| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On November 07 2011 21:48 PolSC2 wrote: The recidivism rate for pedophiles is 95%. That is also taken into account. Do you have a source for this? I can't find anything even remotely close to that number from any reputable source. Edit: Also even that being the case the idea that we sentence any people at all based on a crime they might commit in future is unsettling... | ||
|
andiCR
Costa Rica2273 Posts
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? Yeah this is like when if u actually waited for the bunker to finish, you got a full refund instead of 75% On a serious note, this is fucking retarded. Sounds like a very biased judgement in order to set an example. Fucking awful for the guy, i mean, i think he should be punished, but for fucking life? are u kidding me? | ||
|
LetoAtreides82
United States1188 Posts
On November 07 2011 22:51 yeint wrote: Child molestation is arguably just as bad as murder. At least murder victims aren't scarred for the rest of their lives by what happened to them. Viewing pictures/videos of child molestation directly creates demand for it, and makes you utterly responsible for it existing in the first place. I don't think this is excessive. No it's not arguable at all. You wouldn't think that most murder victims would rather have had the choice to live? And no viewing something you downloaded from p2p networks doesn't directly create demand for it, and doesn't make you responsible for it existing in the first place. Those who host files don't know who's downloading so how could it create demand for it? Also how does downloading a file from a p2p network make you responsible for it existing in the first place? The file would exist regardless whether you download it or not. | ||
|
LetoAtreides82
United States1188 Posts
On November 07 2011 22:59 Iyerbeth wrote: Do you have a source for this? I can't find anything even remotely close to that number from any reputable source. Edit: Also even that being the case the idea that we sentence any people at all based on a crime they might commit in future is unsettling... Yea, like Minority Report. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
To people saying this is an urge he can't help - every serial killer has urges they can't help, because they're psychopaths who are mentally incapable of feeling remorse. Someone who's merely sexually deviant and otherwise mentally sound should strive to control his libido, instead of masturbating to videos and pictures of horrible crimes. Yes, it would be terrible if your sexual desires were warped like this, but all sexual desires can be suppressed through self-control, and if ever there was a situation where that was the right course of action, it's when you're a pedo. I do NOT understand why people are so sympathetic. "He can't help it" is nonsense. Yes he can. He can't ever have a satisfying sexual life, but neither can a ton of people who are just horribly unattractive or socially awkward. | ||
|
Fyodor
Canada971 Posts
On November 07 2011 22:55 yeint wrote: This defense is like saying it's okay for people who get off on killing people to watch snuff films instead. Are we not supposed to agree? lol. | ||
|
PolSC2
United States634 Posts
On November 07 2011 22:59 Iyerbeth wrote: Do you have a source for this? I can't find anything even remotely close to that number from any reputable source. Edit: Also even that being the case the idea that we sentence any people at all based on a crime they might commit in future is unsettling... The source was from a text book when I was in college for Criminal Justice 2 years ago. It was calculated through any action concerning the sexualization of young children, e.g. even picture viewing. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 07 2011 23:07 LetoAtreides82 wrote: No it's not arguable at all. You wouldn't think that most murder victims would rather have had the choice to live? The dead have the luxury of not having to decide such things. It doesn't have to be either/or. Both crimes can be equally heinous without us needing to argue over which is worse. And no viewing something you downloaded from p2p networks doesn't directly create demand for it, and doesn't make you responsible for it existing in the first place. Those who host files don't know who's downloading so how could it create demand for it? Also how does downloading a file from a p2p network make you responsible for it existing in the first place? The file would exist regardless whether you download it or not. I don't give two shits if it "directly" creates demand for it. Pedophiles who consume child pornography create the demand for it. You can't excuse one pedophile because eliminating just him from the market would not change everything overnight. If no one downloaded ripped child porn, then no one would share it, and less pedophiles would be drawn to it in the first place. If every pedophile knows that the punishment for viewing child pornography is a life sentence, then they are deterred from doing it, whether for free or paying for it. The decision to acquire child pornography is not