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. NYT article
I certainly would never try to justify producers of child pornography, and even consumers of it have a measure of guilt in that they are supporting the industry, but I find this sentence to be a horrible miscarriage of justice. This guy is 26, he has a fetish, he hasn't actually harmed a child in any but the most indirect of ways, and he probably didn't think twice about downloading these pictures--and the first time that he's brought up in court for this he gets sentenced to life? At age 26? Without possibility of parole?
I remember the whole uproar over the Saudi ArabIranian sentence of a literal "eye for an eye" after a man blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face. This is a lot more than an eye for an eye--this is life in prison for downloading pictures.
What happened to proportionality? What happened to "the punishment fits the crime"?
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
Note that according to this source, it seems that the files that originally led to tracking Vilca down were obtained via a file-sharing network, which means that he likely didn't pay for these pictures--and perhaps not for any of the pictures on his computer. If he didn't pay for them, then even the argument that he supported the industry is greatly weakened--in what way does downloading a file for free support the industry?
I'll grant that even wanting to look at things like this is highly distasteful to most of us, but if you can get over that distaste, can you think of a good rationale for even punishing someone who possesses (but doesn't pay for) child pornography at all?
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?
Its basically equating possession (not production or distribution) of child pornography with first degree murder or first degree rape. Is this fair? I'm not sure.... but is interesting for sure.
EDIT: the article points out that he would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if he had actually molested a child.... seems a little odd
I hope you guys realize that some people just have weird fetishes. Giving a guy life for having one, albeit a really fucked up one? I'm calling way too extreme on this, especially considering the guy has no previous criminal record.
he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
ya he definitely doesn't deserve that, he has a sick fetish but its like giving someone life because they're gay.. he can't really help it and it's not really hurting anyone the police should be going after the source of it
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
Are you serious? This is absolutely ridiculous...he didn't even directly harm someone, and gets the same treatment(in some cases worse) than a murderer? Where is the justice here? I don't see it.
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
Yea, I'm fairly sure no one on "to catch a predator" ever got a life w/o parole. And those guys were ready to commit statutory rape. I have a feeling the Florida Supreme court will over rule this circuit judge's ruling. He really is setting a dangerous precedent imho.
Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
On November 06 2011 10:15 madcow305 wrote: Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
I would think it's also makes it harder on victims to cope. People react differently to suffering tragedies but it seems that due to the stigma society attaches to it, it becomes unacceptable for anyone to view it as anything less then the worst thing in the world.
Now, I don't condone owning, downloading, or having child-porn, but there isn't anything wrong with having a fetish: i'm sure plenty of you who are interested in things that some people would consider gross (though not as bad as child porn).
Producing child pornography or participating in child molestation is certainly wrong, and I agree any person who comitted those acts should be sentenced to jail for a VERY long time (or executed, even); but simply viewing and owning child porn? It's not that bad, frankly.
Remember that this guy is a first time offender, and it is my belief that is is POSSIBLE that with only 1-5 years, he could come out clean, and never do this again. Of course, if he were found guilty a SECOND time, I could understand 15+ years; but life for simply having child porn on his computer? That's too far, in my opinion.
If you're going to give life sentences to people looking at the stuff what possible deterant is there to not just go out and abuse a kid themselves? They're hardly going to get a worse sentence (and that's even if you count the death penalty) and even then, if you're getting the same for murder what's to stop them murdering the kids to make sure they don't speak out (edit: ) as it's still the same sentence? This just seems insane as a "start" sentence.
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
Lock him up in jail for the rest of their life? lol. Because apparently looking at disgusting images is as bad as killing somebody...
This is ridiculous. The guy claims he didn't even know it was on his computer, which may or may not be true, but even if it isn't, a life sentence for looking at child porn? WTF
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
Clearly the irrational perspective of the victim's family is the one we should be assuming in determining appropriate ways to deal with unacceptable behavior. That seems likely to produce civilized and productive criminal policy.
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
prolly ask where they got it from
or no, just kill the person. your fatherless son will grow up knowing hes dad is the most badass of all the prison inmates.
possession is ALOT different that disruption and production
Life sentence? He could have done a lot worse shit than that, disgusting as it is - life sentence is a grossly put sentence for an already gross person. Give the guy some time and some rehabilitation, but not something as huge as a life sentence. Come on.
My question is - how did the authorities know about it? Or what judge gave the search permit to the cops and for what reason. More importantly - does this mean anyone that has a grudge against you only has to download child porn on your computer and tell the authorities about it?
If that is the case, R1CH really can get back at anyone... freaky.
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.
I don't know about this specific case but this kind of scaling for sex crimes is pretty common, at a certain level of offense you're no longer considered able to be rehabilitated so the rationale is that life in prison is the only choice. I guess people think that isn't true for violent crimes, I can't speak for how true any of that is though.
What? Don't get me wrong child porn is extremely wrong and I don't support it at all, but this guy just has a weird fetish and he is getting more time in jail than that of someone who killed another human being??
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
For possessing it? I don't know, spit in his face? Slap him?
What do you expect me to say--that I'd want to kill anyone who buys that picture? I'm not that bloodthirsty.
This guy is a person too, and yes, I can sympathize with him, because everyone has fetishes, though his may be a distasteful one. I agree that possession should be a punishable crime because it indirectly supports the industry, but this guy hasn't actually done anything to a child. You can't even reasonably argue that his actions led to any child's being harmed except in the sense that he was one of millions whose purchases collectively finance the industry. That shouldn't be equated to molestation.
What does giving a guy like this a life sentence do except ruin his life?
On November 06 2011 10:19 albis wrote: death for looking at something. land of the free....unless u open your eyes
Yeah, because everyone should be free to sexually exploit children for their enjoyment/pay people for pictures of it? Oh, wait, most major countries have major laws against this.
That said the sentence is stupid and I in no way agree with it.
this is so ridicolous. I searched the internet to see how this case would be handled by german law and the result is: he would have to pay a fine and the pc would get confiscated...yes thats all...if he had more than 500 pics he would have get 3months - 2 years on parole.
how can the interpretation of law diverge so much?
Wow that's really strange, if I were the offender's lawyer I'd check the judge's record on this kind of trial. It sounds like an insanely disproportionate punishment.
On November 06 2011 10:28 Energizer wrote: My question is - how did the authorities know about it? Or what judge gave the search permit to the cops and for what reason. More importantly - does this mean anyone that has a grudge against you only has to download child porn on your computer and tell the authorities about it?
If that is the case, R1CH really can get back at anyone... freaky.
Seriously...I mean how easy would it be to frame someone for a crime like this...kind of frightening when you think about it.
On November 06 2011 10:15 madcow305 wrote: Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
In Denmark is the other way around... Fraud will give up to 6years in jail... Rape can give as little as 3months... People are often complaining about the danish legal system - But THIS is not in anyway better. But it's hard for me with no legal education to actually call what would be the ideal judgement (well, appart from therapy with a psychiatrist or something like that)
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
On November 06 2011 10:23 Mordoc wrote: Now, I don't condone owning, downloading, or having child-porn, but there isn't anything wrong with having a fetish: i'm sure plenty of you who are interested in things that some people would consider gross (though not as bad as child porn).
Really? You realize that a fetish is something that you have an excessive or irrational commitment to, right? It's not just a hobby. Some individuals might not share your particular hobbies, but fetishes are looked down upon by society as a whole.
On November 06 2011 10:19 albis wrote: death for looking at something. land of the free....unless u open your eyes
I wonder if you meant this quote to be as far reaching as it comes across to me.
As for the punishment, I mean...we are in an age in the U.S. where "Loli" or 'depictions' of children in sensual acts/poses is now classified as child pornography. I believe most of that is the terminology used that banned artists 'questionably young' anime stuff. Would some nerd be put away for life because his anime girls were flat chested and looked young?
This is not sympathetic to the crime, but the severity of punishment.
Jesus Christ guys, I know, and we all know that child pornography is messed up (we get it). But does someone deserve a LIFE SENTENCE for possession of child pornography downloaded off of the internet?
Many murderers and other felons don't receive a life sentence (even if found guilty), but this guy straight up gets life for this? This is BS, like no joke. Messed up verdict, IMHO.
Yeah, definitely think that the sentencing was too harsh. Child pornographers or whatever should be punished for sure, but to be basically treated the same (or worse) as a murderer? Going overboard for sure.
I think the people actually abusing the children deserve life in jail, but I don't think the sick fucks who watch it should get that heavy of a punishment
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
I'm glad you're not judge. That is no way to address this kind of case, sentencing him for crimes he might or might not have done. Geez are you serious about that ?
I don't think anyone is saying he should just have the charges dropped against him, there should still be some punishment but life in prison? Possession of child porn is one thing, actually sexually molesting a child is completely another. It's some bullshit kneejerk reaction because society looks down so heavily upon it.
He should have just killed someone. Hell, some people have gotten off with just probation for killing the passenger in their car while driving drunk. Calling it a system of justice is a joke.
But this guy doesn't deserve a life sentence. He should be punished, none of this "it's just a fetish leave him alone!" bullshit, but no way should he get life. That's ridiculous.
How much truth could there be to his claim that he didn't even know it was on his computer? I doubt it was truly a set up but I imagine proving his innocence in the event that it was would be quite difficult. Although I imagine if police searches your place they have been monitoring you for a while.
How did he acquire the content? Did he look at some pictures from the spammers on 4chan or did he actively search for it?
There's a lot of information we don't know. Either way, the punishment seems extreme if it was only possession in any case. I mean, maybe he was actively spreading it or bragging about it. Maybe that could explain a harsher sentence.
But it still doesn't justify life without parole IMO. He should get a certain number of years, yes, but the article even says he could've gotten a lighter sentence if he had actually molested a child... wow. I'm speechless at that.
Yes, him watching it and creating a demand for it hurts the children who where originally raped or w/e in these videos. Everyone caught with child porn, or raping children or anyone, or distributing things like that deserve life in prison, they cause people endless amount of pain and suffering.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
Well there are war criminals living care free lives, corrupt politicians that they've enriched themselves by millions on the labor and sacrifice of others and rapist and killers getting 20 years with parole, so I find this judgment a "bit" over the top.
But this is going into a whole new territory and that is thought crime. I see it more and more in Australia, Britain, USA, Canada more and more where you are put in prison for even thinking about something.
Or you have undercover operatives infiltrating grandpa centers and arrest them for their anti government talks, people in the 70's and 80's and this I've read just about a week ago.
Or how in Australia you can be put in prison for having plastic material in the glass designated trash, or how in Britain you can go to prison just by loaning a public book from a public library, o yeah, etc...
I see it as a means to clamp down on the public and create this false reality where you are accustomed to bizarre arrests and judgments.
And what happens if I still keep pics of my 15yo gf naked at the time and this was like 5 years ago and even then i was 2 years older?
Can he appeal his sentence? I have no understanding of our court system ( I am only 16 -_-). Mani's quote from the article is pretty true. This man could have done something so much more severe, but he gets the ultimate penalty.
I understand our court system is here to maintain and enforce law and order, but really, a life sentence is just rediculous.
I cannot fucking believe the ego of this judge. Life in prison for downloading a .jpg picture of a naked kid? Really? Ok, it's gross, and it's morally and legally wrong, I get it. But like the article said, this man could have probably sexually molested a kid and received a lighter sentence. He is a 26-year old with no previous criminal background, probably just working to get by, and now has his entire life destroyed because he was probably on 4chan every night looking at images to please himself out of a sexual fetish / boredom.
I don't really give a shit what somebody does in the privacy of their own home; you can cheat, you can do crack, you can cut yourself, etc., as long as it doesn't harm our communities directly. What's next? If I am 16 and I am caught playing Battlefield 3 which is 18+, I should be sentenced to life because it isn't suitable for society to know that I am playing a mature game?
