|
On November 06 2011 13:07 Parnage wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly get up in arms for this. Ignoring the fact he can and most likely will appeal the ruling I just don't see a problem here.
He's a grown man wanting to get off on images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. Rather he paid for them or not doesn't make it any less harmful to the children in the content. So yeah, overly harsh? Maybe, but I am not going to be terribly upset by it. Let him rot.
If that makes me a tea partying nutcase give me my flag and fancy hat.
I am curious, how did he harm the children in the pictures if you assume he did not pay for it?
|
once again, the U.S justice system going fucking insane over a "crime" that isn't a crime by definition. a crime is an act that infringes on the rights of another. very simply put, the people that download child porn for free, aren't committing the crime. the people recording/taking the pictures are the criminals. its no different than arresting small time potheads and hoping it'll stop the "problem" of people smoking cannabis. start at the symptom and you'll never reach the source.
EDIT: spelling etc
|
On November 06 2011 13:04 Azarkon wrote:
Let me put it this way:
No one's going to stand up for pedophiles.
Whenever you have a situation in which no one will stand up for you, in which no one will defend your rights, in which no one will even dare to say a good word for you because of the social stigma attached to pedophiles...
Yeah, you have a situation ripe for legal abuse.
In the US, this is how it is.
Excellent point, and while I can't stress enough that pedophilia is wrong, two wrongs don't make a right.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. " - Martin Niemoller
|
On November 06 2011 11:15 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 11:13 qrs wrote:On November 06 2011 11:06 Wafflelisk wrote:On November 06 2011 11:01 qrs wrote:On November 06 2011 10:59 Malgrif wrote:On November 06 2011 10:58 AxelTVx wrote:
Wtf... A life sentence for child pornography? This is completely unjustified.... A long sentence I understand, but lifetime is just too severe... lifetime just means 25years bro not his life lol What are you talking about? I don't know the exact ins and outs, but a "lifetime" sentence in Canada usually ends up being like 20-25 yrs. "Lifetime" means lifetime, everywhere. A sentence of 25 years is known as "a sentence of 25 years". You're probably thinking of life with parole, but this sentence was of life without parole. Wikipedia disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment I missed this edit to your post at first so I'm responding slightly late, but the first sentence of the article you link to reads, "Life imprisonment (also known as a life sentence, lifelong incarceration or life incarceration) is a sentence of imprisonment for a serious crime under which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life." [bolding mine]
You're probably misunderstanding something else about the article. There's a table there labeled "Summary by Country" which lists some countries as having a sentence of life imprisonment and also as having a "maximum sentence (under life)". I believe that means that no sentence other than life is permitted over this maximum sentence.
|
On November 06 2011 13:08 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 13:07 Parnage wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly get up in arms for this. Ignoring the fact he can and most likely will appeal the ruling I just don't see a problem here.
He's a grown man wanting to get off on images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. Rather he paid for them or not doesn't make it any less harmful to the children in the content. So yeah, overly harsh? Maybe, but I am not going to be terribly upset by it. Let him rot.
If that makes me a tea partying nutcase give me my flag and fancy hat. Can you explain why exactly you have such an irrational hatred for him that you're okay with just "letting him rot"? I really don't get it.
It's irrational to have a dislike of people who enjoy getting off to images of children being sexually abused? You don't get it? You don't get why people would be upset by that? Really?
If you don't get that, I am afraid nothing I can do will convince you otherwise it's pretty common sense to me to be offended and disgusted by that to a point of disliking a person. It's not as if he's innocent, he was guilty, the issue you have is the length of time for punishment. I don't have a problem with it because again he'll appeal and maybe he'll get cut down some years maybe he wont but in the end he's still guilty and I am not going to feel bad for a guy like that.
|
On November 06 2011 13:07 Parnage wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly get up in arms for this. Ignoring the fact he can and most likely will appeal the ruling I just don't see a problem here.
He's a grown man wanting to get off on images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. Rather he paid for them or not doesn't make it any less harmful to the children in the content. So yeah, overly harsh? Maybe, but I am not going to be terribly upset by it. Let him rot.
If that makes me a tea partying nutcase give me my flag and fancy hat.
I'm not too worried about the pedophile himself. You're right, he's not going to go for life once his appeal is reviewed.
However, this says a lot of stupid and scary things about the US legal system. That's why I find this disturbing.
Beyond that, the stupidest part of this is the amount of economic drain imprisoning this guy for life will put on the prison system. Locking someone up for life without chance at parole, which is something designed to put convicts back into society as economically contributing members, for looking at child porn is just stupid. It's inefficient. The producers of this content are the ones that need to rot in prison, not the small time consumers.
