While child rapist, incestophile, and Republican politician Joel Koskan waits for his slap on the wrist from South Dakota’s corrupted justice system, the federal justice system metes out more severe punishment to a less severe sex creep.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken gave an old man who looked at dirty pictures of children five years in prison, which is five more years than the state of South Dakota wants Koskan to serve, and additional punishment:
James McKinstry, age 75, was sentenced to five years in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $8,000 in restitution, a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund, and a $5,000 special assessment to the Victims of Trafficking Fund. McKinstry will also be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
McKinstry was indicted for Receipt of Child Pornography and Possession of Child Pornography by a federal grand jury in February of 2021. He pleaded guilty on July 25, 2022.
McKinstry was arrested and federally indicted following three Cybertips from the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children. A forensic examination of McKinstry’s devices found hundreds of images and videos of child pornography, including children as young as infants [U.S. Department of Justice: U.S. Attorney for District of South Dakota, press release, 2022.11.23].
Let’s not minimize any instance of the sexual exploitation of children: child porn is vile, and old man McKinstry deserves his punishment.
But McKinstry was just looking at illegal pictures. The DOJ doesn’t indicate that he was taking the pictures or recruiting children for sex-slavery. The DOJ doesn’t say that he actually touched any child inappropriately. Looking at dirty pictures doesn’t do any direct harm to the subjects of those pictures. The direct harm is done entirely by the takers, at the moment of taking; McKinstry’s harm is indirect, contributing marginally to the economic demand that keeps the takers in business. McKinstry’s harm is perhaps also potential: looking at child porn may increase the risk that an individual will commit direct physical sexual abuse of children, though that “may” is iffy… and we shouldn’t get too deeply into throwing people in prison for crimes they might commit.
McKinstry did indirect and potentially potential harm to children. He will sit in prison for five years, which at his age could be the rest of his life, and he will be publicly branded a sex offender.
Joel Koskan raped his own child for years. When she left home for college, he subjected her to video surveillance and psychological abuse to control her actions and maintain his sexual access to her. And the state of South Dakota wants to let Koskan remain free to seek counseling, without sacrificing any liberty to prison or even the sex offender registry.
South Dakota Republicans like to say they are tough on crime. But when it comes to holding criminals in their own party accountable for truly vile crimes, South Dakota Republicans go soft.
Well Cory, they should let Joel visit the rez. He’d quickly be fishing without a boat.
This assertion is false!
“Looking at dirty pictures doesn’t do any direct harm to the subjects of those pictures.” – CAH
If pervert deviants didn’t buy the pictures the child pornographer wouldn’t take those pictures. At least not as many children would be enlisted.
The deviancy of the photographer is stimulated by the act of sharing and making money from his “black art” as much as the photo session itself.
I claim knowledge of this assertion because I’m a professional food photographer, myself.
Photography is stimulating and selling an image is double stimulation of the deviant’s artistic muse.
South Dakota’s richest man, Denny Sanford, is the subject of a probe for possession of child pornography even as his namesake plans a merger with an ailing Minnesota medical giant.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office is investigating the proposed hookup.
Sanford’s lawyer is a Republican who admitted to illegal content on at least one device, but brushed it aside as a hacking, is returning as South Dakota Attorney General. The US Department of Justice has declined comment on whether a federal grand jury has convened or if an indictment is imminent.
Just reading these articles about “equal justice,” local and national, makes one want to wretch! I view myself as moderately liberal, but a little “cowboy justice” might be in order from time to time.
Loren, I share your “after Thanksgiving” urge to ‘wretch’ or puke when considering how “justice” is applied in South Dakota – the land of “One Party” power politics. Law agencys show their pride after the Sturgis Rally as to how many males were caught by lawmen posing as teen-age prostitutes.
This Koskan case, thanks only to Cory’s persistence, may grow legs after all. But the scant mention of it by any main media in this state is astounding. To be “protected” as it seems so by the ‘party in power’ because it makes the GOP Republicans look exactly like those darn Democrats that they recently campaigned against. “The pot calling the kettle black” as the saying goes!
Were Koskan a Democrat in SD, the GOP powers would be at least every other day insisting that he be put in the ‘pen’ in Sioux Falls at minimum!
There are a few details that might be relevant in Cory’s sentence comparison:
(1) There is less of a prosecution incentive to agree to a plea bargain to a lessor offense or reduced punishment for a serious crime because the case does not require testimony from anyone other than law enforcement officials, hence there would be no danger from a trial to any particular victim, (even if such a person could actually be identified in a child pornography case since the defendant can be, and very often is, convicted of viewing pornography of completely unidentifiable children).