Fucking retarded. I hope this judge loses his license. Completely uncalled for sentencing.
Edit: I have a suggestion, why not force him to get counseling and therapy, instead of end his life? Did you consider that, you imbecile?
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
Good choice of words... "supporting" an industry that makes a living by sexually abusing small children. By using the word support, we imagine one of the pillars/masterminds behind the whole child porn industry, even though all that we know is he has images on his computer, whether he paid/supported/molested or not, we have no evidence for.
it will get overturned on appeal. no worries. there is this whole constitutional amendment thingy that prevents bullshit like this (i.e., excessive punishments).
On November 06 2011 10:43 TheBomb wrote: Well there are war criminals living care free lives, corrupt politicians that they've enriched themselves by millions on the labor and sacrifice of others and rapist and killers getting 20 years with parole, so I find this judgment a "bit" over the top.
But this is going into a whole new territory and that is thought crime. I see it more and more in Australia, Britain, USA, Canada more and more where you are put in prison for even thinking about something.
Or you have undercover operatives infiltrating grandpa centers and arrest them for their anti government talks, people in the 70's and 80's and this I've read just about a week ago.
Or how in Australia you can be put in prison for having plastic material in the glass designated trash, or how in Britain you can go to prison just by loaning a public book from a public library, o yeah, etc...
I see it as a means to clamp down on the public and create this false reality where you are accustomed to bizarre arrests and judgments. And what happens if I still keep pics of my 15yo gf naked at the time and this was like 5 years ago and even then i was 2 years older?
Life sentence for you too! You're worse than a child molester!
another thing would be. did he find these pictures? or did he pay for them. lets say paided for a child porn site as opposed to random browser forum post he came across
both dont warrant a life sentence imho but paying seams more involved
On November 06 2011 10:43 TheBomb wrote: Well there are war criminals living care free lives, corrupt politicians that they've enriched themselves by millions on the labor and sacrifice of others and rapist and killers getting 20 years with parole, so I find this judgment a "bit" over the top.
But this is going into a whole new territory and that is thought crime. I see it more and more in Australia, Britain, USA, Canada more and more where you are put in prison for even thinking about something.
Or you have undercover operatives infiltrating grandpa centers and arrest them for their anti government talks, people in the 70's and 80's and this I've read just about a week ago.
Or how in Australia you can be put in prison for having plastic material in the glass designated trash, or how in Britain you can go to prison just by loaning a public book from a public library, o yeah, etc...
I see it as a means to clamp down on the public and create this false reality where you are accustomed to bizarre arrests and judgments.
And what happens if I still keep pics of my 15yo gf naked at the time and this was like 5 years ago and even then i was 2 years older?
pretty sure that's illegal... If it were legal, then so would an 80's porno feat. 12y/o's
On November 06 2011 10:50 albis wrote: another thing would be. did he find these pictures? or did he pay for them. lets say paided for a child porn site as opposed to random browser forum post he came across
That's also a point: it's not clear that he paid for them (he disclaims knowledge of them in the first place), and if he didn't, the whole argument about 'indirectly supporting it' disappears.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
By downloading this stuff, he is helping to increase the demand. Which means more children are going to be subjected to it. There is a reason why child porn is illegal.
And yes, I do perceive any involvement with child porn to be just as bad as murder. Its just an opinion!
i hope this is a message to everyone that you just shouldn't look at that shit, and if you feel the urge get some fucken help before you screw up your life.
I have an uncle in Florida that went to prison for child pornography. The thing about the law is that each picture counts as 1 count and 1 count can get you 1 year. So having 454 pictures can get you 454 years in prison.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
By downloading this stuff, he is helping to increase the demand. Which means more children are going to be subjected to it. There is a reason why child porn is illegal.
It's been estimated that secondhand smoke kills about 3,000 people a year. Does that make every smoker a mass murderer?
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...
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
By downloading this stuff, he is helping to increase the demand. Which means more children are going to be subjected to it. There is a reason why child porn is illegal.
And yes, I do perceive any involvement with child porn to be just as bad as murder. Its just an opinion!
do you perceive sex with a minor (including children) to be worse than possession of child porn? because the punishment for sex with a minor is less than life in prison. thus, most people's outrage in here.
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...
So if mere possession of child porn warrants such severe punishment as life sentence, it would only be fair if child molestation and production of child porn result in capital punishment, at minimum. Actually, that doesn't sound too bad.
He hasn't harmed anybody yet he gets no chance to be helped, just gets thrown in jail to die without freedom? This seems ridiculous to me, I don't understand the justice system of many if not most countries.
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
I'm not 100% about the years which life is in America but the wording of the OP suggests that he will be in jail for the rest of his life, maybe the OP just misunderstands though.
Well I have seen this documentary about an Irish Catholic priest that has molest alot of children and he is home free in Ireland. He even admitted it and alot of his handy work has been documented by police and stuff.
I am curiouse if it was real child porn pictures or loli(hentai). I know that loli is considered child porn in sweden and that is bullshit. If it is real child porn pictures... I'm not sure. I mean I agree that it deserves a large punishment, but that is hevier then actually molster a kid is fucked up. I don't care much for what fetish he have. A lot of people do fantasies about kids, not the youngest <10 maybe but still kids. And yeah I think that is normal. As long as you don't harm anyone I don't see the problem. You could argue that being in possesion of child porn pictures is harmfull or not but I think to some degree it is.
When I first saw the topic I thought "yeah he sure deserved that", because I HATE pedophiles. But since I don't know excatly how bad the pictures were, and the more I think about it the more I agree that the sentence is to severe. A heavier sentence then molstering a kid? really? that's bullshit. A heavier sentence then murder? (even if I honestly think that the punishment for murder are generally to light but whatever). So no lifetime for only having photos and a first time offender is bullshit.
ps: I don't think that the number of photos should heavily effect the punishment. 100 or 1000 doesn't matter.
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. Maybe he thought it applied to the States too? In any event, this guy should go to jail, but not for longer than rapists.
On November 06 2011 11:06 JackDragon wrote: I am curiouse if it was real child porn pictures or loli(hentai). I know that loli is considered child porn in sweden and that is bullshit. If it is real child porn pictures... I'm not sure. I mean I agree that it deserves a large punishment, but that is hevier then actually molster a kid is fucked up. I don't care much for what fetish he have. A lot of people do fantasies about kids, not the youngest <10 maybe but still kids. And yeah I think that is normal. As long as you don't harm anyone I don't see the problem. You could argue that being in possesion of child porn pictures is harmfull or not but I think to some degree it is.
When I first saw the topic I thought "yeah he sure deserved that", because I HATE pedophiles. But since I don't know excatly how bad the pictures were, and the more I think about it the more I agree that the sentence is to severe. A heavier sentence then molstering a kid? really? that's bullshit. A heavier sentence then murder? (even if I honestly think that the punishment for murder are generally to light but whatever). So no lifetime for only having photos and a first time offender is bullshit.
ps: I don't think that the number of photos should heavily effect the punishment. 100 or 1000 doesn't matter.
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
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
No, lifetime can literally mean lifetime. 25 years is not the same thing as a life sentence. That's why you hear people get sentenced 25 year to life.
This is kinda ridiculous. A harsh sentence is necessary imo cause child porn is just fucking sick. But life sentence for just possession is kinda disproportionate.
I would rather get this guy some help, if he didnt actually hurt anyone then there is always a chance for rehab, but this guy seems to have just got into some bad stuff and has literally lost the rest of his life.
The fact that in England you get 5-10 years for murdering someone, you END someones life and get 5 years, yet for downloading some pictures you get life? Obviously I don't even need to say that I detest this act considering he didn't actually directly harm anyone and he got life...wow...
Edit: So what happens in florida if you actually molest a child, or distribute this kind of thing?....since there are no harsher circumstances? Pretty baffling to me.
Oh and I've just read that Halliburton run child kidnapping rings and there were congressional hearings about this and no one got in trouble and of course the famed UN and NATO missions with DynCorp for example caught red handed running a lot of them and no one gets in trouble.
It this kind of thread that shows the weakness of the "forum" as a place to share opinions: one idiot make a stupid post > his statement is quoted twenty times and all the elaborate posts are almost never relayed.
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
No, lifetime can literally mean lifetime. 25 years is not the same thing as a life sentence. That's why you hear people get sentenced 25 year to life.
This is kinda ridiculous. A harsh sentence is necessary imo cause child porn is just fucking sick. But life sentence for just possession is kinda disproportionate.
Yes, but interesting that the sentence is more than most actual child molesters get. I really think therapy would be a better solution to those non-violent offenders, while life should be saved for those who actually produce/participate in child pornography.
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. Maybe he thought it applied to the States too? In any event, this guy should go to jail, but not for longer than rapists.
lifetime is lifetime, but usually there is a possibility of parole after a certain amount of time (10-25 years in this case, maybe less). only when you get life without parole is it actually a lifetime. given the overcrowding in america and the non-violent nature of child porn possession (and complete bullshit of a life sentence), i doubt this guy will serve more than a decade (if his lawyers completely fubar his appeal that is).
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.
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
By downloading this stuff, he is helping to increase the demand. Which means more children are going to be subjected to it. There is a reason why child porn is illegal.
And yes, I do perceive any involvement with child porn to be just as bad as murder. Its just an opinion!
do you perceive sex with a minor (including children) to be worse than possession of child porn? because the punishment for sex with a minor is less than life in prison. thus, most people's outrage in here.
Yay sex with a minor is worse then possesion and the fact that the sentence for sex with a minor is lower than what this guy got is fucked up! But i still think the sentence is appropriate. Why they seems to think raping a child deservers less jail time is just... stupid...
They should get the ones who produce these things instead. The government is just trying to sent out a message that they are serious about this. The guy is just unlucky to a scrape goat.
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
No, lifetime can literally mean lifetime. 25 years is not the same thing as a life sentence. That's why you hear people get sentenced 25 year to life.
This is kinda ridiculous. A harsh sentence is necessary imo cause child porn is just fucking sick. But life sentence for just possession is kinda disproportionate.
True that life time can be for life. but normaly it is around 25 year. but I'm not sure if that is the case since it is without the possibility of parole. So yeah it could be literally for life
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.
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
On November 06 2011 11:11 gds wrote: It this kind of thread that shows the weakness of the "forum" as a place to share opinions: one idiot make a stupid post > his statement is quoted twenty times and all the elaborate posts are almost never relayed.
That is a good point; separate discussion, but hm... Maybe if I see some particularly thoughtful posts here, I'll highlight them in the OP.
On November 06 2011 11:14 Newbistic wrote: I wonder what rehab for pedophiles would even look like. Has anyone even tried to establish something like this? Is it possible?
What an unfortunate fetish for someone to develop/be born with.
they have rehab programs, including chemical castration (ouch!). like a lot of fetishes/desires, its extremely hard to control, but possible.
so he likes child porn. others like fat chick, buff chicks. its wrong to look at but he didnt do anything to harm a child. life in prison is just ridiculous.
On November 06 2011 10:34 ElusoryX wrote: too harsh of a sentence? if he's 40+ then a life sentence would appropriate..
that logic is so ridiculous :D How is it appropriate to lock someone away for his entire life because he maybe right clicked "saved picture as" on a sick picture on 4chan \b\
Of couse it's morally wrong and the guy will probably suffer from the social stigma he will receive until the day he dies. Why is there a need to lock him away eventhough he didn't harm anyone? His "punishment" (besides his already mentioned ruined life) should be a psychiatric treatment (of course he has to pay for it).
Giving someone life for possession of child porn is fucking ridiculous. It's not the same as murdering someone. As long as he didn't personally get the children to do the porn, then I don't think he needs to go into a straight up jail. Why not put him in a loony house and have counseling for the rest of his life?
