|
On November 07 2011 01:39 Dknight wrote:
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder.
I think that many criminals commit their crimes because of a mental disorder. Many petty thieves and shoplifters get a rush from taking something that isn't theirs... some of them have plenty of money, or are taking things they don't even want that much. They've just somehow developed an unhealthy addiction to a harmful activity - much like gambling addiction or alcohol addiction.
This isn't meant to excuse them for their crime - if you recognize that you have urges to hurt people or steal things and you don't learn to control them or get professional help, then you are choosing to do harm to society.
Just as a side note. It's annoying to see pedophiles and child molesters used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles are child molesters just as all child molesters are not pedophiles. A child molester is person who engages in any type of sexual activity with someone legally defined as a child (in some places, 17) while pedophiles' victims must be per-pubescent children (for instance, a toddler).
There is such a huge difference between the two, and many people don't understand that at all. The ones claiming this man deserves life imprisonment clearly have no comprehended that point.
It's the same as the difference between "heterosexual" and "rapist".
It's the same as the difference between "person with an potentially addictive personality" and "gambler who is broke and in 50k debt to the mafia".
|
All heterosexuals should be locked up! Of course people can't understand that, it's not how they were brought up. I believe the average person would look at your post and start insulting you and talking about how you're crazy. We don't live in a world where everyone is forgiving and understanding. If we don't know something we have to get it away from us before we even begin to have the though of trying to understand it. (not all people, just my view on the general public)
|
On November 07 2011 04:37 alpinefpOPP wrote:
I'm pretty sure a life sentence for possessing that kind of shit isn't a good enough punishment, you should be put to death for putting a child through that, the people who watch that are just as guilty as the people who do it.
I'm sorry but you are ignorant or delusional if you think that these are equal crimes. The guy is mentally damaged and has an unhealthy sick attraction... but he dealt with it by clicking on computer files, not by abducting and harming a child.
It is the difference between being angry at someone and keying the car, or being angry and someone and chopping them to pieces with an axe. If you cannot see the difference, I hope you are never involved in the legal system and never sit on a jury.
BTW despite the fact that I believe this man deserves a much more lenient sentence, I wholeheartedly support giving the death penalty to the men who actually directly harmed the children and filmed it. The fact that they often receive only moderate-length prison sentences is incomprehensible to me.
|
If this is justice, then all those who have viewed the youtube video about little Yue Yue getting hit by 2 trucks in Fushan last month should get life imprisonment. That video is basically a video of murdering a 2 year old child; by viewing it you are supporting more of those kind of video being made and cause death of children. The large view count shows how popular this kind of video is and you help create a market for it.
What a great logic.
|
Firstly i don't think child porn is okay.. but lets get real, surf over to 4chan for a hour or so and you probably will cache some pic of it.
Does that make you an child porn supporter? You downloaded it and all!
What i find interesting is that people always assume that by watching/downloading things you make people produce more of it.
I really doubt the ones producing this kind of thing finds it so repulsive that they cant sleep or something.
Really, if you pay for it and make it profitable, you might make more of it pop up, spur the ones making it to earn cash..
But it will never go away completely, i assume most of it is done because they enjoy it and "want to(?)" share it? I don't know..
But i really don't think people start with it to make huge amounts of cash.
Maybe they first "save" it to make sure they can relive it?
I really don't know how it works, but it intrigues me, like most psychological parts of the human do.
I feel empathy for people with any kind of urge outside of the norm, it eats on you.
And you cannot just ignore or dismiss things like this away..
I don't wish it (child porn) was socially acceptable, but maybe some kinda safety net, or help line for the troubled ones, and not just this witch hunt we are at now.
I do wish people would research this more and see why it is like this instead of just throwing holy water on it.
|
On November 07 2011 11:06 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:59 Deadeight wrote:On November 07 2011 10:49 Millitron wrote:On November 07 2011 10:40 Deadeight wrote:On November 07 2011 07:51 saocyn wrote:
the more these cases come up the more i honestly think i lost faith in humanity and especially the justice system. none of these people who claim to judge rationally actually do it. none of these judges get checked on and trip on power until they actually are found to abuse it just like that other judge who abused his daughter.
