|
On November 06 2011 16:51 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 16:16 Kimaker wrote:
Holy shit. Some people here need to calm down. No one is defending the fact that this sick fuck had Child Porn. For the record, yes, I am. I would do the exact same thing in his position (i.e. if I had innate pedophilic desires), and so would 99% of other people. I can't imagine that we could ever legalize it, but I have a ton of sympathy for the people in question, and I simply don't have much of a desire to punish people for finding a relatively harmless outlet for their sexual energy instead of going out and molesting kids.
If it would be about drawings (I assume they're reffering to photo's in this case) there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it. Sure it can be looked down at, but it doesn't hurt anyone.
However, in case of photo's it's not okay because children got hurt in the process of producing those photo's. It's not direct molestation but it does encourage (the ones that make the photo's) to continue doing it.
However, it's not as unlikely that the guy just has been really unlucky and someone put a ton of child porn on his computer (either by virus or through hacking) as it has happened before. So we can't be sure if he's really into that stuff or if he's just a very unlucky guy.
As far as I'm reading the article they're going to appeal it so I think it's unlikely they'll uphold it since the punishment is very disproportional. Even if he downloaded it intentionally I think that 2 years or something of prison would be the max. Or just a fine or other ways to strongly discourage it.
|
I have very limited knowledge about laws and legislation but couldn't this have some pretty serious implications about what you can and can't be held legally responsible for?
I mean, the reasoning behind this case seem to be that because he was in possesion of a product (child porn) he is not only supporting the making of child porn but is directly responsible for the actions of the industry that produces it?
Wouldn't that mean that if I buy a a piece of clothing that happens to be made by children in a poor country that I could be prosecuted for the crime of making young children work full time (no idea what the actual legal term is)?
|
What he did was bad, but I don't like the idea of life in jail for anyone. Even the worst need to be given a chance.
|
The problem with giving life for minor crimes is that if you do that they might as well do a major crime as well. There is no difference in punishment, so whatever they do afterwards has no punishment any more.
Consider if going against a red light had lifetime in prison. Why should that person not try to run from the cop that wants to pull him over for it? If he crashes and kills a couple of people, still same punishment. You no longer discourage major crimes by having too heavy punishment on minor ones.
Oh and multiple countries there have been cases of people going to jail over drawn minors engaged in sexual conduct. Especially hentai has that as a common theme and if you are unlucky that is jail time in some western countries.
|
So.....is the the law or? Cant be i hope. Life for downloading child porn picture? Or can some judge just do whatever he wants? Scary country.
|
what a bunch of damn hypocrites some peolpe here are.
the "hes looking at the pictures so he's helping the industry and causing pain and suffering" arguement is horrible.
Ever wonder where your clothes come from? ever wonder where alot of your food comes from? Ever hear where ships go when they arent used anymore?
By using boats, eating food, and buying clothes (all at a low price) you too are causing pain and suffering to millions of people world wide. You too are supporting the industry by buying low price goods. But you don't care. You don't think about it.
In the grand scheme of things child pornography is probably hurting a fraction of the amount of children that low price goods do by using child labor.
On November 06 2011 20:46 Seiniyta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 16:51 matjlav wrote:On November 06 2011 16:16 Kimaker wrote:
Holy shit. Some people here need to calm down. No one is defending the fact that this sick fuck had Child Porn. For the record, yes, I am. I would do the exact same thing in his position (i.e. if I had innate pedophilic desires), and so would 99% of other people. I can't imagine that we could ever legalize it, but I have a ton of sympathy for the people in question, and I simply don't have much of a desire to punish people for finding a relatively harmless outlet for their sexual energy instead of going out and molesting kids. If it would be about drawings (I assume they're reffering to photo's in this case) there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it. Sure it can be looked down at, but it doesn't hurt anyone. However, in case of photo's it's not okay because children got hurt in the process of producing those photo's. It's not direct molestation but it does encourage (the ones that make the photo's) to continue doing it. However, it's not as unlikely that the guy just has been really unlucky and someone put a ton of child porn on his computer (either by virus or through hacking) as it has happened before. So we can't be sure if he's really into that stuff or if he's just a very unlucky guy. As far as I'm reading the article they're going to appeal it so I think it's unlikely they'll uphold it since the punishment is very disproportional. Even if he downloaded it intentionally I think that 2 years or something of prison would be the max. Or just a fine or other ways to strongly discourage it.
this is what im talking about. sigh
|
Woah. Life sentence for downloading child porn? I mean it should be punished but not that harshly. First degree murder and downloading illegal pics on the Internet is equally bad? Absolutely retarded, I almost thought that this happened in the middle east at first.
|
This is retarded... life in prison for having some pictures?