Meaning he lives in the loony house and can't leave.
How is that even possible? Isn't there a maximum sentence for this sort of crime?
the shittiest part of all this is that no one is going to rally support for this guy. He's gonna be stuck in jail for life... for downloading pictures. What a fucking joke.
The more I think about this the more i'm digusted, once again i'll reassure you that I feel he should be justly punished, however to my point, as someone has mentioned already, the fact that nobodys PC is entirely secure, if someone wants to 'hack' someone, they can, so say you wanted to get someone put in prison for life, you hack their PC, plant aload of CP, then in relation to another insane news story, you could break into their house, then go to the police and say 'Oh I found cp on their computer, send them away to prison for life now thanks.' all without the victim having any idea about it, now i'm not saying that's what happened but i'm saying it's a possibility.
On November 06 2011 11:22 TutsiRebel wrote: is this a fucking joke? what the fuck?
How is that even possible? Isn't there a maximum sentence for this sort of crime?
the shittiest part of all this is that no one is going to rally support for this guy. He's gonna be stuck in jail for life... for downloading pictures. What a fucking joke.
Yep, too afraid of the Social Stigma that would be placed upon them, although clearly alot of people on this forum are against this sentence, nobody would support a rally for a reduced sentence in public, that's what I hate about the human race, we're too afraid of what people will think.
I'm also worried about the possibility of hackers or people putting that kind of stuff on your computer, and you get thrown in jail for life. There was a case of this that happened recently, luckily the guy was tech savvy and proved himself innocent and went free.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
I don't think he PAID some guy for pictures, I read both articles and it said that he DOWNLOADED the pictures, probably P2P like KaZaa or something.
i really cant believe how many people say he should be locked away 10+ years for watching at pictures, while he would just walk away freely in germany after paying a fine (not meaning that we dont care about this but we hunt the people that produce...) and how the fuck can a rational thinking person make/interpret a law like this...5 CP pics = 5 years, 20 pics = 20 years because 15 pics absolutely justify extra 15 years of prison. this guy is just a sick man and should get psychological help, but it seems like US justice system just puts everyone in jail no matter what
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.
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
Thanks! I'll update the OP with your link.
actually, us germans really call 25 years (max) a 'liftetime sentence'
We give a guy who just possessed 500 pictures, albeit sick, twisted pictures, life in prison without parole. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!? I know of hundreds who deserve this FAR more: habitual drunk drivers who kill people, drug dealers, second degree murderers, and yet we dish out the life sentence to some guy who has 500 photos and let the true monsters walk free in far shorter time, occaisonally even only 2-3 years. Words cannot describe how much I hate my justice system right now.
The guys 24, not 26 according to the quoted link in the OP.
Anyway, while child porn is clearly fucked up, the crime isn't exactly equivalent to murder/rape/yadda yadda. Wouldn't be surprised if the guy appeals this.
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.
"Some of the videos and pictures showed boys ages 6 to 12 engaged in sexual activity with adults and each other, according to arrest reports. "
"Through the investigation, detectives tracked child pornography files that were shared over the Internet to the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, on Guevara Vilca’s computer."
Thanks! I'll update the OP with your link.
actually, us germans really call 25 years (max) a 'liftetime sentence'
Really? Aside from the fact that that seems like a strange use of terminology,
Everyone's go-to source for instant education on matters that they know nothing aboutwrites: The German Constitutional Court has found life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to be antithetical to human dignity, the most fundamental concept of the present German constitution. That ruling does not mean that every convict has to be released, but that every convict must have a realistic chance for eventual release, provided that they are not considered dangerous any more....
The record time served is held by Heinrich Pommerenke, a convicted mass murderer and rapist who was imprisoned for 49 years (1959 until his death in late 2008).
This is completely fucked up, give him a warning, take away his internet, heck even put him on the paedophiles listing, but life in jail? Ha, nice one America.
On November 06 2011 11:39 Candadar wrote: Pretty sure mods should edit into the OP that the guy ACTUALLY FUCKING MOLTESTED CHILDREN
._.
Pretty sure you should read more carefully. "Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child..." (the words of the article linked in the OP) ≠ "Vilca actually molested a child".
I would throw in someone who hurts themselves by using drugs and goes to jail for 20 years is wrong too. A lot of punishments we have are no where near appropriate for the crime but like tons of things we do in america we do it because we have always done it that way and whoever is too lazy/cheap to fix it.
Possession is considered as severe as distribution in American law because of the commercial sexual exploitation of children, one of the largest sources of income within the black market. A lot of the children that are involved in kiddie porn are these exploited children and child sexual abuse, especially on the commercial scale, is about as traumatic as you can get. As demand grows, so too will the supply of children. In addition, several studies have been done on those convicted of CP. Seto (2010) found 1 in 2 admitted to a sexual offense in the self report yet only 1 in 8 actually had a prior sexual conviction. Considering that child sex offenders are masters of deceit and denial, I do believe the rate is higher. Regardless, not worthy of a life sentence but it does explain why sentencing is surprisingly harsh.
This is ridiculous, but the more of these news stories I read on TL, the more disillusioned I become. There is just SO much wrong with the world, and none of it is getting any better.
I should also point out that life in prison for a pedophile is more like a death sentence. The one thing pretty much all convicts agree on, is that pedophiles are horrible. Its actually pretty common to put the pedophiles in solitary confinement for their own safety, because otherwise, the other prisoners will almost certainly try to kill them.
it is gross, and it is unacceptable. But this is a terribly injustice. We are humans, we make mistakes, we are different. Some people like things others don't. This man likes something that happens to be, VERY illegal and immoral. Of course its not correct to posses something like that, or its excusable. He knows it's illegal, but as stated in the OP, he probably didn't think twice before doing it. I'd give him no more than 5 years so he learns the lesson. Any more than that is just injustice.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
yeah, because possession of child porn is much worse than people who kill or rape.
On November 06 2011 11:14 Newbistic wrote: I wonder what rehab for pedophiles would even look like. Has anyone even tried to establish something like this? Is it possible?
What an unfortunate fetish for someone to develop/be born with.
This brings up an incredibly interesting point. How do you become a pedophile? I never really understood if you were born with it or if it just sort of happened for some reason. Like bestiality. How do these things develop?
Ik wil dit niet willen. Maar daar heb ik toch niks over te zeggen. Dat heeft een Duitse filosoof ooit gezegd, weet je: “de mens heeft de keuze, om al dan niet te doen, wat hij wilt”. Hij kan wel of niet doen wat hij wilt. Maar een mens kan niet willen wat hij wilt.
Rough translation to English:
I don’t want to want this. But I don’t have anything to say about it. A German philosopher once said, you know “man has the choice to do or not to do, what he want”. He can do or don’t what he wants. But a person cannot choice what he wants.
On November 06 2011 10:10 HackBenjamin wrote: Child porn is fucking gross. That's what you get.
Looks like some tea party members are playing Starcraft II
lol.
Yeah this is a joke. Child pornography is disgusting, but not worth a life time sentence. It's actually pretty funny that a justice system can be this inept.
So this guy has a child porn picture on his computer. How do we know for a fact he downloaded that picture and some roomate, friend, or someone that hates him went on his computer and did that? So if I hated someone I go on his computer download a child porn picture and that dude is going to jail for 20 years plus for something he never even did. How would you even defend that? The ip address can never be linked to the actual physical person using it unless someone saw the person doing it or saw them somewhere to prove they were not there.
I could understand creating child porn, and the act of physicality being involved warranting a life sentence.... I never understood how the viewing of photos and videos can be illegal in itself. Certainly paying for it is another story because you are supporting it.
I dunno, this is a very tricky subject. Regardless, this guy's "life sentence" is more of a death sentence when the inmates find out what he's in for.
He'll likely get a reduced sentence on appeal. These sorts of harsh sentences should be reserved for those actually producing the material, not the end consumer. It's the same issue the US justice system has with drug related crimes: too many resources are wasted on targeting users.
On November 06 2011 11:54 snakeeyez wrote: So this guy has a child porn picture on his computer. How do we know for a fact he downloaded that picture and some roomate, friend, or someone that hates him went on his computer and did that? So if I hated someone I go on his computer download a child porn picture and that dude is going to jail for 20 years plus for something he never even did. How would you even defend that? The ip address can never be linked to the actual physical person using it unless someone saw the person doing it or saw them somewhere to prove they were not there.
I've never really understood that part of prosecuting internet related crimes either. Just because they can tie it to his computer, does that really prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the one using it at the time? How can they be so certain, especially when the stakes are this high?
On November 06 2011 11:41 iNfeRnaL wrote: Yea, watching pictures of a child getting raped is way worse than actually raping a child. Good judgement right there.
The child wasn't even getting raped, just naked pictures afaik.
Uh the war on drugs there is a waste of resources if I ever saw one. Hey lets wage a war on something our country has high demand for and uses a lot of! That sounds like a great idea.
When I think about it, gambling is sort of like a psychological addiction, and ruins people's (child porn owners) lives all the time. Casinos (child porn distributors) give people a place to encourage this. Gamblers (child porn owners) support this by gambling, hurting other people's lives too. Now of course, I am not saying gambling is akin to possessing child porn, but like gambling, we should instead try to help these people recover from their psychological problems, not throw them away. They're still people, and they can be molded back into ideal members of society.
You don't need to actually rape a child for it to be sexual abuse. It isn't the act itself that is so important but what the act does mentally and psychologically to a developing child. And it's one of the most traumatic and damaging experiences an individual goes through. There's so much ignorance regarding sex offending.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
I've been thinking this way for quite a while...My thought process was more along the line when pedophiles, start saying that they were born that way, and in this case that he had taken no action against a child. But I guess thats the justice system :\
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
That is my point, when I am stating that " The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people.". You are totally right they are consensual. So they harm no one, but in the end it's just another deviation!
Possession of these images => automatic life is a bad precedent if only because of where the lines are drawn
- What if they are just under the age limit, or it is difficult to tell - What if no child was harmed in the making (for example, they shot the images themselves and it is not hardcore)
Having a step jump from no offence to life for this kind of thing will lead to some very narrow decisions.
(Obviously the images this guy had were indefensible so at least some prison time is warranted if not life)
this is utterly ridiculous, this has to be looked at by the supreme court of appeals, there is no reason for this guy to sit in jail that long for the review either, i understand punishment for a crime that will get nothing but negative light in the media but jesus, murderers get away with less
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
Careful, don't conflate having a sexual fetish with performing the act itself. There are many self-avowed pedophiles who would never actually harm a child. Likewise, being a necrophiliac doesn't mean one steals corpses from the local morgue.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
I kinda agree with that its only wrong because children younger that around 18 (that really depends of the people but whatever) cannot agree or are not grown up enough to be consenting... so its wrong to do it...
but for someone with that deviation it must be really hard not to look/download when its so aviable on internet...
Imagine if normal straight porn was illegal and that we could get lfe penalty for it tomorrow... how hard it would be not to google it when we know internet is full of it..
downloading child porn helps the child porn industry but downloading music hurts the music industry.
On November 06 2011 11:59 Datz2Ez wrote: Meeeeh,
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
I agree with you quite a bit about the fact that because its such an abhorrent thing to abuse a child sexually there is generally very little thought given to the rehabilitation and the help of the offenders and more about either locking them up or watching them for the rest of their lives. Its not like they woke up and decided one day to get turned on by kids. If we had a way of promoting them to speak up about it to get treatment instead of making them afraid to say anything because they don't want to be labeled a freak and a pervert.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
Having picture and videos is not taking advantage of anyone. It doesn't merit life in prison. Parents who abuse their children don't get this type of sentence.