Well, is the job of a judge to decide all by himself, or represent the general view of society? Admittedly there are laws and things in between. It's neither. It's the judge's job to do things by the book, and think carefully about the ruling, not lead a lynch mob. Society's opinion has no standing in an individual case, because if it did, every case would end with someone in the electric chair. The masses are often far too easily swayed to hasty, violent decisions, while true justice must be careful and calculated. Yeah, there are laws in between public opinion and the judge. But the public appoint the government by vote to represent them, and they pass the laws, and the judge follows those. The laws and the judge should reflect what the public want. You can argue the public don't know what's best for them, but the above is the way it should work in a democracy is it not? At the base, there are still the human rights, which are defined by the constitution. For that reason, a sentence like "life without parole" is actually unconstitutional here in Germany, as far as I know. Putting that man away without a chance for him to reform himself and eventually rejoin society also naturally sounds weird to me, especially considering this was his first offense in that direction.
The constitution and any "human rights" it protects are also defined by society.. the German constitution 70 years ago was very different. So was the US constitution... society changes, and while those basic "human rights" might be slower to change, they do still change. Consider the human rights granted to Germans 700 years ago v. 70 years ago v. 7 years ago.
(or for a better example see Quisling.. modify the "human rights" because society demands one group be punished)
|
On November 07 2011 10:26 Deadeight wrote:
I really feel like although the punishment is slightly excessive for the crime, I agree with the sentencing.
Prison isn't only about punishment, it's going to keep him away from society. It's such a sensitive subject, but let's say for instance they're born like that. You can draw parallels with, say, being homosexual, which was irrationally hated but perfectly fine. They're born like that, that's what they're attracted to, and that's fine (possibly, assuming they are born like that etc).
But the big difference is that it's children, and that makes it fucked up, instead of just different. I've never seen any evidence that people can be "corrected" either.
Discussing it from an ethics standpoint can actually be kind of dodgey ground, ethics change. Paedophilia in greece was fine, or more accurately Pederasty. It was thought of as pure. Which is not what we think now.
Nevertheless, society has to decide, and it has. The direction we want to go in is one that's absent from paedophilia.
So, if you have some hobby that society feels is terrible, you think that society should be able to get together and lynch you?
They did that to minorities for a while... turned out to be a mistake. And of course we then turned around and created hate crimes which tip the balance scale way back the other way.
I wonder why nobody even CONSIDERS treatment? It's like once someone likes child porn, they cease to be a human being. I'm sure there is a scientific name for this as I'm pretty sure it happens pretty frequently to zealots on any issue. (abortion, animal rights, environmental issues, homosexuality, jews in ww2 etc.)
|
I'm not sure, but I believe the base laws remained the same during these changes. Was the law of "must have parole" ever seen as bad and ditched? I don't believe so (could be wrong here), and it makes sense. Of course it has to change to have relevance in society, but there are still generally rules which must be obeyed.
The problem is knowing when where and why these rules should be forgotten. Because this is such a 'serious' crime as regarded by society, the laws in place are looked over to find an acceptable punishment based on the view of society.
|
Also, this is likely not a disease of individuals, but a disease of society. (similar to diabetes and cancer)
Killing off individuals will not fix society.
|
anything to do with child porn is revolting. i'm really split on my opinion... it's just stupid how you can rape someone and get like 3 years in jail.
|
On November 07 2011 11:33 Dark_Chill wrote:
I'm not sure, but I believe the base laws remained the same during these changes. Was the law of "must have parole" ever seen as bad and ditched? I don't believe so (could be wrong here), and it makes sense. Of course it has to change to have relevance in society, but there are still generally rules which must be obeyed.
The problem is knowing when where and why these rules should be forgotten. Because this is such a 'serious' crime as regarded by society, the laws in place are looked over to find an acceptable punishment based on the view of society.
