Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to S.F. Govt.
January 23, 2014 - 11:14 am
A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.
As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. But the evidence was so overwhelming that, after 18 months of legal wrangling, on Tuesday, January 21, Brinkin pled guilty to felony possession of child pornography, with various other more serious charges dropped as part of the plea bargain. He will serve just six months in jail and thereafter have to register as a sex offender.
But the scandal didn’t end there. A recent law defining which type of actions count as “moral turpitude” required to nullify municipal pension benefits does not include sex crimes involving children, and only refers to financial crimes:
Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.
In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.”
THIS IS A CONTENT WARNING FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT WISH TO READ UPSETTING MATERIAL.
On the following page is a small sampling of the evidence presented in the case. Stop reading now if you don’t want to see any of the police evidence against Larry Brinkin.
Bay Area Reporter:
Court records showed that police seized two locked red plastic toolboxes containing videos, two laptops and a desktop computer, three thumb drives, and other items from Brinkin’s Waller Street home.
Among other items, attached to one email police found an image that showed “an approximately 2-3 year old child … Underneath the child is an adult male, using his right hand to hold the child and his left hand to insert his erect penis into the anus of the child,” the document says.
In the email, the user, who authorities indicated was Brinkin, wrote, “damn, what a sight seeing huge dick in tiny hole, tearing it open. That [n-word] must be in coon heaven stuffin it in the tiny white hole!“
San Francisco Chronicle:
Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police.
SFWeekly
Zack3737@aol.com — whom the police allege is Brinkin — provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the bleep 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!“
The Petrelis Files found other evidence of adult porn commentary by Brinkin which in itself was not illegal but which confirmed that the child porn comments found in Brinkin’s online accounts were written in his same distinctive style:
“Harold— i love all your messages. they make my big white dick hard and make me want to shit in your mouth while another bleep sucks my dick and drinks my piss….”
“You’re absolutely right, buddy. A coon is always a coon;a bleep can never get away from the fact that it’s a bleep. this bleep bleep was lucky to find an aryan god to have anything to with it, lucky to be able to suck his dick, eat his cum…”
(Ironically, Brinkin, in his official capacity as chair of the city’s Human Rights Commission, spearheaded a years-long investigation against a San Francisco sex club which was accused of discriminating against African-Americans.)
Brinkin’s lawyer insists that it was all just a mistake and that Brinkin simply didn’t fully understand how damaging child porn is:
“He made a terrible mistake,” Brinkin’s attorney, Randall Knox, said outside court. “He is genuinely remorseful. He has a much greater understanding now of the damage child pornography inflicts.”
Do Brinkin’s actions count as “moral turpitude”? Should the taxpayers of San Francisco continue to pay his pension for the rest of his life?
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=true