I swear, on reddit there has suddenly been an influx of child porn apologists. Don't know if it's an organized thing or just people jumping on an idea that's not mainstream for the hell of it. By getting child pornography you are supporting those who make that shit, so basically supporting child abuse. I don't know about a life sentence but a heavy punishment is certainly deserved in this case.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
The guy you're quoting understood that (I bolded another section of your quotation.) He's saying that there's also a knee-jerk reaction that's based on revulsion for this particular deviation from the norm, independent of whether the person in question actually took advantage of anyone (there doesn't seem to be much if any reason to assume that Vilca did). If you read through the thread you can see a few examples of that: people posting things like, "child pornography is gross--anyone consuming it should be imprisoned/killed".
edit: dammit--I take too long to write posts! Every time I respond to someone in this thread, someone's already made my point before me.
I sort of agree with the OP here. It is certainly wrong for a person to be supporting child porn, however this person who committed the action of owning the porn never hurt or endangered a child. I mean sure give him 15-20 years with or without parole, but a life sentence with no way of getting out of it? That does seem a bit much. What if this guy was just doing (and I know how cliche this is, but I have tried to look up weird fetish porn before ( animal porn is fucking weird IMO )) "research". According to the article the guy had no previous infractions on his part. I'm not so sure the crime matches the punishment.
I feel bad for pedophiles. Like, harming another person (especially a child) is obviously TERRIBLE, but imagine living in a society that is was illegal for you to be gay/straight?
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
Careful, don't conflate having a sexual fetish with performing the act itself. There are many self-avowed pedophiles who would never actually harm a child. Likewise, being a necrophiliac doesn't mean one steals corpses from the local morgue.
and HE never actually did anything to a children either... just looked at some pic
On November 06 2011 11:58 Happylime wrote: Somehow I feel like he deserved it.
Child porn is sick.
It is sick, but you have to keep in mind that for the people who download this shit, it's an attraction, comparable to whether you like large breasts or small breasts. Imagine if whichever of those you prefer was illegal and was regarded as disgusting by society. That's the kind of predicament that these people are in.
honestly, this guy never deserved the life sentence. This IS an injustice.
while we're in the mood to throw people in jail for what is almost certainly a genetic tragedy I suggest tossing all of the gingers away too.
seriously, people react so violently to these cases that I doubt there is any objectivity at all in dealing with these things.
as for castration, well we used to lobotomize the schizophrenic and frankly they were just as great a danger to others as pedophiles are.
the sad reality of the situation is that child pornography involves sexual abuse of a child in all cases and that clearly cannot be allowed. however, an actual argument for why it is immoral to merely be attracted to prepubescent children is much harder to pin down without suggesting that it necessarily will lead to child abuse which if you really think about it is somewhat ridiculous.
ultimately it is unjust to punish those who might when they have not done.
additionally, I think if the reaction to pedophilia wasn't so fucking violent maybe some of these people would seek help.
and this is a sadly optimistic scenario. what happens if it turns out that pedophilia is mainly caused by trauma? then we, in effect, are persecuting victims. how sad we would be a society if we really did that.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
The guy you're quoting understood that (I bolded another section of your quotation.) He's saying that there's also a knee-jerk reaction that's based on revulsion for this particular deviation from the norm, independent of whether the person in question actually took advantage of anyone (there doesn't seem to be much if any reason to assume that Vilca did). If you read through the thread you can see a few examples of that: people posting things like, "child pornography is gross--anyone consuming it should be imprisoned/killed".
edit: dammit--I take too long to write posts! Every time I respond to someone in this thread, someone's already made my point before me.
I must say that I am quite impressed by the maturity of TL members. I was so ready to get bashed by everyone and I got instantly 3-4 people taking the time to read and understand my point. I will never get tired of this community!
Yeah, if you're using child porn you should go to jail. It's illegal.
Is it the same as murdering someone? Maybe not, but really does anyone here reasonably think he deserves to walk for this? This isn't a victimless crime at all. I hate to use domino effect-esque logic because it's flawed but think of it this way. If we allow people to watch child porn more easily then more children will be exploited leading to an epidemic of child pornography on a much greater scale than it is now. Really, he was looking at boys between the ages of 6-12, he knew what he was doing, and definitely deserves serious prison time for it.
On November 06 2011 12:11 Happylime wrote: Yeah, if you're using child porn you should go to jail. It's illegal.
Is it the same as murdering someone? Maybe not, but really does anyone here reasonably think he deserves to walk for this? This isn't a victimless crime at all. I hate to use domino effect-esque logic because it's flawed but think of it this way. If we allow people to watch child porn more easily then more children will be exploited leading to an epidemic of child pornography on a much greater scale than it is now. Really, he was looking at boys between the ages of 6-12, he knew what he was doing, and definitely deserves serious prison time for it.
Before, homosexual where burned... until we understand that they are different, not evil. If we can (and I doubt we will get there before Iran blow everything up ^^) help them to control their sexuality we will have less problem then just putting them in prison. We are not solving anything now.
i actualy dont know if it makes a difference but because this man was punished so bad i imagine he was into porn movies of children being raped and abused. there also must have been other evidence which showed that in his true nature he was a threat to society. maybe he was even scouting out schools. but if all he did was look at some young kids in pictures on the internet i cant imagine him being so fucked (even tho its still pretty fucked up)
On November 06 2011 12:11 Happylime wrote: Yeah, if you're using child porn you should go to jail. It's illegal.
Is it the same as murdering someone? Maybe not, but really does anyone here reasonably think he deserves to walk for this? This isn't a victimless crime at all. I hate to use domino effect-esque logic because it's flawed but think of it this way. If we allow people to watch child porn more easily then more children will be exploited leading to an epidemic of child pornography on a much greater scale than it is now. Really, he was looking at boys between the ages of 6-12, he knew what he was doing, and definitely deserves serious prison time for it.
Few here are suggesting that he simply walk away free, and you already know what's wrong with the rest of your argument.
On November 06 2011 12:11 Happylime wrote: Yeah, if you're using child porn you should go to jail. It's illegal.
Is it the same as murdering someone? Maybe not, but really does anyone here reasonably think he deserves to walk for this? This isn't a victimless crime at all. I hate to use domino effect-esque logic because it's flawed but think of it this way. If we allow people to watch child porn more easily then more children will be exploited leading to an epidemic of child pornography on a much greater scale than it is now. Really, he was looking at boys between the ages of 6-12, he knew what he was doing, and definitely deserves serious prison time for it.
Who ever mentioned walking? It's not the fact that he's going to prison, but that the extent of his punishment seems to be entirely out of proportion compared to the crime.
Very hard to judge. I mean... it has to be punish... yes obviously. But I feel like there is no ressource for these people who have other deviation then homosexual, who are now socially (most of the time) accepted. I will give an example that will make people insult me and all, but if you see it in a rational way I think (maybe I'm wrong) that I am right.
Homosexual, are the same as pedophile... it is a sexual deviation. You can also compare all of these with necrophiliac, and finaly zoophilic. These are all deviation from heterosexual. The problem is that neither homosexual or zoophilic people harm people. While pedophil will mostly abuse child. Their is literally no ressource for these people to fall back on because they are seen as monster. In reality they are not worse then an homosexual.
So in the end, I am obviously agaisn't any sexual action taken agaisn't a child. However I would blame more us, the society who judge them so harshly while giving them no other escape than to assume their deviation.
Forgive my english, my first language is french so you might have trouble understanding what I am saying.
It's not the same. One is taking advantage of small children who will be scarred for their lives. The other tends to be consensual and is not taking advantage of anyone.
You realized that during the gay movement of the 1970s all the way to the 1990s, many conservative groups clumped the two together and for a while, people were actually convinced that the two groups were linked. Antigay literature asserted that the gay rights movement had a convert pederast agenda and giving homosexuals more legal rights would open the door to child molesters.
[/QUOTE]Before, homosexual where burned... until we understand that they are different, not evil. If we can (and I doubt we will get there before Iran blow everything up ^^) help them to control their sexuality we will have less problem then just putting them in prison. We are not solving anything now.[/QUOTE]
I hesitate to say that I think there is a line, and society as a whole hasn't even fully accepted homosexuals, let alone people who get kicks out of watching children get abused.
There's a difference, I don't think we're ever going to accept murderers with open arms, and pedophiles, at least to me destroy the lives of people in a similar way that murderers abruptly end lives.
On November 06 2011 12:11 red_b wrote: while we're in the mood to throw people in jail for what is almost certainly a genetic tragedy I suggest tossing all of the gingers away too.
seriously, people react so violently to these cases that I doubt there is any objectivity at all in dealing with these things.
as for castration, well we used to lobotomize the schizophrenic and frankly they were just as great a danger to others as pedophiles are.
the sad reality of the situation is that child pornography involves sexual abuse of a child in all cases and that clearly cannot be allowed. however, an actual argument for why it is immoral to merely be attracted to prepubescent children is much harder to pin down without suggesting that it necessarily will lead to child abuse which if you really think about it is somewhat ridiculous.
ultimately it is unjust to punish those who might when they have not done.
additionally, I think if the reaction to pedophilia wasn't so fucking violent maybe some of these people would seek help.
and this is a sadly optimistic scenario. what happens if it turns out that pedophilia is mainly caused by trauma? then we, in effect, are persecuting victims. how sad we would be a society if we really did that.
Pedophilia is not caused by trauma. The cycle of abuse isn't necessarily true. Rather, certain aspects of child sexual abuse have been linked to further offending as an adult. It usually requires the victim to be quite young during the first exposure, anally penetrated whether by object or penis, and for it to span the course of several years.
Initially, many pedophiles claimed sexual abuse as a child. After polygraph texts were used, the number dropped from roughly 70% claiming to somewhere between 20-30 in Oregon during the mid 80s. Other programs followed suit and reported similar decreases.
As an individual working on my degree in counseling, I find our legal system to quite useless. How is someone whose only offense is a crap ton of child porn pictures unable to be rehabilitated? The only things in counseling that we cannot rehabilitate are anti-social personality disorder and similarly extreme conditions. As long as someone still has a conscience the individual can be rehabilitated.
Manit0u Poland. November 06 2011 11:58. My father perspective?
One less to worry about. (which is in no way equivalent to my objective ethical views)
How do you define objective ethical views? Those given by the government?
I think though that law systems should focus on rehabilitiation rather than punishment. Not like getting them back on the street after three weeks, but intense treatment to learn to control such urges.
Life in prison would in my eyes (ive never been to jail though) be about the same as executing someone. Unless someone finds a lifetime in prison to be worth living (again, i wouldnt know since ive never been to jail though).
On November 06 2011 12:11 Happylime wrote: Yeah, if you're using child porn you should go to jail. It's illegal.
Is it the same as murdering someone? Maybe not, but really does anyone here reasonably think he deserves to walk for this? This isn't a victimless crime at all. I hate to use domino effect-esque logic because it's flawed but think of it this way. If we allow people to watch child porn more easily then more children will be exploited leading to an epidemic of child pornography on a much greater scale than it is now. Really, he was looking at boys between the ages of 6-12, he knew what he was doing, and definitely deserves serious prison time for it.
downloading movie and music too so i suggest we take everyone computer/ipod and life jailtime to everyone who has illegal stuff on it...
Back when homosexuality was a crime punished by death, child abuse wasn't even a crime. On roughly half the earth child abuse is still not considered a crime. I am by no means a supporter of pedophiles, but having people guilty of being born with a twisted mind who try their best not to cause harm jailed for life on their first strike makes me question the public eye. People need a public enemy and right now it's pedophiles. They shouldn't be allowed to follow their sexual instincts because unlike most other fetishes they would be hurting innocent people, but everyone is riling up against pedos simply because they need someone to hate.
The guy is affected with a mental condition, and he was trying not to harm anybody directly. Saying that he supports child abuse by downloading videos without paying for them is just like saying that you support child labor by wearing Nike products.