Which is insane, because if the 20th century taught us anything, its that the general populace can easily be made to do or believe just about anything. Look how easy it was for both sides to take their respective countries to war in WW1; or how easy it was for Hitler to convince the majority of Germany to follow the Nazi ideology, or how many Japanese civilians killed themselves in WW2 because they had been told the American soldiers would torture them to death.
The general populace is VERY susceptible to positive feedback loops. If they already have an opinion towards something, it doesn't take much influence from the government to make them fanatical about it. Which is where the Judicial branch comes in. Judges do things by the book, and either rule by precedent, or based on extensive philosophical study, and by not ruling solely on their gut instinct, help to break this positive feedback loop.
|
On November 07 2011 11:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:56 Deadeight wrote:On November 07 2011 10:36 Millitron wrote:On November 07 2011 10:26 Deadeight wrote:
I really feel like although the punishment is slightly excessive for the crime, I agree with the sentencing.
Prison isn't only about punishment, it's going to keep him away from society. It's such a sensitive subject, but let's say for instance they're born like that. You can draw parallels with, say, being homosexual, which was irrationally hated but perfectly fine. They're born like that, that's what they're attracted to, and that's fine (possibly, assuming they are born like that etc).
But the big difference is that it's children, and that makes it fucked up, instead of just different. I've never seen any evidence that people can be "corrected" either.
Discussing it from an ethics standpoint can actually be kind of dodgey ground, ethics change. Paedophilia in greece was fine, or more accurately Pederasty. It was thought of as pure. Which is not what we think now.
Nevertheless, society has to decide, and it has. The direction we want to go in is one that's absent from paedophilia. Prison might keep him away from society, but its also practically a death sentence. As soon as the other prisoners find out why he's in, he's done for. Second, he didn't hurt any children. Sure, its gross as all fuck, and the people making the porn should be severely punished, but the thing is, this guy didn't actually make any of it. Essentially, the porn is nothing more than video of a crime. You can't be jailed for owning snuff films (as long as you didn't make them of course), because it's not like you caused those deaths. Same with this. The worst he should get is rehab, and maybe a fine. I disagree with the line The worst he should get is rehab, and maybe a fine. Is there any evidence to say rehab would work? Because I can't find any, at all. So you'd be putting a paedophile out on the streets. Yes, he just looked at pictures. But honestly, the risk is really high. Just like we aren't allowed pet hippos in our garden (the african animal which kills the most humans), you also don't want a paedophile anonymously living in the flat next to you and your children. Regardless of whether the hippo has killed or even thought about it before, it's too dangerous. + Show Spoiler +If they were out in society, I think people (parents) should be able to know if the guy next door is a paedophile. But let's face it, with popular opinion they won't have much of a life like that, and may not even survive for long in many areas of the world. It is basically a death sentence yeah. If it was me I'd rather he was kept in some sort of institution away from society, with other paedophiles, but where he could be useful somehow. Cheap manual labour or something. I understand he didn't make the films, and if he didn't pay for them he's not supporting the makers. But, in my view, there is something fundamentally wrong with him, that makes him unfit to be out in society. He'd be put on the sex offender list too, probably should've mentioned that in my post, but w/e. I honestly don't know if rehab works. It was my understanding that it worked alright, but they were never completely "cured", just that they then had enough self-control to not act on it; much like alcoholics or drug addicts. I like your asylum idea, at least for either repeat offenders, or people who could not be properly rehabbed As for my other post about the judges; no, Judges are supposed to be protected from the general opinion, its why they're appointed, not elected. The populace has a sufficient method of voicing its opinion via congress and the senate. The idea is that since congress takes a fairly long amount of time to do anything, the legislation that gets passed is (hopefully) more thought-out and isn't just vigilante justice.
Don't get me wrong I wasn't saying judges should react to the public on a specific case, but public opinion regarding paedophiles has been fairly static for quite a long time, at least here in the UK (i.e. massively against it). So this will have fed through into the laws and the rules a judge has to follow.
I guess my point was I don't think this is all down to some crazy judge. I don't think it's far from what the general public opinion would be.