Send the guy to a therapy if he likes child porn, not to prison goddamit! He hurt no one in the process, and you basically take his life away?
Wow, i'm really pissed off by this. I hope this decision gets ruled out. People who kill others don't get life, rapists don't get life, child molesters don't get life.
Troy K. Stabenow, an assistant federal public defender in Missouri’s Western District, noted that most people assume that someone who looks at child pornography is also a child molester or will become a child molester, a view often mirrored by judges.
Whaaaat? Change the damn judges, doesn't it take some brain to be one?
This is the same paradigm as violent video games. I'm sure there's enough people who've seen kills, snuffs, rapes, played violent games in which you kill people, by the same logic these guys are prone to become rapists/criminals.
|
Haha, big fail on the judge's part. So if he molests a child, what do we do? Torture him and send him straight to hell? Oops, we can't.
This is a clear message to all pedophiles: if the FBI is on your ass, go grab a kid and have some fun, sentence will be the same.
|
I fully support this sentence.
|
On November 06 2011 14:00 nttea wrote:
Hey guys! if he downloaded it for free, do you realize he is STEALING child porn? the atrocity!
ahaha its true. i saw this thing written by the owner of child modelling website, he was so pissed off that his shit was being circulated for free
On November 06 2011 13:57 Kazuo wrote:
My neighbor last year had his apartment raided by the police and FBI, after a year long investigation, and found that his roommate had hundreds of videos and images of child porn on his computer. I knew and hung out with his roommate for about four months prior to this happening so needless to say this came as a huge shocker. Both of us are college students, he lived with his girlfriend, went to parties with me, liked to chill, smoke, and drink with me and my roommates, he was really nice and respectful.
My understanding was that people who watch child porn are nearly all creepy middle-aged weird men, but since this I've taken a step back from the stereotype and looked at it from a different perspective (especially since there was another student, even younger, who was arrested on the same charges).
He is just a regular guy with a fetish who has access to almost unlimited content on the internet which will satisfy his needs. He most likely wasn't downloading all of that material thinking that this is contributing to the problem. It's already there, people are going to make it anyways, individually he would make no difference whether or not this material would be available and made.
I'm not saying that he was justified by any means for downloading the content or that he should be let off without any sort of punishment (he is still awaiting trial on a $50,000 bail), but the potential to get 25 to life like the guy in op is absolute overkill. All of his family and friends know about this, and his life and identify are essentially ruined now that his secret is revealed to the public. I would much rather have him look at pictures and videos of content that has already been made and will still be made whether or not he looked at that stuff anyways, then finding other, more disturbing ways to get off from his fetish.
On the other hand, making examples using severe punishment is often a good way to reduce the frequency of a crime, but is it really necessary to throw a good person who has a bad fetish in jail for his entire life because he turned to a relatively harmless method of satisfaction? Someone who, opposed to a violent child molester, can be reintroduced into society, most likely not going to be a repeat offender.
Very odd how much your opinion can change about something when it happens to someone you know...
sad story, dont be surprised if he kills himself after he gets out of jail 
On November 06 2011 14:20 yarkO wrote:
A 'little fetish' doesn't mean shit to me. If you knowingly accessed child porn, then your brain deserves to be scrambled on the sidewalk under my boots. That is so beyond fucked up that I can't even think of rational words to describe it.
Just because he didn't molest a kid doesn't mean he deserves to walk around. I wouldn't want people like that walking the streets, undressing my kids with their perverted eyes.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick.
Multiple times.
there are a lot of people like this, you know....i mean a LOT...the "prevalence of pedophilia" study was taken down from wiki for some reason , it was around 30% i think? wiki currently says that studies indicate a prevalence of 1 in 20 people...have fun hating people
|
On November 06 2011 21:11 PolSC2 wrote:
I fully support this sentence.
Can you please argument your support?
|
Wait, what if he pirated those images? If "pirating music kills music industry", then shouldn't pirating child pornography be killing child porn industry?
I also wonder if the judge, after sentencing the man to life in prison, went home and there beat the crap out of his children, mentally scarring them in the process more the majority of pedophils ever do.