On November 06 2011 12:20 NEOtheONE wrote: As an individual working on my degree in counseling, I find our legal system to quite useless. How is someone whose only offense is a crap ton of child porn pictures unable to be rehabilitated? The only things in counseling that we cannot rehabilitate are anti-social personality disorder and similarly extreme conditions. As long as someone still has a conscience the individual can be rehabilitated.
It's not that the individual cannot be rehabilitated. The American justice system is extremely conservative and thus punitive in nature. It's based on the concept of deterrence which says that because an offense is punished so severely, the consequences of getting caught will outweigh the benefit of getting away with it. Unfortunately, deterrence doesn't work and this point has been proven again and again. Rather, people prefer the just-desserts model of punishment.
On November 06 2011 12:24 Datz2Ez wrote: Lol, I would share that where I live ... a doctor killed both of his children and didn't even take a single day of jail.
Why? He wasn't mentally there at the moment of the murder fuck this world.
If you wan't to know the case. Type in Guy Turcotte.
yeah i was thinking of that too but you know burning your two child to death is nowhere as illegal as downloading picture on the internet..
Comparatively, people throwing deviants under the bus to boost their own ego and appearance disgust me more than the different kind of deviants out there.
If the society you live says that your sexual orientation is actually the worst moral sin imaginable and you just turn around and say fine, I'll stick to the pictures... you're a fucking saint if you ask me. This is probably the status quo the society should aim for. There's no inherent problem with child protection laws as a concept but these judgments do harm children IMO. I can't even imagine the reason in making child porn a more severe offense than molestation. Life sentence sends a message? Yeah, careful which one. We have seen with the Chinese vehicular homicides that if the incentives are at wrong place that the law will even kill people who didn't need to die.
On November 06 2011 12:24 Datz2Ez wrote: Lol, I would share that where I live ... a doctor killed both of his children and didn't even take a single day of jail.
Why? He wasn't mentally there at the moment of the murder fuck this world.
If you wan't to know the case. Type in Guy Turcotte.
Mentally there? I'm still not sure how the prosecution can prove this guy was even physically there.
On November 06 2011 12:26 Fyodor wrote: Comparatively, people throwing deviants under the bus to boost their own ego and appearance disgust me more than the different kind of deviants out there.
If the society you live says that your sexual orientation is actually the worst moral sin imaginable and you just turn around and say fine, I'll stick to the pictures... you're a fucking saint if you ask me. This is probably the status quo the society should aim for. There's no inherent problem with child protection laws as a concept but these judgments do harm children IMO. I can't even imagine the reason in making child porn a more severe offense than molestation. Life sentence sends a message? Yeah, careful which one. We have seen with the Chinese vehicular homicides that if the incentives are at wrong place that the law will even kill people who didn't need to die.
I'm guessing you mis-typed..but if not. You actually think that making a child porn is not as bad as molestation? What do you think is occurring during the creation of the child porn. They're being molested. And exploited for money! It's incredibly worse as many in child porn aren't victimized once or twice but often repeatedly.
Put it this way, its your child who he has pictures of. Now how does it sound?
Child porn has no fucking words to describe how awful it truely is, to put something that pure and innocent through those acts purely for your own "enjoyment" - its fucking disgusting. Murder is freedom for the mental torture some of these children go through.
Sure he doesnt "pay" for it - still supports it by showing there is a want and need for it.
Charities dont charge for their services, doesnt mean their isnt a need or want for them.
On November 06 2011 12:27 Sufficiency wrote: This is really sad. This is not a horrible crime imo.
This is why i shouldnt come in threads like this, i would probably be thrown in a jail cell myself if i said what words i have for people like this.
EDIT: On the case of "People who actually molest minors etc get less time" I believe the people who actually do it should be brutally and slowly killed. the rest of the sick fuckers should get thrown in a pit till they die too. Like this bastard
On November 06 2011 12:28 EricCartman wrote: He deserves it. Child porn is inexcusable. One dude was caught on my campus in a child porn ring bust. His roommate ratted him out as well.
Bottom line.. if you do the crime... u do the time.
Hopefully somewhere along the years he realizes his mistake and is offered some form of rehab.
however in this case, the time doesn't fit the crime.
This is why there is an appeals process. You can have miserable miscarriages of justice at the lower, mid and even higher levels of the system where various factors such as biased juries/judges & inept lawyers twist the trial, but these are usually prevented from ruining someone's life because the unjustly tried can usually win an appeal. However, even then there are a few really disgusting cases where the appeals system fails, and also even with the appeal succeeding that person is losing years of his/her life to fighting through the court system for something that they either didn't do or got an excessive sentence for.
To you rabidly moral absolutist morons who say that all offenses even vaguely related to a horrible crime should be treated just as badly as the horrible crime itself, then I ask you: should all consumers of products made by child labor in sweatshops (arguably worse/more widespread abuse than child porn) be sentenced in a new Nuremberg Trials as if they had personally cracked the whip over and on the backs of countless poor children for years? Now, the thing is that you almost certainly fall into either that category or some other similar one, and so does most of the more affluent parts of the world.
To you who say that "he probably did worse stuff that we don't know about" or "he is twisted enuf that he doesn't deserve to be in society," the former is utterly nonsensical and is absolutely nothing more than saying "well, I can imagine that he may well have done bad things so let's prosecute him for those bad things I can imagine him having done" (are you actually so ignorant and/or simpleminded that you cannot grasp the foundational legal principle in most of the civilized world of "innocent until proven guilty"?). The latter goes back to my first argument about scale and also to this: you do not destroy your human rights by acting in an immoral way, and even if you did, your human rights could not be brushed aside until your guilt of acting in such immoral ways had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (see below).
In closing, legal precedent requires that guilt be established beyond "a shadow of a doubt" before conviction, and thus if there is any significant chance at all that the porn was put on his computer by a virus then he ought to be acquitted.
To all those who are sane and therefore are disgusted by this horrendous waste of several years of that man's life and of government resources that will be consumed by the now-necessary appeals process, I wish you all a good day and a GLHF in your next game of SC2
On November 06 2011 12:11 red_b wrote: while we're in the mood to throw people in jail for what is almost certainly a genetic tragedy I suggest tossing all of the gingers away too.
seriously, people react so violently to these cases that I doubt there is any objectivity at all in dealing with these things.
as for castration, well we used to lobotomize the schizophrenic and frankly they were just as great a danger to others as pedophiles are.
the sad reality of the situation is that child pornography involves sexual abuse of a child in all cases and that clearly cannot be allowed. however, an actual argument for why it is immoral to merely be attracted to prepubescent children is much harder to pin down without suggesting that it necessarily will lead to child abuse which if you really think about it is somewhat ridiculous.
ultimately it is unjust to punish those who might when they have not done.
additionally, I think if the reaction to pedophilia wasn't so fucking violent maybe some of these people would seek help.
and this is a sadly optimistic scenario. what happens if it turns out that pedophilia is mainly caused by trauma? then we, in effect, are persecuting victims. how sad we would be a society if we really did that.
Pedophilia is not caused by trauma. The cycle of abuse isn't necessarily true. Rather, certain aspects of child sexual abuse have been linked to further offending as an adult. It usually requires the victim to be quite young during the first exposure, anally penetrated whether by object or penis, and for it to span the course of several years.
Initially, many pedophiles claimed sexual abuse as a child. After polygraph texts were used, the number dropped from roughly 70% claiming to somewhere between 20-30 in Oregon during the mid 80s. Other programs followed suit and reported similar decreases.
Paedophilia probably has some genetic roots. In medieval Europe it was normal for men in their 30's and 40's to take wives 12-15 years old. In ancient Japan there was prostitution for children of even younger ages I think.
Even today, a lot of men (not sure about women, probably the same) find younger girls attractive, to the point where 18 years old is only the limit because any younger is illegal according to law. Which says something since even though I'm only 22 most 18 year old girls already look like children to me.
On November 06 2011 12:28 EricCartman wrote: He deserves it. Child porn is inexcusable. One dude was caught on my campus in a child porn ring bust. His roommate ratted him out as well.
Bottom line.. if you do the crime... u do the time.
Hopefully somewhere along the years he realizes his mistake and is offered some form of rehab.
Yeah, but the problem is "the time" is totally disproportionate the to crime.
I think theres quite a strong argument for the fetishistic desire for children being no, worse, better, more or less normal than any other example of an extreme fetish.
Firstly the main argument against such a notion would be the by having material like this you encourage the actual abuse (and recording of the abuse) of children, although this is weakened by his not having paid for it in any way. Although that doesnt negate this argument.
But other than that I can see no distinction, unless you count "its just sick and wrong" as a distinction but then such can be applied to any extreme, or even not so extreme fetish.
Wow, there are a lot of irrationally bloodthirsty posters in this thread.
Honestly, I have a lot of sympathy for pedophiles who abstain from molesting children. I don't know to what degree it is a concrete orientation like being gay or straight, but being gay myself, I know how tough it is to have to grow up realizing that your sexual tendencies deviate from the norm. And considering that homosexuality is ultimately harmless and is becoming more and more accepted (and by almost all of the people whose opinions I care about), I can only imagine that realizing that you're a pedophile has to be a hundred times shittier. Honestly, the only difference that I see between myself and this guy was that I got the deck stacked more in my favor when I got a sexual orientation that's more acceptable in society.
Honestly, if you were in that situation, do you really think that you would abstain from child porn on principle? The kneejerk reactions in this thread are so ridiculously short-sighted and prejudiced. It kind of disgusts me to see how quick people are to hate someone who never really harmed anyone.
I'd much rather have pedophiles jacking off to child porn to satisfy their desires than going out and actually abusing children in real life. Of course, at the same time, we can't just allow people to spread around pictures of other people's kids being exploited. It's a complicated issue, for sure. But yeah, life in prison is ridiculous. I'm sure he will get his sentence lowered by appealing because this is just nutty.
lol @ the first 2 posters. I'm in no way in favor of child porn and I think people should be punished, but life in prison?? Come on... Try to think for a second. Your categorizing people who have a child fetish with a serial rapist/killer. I sometimes don't understand the justice system, smh..
...and if he had owned 500 snuff tapes, he would've never even been arrested. Society (rightly) abhors the exploitation of children, but you've gotta put things into perspective here.
Alright, so child porn is bad. Let's just trow them all in jail, that'll solve the problem. Really, a few people have brought up the argument of how it's like homosexuality in some ways, and I'd have to agree. Telling someone what you like is terrible and telling them they can't live in society is kind of... dumb. You know what would help? Making it not so looked down upon in society. How about letting them know that there are people out there to help them (first, we need to find people out there to help them).
Child porn is filthy.. But with that being said, life in prison for looking at pictures/videos of children being abused? Come on. It's filthy, disgusting throw whatever words you can, but this guy never touched a child. Especially since this was his first crime committed, I don't see how the judge concluded that he should serve life in prison.
Why is everyone saying he deserves it? Sure if I was the parent and it were my kids he had pictures of I would have hatred running through my veins, but at the end of the day, he did no harm to this children - someone else did. He just used the material that was presented to him. It's like saying someone who does illegal drugs deserves life in prison, even if it were his first crime.
There's something gone wrong with the process of law if the possession of child pornography incurs a greater penalty than some murders.
This is not to say that the possession of child pornography is not wrong, but it does reflect that the moral compass in North America has probably lost its way.