I believe the sex offenders list, if it works in the US how I'm assuming it does, means that he couldn't get a job working with children, etc. However it's not public. Personally though, if I was a parent, I'd want to know if my next door neighbour has been convicted on child pornography charges, which isn't available knowledge. There are a few examples of paedophiles being on the register for child pornography, and then they've gone on to do something horrific which possibly wouldn't have happened had people known.
EDIT: Turn's out in US you have something known as "Megan's Law" which means parents have access to pictures and details of all registered paedophiles. Seems a bit dangerous though, as here in the UK some names got leaked from the sex offenders register (by a newspaper called News of the World) and people sharing the same name as paedophiles got mobs turning up at their house. A lot of paedophiles got attacked too.
|
is't the whole point of the justice system supposed to put you in jail so you learn your lesson the first time, then the second or 100th time your there they lock you away for good. Did this guy have a shit lawyer, or was the judge have something against pedophiles. Did he do something to an actual child, if you consider pedophilia a disease then wouldn't the cure be porn, I mean if you can make it in a way that the child is't harmed, i would think its a whole lot better than actually molesting a child. All this aside I don't pay taxes for this bull-
|
On November 07 2011 09:02 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:59 AutomatonOmega wrote:Pedophilia and the use of 'child' in 'child pornography' strongly implies pre-adolescent children. Hell, the OP's article doesn't even specify what kind of porn the guy had, so for all we know it's pictures of jailbait. The point I'm making is that the existing research, the law, and the media considers 'child' to be anyone under the age of 18. Well, no, read the second part of the OP.
The issue you raise is imo beside the point here, because sentencing was at the judge's discretion, and I highly doubt that he'd have given the same sentence if the pictures had been of 17-year-olds.
|
I'd rather have a community of team-liquid be judges in cases like these. Many good points were raised with a surprisingly high ratio of good-comments:gut reaction. If we were to take attitudes of intolerance like this for most things, we would never really advance in society. Foreigners in America working low-class jobs when they have the education to do much more skilled jobs? It's the same mentality, and it's not helping society. Why is it so hard to see that?
|
On November 07 2011 11:47 Deadeight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 11:11 Millitron wrote:On November 07 2011 10:56 Deadeight wrote:On November 07 2011 10:36 Millitron wrote:On November 07 2011 10:26 Deadeight wrote:
I really feel like although the punishment is slightly excessive for the crime, I agree with the sentencing.
Prison isn't only about punishment, it's going to keep him away from society. It's such a sensitive subject, but let's say for instance they're born like that. You can draw parallels with, say, being homosexual, which was irrationally hated but perfectly fine. They're born like that, that's what they're attracted to, and that's fine (possibly, assuming they are born like that etc).
But the big difference is that it's children, and that makes it fucked up, instead of just different. I've never seen any evidence that people can be "corrected" either.
Discussing it from an ethics standpoint can actually be kind of dodgey ground, ethics change. Paedophilia in greece was fine, or more accurately Pederasty. It was thought of as pure. Which is not what we think now.