This guy needs to be taught a lesson, not clog up our already oversaturated prison system.
|
You can basically call this a death sentence. Anyone who goes to prison for kiddie porn is gonna get the shit beat out of them. If any of the other inmates finds out about why he's there, it's lights out.
|
On November 06 2011 13:13 Parnage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 13:08 matjlav wrote:On November 06 2011 13:07 Parnage wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly get up in arms for this. Ignoring the fact he can and most likely will appeal the ruling I just don't see a problem here.
He's a grown man wanting to get off on images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. Rather he paid for them or not doesn't make it any less harmful to the children in the content. So yeah, overly harsh? Maybe, but I am not going to be terribly upset by it. Let him rot.
If that makes me a tea partying nutcase give me my flag and fancy hat. Can you explain why exactly you have such an irrational hatred for him that you're okay with just "letting him rot"? I really don't get it. It's irrational to have a dislike of people who enjoy getting off to images of children being sexually abused? You don't get it? You don't get why people would be upset by that? Really? If you don't get that, I am afraid nothing I can do will convince you otherwise it's pretty common sense to me to be offended and disgusted by that to a point of disliking a person. It's not as if he's innocent, he was guilty, the issue you have is the length of time for punishment. I don't have a problem with it because again he'll appeal and maybe he'll get cut down some years maybe he wont but in the end he's still guilty and I am not going to feel bad for a guy like that.
Look, we all get it. We get that pedophilia is wrong, but did this guy hurt anyone? Does looking at some pictures on your computer hurt anyone, at all?
We aren't even saying that he should go free, just that life imprisonment is insane, especially given the fact that the actual abusers, and CP producers quite often get far more lenient punishments.
|
people are getting less for murder....fucking ludicrous, so pedophilia is worse than killing someone?
|
On November 06 2011 13:13 Parnage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 13:08 matjlav wrote:On November 06 2011 13:07 Parnage wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly get up in arms for this. Ignoring the fact he can and most likely will appeal the ruling I just don't see a problem here.
He's a grown man wanting to get off on images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. Rather he paid for them or not doesn't make it any less harmful to the children in the content. So yeah, overly harsh? Maybe, but I am not going to be terribly upset by it. Let him rot.
If that makes me a tea partying nutcase give me my flag and fancy hat. Can you explain why exactly you have such an irrational hatred for him that you're okay with just "letting him rot"? I really don't get it. It's irrational to have a dislike of people who enjoy getting off to images of children being sexually abused? You don't get it? You don't get why people would be upset by that? Really?
I understand why it's unsettling and most people have a strong dislike for the idea. But that's not what the law's about. The law should be based off of rationally asking the question of what sort of harm their actions cause to other people - and no such justification can be given for downloading child porn without paying for it.
As I said in a ninja edit, what would you do if you had innate sexual desires for children, like the desires that you have for adults? Do you really believe that you would just abstain completely from any sort of sexual stimulation for yourself? You would refuse to just download and look at some pictures out of principle? I have a ton of sympathy for people who have these desires, and I would much rather have them jacking off to CP that's already been made than going out and molesting kids.
|
Eh, cant find the article (thought i have a local-paper news copy here somewhere) of a teacher sentanced for 1 year for sexual contact with a minor, over 3 separate occasions in his classroom.
I find it so disgusting that this perv teacher gets off so light and a stupid young adult who cant controll what he watches on his computer gets life sentence.
AGhhh,,,
|
And I am not saying he should be set to jail for life, as I've said twice. He can and most likely will appeal he has that right and I will fight to the death to let him have that right to his day in court until he's ran out of courts to appeal to if he so pleases. However yes it does hurt people. Demand for child porn causes production of child porn. Some sick and twisted people will do things for greed. It's sad but it's true. Rather or not he paid for it doesn't matter because at one point someone did then they shared it.
As far as what's worse murder or being molested? That's as if trying to decide which would you prefer, dieing outright or being molested. I don't know neither sound particularly good to me.
|
On November 06 2011 13:17 isleyofthenorth wrote:
people are getting less for murder....fucking ludicrous, so pedophilia is worse than killing someone?
The US legal system does this to try and scare people away from committing the crime in the first place... Kind of like proving a point to anyone who is currently, or thinking about committing that crime.
It is doubtful that he actually would have be facing less jail time had he molested a child. The US legal system often stacks similar types of offences. Chances are, his preliminary parole hearing would be offset by the added crime.
In the US, life in prison does not necessarily mean "without parole." It could be the man is eligible for parole after 25 years, depending on his behavior in prison.
|
Personally, I think his sentence is TOO harsh -- especially considering people whom commit such acts are often not punished to that extent.
