|
A 26-year-old man named Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca has just been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, for possession of child pornography.
NYT article
I certainly would never try to justify producers of child pornography, and even consumers of it have a measure of guilt in that they are supporting the industry, but I find this sentence to be a horrible miscarriage of justice. This guy is 26, he has a fetish, he hasn't actually harmed a child in any but the most indirect of ways, and he probably didn't think twice about downloading these pictures--and the first time that he's brought up in court for this he gets sentenced to life? At age 26? Without possibility of parole?
I remember the whole uproar over the Saudi ArabIranian sentence of a literal "eye for an eye" after a man blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face. This is a lot more than an eye for an eye--this is life in prison for downloading pictures.
What happened to proportionality? What happened to "the punishment fits the crime"?
More info: On November 06 2011 11:08 lizard219 wrote:http://ccsoblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/update-man-charged-with-500-counts-of.htmlthis source has some more informations: "Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. " "Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
Note that according to this source, it seems that the files that originally led to tracking Vilca down were obtained via a file-sharing network, which means that he likely didn't pay for these pictures--and perhaps not for any of the pictures on his computer. If he didn't pay for them, then even the argument that he supported the industry is greatly weakened--in what way does downloading a file for free support the industry?
I'll grant that even wanting to look at things like this is highly distasteful to most of us, but if you can get over that distaste, can you think of a good rationale for even punishing someone who possesses (but doesn't pay for) child pornography at all?
|
Child porn is fucking gross. That's what you get.
|
Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
|
Um... wtf? There is a kid in my school who killed someone driving drunk, and after 3 years in prison he is back in school and his life relatively uninterrupted. The justice system sucks so bad.
Child porn is wrong, but giving the guy life in prison just sounds absolutely absurd. Reading the article now.
edit: The article is missing a lot of facts I'd like to know. I mean, it just says the guy has 100s of pornagraphic children images on his computer. But I'm sure there are viruses that could make that happen. Are you saying I can get on someone's computer, create a semi-hidden folder on it that they won't find (and will look that much more incriminating when found by authorities), and then call cops with an anonymous tip?
|
Its basically equating possession (not production or distribution) of child pornography with first degree murder or first degree rape. Is this fair? I'm not sure.... but is interesting for sure.
EDIT: the article points out that he would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if he had actually molested a child.... seems a little odd
|
“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”
I mean its bad but not that bad.
|
I hope you guys realize that some people just have weird fetishes. Giving a guy life for having one, albeit a really fucked up one? I'm calling way too extreme on this, especially considering the guy has no previous criminal record.
|
he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
|
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
|
Osaka27158 Posts
Hey first two posters with their knee jerk reactions. Did you read the article? How about this quote?
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
|
ya he definitely doesn't deserve that, he has a sick fetish but its like giving someone life because they're gay.. he can't really help it and it's not really hurting anyone
the police should be going after the source of it
|
its bad, its wrong
but thats freaking stupid... but our court systems are as well :-/
|
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote:
Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
|
..... this is more fucked up than child porn
|
This Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
Is disgusting =,=
I don't think this is right-he shouldn't go free or anything, but really~life sentence? The fuck, florida :C
|
death for looking at something. land of the free....unless u open your eyes
|
Are you serious? This is absolutely ridiculous...he didn't even directly harm someone, and gets the same treatment(in some cases worse) than a murderer? Where is the justice here? I don't see it.
|
On November 06 2011 10:15 Manifesto7 wrote:Hey first two posters with their knee jerk reactions. Did you read the article? How about this quote? Show nested quote +Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
Yea, I'm fairly sure no one on "to catch a predator" ever got a life w/o parole. And those guys were ready to commit statutory rape. I have a feeling the Florida Supreme court will over rule this circuit judge's ruling. He really is setting a dangerous precedent imho.
|
No one here thinks child porn is acceptable...
But a life sentence? Jeez. That's just ridiculous x.x What the heck?
|
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote:
Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
On November 06 2011 10:10 HackBenjamin wrote:
Child porn is fucking gross. That's what you get.
Looks like some tea party members are playing Starcraft II
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