an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment one. An otherwise sane person can weigh the risks and moral issues involved. Deterrence doesn't work for violent crimes, because they are often done on impulse. Deterrence certainly works for premeditated behavior. If you are an adult who decides to jerk off to images and videos of real children being raped, you need to rot in jail forever. We should waste no resources trying to treat you, because our resources can be better spent treating more deserving people whose diseases are actually horrendous and debilitating. We should treat pedophiles if they seek help, if they realize their desires are inherently victimizing and horrible. We should not treat them when they choose to satisfy them regardless, and are only in a position to be treated because they got caught. There are 7 billion people in the world, and of all of them, pedophiles are way, way on the bottom of the list of people anyone should give a rat's ass about. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On November 07 2011 23:12 yeint wrote: Oh, and saying that he would have gotten less time if he actually molested a child in person is not an argument for this sentence being too sever, it's an argument for the sentences for actual molestation being too lenient. To people saying this is an urge he can't help - every serial killer has urges they can't help, because they're psychopaths who are mentally incapable of feeling remorse. Someone who's merely sexually deviant and otherwise mentally sound should strive to control his libido, instead of masturbating to videos and pictures of horrible crimes. Yes, it would be terrible if your sexual desires were warped like this, but all sexual desires can be suppressed through self-control, and if ever there was a situation where that was the right course of action, it's when you're a pedo. I do NOT understand why people are so sympathetic. "He can't help it" is nonsense. Yes he can. He can't ever have a satisfying sexual life, but neither can a ton of people who are just horribly unattractive or socially awkward. I think there's one issue that seems to be neglected here. How do they control these urges? You can't say "control your urges" and then attack them for finding a way to control their urges which does not directly hurt anyone. In fact, the arguments for these people indirectly hurting people have been shot down as well. Here let me give you this example. I really feel like having sex right now. I don't know of any woman at the moment who I can just go and have sex with. I will either A) go out and rape someone to satisfy my urges or B) masturbate to sexy girls on the internet to satisfy my urges. Sounds easy enough to decide right? Now imagine if both options were illegal and option A had more of a punishment. Is that fair in any way? Stop encouraging people to molest children please | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
| ||
|
kiykiy
233 Posts
On November 07 2011 23:07 LetoAtreides82 wrote: No it's not arguable at all. You wouldn't think that most murder victims would rather have had the choice to live? And no viewing something you downloaded from p2p networks doesn't directly create demand for it, and doesn't make you responsible for it existing in the first place. Those who host files don't know who's downloading so how could it create demand for it? Also how does downloading a file from a p2p network make you responsible for it existing in the first place? The file would exist regardless whether you download it or not. You are actually hurting the CP industry according to music activist groups. | ||
|
BarbieHsu
574 Posts
However, I think a purely retributive justice system is quite shortsighted. Human resources are quite important, and if there's a chance that they can be returned to society then this chance should be taken. Plus prison is expensive. | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
On November 07 2011 22:55 yeint wrote: Bullshit. Those computer files weren't created with CGI software. Real children were actually molested. This defense is like saying it's okay for people who get off on killing people to watch snuff films instead. A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation. Dude, (non-profit) snuff films are legal in the US. Haven't you ever heard about the Faces of Deaths movies? You can google actual death of people right now, for free! | ||
|
trias_e
United States520 Posts
Just be honest and say these people are disgusting and you don't want them in society, stop trying to justify yourself with these illogical arguments. Morality is based on emotion, not logic. Personally, I feel badly for anyone who is wired to want to have sex with children. It's similar to how I would feel if someone had to be quarantined because they had a horrible contagious disease. It's not your fault, but you aren't fit to live in society. Sucks, but that's just how it goes. For the pedophiles, too bad they weren't born in Rome, eh? | ||
|
Tehs Tehklz
United States330 Posts