(2) Federal Judges are required to follow written semi-mandatory federal sentencing guidelines that define the range of sentences for any federal crime, whereas state judges do not have such sentencing guidelines and absent some statutory mandatory minimum are permitted to individually evaluate whatever factors the judge deems relevant in deciding upon a sentence;
(3) Normally plea bargains in state courts are not binding upon a judge so whatever sentence is agreed to or recommended by the prosecutor does not have to be the sentence the judge imposes on a guilty plea. The parites are free to draft a plea bargain that is binding on the judge, but in such a case the judge must inform the parties in advance whether the court will accept that binding plea bargain. That may be the situation in Koskan’s case since the parties are reportedly waiting for some decision by the Judge.
(4) If a judge rejects a proposed binding plea agreement, the prosecutor can also dismiss the original charges and refile a new or amended charge to a different crime with a statutorily defined sentence that does not exceed the range agreed to in the rejected plea bargain. In Koskan’s case it will be worth watching just how the prosecution proceeds if the Judge rejects the proposed plea agreement.
P. Harding
Learn to read [between the lines]:
“[Relatve to direct physical molestation], looking at dirty pictures doesn’t do any direct harm to the subjects of those pictures.”
Cory merely posits—and he can correct me if I’m mistaken— a distinction between direct and indirect harms. That in no wise makes either less egregious.
This case has been the subject of significant discussion on my Twitter thread over the past couple weeks. @Michellekalehz1 there are several of us who are amplifying this story in the hope that justice prevails. Just last weekend I received a series of DM‘s from an imposter posing as a respected South Dakota, state, legislator, dissuading me from speaking publicly about this case, in a very unfriendly tone. further investigation revealed that this legislator had no knowledge of these postings, and they were very unhappy knowing that I could have easily outed him wrongly and ruined his reputation. At the same time, he could have been sued me for damaging his reputation. We both reported this incident to the SD attorney general office and I’m waiting to see where this goes. I am concerned that they may be unmotivated to investigate this case as it places their actions in making a terrible plea deal with Joel Koscan in the spotlight. Because of these concerns, the FBI has also been informed about the details of these incidents. What all of these events have revealed is the incestuous nature of the South Dakota republican party, and the powers that may be in South Dakota, who seem to protect each other, even when it is morally wrong.
DaveFU – …
TAKE THEIR VIAGRA AWAY
When a penis becomes a weapon, what should society do with it?
Ms. P.h, I once knew a fellow who was a short order cook who took pictures of his eggs and bacon. Do you have any food pictures you can share?
P, Dave is correct. Consider the actions in themselves:
Suppose a man finds a dirty picture on the street. He looks at it, is aroused, and keeps the picture for future viewing and arousal. This dirty behavior happens outside of the economic system. Each time the man secretly looks at that picture, no one in the world says, “Ouch.” No photographer gets a psychic note saying, “Congrats! Your dirty picture got another look!” In and of itself, looking at and keeping that dirty picture harms nobody except maybe the person looking at and keeping the photo, who suffers personal moral degradation.
Suppose a man finds a child in the street. He looks at it, is aroused, and keeps the child for future viewing and arousal (perhaps not physical abduction or imprisonment, although that’s close to what Joel Koskan did, but through psychological manipulation to keep the child accessible for rape). The man directly, immediately harms that child in a way that secretly looking at a photo never does.
Note that P’s explanation is based on purchasing dirty photos. I acknowledge exactly that prospect in my discussion of the indirect harm of supporting economic demand. But the indictment doesn’t say McKinstry bought child porn. It says he received it and possessed it. He may have downloaded free pix online… which still contributes to the economic demand, as he increases childporn.com’s traffic and the fees it can charge advertisers.
McKinstry deserves his sentence, but the harm he did is abstract and arguably potential. We aren’t prosecuting him for harming any of the children in the photos he looked at. The photos he looked at could all be old. The children depicted could all be safely out of the clutches of child pornographers. We are punishing him for contributing marginal, hard-to-measure support to ongoing harm of children.
Joel Koskan raped his own child, repeatedly, for years. His harm was direct, immediate, and devastating to an identifiable individual. Joel Koskan deserves at least as heavy a sentence, and I would argue a far greater sentence.
A guy who looks at pictures of eggs and bacon is not nearly as culpable in the subjugation of other species as the guy who eats that breakfast, or the guy who cages the chickens and slits the pigs’ throats.