Nevertheless, society has to decide, and it has. The direction we want to go in is one that's absent from paedophilia. Prison might keep him away from society, but its also practically a death sentence. As soon as the other prisoners find out why he's in, he's done for. Second, he didn't hurt any children. Sure, its gross as all fuck, and the people making the porn should be severely punished, but the thing is, this guy didn't actually make any of it. Essentially, the porn is nothing more than video of a crime. You can't be jailed for owning snuff films (as long as you didn't make them of course), because it's not like you caused those deaths. Same with this. The worst he should get is rehab, and maybe a fine. I disagree with the line The worst he should get is rehab, and maybe a fine. Is there any evidence to say rehab would work? Because I can't find any, at all. So you'd be putting a paedophile out on the streets. Yes, he just looked at pictures. But honestly, the risk is really high. Just like we aren't allowed pet hippos in our garden (the african animal which kills the most humans), you also don't want a paedophile anonymously living in the flat next to you and your children. Regardless of whether the hippo has killed or even thought about it before, it's too dangerous. + Show Spoiler +If they were out in society, I think people (parents) should be able to know if the guy next door is a paedophile. But let's face it, with popular opinion they won't have much of a life like that, and may not even survive for long in many areas of the world. It is basically a death sentence yeah. If it was me I'd rather he was kept in some sort of institution away from society, with other paedophiles, but where he could be useful somehow. Cheap manual labour or something. I understand he didn't make the films, and if he didn't pay for them he's not supporting the makers. But, in my view, there is something fundamentally wrong with him, that makes him unfit to be out in society. He'd be put on the sex offender list too, probably should've mentioned that in my post, but w/e. I honestly don't know if rehab works. It was my understanding that it worked alright, but they were never completely "cured", just that they then had enough self-control to not act on it; much like alcoholics or drug addicts. I like your asylum idea, at least for either repeat offenders, or people who could not be properly rehabbed As for my other post about the judges; no, Judges are supposed to be protected from the general opinion, its why they're appointed, not elected. The populace has a sufficient method of voicing its opinion via congress and the senate. The idea is that since congress takes a fairly long amount of time to do anything, the legislation that gets passed is (hopefully) more thought-out and isn't just vigilante justice. Don't get me wrong I wasn't saying judges should react to the public on a specific case, but public opinion regarding paedophiles has been fairly static for quite a long time, at least here in the UK (i.e. massively against it). So this will have fed through into the laws and the rules a judge has to follow. I guess my point was I don't think this is all down to some crazy judge. I don't think it's far from what the general public opinion would be. I believe the sex offenders list, if it works in the US how I'm assuming it does, means that he couldn't get a job working with children, etc. However it's not public. Personally though, if I was a parent, I'd want to know if my next door neighbour has been convicted on child pornography charges, which isn't available knowledge. There are a few examples of paedophiles being on the register for child pornography, and then they've gone on to do something horrific which possibly wouldn't have happened had people known.
In the US, the list is public knowledge (Even has a website), and they have to go door-to-door to every house within a couple miles and inform the residents that they are a sex offender. I think there's other rules too, but I don't know them. Some of the specifics might vary state-by-state too.
|
This is ridiculous. Child porn is disgusting, but a life sentence? What is wrong with the justice system, seriously. That's not justice, it's just the system trying to single out people that 'support' an industry that they haven't been able to actually stop. It reminds me of fining people obscenely large amounts of money for illegally downloading things, but on a larger scale. People KILL OTHER PEOPLE and get off with less than that sentence. This is just fucked up.
|
On November 07 2011 11:46 Millitron wrote: or how easy it was for Hitler to convince the majority of Germany to follow the Nazi ideology, or how many Japanese civilians killed themselves in WW2 because they had been told the American soldiers would torture them to death.
http://www.geniebusters.org/what-is-national-socialism.htm <- NAZI as in National Socialism isn't bad. 99.9% of the German populace didn't know about the concentration camps and ect. Just like America didn't know about the 2.4-7.5 million Ukrains Stalin starved to death.
Japan has always been about honor and family, and has only just begun to change. Westernization had started at around 1850. The war only 100 years later. Try changing a whole society completely away from their ideologies and beliefs that they've been practicing for thousands of years.
The 20'th century was very sheepish. But the 21st century has come quite the ways in the past 5 or 6 years. Sure the banks still rule america and probably will until the world collapses, and sure people get these sorts of sentences, but this is just one casualty. I feel bad for this guy, but maybe the justice system is just setting an example. If you're a pedophile or anyone who supports it, these are the consequences. I and most of the modern world have no problem with setting an example of just one person. Do I feel bad for this one person, yes. But if him being in jail pushes others to get help or pushes others 100% away from supporting the child sex industry. I'm all for it.
|
On November 07 2011 10:59 Deadeight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:49 Millitron wrote:On November 07 2011 10:40 Deadeight wrote:On November 07 2011 07:51 saocyn wrote:
the more these cases come up the more i honestly think i lost faith in humanity and especially the justice system. none of these people who claim to judge rationally actually do it. none of these judges get checked on and trip on power until they actually are found to abuse it just like that other judge who abused his daughter.