On November 06 2011 12:33 ScoSteSal wrote: To you who say that "he probably did worse stuff that we don't know about" or "he is twisted enuf that he doesn't deserve to be in society," the former is utterly nonsensical and is absolutely nothing more than saying "well, I can imagine that he may well have done bad things so let's prosecute him for those bad things I can imagine him having done" (are you actually so ignorant and/or simpleminded that you cannot grasp the foundational legal principle in most of the civilized world of "innocent until proven guilty"?). The latter goes back to my first argument about scale and also to this: you do not destroy your human rights by acting in an immoral way, and even if you did, your human rights could not be brushed aside until your guilt of acting in such immoral ways had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (see below).
The laws are based on the fact that child porn increases the demand which in turns increases the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Just because you're not paying for it doesn't mean there are more and more children now being increasingly sexually abused. Demand of child porn increases CSEC. Research has proven this and the fact that there is a significant relationship between child pornography and later child sexual abuse. It needs to be seen on a scale that starts minor and develops over time. Clearly, the punishment is far too excessive. Deterrence doesn't work and the continued reliance on the punitive system / just desserts model has failed and will continue to fail in the United States.
The guy obviously deserves to be reprimanded. A heavy fine, suspended prison sentence, community service (obviously not with children), put on the sex offenders list....etc, sure, but life imprisonment without possibility of parole? That's unbelievably harsh. It's not like he purchased or actually produced/distributed (ok maybe he seeded the files) child pornography. He just downloaded it and viewed it for his personal pleasure. The guy needs some counselling/psych therapy rather than having his entire life taken away and being ass-candy in prison. I suspect he will appeal and the sentence will be drastically reduced. I don't see it holding up in the higher courts.
What????????? I don't care how 'sick' this person is, that's the dumbest thing I've heard. Maybe a few years...that's even excessive for looking at pornography. It's not like he actually assaulted a child (no matter what you might think of his potential to).
The person who sentenced him should have his judging license revoked and this man should be sentenced MUUUUUUUCH lighter.
On November 06 2011 12:41 RonNation wrote: really sad how many TLrs think this punishment is too much
I really don't understand why people like you have such a need to find people to irrationally hate in order to feel morally superior. Honestly, it's not much different from things like homophobia...
Child porn has always been treated with a very severe (some would say overly severe) hand in the US. I think it's as much a matter of the justice system not wanting to be shown as being "lenient on child porn" as it's a matter of dispensing justice. Nobody in the justice system wants to be accused of being lenient on child porn.
Even cartoon depictions of children having sex can get you into serious trouble in the US. No, it doesn't make much sense if you think about it, but that's just the way it is. And trying to argue it - don't even bother; if there's one thing the American public agrees on, it's that pedophiles deserve whatever's coming to them. Again, I think there's a bit of "nobody wants to be shown being lenient on pedophiles" thing going on.
On November 06 2011 12:41 RonNation wrote: really sad how many TLrs think this punishment is too much
So, you think simply looking at images of child abuse is a worse crime than the abuse itself? Remember, the article clearly states that child molesters actually often get lesser sentences than this, and he didn't actually abuse a single child.
He deserves to go to prison, child porn is one of the most fucked up things you can do, imo. But if this happens to be his first offense regarding kiddie porn then I don't think he should get life. On the other hand, if he was a repeat offender I would have no sympathy for him for getting a sentence like life in prison.
In the concept of justice, having a punishment that is (somewhat) proportional to the crime is key for it to actually be justice. Not the case in this situation
On November 06 2011 10:15 madcow305 wrote: Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
.
You are implying American society, I hope? Because sexual topics are generally less censored in Europe generally as a comparison form what I hear.
No one is saying that this is an upstanding citizen who deserves to go free...but life imprisonment is, indeed, too much. A few years with parole and registry into the national database is what he should've gotten. This is just stupid.
I can't even imagine what was going through the judge's mind, allowing this. There's no way this'll hold up when the appeal is reviewed.
I seriously doubt there is any research at all explicitly and conclusively linking the consumption of child pornography with the incidence of child molestation or sexual assault.
you may be able to pull one over on the highschool or undergrad bunch but the more experienced in social science research among us will know it is simply unfeasible to prove full causality in almost all cases.
if there's one thing the American public agrees on, it's that pedophiles deserve whatever's coming to them.
I live in Texas. we kill more people than almost any other state and certainly more than any country that is even remotely considered to be civilized. maybe if you came here and saw how bad it was to leave decisions of justice up to the hateful, uneducated blood lust of the American people you would change your mind. or maybe you would fit in here and enjoy yourself, I don't know.
but what I can say is that many outside of this state share my opinion that most people here are little better than barbarians when it comes to social justice.
I really think what's messed up here is that someone who actually commits murder or rape of a child gets LESS punishment than someone who just watches it, which is what the article makes it sound like. At the very least the punishments should be equal, if not more severe for the person actually committing murder/rape.
Regarding whether or not life punishment is too much just for watching said material, I don't think so. It's obviously wrong in that it indirectly can increase the supply&demand of such material, but they're not directly harming anyone in what they do. I think there's plenty of better alternative forms of punishment than just sticking them in jail for life though.
On November 06 2011 12:33 ScoSteSal wrote: To you who say that "he probably did worse stuff that we don't know about" or "he is twisted enuf that he doesn't deserve to be in society," the former is utterly nonsensical and is absolutely nothing more than saying "well, I can imagine that he may well have done bad things so let's prosecute him for those bad things I can imagine him having done" (are you actually so ignorant and/or simpleminded that you cannot grasp the foundational legal principle in most of the civilized world of "innocent until proven guilty"?). The latter goes back to my first argument about scale and also to this: you do not destroy your human rights by acting in an immoral way, and even if you did, your human rights could not be brushed aside until your guilt of acting in such immoral ways had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (see below).
The laws are based on the fact that child porn increases the demand which in turns increases the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Just because you're not paying for it doesn't mean there are more and more children now being increasingly sexually abused. Demand of child porn increases CSEC. Research has proven this and the fact that there is a significant relationship between child pornography and later child sexual abuse. It needs to be seen on a scale that starts minor and develops over time. Clearly, the punishment is far too excessive. Deterrence doesn't work and the continued reliance on the punitive system / just desserts model has failed and will continue to fail in the United States.
Can you cite the research you're referring to, please? (I don't disbelieve you, but I'd be interested in seeing the details of that.)
Sevryn did make what I thought was a good point in this connection, earlier:
On November 06 2011 12:06 Sevryn wrote: downloading child porn helps the child porn industry but downloading music hurts the music industry.
Also, if I may quote an earlier post of mine in this thread:
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
You don't see how murdering an innocent person is deserving of a much more severe punishment, than indirectly harming someone through downloading something? It frightens me greatly that apparently this judge has the same mindset.
By downloading this stuff, he is helping to increase the demand. Which means more children are going to be subjected to it. There is a reason why child porn is illegal.
It's been estimated that secondhand smoke kills about 3,000 people a year. Does that make every smoker a mass murderer?
On November 06 2011 12:45 Stress wrote: He deserves to go to prison, child porn is one of the most fucked up things you can do, imo. But if this happens to be his first offense regarding kiddie porn then I don't think he should get life. On the other hand, if he was a repeat offender I would have no sympathy for him for getting a sentence like life in prison.
Since when has something being "fucked up" been justification for a life sentence? Even for repeat offenses, you're going to have to come up with something better than that. There are lots of things in society that are perceived by most as "fucked up" and are still legal.
I think it's wrong that he got such a bad sentence. I think the justice system is also unbalanced in the way it gave this sentence. I still can't find myself caring that much because he's still a criminal receiving a punishment. I'm always in favor of higher rather than lesser punishments. I think the real disappointing part is that child molesters and murderers get such low punishments, not that this guy got such a harsh one.
that being said, considering this guy hasn't directly hurt someone, isn't it more appropriate to give him therapy like a lot of other countries do? The whole punishment thing works as intimidation and a representation of consequence when criminals have the choice of committing a crime, but this guy clearly has a mental problem/fetish, so it doesn't seem like the crime of possession of child porn is being helped on the general level.
On November 06 2011 12:32 Capped wrote: Sick fucking bastard. Deserves it.
Put it this way, its your child who he has pictures of. Now how does it sound?
C
It sounds like he is a man that needs to be helped to deal with his sexual deviancies since they including things that are not ok. He should be helped to be able to control his urges and if he fails that be deprived of the means to get a hold of said pictures. What he shouldn't be is thrown in a cell and then throw away the key. CP is horrendous and people making CP is some of the worst people on the planet, but have you ever stopped to consider that some of these guys suffer really badly from this? Nobody starts their life going "When I grow up i wanna be a pedo!"
This seams a little harsh to me...I am glad that there is one less creep who may have some day acted on his "urges" but I really dont think that he should lose the rest of his life over this. He should be in prison for a looooong ass time but not this long
On November 06 2011 12:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I really think what's messed up here is that someone who actually commits murder or rape of a child gets LESS punishment than someone who just watches it, which is what the article makes it sound like. At the very least the punishments should be equal, if not more severe for the person actually committing murder/rape.
I've seen so many people say DERP PEDO DISGUSTING MAN, HE DESERVE SENTENCE, which is pretty ignorant and I've also seen many people say what GGTeMpLaR said, and the former don't even read that. Add above Q.F.T. to OP maybe?
On November 06 2011 12:53 MuATaran wrote: This seams a little harsh to me...I am glad that there is one less creep who may have some day acted on his "urges" but I really dont think that he should lose the rest of his life over this. He should be in prison for a looooong ass time but not this long
A little harsh?
The consequences of his actions are small and in the form of an expectation. They're not large actualized consequences, like raping or killing.
Yet he's in jail for life and drunk drivers that recklessly kill people get like 3 years. completely stupid
there's more and more of jailing people for thoughts and not for acts
did any of his acts actively contribute to child molestation? this is the real question, if he didn't give people money or spurred them into making pictures then you are jailing someone for something that they think and that is stupid
also, he was given 5 years for each of the 454 pictures found on his computer. what if he had been a bit more tech/law savvy and condensed them all into one .bmp? then he'd only get 5 years?
it's become a sport to see who can hate pedophiles more. people who are actively hurting children, lock them up and throw away the key. but don't jail people for thoughts, and find a better way to judge the severity of crimes instead of counting pictures, jesus christ.
On November 06 2011 12:58 Happylime wrote: So are you currently saying his sentence is too harsh.
Or that the sentences for other things are too lenient?
That's a good point; I'm glad someone brought it up.
Personally, I think his sentence is definitely too harsh, but a number of people have said "It's absurd that he gets X while other people get Y", and as you point out, that leaves an important question open.
edit: and once again, when I quote someone to reply to him, somebody else gets there first!
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...
It may not even matter what the sentence is, to be honest.
Unless the prison he is put into a special section of the prison set aside for those who have committed statutory rape, child molesters, or cops, it is likely that he will be killed in prison.
In that case, it wouldn't matter if he had a lighter sentence.
I think its a pretty serious charge, I mean, by viewing child porn he basically ensures that people keep making it, but even so it seems like a really harsh sentence. It would be kind of like giving someone life in prison for smoking pot on the grounds that their habit lets the violent cartels keep running.
I can't imagine a large number of porn addicts aren't headed this direction eventually; the out of control types are always looking for some new rise. As wrong as child porn is, it's unbelievable to me that in a way some people are acknowledging that regular porn is "acceptable," at least in the sense that they differentiate it so much. What's one of the biggest highlights of a porn site? "Barely 18!" or "Teens!" (with the 18+ assumption). My concern is that eventually the low age limit will just be pushed lower and lower. Wasn't there a thread awhile back about 16 year old girls making their own softcore porn images on their cell phones?
And specifically about the issue, yeah the guy's punishment is too harsh, will probably be reduced, and hopefully he gets help and more so the children being abused. It looks to me like the justice system really wanted to punish someone badly and went after the butt end of the problem instead of the source--likely the only thing they could go after. My question is, who do they think they impressed? Are these elected judges? Is the guy more easily a scapegoat because of his ethnicity? They're just making themselves look like self serving bigots, unless of course I'm just wrong.