Say, what punishment, if any, should we mete out to individuals who view porn created entirely by artificial intelligence? Suppose a vendor provided entirely realistic, arousing images which could honestly bear the label, “No humans were exploited in the creation of these images”? Do we have any grounds for prosecuting viewers and producers of such “vegan” porn? Does such AI porn harm anyone?
Turning to the original thesis, it’s none of my business or the court’s business if Joel Koskan wants to order a sex robot and engage in mechanically aided autoeroticism in private.
You’re double talking, Cory.
i.e. ~ deliberately ambiguous or evasive language.
Sure, grudznichts. I’m happy to share my photos with you. I’m worldwide on Instagram. Be sure to “like” what you see; if they make you hungry. And a Merry Christmas to you. :)
If you found out some nasty, sweaty old geezer had a nudie of you, you would feel raped every time he looked at it. You would feel so violated knowing he shared them with his rape buddies. You would feel diminished as a human being, dirty and want to die. Then to learn that image was copied and shared 100,000 times while some scum made money off your helpless little body, you think you wouldn’t feel physically violated? You think you would carry on about your life?
I agree all forms of abuse need to be punished. But it won’t matter until ALL abusers are no longer a threat to the people they hurt. And if they are in a cell somewhere fantasizing about what they did to you, they are still able to harm you and we didn’t do our job to protect the children from predators, so we only proved to that victim they do not matter. When you don’t feel safe from your rapist because they are still getting off somewhere on what they did to you, you treat yourself and others worthless. So the cycle continues.
My conclusion is walk the plank over an active volcano hole. Serio. Nobody has to be the executioner and have death on their soul. We are not put here to harm one another. I believe we are put here to love and show the kids they matter. The good earth is hungry. Feed her. Those scuds will be vaporized before they can feel a thing and they will never harm their victim in any way again. That victim will be able to say they matter and feel safe. After a few years, the cycle will be broken and we will have a .0003% of the cho mo’s we have now. There is no help or cure for them. To the volcano hole with them.
Yikes. What have I wandered into on this thread?
I remember discussions of child molestation/child porn in the Legislature were very difficult to listen to. No one wanted to discuss the details, and put it into code, yet it had to be done. Cory does us all a public service by pointing out the problems involved in this. I’m more inclined to prohibit too much, than too little, when it comes to children, who can’t legally consent, whether it be to molestation or to depiction of molestation. People who find such material need to report it, not squirrel it away.
I took a photo of my kid in the bathtub when she was about 3. I never thought anything of it, until my daughter was showing a high school boyfriend her photos. He snidely hinted that it was child pornography. Really? I thought it was an innocent picture of my happy kid splashing in the tub. But, someone else might think it was child porn. That floored me, and spoiled the memory of the happy times we spent with rubber ducky.
Cory is probably busy working today so let’s open this up to blog discussion.
Cory asserts that looking at child porn photos does no direct harm to the child or children portrayed in the image or images.
I assert that looking at child porn does direct harm to a myriad of entities.
What say you?
Never fear, Donald Pay, in the SD Legislature now we have the likes of GOP Rep. Sue Peterson to invoke “her” God into inspiring her colleagues by her using an oil-based substance to make the sign of the cross on the backs of the comfy chairs her closed GOP caucus uses on the 4th floor of the capital! I appreciated your input in the legislature while there and since-but now we have Sue and her religious cohorts mightily making their mark on our state’s business.
https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZGFrb3Rhc2NvdXQuY29tL3AvbGF3bWFrZXItaW4taG90LXdhdGVyLWFmdGVyLW1hcmtpbmc_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvek1qYzNOREkzT0N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk9EWXlNamMzT0RJc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZMk9UUXlOVFF5TXl3aVpYaHdJam94TmpjeU1ERTNOREl6TENKcGMzTWlPaUp3ZFdJdE9URTRNemc1SWl3aWMzVmlJam9pY0c5emRDMXlaV0ZqZEdsdmJpSjkuZ1B6aXFVdzh4X0FsVGh4c1RNb3kwWm5RQnpxTTVGVmhzS1gxVWNZMEltQSIsInAiOjg2MjI3NzgyLCJzIjo5MTgzODksImYiOmZhbHNlLCJ1IjozMjc3NDI3OCwiaWF0IjoxNjY5NDI1NDIzLCJleHAiOjE2NzIwMTc0MjMsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.y3zQjN_RafxTPANkGqOxKVYgwd03ztq_RSRcR8c0KPE?