Well, is the job of a judge to decide all by himself, or represent the general view of society? Admittedly there are laws and things in between. It's neither. It's the judge's job to do things by the book, and think carefully about the ruling, not lead a lynch mob. Society's opinion has no standing in an individual case, because if it did, every case would end with someone in the electric chair. The masses are often far too easily swayed to hasty, violent decisions, while true justice must be careful and calculated. Yeah, there are laws in between public opinion and the judge. But the public appoint the government by vote to represent them, and they pass the laws, and the judge follows those. The laws and the judge should reflect what the public want. You can argue the public don't know what's best for them, but the above is the way it should work in a democracy is it not?
well, the public are lead by scientists and facts and independent reviews and whatnot. the public doesnt know whats best for them (so to speak) and thats why we have elected (trustworthy) leaders and systems in place to make sense of it all without bias and fearmongering and ignorance and assumptions (im referring to your other post now  *) . the whole thing breaks down , though, when our leaders are themselves corrupted or become bias etc. thats when we get laws that bow to public "opinion" - exactly what we elected them NOT to do!
* "risks"? come on, if i told you i have a sexual preference for 15 year olds does that make me a "risk" to raping your daughter? NO. why? because you understand , when i put it like this, that sexuality is a huge RANGE of attractions; i dont JUST want to bang 15 year olds, and there would have to be something seriously wrong with me in the first place, regardless of sexual preference, if i were to abuse a child - or abuse an adult!
someone who EXCLUSIVELY gets off to little girls , and has no sexual attraction for legal girls, is (in my opinion) exceeeeeedinly rare. infact, until i spent some time trying to reply to your post , i have never even considered this kind of person . they exist, and now that im thinking about it, yeah i guess it must be a fucking horrible life to live, they must get psychologically fucked up in the head over the years, and hence be/become a "risk".
wow this is so interesting, its something i never really thought of before and i dont think ive seen it brought up before. how to proceed with my post now?
basically i think its important to understand and recognise the difference between someone who has a "sexual preference" for a certain age (or style, colour, etc) of girl, compared to someone who has an exclusive interest in an underage girl. i think the former is the vast 99.999% of the "pedos" (based on things like my experience talking with people/friends/forums and also based on human studies), but this is definately something that should be researched. BOTH of these groups will download child models/porn/lolicon but only one should be considered a "risk" to society, and ONLY if that person is finding it difficult to cope with their exclusive desire.
so interesting, i started off shouting at you but ended up with a new perception/perspective that half parallels your own and allows me to relate to a lot of the crazy anti-pedo sentiments
|
On November 07 2011 12:01 D u o wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 11:46 Millitron wrote: or how easy it was for Hitler to convince the majority of Germany to follow the Nazi ideology, or how many Japanese civilians killed themselves in WW2 because they had been told the American soldiers would torture them to death. http://www.geniebusters.org/what-is-national-socialism.htm <- NAZI as in National Socialism isn't bad. 99.9% of the German populace didn't know about the concentration camps and ect. Just like America didn't know about the 2.4-7.5 million Ukrains Stalin starved to death. Japan has always been about honor and family, and has only just begun to change. Westernization had started at around 1850. The war only 100 years later. Try changing a whole society completely away from their ideologies and beliefs that they've been practicing for thousands of years. The 20'th century was very sheepish. But the 21st century has come quite the ways in the past 5 or 6 years. Sure the banks still rule america and probably will until the world collapses, and sure people get these sorts of sentences, but this is just one casualty. I feel bad for this guy, but maybe the justice system is just setting an example. If you're a pedophile or anyone who supports it, these are the consequences. I and most of the modern world have no problem with setting an example of just one person. Do I feel bad for this one person, yes. But if him being in jail pushes others to get help or pushes others 100% away from supporting the child sex industry. I'm all for it.
For the greater good!
Freedom for the rich!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