I think they should give him a sentence, but with an emphasis on trying to treat him.
|
On November 06 2011 13:22 Parnage wrote:
And I am not saying he should be set to jail for life, as I've said twice. He can and most likely will appeal he has that right and I will fight to the death to let him have that right to his day in court until he's ran out of courts to appeal to if he so pleases. However yes it does hurt people. Demand for child porn causes production of child porn. Some sick and twisted people will do things for greed. It's sad but it's true. Rather or not he paid for it doesn't matter... wait--am I understanding you right? Some people will do things for greed...so when they see someone downloading porn without paying for it, it will make them more likely to want to produce it? How do you reckon that?
because at one point someone did then they shared it. So the guy who did pay for it is supporting child porn in a way. How does this make the guy who didn't pay responsible?
|
On November 06 2011 13:24 FunnelC4kes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 13:17 isleyofthenorth wrote:
people are getting less for murder....fucking ludicrous, so pedophilia is worse than killing someone? The US legal system does this to try and scare people away from committing the crime in the first place... Kind of like proving a point to anyone who is currently, or thinking about committing that crime. It is doubtful that he actually would have be facing less jail time had he molested a child. The US legal system often stacks similar types of offences. Chances are, his preliminary parole hearing would be offset by the added crime. In the US, life in prison does not necessarily mean "without parole." It could be the man is eligible for parole after 25 years, depending on his behavior in prison.
From the OP
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.
and
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. [/QUOTE]
|
On November 06 2011 13:22 Parnage wrote:
And I am not saying he should be set to jail for life, as I've said twice. He can and most likely will appeal he has that right and I will fight to the death to let him have that right to his day in court until he's ran out of courts to appeal to if he so pleases. However yes it does hurt people. Demand for child porn causes production of child porn. Some sick and twisted people will do things for greed. It's sad but it's true. Rather or not he paid for it doesn't matter because at one point someone did then they shared it.
As far as what's worse murder or being molested? That's as if trying to decide which would you prefer, dieing outright or being molested. I don't know neither sound particularly good to me.
It totally DOES matter if he paid for it though. He doesn't add any demand if he doesn't pay for it. This is like the exact opposite of pirating in the videogame or music industry. If simply downloading something actually did support the industry, the publishers wouldn't care whether or not people actually paid for it.
Besides, the real issue here isn't this case, or even all CP legislation. Its that we are now legislating about what people are allowed to think. George Orwell is spinning in his grave.
|
To be quite honest, although the punishment may be very harsh for the crime committed, child porn is fucking wrong. I personally dont believe that making an example out of this guy is necessarily a bad thing.
Although, life without parole is still pretty harsh.
|
On November 06 2011 13:27 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 13:24 FunnelC4kes wrote:On November 06 2011 13:17 isleyofthenorth wrote:
people are getting less for murder....fucking ludicrous, so pedophilia is worse than killing someone? The US legal system does this to try and scare people away from committing the crime in the first place... Kind of like proving a point to anyone who is currently, or thinking about committing that crime. It is doubtful that he actually would have be facing less jail time had he molested a child. The US legal system often stacks similar types of offences. Chances are, his preliminary parole hearing would be offset by the added crime. In the US, life in prison does not necessarily mean "without parole." It could be the man is eligible for parole after 25 years, depending on his behavior in prison. From the OP Show nested quote +
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.
I was about to say this (source is the first article linked). I'll just add that the reason I didn't put the "without parole" part in the title of the thread is simply that there's a character limit on thread titles. I couldn't even fit "ography".
|
On November 06 2011 13:22 Parnage wrote:
And I am not saying he should be set to jail for life, as I've said twice. He can and most likely will appeal he has that right and I will fight to the death to let him have that right to his day in court until he's ran out of courts to appeal to if he so pleases. However yes it does hurt people. Demand for child porn causes production of child porn. Some sick and twisted people will do things for greed. It's sad but it's true. Rather or not he paid for it doesn't matter because at one point someone did then they shared it.
As far as what's worse murder or being molested? That's as if trying to decide which would you prefer, dieing outright or being molested. I don't know neither sound particularly good to me.
I'm sure you, and everyone else in this thread has purchased something that was made in sweatshops by child laborers. In other words, by your logic we are all basically horrible people because we supported child labor. Which arguably is a much more devastating and widespread problem than child pornography. Also, I'm stealing this from someone else in the thread so credit goes to him, but second hand smoke kills 3,000 people every year, does that make every smoker a murderer, or at least partially responsible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
