hank]

If I go into a police station and "admit" to educating young girls in Britain, I wouldn't be convicted of anything," should I?

That depends on where it took place. If it took place in the U.S. and you confessed overseas you should not be arrested there. The U.K. police should notify the U.S. about the situation and you should be deported back here where you would be arrested.

[Busyman]

That depends on where it took place. If it took place in the U.S. and you confessed overseas you should not be arrested there. The U.K. police should notify the U.S. about the situation and you should be deported back here where you would be arrested.
For what?

[DanB]

Busyman could have been teaching maths overhere

[Busyman]

Busyman could have been teaching maths overhere
What dat mean? :blink: