EPTIt's just one of those fucked up things about the world. There's no right way to solve it.
Man sentenced to life for possession of child porn - Page 43
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
It's just one of those fucked up things about the world. There's no right way to solve it. | ||
|
Johnnybb
Denmark486 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
yarkO
Canada810 Posts
They aren't just 'kinky', or have some 'fetish' that they are harboring innocently. There are millions of sites out there with people who LOOK young but are not. This pervert went and looked for CHILDREN HAVING SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS and kept what he found so he could repeatedly enjoy it. He does not need counselling, he does not need pills, or a talking doctor; what he needs is to be permanently removed from society- and so he has. Kudos to a justice system that recognizes the severity of allowing children to be sexualized and marketed. There's no hope for these monsters, stop acting like there is. | ||
|
zEMPd
Angola259 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
On November 10 2011 14:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Sigh, this is a joke. I am a forensic psychology major and we literally just talked about this two days ago. Most pedophiles won't ever end up actually touching a child. Of those that view child pornography 1 out of every 50 will actually go on to molest a child. So no, you are wrong and stop spouting of sensationalist nonsense please. Cite your sources of 1 in 50 because that number is wrong. Multiple studies have been done on the topic of CP and further contact offenses. Roughly one in eight men convicted of CP possession have had a prior contact offense based on either arrests, charges, or convictions. Self survey studies have found it may actually be 1 in 2 though it's assumed higher because of the social context / consequences surrounding CP. Regardless, research has shown that there is a distinct sub group of offenders who pose very low risk and are considered online offenders only but determining which of these individuals convicted of CP possession is impossible at the moment. Let's start throwing sources around instead of just bullshit. I'll start by naming a few Seto, Hanson, Babchishin (2010) Bourke and Hernandez (2009) Seto (2006) Wood et al., (2009) OJJDP: CP pattenrs from NIBRS And if you want to throw around your 'forensic psych major' bullshit. PhD student working on my dissertation on sex offending. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On November 10 2011 14:25 weekendracer wrote: Again, if it is indeed a child in the pictures/video, a child is being raped, what part of that seems beyond the discussion. If I in any way promote such actions, how would I not be guilty of assisting the person doing the filming? Again, you are assuming that no money ever changed hands. Even if it's not in the indictment/complaint, it does not mean it didn't happen. To side with your view, looking at a child and going home and dealing with the sensations would be harmless. Acquiring pictures or video is crossing the line and shows a progression. Once a subject shows a progression towards the act is where the danger lies. Does that part make sense to you? I'll make an assumption that you're still young. I've seen evil like you wouldn't believe. I believe at least one or two people have posted personal stories of how this destroys a person. Those people who did what they did to them started 'somewhere'. I'd bet it started with what the subject of the story was doing. That's the trail to my thinking on this situation, unless you can prove me wrong other than I'm a biased, ignorant, <insert non-informative insult>. I have the writings and case studies of 30+ years of FBI data on my side, along with my 11 years of federal experience. You've made a number of posts wherein you've talked about this progression. Put simply, this is called "Affirming the consequent," and it is a logical fallacy. The following is the structure of the fallacy: People who molest children watch child pornography. John Doe is watching child pornography. Therefore John Doe will molest a child. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:28 Dknight wrote: Cite your sources of 1 in 50 because that number is wrong. Multiple studies have been done on the topic of CP and further contact offenses. Roughly one in eight men convicted of CP possession have had a prior contact offense based on either arrests, charges, or convictions. Self survey studies have found it may actually be 1 in 2 though it's assumed higher because of the social context / consequences surrounding CP. Regardless, research has shown that there is a distinct sub group of offenders who pose very low risk and are considered online offenders only but determining which of these individuals convicted of CP possession is impossible at the moment. Let's start throwing sources around instead of just bullshit. I'll start by naming a few Seto, Hanson, Babchishin (2010) Bourke and Hernandez (2009) Seto (2006) Wood et al., (2009) OJJDP: CP pattenrs from NIBRS And if you want to throw around your 'forensic psych major' bullshit. PhD student working on my dissertation on sex offending. The first statistic (1:8) seems consistent with the argument made by some offenders that they are only interested in the pictures, and that surfing internet child pornography meets their needs and helps them to refrain from engaging in contact offenses. However, the second statistic (50%) gets to the heart of our (SO professionals) fears that many of these guys are just not getting caught. Indeed, under-reporting has always been the fly in the ointment for all of us quoting statistics regarding sexual abuse rates, incidence or recidivism. The second meta-analysis focused on reoffense rates. Seto, Hanson, and Babchishin found quite low rates of reoffending in the samples of online child pornography offenders: 4.6% of offenders engaged in new offenses over follow-up periods ranging from 1.5 to 6 years of follow-up, with 2% engaging in new contact offenses and 3.4% incurring new charges for online child pornography offending. Pretty low rates of reoffending all around; although, we must honestly note that the follow-up times are short. You are nitpicking information, you are referring to recidivism rates being obscenely high while I am referring to the latter statistics of those who watch child pornography not really committing offenses. Edit: http://sajrt.blogspot.com/2010/12/are-all-online-child-pornography.html your source, not mine. | ||
|
TheAura
96 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:04 yarkO wrote: The downfall of society starts when we stop protecting our children. Anybody who says that possessing child porn should be met with anything other than the harshest of penalties needs a hard reality check. They aren't just 'kinky', or have some 'fetish' that they are harboring innocently. There are millions of sites out there with people who LOOK young but are not. This pervert went and looked for CHILDREN HAVING SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS and kept what he found so he could repeatedly enjoy it. He does not need counselling, he does not need pills, or a talking doctor; what he needs is to be permanently removed from society- and so he has. Kudos to a justice system that recognizes the severity of allowing children to be sexualized and marketed. There's no hope for these monsters, stop acting like there is. kudos to the justice system? did you read the article? how can you justify that he would most likely not have been sentenced for life if he actually molested a child? yes punish this creep, no doubt about it, but this is ridiculous. | ||
|
CluEleSs_UK
United Kingdom583 Posts
| ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
this is not how the law is supposed to be since what this guy does is gross (but not as gross as raping what would have got him a lighter punishment) and its faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from 1st deree murder (and that is what you should get a life sentence for) i dont know how this could even happen in a legal system like the one of the usa (i mean can the judges just do what they want or how exactly did they come to this ?) | ||
|
Anktious
United States190 Posts
My company did some private investigations in a case for the local police department and we helped put a pedophile rapist behind bars. He only got 45 years with a plea. This guy deserved life. I personally translated most of the documents since the guy didn't speak very much English, let alone write it and was pretty disgusting what he had done and how close he came to getting away with it. People like this usually have a few screws missing in their head. If we still had the electric chair (my state was one of the last ones to still use it), the guy I'm talking about most definitely deserved it. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On November 11 2011 05:21 Anktious wrote: I think this is adequate punishment for his crime, tbh. My company did some private investigations in a case for the local police department and we helped put a pedophile rapist behind bars. He only got 45 years with a plea. This guy deserved life. I personally translated most of the documents since the guy didn't speak very much English, let alone write it and was pretty disgusting what he had done and how close he came to getting away with it. People like this usually have a few screws missing in their head. If we still had the electric chair (my state was one of the last ones to still use it), the guy I'm talking about most definitely deserved it. So, this pedophile rapist you're talking about only gets 45 years, yet you're fine with the guy in the OP getting life for just viewing CP? Remember, the guy in the OP didn't actually touch a single kid. Why should he get life when people who actually harmed kids don't? | ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