On November 07 2011 21:48 PolSC2 wrote: The recidivism rate for pedophiles is 95%. That is also taken into account. That is 100% bullshit: The published rates of recidivism are in the range of 10% to 50% for pedophiles depending on their grouping. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1066 Posts
On November 08 2011 00:37 Dark_Chill wrote: I think there's one issue that seems to be neglected here. How do they control these urges? You can't say "control your urges" and then attack them for finding a way to control their urges which does not directly hurt anyone. In fact, the arguments for these people indirectly hurting people have been shot down as well. Here let me give you this example. I really feel like having sex right now. I don't know of any woman at the moment who I can just go and have sex with. I will either A) go out and rape someone to satisfy my urges or B) masturbate to sexy girls on the internet to satisfy my urges. Sounds easy enough to decide right? Now imagine if both options were illegal and option A had more of a punishment. Is that fair in any way? Stop encouraging people to molest children please Well there's only the little difference, that in case of child porn the kids to produce the pictures were forced to do it without them really being able to consent and even understanding what's going on. And on top most likely being seriously harmed at least psychologically for their whole life in most cases. You know there were also times when no pornography existed. Was everybody raping around like crazy theese days? I don't think so. Edit: Typos Edit2: Anyone considered the possibility, that watching childporn might fuel the needs of some perverts instead of helping them control it? | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On November 08 2011 04:53 r00ty wrote: Well there's only the little difference, that in case of child porn the kids to produce the pictures were forced to do it without them really being able to consent and even understanding what's going on. And on top most likely being seriously harmed at least psychologically for their whole life in most cases. You know there were also times when no pornography existed. Was everybody raping around like crazy theese days? I don't think so. Edit: Typos Edit2: Anyone considered the possibility, that watching childporn might fuel the needs of some perverts instead of helping them control it? I'm not sure what sexual rules existed back then, but I'm pretty sure whatever urges they had, they most likely satisfied them through simply having sex. These people cannot. I can't really know if it fuels it, controls it or a combination of the two. Because we have forced them into hiding without the possibility of help, we can't hear their opinions on the matter. If the poster who had come out earlier could give us his thoughts on the matter, that would be great | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
For those of you saying this sentence is justified, you believe that someone deserves life in prison for accessing child pornography, because you feel child pornography is repugnant (and it certainly is). But let's ask ourselves what is repugnant about it. Is it truly repugnant for someone with a problem to access it and look at it? Or is it repugnant to sexually abuse a child on camera and distribute said pornography? These two crimes are not on an even keel, and justice should not be meted out as though they were. We generally make scapegoats of those who access child pornography due to our inability to combat it at the source, and I've felt that it's wrong now for some time. What I especially dislike about this issue is that due to its nature, nobody wants to take a reasonable stance for fear of being evaluated as being in favor of it. The judge probably wanted to take a hard stance on it to avoid being criticized as being sympathetic to it. I want you to consider something. Section 163.1 Part V of the Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography to include cartoon representations of minors engaged in sexual activity, or the depiction of sexual organs for sexual purposes of cartoon representations of minors. My country is certainly not the only country to do this. My point is this. Would you feel the same way if someone accessed cartoon child pornography? Would you sentence them to life in prison? I doubt it. Would you feel the same way if someone was found drawing his own cartoon child pornography? Would you sentence them to life in prison? I doubt it. Yet, the law defines these examples equally as accessing it. So fundamentally your position is not self consistent. You hate child pornography, fine so do I. Sentencing someone to life in prison for accessing it is absolutely ridiculous, when it should be utterly obvious that accessing it isn't what makes the concept of child pornography so repugnant. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Murderers and rapists don't get life in prison most of the time.... to give it to someone for pictures on his computer (even though clearly they are disgusting and wrong) is absolutely ridiculous. I hate our justice system so much | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
GSL
WardiTV Team League
The PondCast
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