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.
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"? Some guy who just finds a way to satisfy his sexual urges without having to go out and molest children? I really don't get it.
In his position, imagine that you had natural, uncontrollable sexual urges toward children like you do now for adults. Would you abstain from all porn and sexual activity out of principle? I really doubt it.
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.
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 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.
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 13:07 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 13:07 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.
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.
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.
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 13:17 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.
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 13:17 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.
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?
What an unbelievable sentence for a crime where no one was harmed. And how blatantly obvious is it that if this man was white and had a lot of money, the sentence would be nothing like this?
Like others have said, if he abducted and raped a girl his sentence would be much lighter. It does not get any more ridiculous than that.
Also disgusting to read about these female rapists and child molestors who get off with nothing but probation.
However, this man should get a significant punishment... he didn't just download them. He had them shared on a file sharing network and was intentionally increasing the availability of CP and spreading the images of these abused children.
He needs all kinds of therapy and a long prison sentence and should never be allowed to live or work anywhere near children... but his punishment of LIFE? A stricter punishment than he'd receive for murdering someone? I don't care how serious you are about handing out severe punishments, you will never be able to logically explain how someone should be punished more for what he did than for taking another person's life.
This is scary. What if a hacker could gain access to your computer, download child porn onto it without your knowledge, send in a tip for the police, and you end up in jail for the rest of your life? What if that's what happened to this guy?
Even if he intentionally possessed child porn, how does that warrant a bigger punishment than actually molesting a kid? Viewing child porn, although disgusting, doesn't harm anyone or interfere with anyone else. Molesting a kid is very harmful. It doesn't add up.
On November 06 2011 13:34 Seldentar wrote: This is scary. What if a hacker could gain access to your computer, download child porn onto it without your knowledge, send in a tip for the police, and you end up in jail for the rest of your life? What if that's what happened to this guy?
Even if he intentionally possessed child porn, how does that warrant a bigger punishment than actually molesting a kid? Viewing child porn, although disgusting, doesn't harm anyone or interfere with anyone else. Molesting a kid is very harmful. It doesn't add up.
Typical miscarriage of justice. Probably a test case that will be appealed in hopes of eventually reaching the supreme court for reinterpretation of current statutes.
Regardless of moral stance here the punishment is clearly "cruel and unusual." It's just a question of whether higher courts use discretion to hear this case or slap it with some stare decisis bullshit.
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 30,000 people every year, does that make every smoker a murderer, or at least partially responsible?
For the record: 3,000, according to the estimate I linked to. Main point remains the same, of course.
On November 06 2011 13:13 Parnage wrote: 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.
I feel the same way about people who find entertainment in intentionally being an asshole to others, people who get off on disgusting "torture porn" movies, and people who mistreat animals. These people's brains are wired wrong and it's probably unfixable, they'll never be a good person.
That doesn't mean I would be OK with them getting life imprisonment for selling drugs. You do not take away a person's entire life for something like that, and especially not when more severe crimes have lighter punishments.
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.
Your dislike of this man is not irrational. Your willingness to accept a legal system where the punishments don't fit the crimes is.
Some fetishes are just stranger or more taboo than others... and pedophilia seems to be as taboo as you can get. It's unfortunate for him to be punished so severely. I'm not defending him, no; CP is just wrong, and it's terrible to get off on pictures of children who may(and by may I mean pretty much all of the time) have been abused in the making of the content. But can we focus less on the punishment and more on the rehabilitation? The therapy? I hate the idea that the harsher the punishment, the less people do the crime. then again, the alternative might be too ambitious and costly...
Yeah I think it should be punishable, but life in prison? Apparently in the United States we think it's okay to make laws based on how gross we think something is. I guess this generates enough "eeewwws" to warrant taking away the man's entire life... Above all our problems, our justice system is hands down the worst of all of them.
On November 06 2011 10:10 HackBenjamin wrote: Child porn is fucking gross. That's what you get.
Looks like some tea party members are playing Starcraft II
Gotta love stupid generalizations that don't help the discussion at all.
To me it seems that this is overkill. Society definitely has a knee jerk reaction to two things:
- Crimes against children - Sex Crimes
Throw them together and you get this poopstorm, where emotion gets in the way of proper decisions. I doubt that bastard will survive 2 years in prison if the other inmates discover what he was incarcerated for.
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...
Wow at first i thought this was a joke...getting life for possession of child pornography is ridiculous. In most countries you'd get a massive fine, and maybe a few years in jail. Never have i seen sentencing equating child porn to first degree murder
the guy should go to prison for a long time, but life without parole seems a bit extreme, also if sex crimes are bias and differ from other crimes shouldn't they have judges that are experts on the subject and punish guys with this fetish a bit less extreme?
Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Ah pedophilia. One of the only taboo's left in the world. Will eventually go the way of racism and gay marriage, but obviously not anytime soon. Of course I'm not a pedo nor support pedo's, pedophilia is just an incredibly interesting topic philosophically.
And more on topic it is really messed up that this guy get's life in prison. Really? REALLY? I could go on a murder spree and kill a bunch of people and get the same sentence, nice. I could rob a bank and actually get to leave prison at some point. This truly is a moronic sentence.
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...
You do have a good point. For all we know, he could have been a honest/productive member of society who may have had just an odd fetish, or maybe not. Is he really wrong for just looking? Guess ill reserve judgement on this one.
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Also agreed with this wholeheartedly.
I think its all the feminists and the mothers-against-blah blah organizations who are sustaining this taboo.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
Although I think he should definitely serve some jail time I do believe that life without parole is a bit extensive. People sentenced to murder here in Canada often are sentenced to 20-25 years with parole; Meaning they sometimes get out serving only 1/3 of their sentence. Not to say out justice system is anywhere near perfect, but in comparison these crimes are nothing near as severe.
I remember the whole uproar over the Saudi Arabian sentence of a literal "eye for an eye" after a man blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face. This is a lot more than an eye for an eye--this is life in prison for downloading pictures.
[/i] it was not saudi arabian it was in iran
and in the end she forgived him on the day where he should be blinded so
got spared
imo i think life sentence for downloading child porn is a bit too much 1-2 years in prison would do the job
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
bad analogy.. since there is no "market" for cp, his downloading the content won't affect the creation of cp AT ALL, because its not a commodity like cocaine is.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
you sound more fucked up than the guy in question braton
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
terrible terrible logic.
so if someone gets a kick out of watching snuff videos (people getting murdered) but hasn't killed a fly, he deserves the same punishment as the murderer?
I remember the whole uproar over the Saudi Arabian sentence of a literal "eye for an eye" after a man blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face. This is a lot more than an eye for an eye--this is life in prison for downloading pictures.
it was not saudi arabian it was in iran
and in the end she forgived him on the day where he should be blinded so
got spared
imo i think life sentence for downloading child porn is a bit too much 1-2 years in prison would do the job
Darn, you're right. Misremembered which Islamic country it happened in. I'll correct that in the OP; thanks.
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
bad analogy.. since there is no "market" for cp, his downloading the content won't affect the creation of cp AT ALL, because its not a commodity like cocaine is.
". . .According to recent reports, the worldwide child-pornography market amounts to about $3 billion annually, with content bought and sold primarily over the Internet."
On November 06 2011 10:20 HackBenjamin wrote: Yeah, I read it. I'm just not sympathetic to anyone involved in the industry, or the consumers. At all. People can chalk it up to an uncontrollable fetish all they want. If someone rapes your son or daughter, films or photographs it, distributes it, and just for the sake of argument, you catch someone in posession of it, what are you going to do?
That's why you have judges who are meant to be impartial and assess each case on its merits. If cases were decided by the victim's family then there would be life sentences/executions given out like candy. That isn't how justice should work...
Whilst child porn is disgusting and anyone participating in it should be punished, this is too far... Especially if he didn't even pay for it.
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
bad analogy.. since there is no "market" for cp, his downloading the content won't affect the creation of cp AT ALL, because its not a commodity like cocaine is.
Um, what? There's no market for child pornography? It's not a commodity? What are you smoking? (pun weak but intended.)
its not a "market" because it is not being openly sold and bought. it is being clandestinely downloaded. there's no commercial demand for it.
what's more, it is not something that is expendable -- that is, it can be downloaded over and over -- hence it's not a typical commodity like a drug can be.
Hmmm.. I think if a person actually stores a ton of child porn on their computer a very harsh punishment it okay, because this shows that they are quite okay with being what they are and they are more likely to eventually go and molest children.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being a pedophile in general, but if you keep it to yourself while not even trying to fight it, it means you're likely to become a problem. If that is the case, then you need to be removed.
If kids were the only thing that could get me hard,, i would simply stay soft,. If you support the makers of child porn by filling your computer with the content they work oh so hard to create then you're almost just as bad they are.
On November 06 2011 10:23 Iyerbeth wrote: If you're going to give life sentences to people looking at the stuff what possible deterant is there to not just go out and abuse a kid themselves? They're hardly going to get a worse sentence (and that's even if you count the death penalty) and even then, if you're getting the same for murder what's to stop them murdering the kids to make sure they don't speak out (edit: ) as it's still the same sentence? This just seems insane as a "start" sentence.
This.
IMO, he should receive some light punishment(community service, 1 year in jail tops), and be sent to counseling.
I don't understand this at all, where is the logic?
If someone is not paying for child pornography (downloading it for free) and has no intention of ever touch a child or act on their desires, they need PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP, not getting locked in prison with murderers and criminals. They have a sexual desire that doesn't fit with the norm and they should be given help and support to fix the problem rather than life in prison. Prison only serves to separate them from society, it doesn't fix the problem.
The people who distribute or support the child porn industry, THEY are the criminals who deserve to be locked in jail and the key thrown away.
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
bad analogy.. since there is no "market" for cp, his downloading the content won't affect the creation of cp AT ALL, because its not a commodity like cocaine is.
". . .According to recent reports, the worldwide child-pornography market amounts to about $3 billion annually, with content bought and sold primarily over the Internet."
His point was he didn't PAY for the child porn at all. The movie and music industry argues all the time that people illegally downloading their movies/music is killing the industry so does that mean downloading child porn without paying for it is the same?
I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
I'm pretty shocked to see people defending the ruling. The man deserves punishment. He does not deserve this punishment. Murders get less than this. This will be appealed, and hopefully the man gets some time behind bars, comes out of prison, and keeps his fetish to his mind only.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Crisium wrote: I'm pretty shocked to see people defending the ruling. The man deserves punishment. He does not deserve this punishment. Murders get less than this. This will be appealed, and hopefully the man gets some time behind bars, comes out of prison, and keeps his fetish to his mind only.
He did keep it on his mind, it's not like he went out and raped a 10 year old girl because he couldn't contain it anymore. He just watched videos privately.
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced he should not receive any punishment at all nor required counseling.
Given of course, he does not molest a child or produce CP in the future. He also cannot contribute to demand for CP production since nobody can purchase it.
Most likely, he probably has a normal sex life outside this fetish. Fetish that is linked with very unpleasant and wrongful things but just a fetish nonetheless.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
On November 06 2011 14:40 Tektos wrote: His point was he didn't PAY for the child porn at all. The movie and music industry argues all the time that people illegally downloading their movies/music is killing the industry so does that mean downloading child porn without paying for it is the same?
Hah, that's so true! This man has a perfectly legitimate argument that he is hurting the child pornography business.
I hope this guy gets a lighter sentence, and I hope the public supports him. It wouldn't be about supporting child pornography, it would be about support justice. The judge that issued this ruling must have some kind of special bias here. Perhaps his sister was raped as a child, or his own child was molested, or something.