Worthlessly* 10:08
Mr. Pay- about every father who had a positive, active role in his kid’s childhood has an album with birthday suit clad photos. Don’t let the little smarty your daughter knows make you feel awkward. My childhood is full of fond memories that would most likely be sullied in today’s context. For instance, I have a niece only 6 years my junior. As kids, we built a fort and begged to sleep in it with my little brother, who was a couple years her senior. My niece’s school was concerned when the teacher heard her say her uncle was a bed hog. It was cleared up but she had to sleep in her own bed when she stayed the night after that. We laugh about it now. We always had a rule boys and girls had to sleep foot to face when we had to share the sleeper in my dad’s semi. My sister and girl cousins and I got to sleep cheeks to cheeks, though. Hehe. It would have been wrong if we would have been told it was sinful or something. It is a divine right for kids to get to be innocent kids, free from perversions of sick minds.
I often disagree with Cory, but here is analysis seems factually accurate in many, but certainly not all, circumstances according the available evidence. First, under federal law the scope of defined “child pornography” offenses is quite broad:
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography
Thus, Donald Pay is not too far off base when worrying about childhood photos taken and saved with an innocent intent. It is normally up to a jury to decide whether such photos are “sufficiently sexually suggestive” to consitute child pornography. And courts have also ruled that nudity is not required for a photo to fit the definition of child pornography so long as a jury finds that the photo depicts “sexually explicit conduct.”
Next there are multiple evidentiary examples that are consistent with Cory’s observation that “Looking at dirty pictures doesn’t do any direct harm to the subjects of those pictures.”
– Possessing computer images of a sexually explicit photo of an unknown child taken generations ago can violate federal child pornography statutes, whether purchased or simply happened on when surfing the net and saved (such as photos from magazines like National Geographic featuring primitive tribes and naked children, etc.).
– Possessing artificially created, but very human looking, avatar type photos can violate federal child pornography statutes.
– A particularly egregious potential application of the federal child pornography statute can arise when a teenager younger than 18 texts sexually explict selfie photos of himself or herself to his or her girlfriend or boyfriend. By taking such a selfie and sending it the teen can be charged with creating and distributing child pornograthy and by receiving and possessing these photos the girlfriend or boyfriend can be charged with illegal possession of child pornography. It matters not whether the teen or paramour to be charged with the crime is a juvenile as it is just as much a statutorily defined crime for a juvenile to crete, distribute or possess such photos as it is for an adult to engage in these acts (in some cases the juvenile may also be tried and punished as an adult if the case is transferred to adult court).
Ironically, under federal law and many state laws the age of consent for sexual intercouse is 16 or 17, which means that it can be a federal crime for a 16 year old to take or recieve a qualifying selfie, but not a crime to have consensual sexual intecourse with the boyfriend or girlfriend. So it is a federal crime to have a photo but no crime to have actual sex!
Given such a broad scope of the federal child pornography statutes, not only are All Mammal and P. Aitch right on the money to recognize the potential direct harm to the child involved, Cory is also accurate in recognizing that this law is so broad that it also covers situations where “looking at dirty pictures doesn’t do any direct harm to the subjects of those pictures.” And given the different circumstances covered by these broad laws it seems it to be unjust to demand the same punishment for every offender despite the circumstances of the offense.
Meanwhile, Joel Koskan is accused of raping daughter (a crime, correct), has plead not guilty, most certainly cannot be convicted without the victim testimony, was working on a plea deal prior to arrest and is home with wife and children. Is there a compelling reason to try the case without victim testimony to prove as a society the rule of law matters and no one gets a pass? At minimum better treatment than the survivors of catholic priest abuse as there was an arrest. Takes me back to archbishop Robert Carlson’s deposition in which he cannot remember ever being told it is a crime for an adult to have sex with a child. Deep pockets matter most.
This is a serious and wounding topic, and I’m glad I destroyed my baby and toddler pictures years ago. How sad is that.
grudznick finds that Mr. H. is often righter than right. He reasons things out.
But this Mr. Koskan fellow needs to be set loose in Oglala and told to run for the border.
Francis, I recall many years ago when I first became involved wih domestic abuse crimes I was adamant that any alleged perpetrator/abuser should always be prosecuted regardless of the wishes of the victim. A smart lawyer/feminist I worked with, however, convinced me that the victim’s wishes should be given great weight. She pointed out that forcing the victim to testify against his or her will was an even worse form of victim abuse imposed by the very people who were supposed to be on the victim’s side (i.e. the State prosecutors and law enforcement), which would not only further harm the victim, but would also deter many other victims of domestic violence from coming forward.