On November 11 2011 05:01 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: You are nitpicking information, you are referring to recidivism rates being obscenely high while I am referring to the latter statistics of those who watch child pornography not really committing offenses. Edit: http://sajrt.blogspot.com/2010/12/are-all-online-child-pornography.html your source, not mine. You still haven't cited your 1 in 50 fact. Even when you take away Bourke and Hernandez's finding of 85% you're still left with 5 different articles that have found significantly higher self report rates than what is known.. Buschman (2009): 55% Coward (2009): 33% Neutz (2003): 57% Quayle (2003): 48% Wood (2009) 32% I am not referring to recidivism rates being obscenely high. If anything, recidivism rates for sex offenders (other than pedophiles/rapists which hover around 40%) are the lowest known among all criminals at roughly 4-5%. Child sex offending has traditionally been one of the easier crimes to get away with because victims do not report it. Look at Sandunsky. The fact that more are not getting caught is not surprising. There isn't enough funds to combat or investigate child pornography at the moment. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On November 11 2011 06:31 Dknight wrote: You still haven't cited your 1 in 50 fact. Even when you take away Bourke and Hernandez's finding of 85% you're still left with 5 different articles that have found significantly higher self report rates than what is known.. Buschman (2009): 55% Coward (2009): 33% Neutz (2003): 57% Quayle (2003): 48% Wood (2009) 32% I am not referring to recidivism rates being obscenely high. If anything, recidivism rates for sex offenders (other than pedophiles/rapists which hover around 40%) are the lowest known among all criminals at roughly 4-5%. Child sex offending has traditionally been one of the easier crimes to get away with because victims do not report it. Look at Sandunsky. The fact that more are not getting caught is not surprising. There isn't enough funds to combat or investigate child pornography at the moment. I apparently was wrong about the 1/50 statistic. I emailed my professor and she said something relating to the 2%, I might of extrapolated 1/50 from that. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
By possessing CP, you are indirectly causing more children to come to harm. Big jail sentence, yes. Life, probably not. I would be okay with probably 20-25 and some serious counseling or whatever can be provided. Anyone who acts like CP is a harmless fetish is delusional. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:04 yarkO wrote: The downfall of society starts when we stop protecting our children. Anybody who says that possessing child porn should be met with anything other than the harshest of penalties needs a hard reality check. They aren't just 'kinky', or have some 'fetish' that they are harboring innocently. There are millions of sites out there with people who LOOK young but are not. This pervert went and looked for CHILDREN HAVING SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS and kept what he found so he could repeatedly enjoy it. He does not need counselling, he does not need pills, or a talking doctor; what he needs is to be permanently removed from society- and so he has. Kudos to a justice system that recognizes the severity of allowing children to be sexualized and marketed. There's no hope for these monsters, stop acting like there is. I generally agree with you, with two caveats; 1) There are some gray areas, such as drawings of CP and having the images maliciously planted. Also, it should go without saying that this should apply to imagery of prepubescents having sexual encounters, not the same featuring pubescent individuals. Possessing imagery of not-legally-adult pubescent people having sexual encounters is, in my opinion, a lesser crime. 2) If you are going to remove someone from society permanently with no chance of return, you should use the death penalty. EDIT: A third caveat, pedophilia is a mental disorder and the option of treating the perpetrator should be considered before sending them to the gallows. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 11 2011 06:38 ayaz2810 wrote: Doing/buying drugs encourages the production. Watching a certain TV show encourages the production. By your logic, pirating music and video games and playing them helps the production of music and video games. It would seem that the link between using the product and paying for the product is what encourages production, not the use of the product in of itself. If you can use the product without paying for it, be the method of payment advertisement or direct, you're hurting production. Of course, you could hurt production in other ways. Most notably, by introducing a competing good like virtual child pornography (lolicon). But that's never going to happen, not with the moral guardians around here. | ||
|
Horangi
Hong Kong226 Posts
As the OP said, he didnt harm any of these children (yet), only thing what he did was looking at the pictures. prison time for 5 years would be fair enough in my opinion. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
That being said, he needs to be in jail for a long, long time. | ||
| ||