Sigh, ok, now for less bitter reaction. Unfortunately for this guy and some others, the prosecution of pedophilia is modern equivalent of good ol' witch hunting. I believe future generations will look at our hatred of pedophiles with similar disgust like now majority of us look at racist, homophobes and other biggots.
There is one thing I would really really wanted to know. The percentage of pedophils who actually molest/rape children versus the percentage of non-pedophils who molest/rape someone. May be not a very flattering numbers for us "normals".
And now for one completely related video
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Hmm, kinda harsh for just possession...
|
Downloading child pornography is not justifiable in any way but my god, life without parole is ridiculous. Especially when you have murderers walking free after 8 years...
|
The issue is that there is no way to produce CP without a child being exploited, hurt, tortured, raped, abused and harmed. There are many issues here. Even if the producers were acting in a theoretical good faith which does not exist in Real world, to say make a contract for this, their consent is not legally effective, and noone is going to bother to make a deal with them to say, pay them because one of the sides have unfair advantages. Secondly, even if they were paid, the judgmental thinking does not fully develop until 18s and above, it is all about "scratch my back I will scratch yours" before that. So it is again, exploitation.
Furthermore, rights of children are protected under many internationlal treaties,and if I remember right those treaties allow them to work only if the work does not prevent their healthy development as an individual,as in education and such, and also if it is actually beneficial for the purpose. CP is nothing of that and is exact opposite. It is harmful, traumatic and a life scarring event that haunts the victims for the rest of their lives.
This is why even watching material related to CP is criminalized, it is not the fetish that is punished, it is that as long as the demand exists, there will be children hurt. You generate demand and therefore indirectly support its production by that. That is why it is immoral and is a crime. Whether the actual fetish itself is sick or not is the subject of philosophers, psychologists and public opion.
I agree with a poster in the thread here that said there should be lolicon hentai available for these people to satisfy their urges safely without hurting actual children. Noone is hurt in that scenario, so it is fine. As for the people who have said watching it would cause the viewer to actually go out and molest, think about this, do you rape woman after you watch porn? You would not if you dont have mental problems already.
|
I think there's more to this than meets the eye. I don't believe that any democracy would imprison a person for life over a couple of photographs.
|
On November 06 2011 10:14 Jonoman92 wrote:
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?
yes with subjects like child porn and the media ... yes that is exactly what you can do.
The child porn subject is strange ... obviously its wrong. But its pictures ... the pictyures themselves are NOT porn. Porn is in the interaction ... its basic art theory.
What is more it HAS to be there ... otherwise the picture of me being 3 holding a garden hose whilst being stark bollock naked (apart from my new wellies taken by my gran is pornographic? Bull shit.
The requirements on evidence seem to be diminishing in the world right now - i think because of the media and people becoming WAY to emotionally involved with things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Also people are getting better at manipulating emotions without people being aware of it - or chosing to be unaware of it.
Its liek the world is run by people who tell you to not fight back and then appease people by throwing people to lions.
Sound familiar?
|
On November 06 2011 20:48 Blondinbengt wrote:
I have very limited knowledge about laws and legislation but couldn't this have some pretty serious implications about what you can and can't be held legally responsible for?
I mean, the reasoning behind this case seem to be that because he was in possesion of a product (child porn) he is not only supporting the making of child porn but is directly responsible for the actions of the industry that produces it?
Wouldn't that mean that if I buy a a piece of clothing that happens to be made by children in a poor country that I could be prosecuted for the crime of making young children work full time (no idea what the actual legal term is)?
i think its more the case that possession of "obscene material" is illegal (nomatter whether or not you are hurting someone)
yes, obscenity laws are "thought crime" laws.
for instance, in australia it is illegal to have 18+ porn that uses props to depict underage scenes (eg schoolgirl outfits). it is "obscene" and treated as if you had actual child porn.
i think urination/watersports porn is similarly illegal in many places (USA?). again, a "moral" law (albeit with a lighter punishment)
lolicon (in every cornershop of japan still?) is another "thought crime" law.
so it doesnt actually matter if you hurt someone or not. if the public/law deems it as a morally reprehensible thing then yes you DO deserve jail for it (or death as some people would like), plain and simple.
as some of the posts in this thread have shown, a lot of people do believe this is justice. (also if you read any thread about China, youll see an obvious disparity between what peoples opinions are on laws like this - some people think and argue they are "good" laws overall, some people dont)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