I also was against any plea bargain to lesser offenses, but changed my mind upon the realization that an evidentiary weakness in the case, or the victim’s difficulty or fear of testifying in a he said/she said situation could unfortunately threatened the liklihood of a conviction. This could mean that the failure to obtain a conviction to the most serious offense would allow the prepetrator to walk out of court free without restrictions while a guilty plea to a lesser offense would normally guarantee the court some power to limit the perp’s freedom, monitor his or her behavior, and hammer the perp if there were further episodes. Those practical considerations weighed heavily in the cost/benefit analysis of a plea agreement guarantee versus the gamble of a trial.
In England When a rape has been reported to the police, even if the victim doesn’t want to press charges, if there is evidence to suggest that a rape took place, by law the case has to be prosecuted by the police on behalf of society as the crime is deemed as a crime and injustice against society as a whole.
The witness may be forced to give evidence but often they are not forced to take the stand and will not face cross examination.
This legal practice is also a benefit to the victims who withdraw charges because they feel victimised, frightened or ashamed and don’t want to relive it all again, meaning that they are spared the trauma of going to trial and still get to see legal justice. It is supposed to reduce the amount of people who wrongly accuse others of rape out of spite, given law and order the opportunity to prosecute those who bring false allegations in the first place which are subsequently proved to be false and given with malice intent. – Tammy Donoughue PhD in Law and British Literature – University of Cambridge 2002
I’ll bet Trump thrilled you grd, on TV, slouching at the dais like he was at the bar, drunk on power, growling to his base, “beat the hell out of ‘em” at rally after rally. Rent free.
“…set loose in Oglala and told to run.” Encouraging violence of others on your own behalf. YOU go to Oglala. Tough guy. Cluck, cluck.
Double talk? Evasive? I thought I was pretty clear, direct, and consistent. Review my scenario: what harm comes from the instant that a guy looks at a dirty picture?
Remember: I ask that question not to defend pornography, adult or child, but to help define the nature of the harm and the basis for punishment by law.
To frame the question of direct vs. indirect harm another way, consider the actions of the porn consumer and the porn producer. The guy looking at and buying kiddie porn does indirect harm. The guy taking and selling the pictures does direct harm. The producer should get a harsher sentence than the user.
Can we say the same goes for drugs: the drug user directly harms only himself, while the drug dealer does direct harm by exploiting users and luring more people into addiction?
Elsewhere, a Twin Cities psychiatrist gets 12.75 years in prison after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a patient multiple times. The victim told the Dakota County court, “People think I should be ‘over this’ or ‘move on and have closure,’ but those people don’t get what I went through…to be a sex object for five years [and] not treated with dignity or respect. … Nobody owns the right to tell me to move on.”
Direct harm committed by a caregiver to a person in his care on multiple occasions—the Minnesota courts take that seriously. So does the state medical board, which suspended the psychiatrist’s license—i.e., took away his ability to continue having the supervisory relationship that he abused for his sexual gratification. By analogy, we could argue that Joel Koskan’s parental rights should be suspended.
Cory needs to qualify his assertion but in reality harm is harm. The comparison to drugs is also invalid because within child pornography there’s a third entity involved. I’ll agree that the producers harm done is greater than the consumers harm done but all harm is harmful. If no one leered at child porn the pornographers would not exploit children. They ‘d exploit another group.
Any drug can be beneficial. Except maybe Krocodil. But then again, using that junk might be an escape from the alternative. Ie: miserable life in Russia.
Drug:medicine. The only difference between good and bad is who the pusher is.
Rather than the comparison of the proposed sentence for Koskan with the federal child porn sentence perhaps a more appropriate comparison is with the the 68 year old prisoner that today’s RC Journal reports died in prison.
Allegations that Koskan groomed his daughter for years slowly involving more and more sexual contact likely could be charged in multiple counts of sexual contact with a child under 16, like Wyman. Of course there are likely other factors that significantly distinguish the two situations, but on the surface this seems a more apt comparison than to a child porn case.
And similar to Koskan, the original charges against Wyman were reportedly based on allegations of two counts of rape of a child under 16, while the plea agreement reduced the charges and avoided a trial. Wyman was accused of third degree rape where the victim was incapacitated, while Koskan apparently was accused of 4th degree rape where the child was unable to consent because of age (between 13 and 16).
Hey Corey – is he 75 as the first paragraph states? The pic that showed up was a much younger person .