For years I have seen judges as far too powerful. I don't care how much work it takes to get into that position, a man is still a man - and humans are never perfectly rational. After the judge beating his daughter for using the internet, this utterly absurd sentence, judges need to take a step back. Thank god that's what appeal systems are for, though if this sentence remains unchanged then my faith in humanity will never be restored.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
this
these people didn't choose to have these fucked up fetishes they just got unlucky
a guy like this doesn't deserve punishment imo he didn't touch any kids he kept it to himself and we give him life i'm so fucking glad i'm into legs and ass and not children
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
The most well thought out, logical post I have ever read on TeamLiquid I've seen in a LONG LONG time.
Thank you for redeeming my hope that there is still some common sense left in this community.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
this
these people didn't choose to have these fucked up fetishes they just got unlucky
a guy like this doesn't deserve punishment imo he didn't touch any kids he kept it to himself and we give him life i'm so fucking glad i'm into legs and ass and not children
I think he deserves some sort of punishment and definitely some therapy/counselling, but I seriously don't understand how people think this is a just ruling.
If I watch a murder on TV does that make me a likely murderer? What if I watch a rape? What if I get my thrills from horror movies? Oh no, better lock me up.
Hasn't it been proven that laws against pornography actually increase sexual crimes in a country?
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
this
these people didn't choose to have these fucked up fetushes they just got unlucky
a guy like this doesn't deserve punishment imo he didn't touch any kids he kept it to himself and we give him life i'm so fucking glad i'm into legs and ass and not children
How can you know? Maybe he has molested a child,, maybe he got away with it.. By keeping his fetish to himself instead of trying to combat it he shows a complete disregard for children's safety and he needs to be punished.
Life might be very harsh,, too harsh some would say. I can't judge wheter it is or not because the guy is to me worth less than todays breakfeast, just like many other nameless sacks of flesh out there.
It might be better if he gets marked as a pedophile so that people will know he's out there and know to keep their guard up around him.
The judge should lose his license to practice law, because unlike the guy possessing child pornography, he has actually proven himself to be a danger to society.
On November 06 2011 14:50 phosphorylation wrote: The more I think about this, the more I am convinced he should not receive any punishment at all nor required counseling.
Given of course, he does not molest a child or produce CP in the future. He also cannot contribute to demand for CP production since nobody can purchase it.
Most likely, he probably has a normal sex life outside this fetish. Fetish that is linked with very unpleasant and wrongful things but just a fetish nonetheless.
Why are you assuming all of these these things? You don't know him or his situation
In response to the OP, it is an eye for an eye. You think that these children that are exposed to this sort of suffering and abuse can completely recover and live normal lives? No - their lives are ruined, and now, so is his life.
Truthfully, the state was probably making a political statement, simply warning other pedophiles.
Nonetheless, to me, being in any way involved in child pornography is unforgivable, and his sentence was just.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Kamais_Ookin wrote: I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Pedophilia in and of itself isn't bad when you put it that way, sure.
But in NO way should it ever be viewed the same way as homosexuality is now. It should not ever be encouraged in any way. You're going way too far off the opposite end.
Is there someone/somewhere you can contact for appeals etc regarding this kind of thing? Everyone here has opinions, the majority believe the sentence is way too harsh, instead of voicing your opinions here you should do something about it and actually get true justice for this person. Just a suggestion.
The justice system is very strange sometimes. Personally I think his sentence would have been less if he had personally produced the CP and sold it. Do I agree with what he did no, do people that just look at CP have a tendency to eventually take things further most likely, but putting someone away for life because they might do something is extremely wrong. All in all I think this judgement is wrong and they shouldn't waste time with people literally just looking at the stuff but should go after the people making/commissioning the stuff. Just looked up a case where a man raped two girls four and six years old and got a sentence of 26 years, and the judge who tried Lucky Sigudla said that this sentence was too harsh..
On November 06 2011 15:05 David451 wrote: The judge should lose his license to practice law, because unlike the guy possessing child pornography, he has actually proven himself to be a danger to society.
I agree 100% with this statement, the judge is a fucking lunatic.
dont get me wrong, this is messed up and punishment is necessary but seriously... A sex offender or molester doesn't get life in prison. the justice system needs to be more straight forward on how they prosecute individuals for their crimes.
Zinn usually in criminal justice around the world the idea is taken that you are innocent of something unless you can by the presentation of evidence, be judged be to guilty.
I felt the need to emphasise this because "how do you know, mayb he has molested a child" is one of the more idiotic things I've read in this thread, and considering this thread is full of some of the most emotionally charged, non rational, ignorance infused condemnation and contempt believe me thats not a good thing.
The person your quoting is stating he doesnt believe the person deserves punishment because he hasn't harmed anyone.
If your main argument is "well he might have" well on that logic so might you...
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
this
these people didn't choose to have these fucked up fetushes they just got unlucky
a guy like this doesn't deserve punishment imo he didn't touch any kids he kept it to himself and we give him life i'm so fucking glad i'm into legs and ass and not children
How can you know? Maybe he has molested a child,, maybe he got away with it.. By keeping his fetish to himself instead of trying to combat it he shows a complete disregard for children's safety and he needs to be punished.
Life might be very harsh,, too harsh some would say. I can't judge wheter it is or not because the guy is to me worth less than todays breakfeast, just like many other nameless sacks of flesh out there.
It might be better if he gets marked as a pedophile so that people will know he's out there and know to keep their guard up around him.
He's innocent until proven guilty. You're being stupidly judgmental and you're making assumptions based on one quality of a person.
He's been proven guilty of possession of child pornography, not of molesting or assaulting a child.
Here's the thing...you really aren't in an immediate position to be so condescending. The fact of the matter is, as others have written, sexual fetishes tend to not be things within our control. He indulged in his apparent fetish for underage children, and he should be punished for it, yes. However, giving him life in prison instead of a chance to reform when he didn't directly endanger or assault a child is dumb.
This is freaking...I don't even know how to express my rage. LIFE?
He didn't DO anything. He just downloaded pictures, as OP said probably didn't even pay for them. This is RIDICULOUS. When you have IRL rapists and murderers getting less, that's simply bullshit.
This judge... just makes me think. You know how you always get annoyed at the stupidity and irrationality of certain people, and end up thinking you are better than some people? These feeling can be emotional and are often tied to "the moment" of things, but nevertheless... I think we can safely say that the average TL user is a more rational human being than this judge.
I really wish someone knew this judge's name so the media could start investigating the mind of a madman. The power of a judge is great. The fact that one would ponder in his brain about appropriate punishments for this... knowing all of the facts (no previous offenses, didn't pay, didn't molest, etc) and give life in prison - is unacceptable for a judge. This man cannot have a rational mind, and needs to be investigated. I don't care if you want to "send a message" or even if you are certain it will be appealed, you do not make a ruling like this. The hyperbole of it is mind-staggering. I just can't get over how such a twisted person can be a judge and have such power over the life of another human.
On November 06 2011 15:07 scrdmnttr wrote: In response to the OP, it is an eye for an eye. You think that these children that are exposed to this sort of suffering and abuse can completely recover and live normal lives? No - their lives are ruined, and now, so is his life.
First of all, even if he were the one who abused these children, I think it's hard to make a comparison like the one you're trying to. Would I prefer to have been sexually abused as a child or to spend the rest of my life in prison? Of course that would be a horrible choice to have to make, but if I had to make it, I I'd choose the former.
In any case, he's not the one who caused these children's abuse, and any contribution that he may have made to it is miniscule compared to his punishment. Go ahead and agree with the verdict if you like, but I don't see how you can honestly call it "an eye for an eye".
On November 06 2011 15:07 scrdmnttr wrote: In response to the OP, it is an eye for an eye. You think that these children that are exposed to this sort of suffering and abuse can completely recover and live normal lives? No - their lives are ruined, and now, so is his life.
Truthfully, the state was probably making a political statement, simply warning other pedophiles.
Nonetheless, to me, being in any way involved in child pornography is unforgivable, and his sentence was just.
He isn't involved in the shooting. He isn't involved in the raping. He likely (according to OP) isn't paying.
He is right-clicking, saving, and fapping.
You've done it too, just not to these particular bitmap distributions.
How the hell did this man become a judge? The average bum on the street probably has a better moral compass than the guy ruling over god knows how many crimes a year.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Kamais_Ookin wrote: I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Pedophilia in and of itself isn't bad when you put it that way, sure.
But in NO way should it ever be viewed the same way as homosexuality is now. It should not ever be encouraged in any way. You're going way too far off the opposite end.
Why should the fetish of underage children be punished but not of gay? I understand that if you stick your cock in a little girls ass you deserve to be locked away for a long time but I simply can't understand why viewing some CP can induce jail time let alone life in prison. Anyone with a fetish of big tits or anal etc etc can watch all the porn they want but pedo's can't watch cp, where is the freedom? I don't agree with the bs arguement of watching = supporting. First of all he's not even paying for the damn thing and whether he watches or not it's still going to be uploaded. Does watching a violent horror movie with a axe smashed between the eyes mean you support murder? A rape scene!?
The sentencing doesn't upset me, but what does upset me is that actual child molesters who really physically rape children get much less of a sentence than this. Some facts are most definitely left out of this article....And I'd kind of like to know what they are.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Kamais_Ookin wrote: I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Pedophilia in and of itself isn't bad when you put it that way, sure.
But in NO way should it ever be viewed the same way as homosexuality is now. It should not ever be encouraged in any way. You're going way too far off the opposite end.
Why should the fetish of underage children be punished but not of gay? I understand that if you stick your cock in a little girls ass you deserve to be locked away for a long time but I simply can't understand why viewing some CP can induce jail time let alone life in prison. Anyone with a fetish of big tits or anal etc etc can watch all the porn they want but pedo's can't watch cp, where is the freedom? I don't agree with the bs arguement of watching = supporting. First of all he's not even paying for the damn thing and whether he watches or not it's still going to be uploaded. Does watching a violent horror movie with a axe smashed between the eyes mean you support murder? A rape scene!?
I'm just going to assume you're trolling....You don't really seem to know what you're talking about, and you don't make any sense. Someone being murdered with an axe in a movie isn't real...You do know this, don't you? However, a child being raped/molested and video taped or having photographs taken of them and distributed online IS real. You see, there happens to be a difference between reality, and fiction. Movies are fiction, and child porn is very much a part of reality. And regardless of whether he is paying for it or not, he IS, in fact, supporting it by downloading it.
On November 06 2011 15:23 RoosterSamurai wrote: And regardless of whether he is paying for it or not, he IS, in fact, supporting it by downloading it.
Wouldn't this depend on whether or not he paid for the child pornography? If it was mirrored or 4chaned, he wasn't even paying for ads on CP sites, let alone content.
I'm fairly certain that if you don't pay for something and get it anyways, you actually harm the distributors. At least, the law has ruled like that for...pretty much anything in industry.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Kamais_Ookin wrote: I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Pedophilia in and of itself isn't bad when you put it that way, sure.
But in NO way should it ever be viewed the same way as homosexuality is now. It should not ever be encouraged in any way. You're going way too far off the opposite end.
Why should the fetish of underage children be punished but not of gay? I understand that if you stick your cock in a little girls ass you deserve to be locked away for a long time but I simply can't understand why viewing some CP can induce jail time let alone life in prison. Anyone with a fetish of big tits or anal etc etc can watch all the porn they want but pedo's can't watch cp, where is the freedom? I don't agree with the bs arguement of watching = supporting. First of all he's not even paying for the damn thing and whether he watches or not it's still going to be uploaded. Does watching a violent horror movie with a axe smashed between the eyes mean you support murder? A rape scene!?
I'm just going to assume you're trolling....You don't really seem to know what you're talking about, and you don't make any sense. Someone being murdered with an axe in a movie isn't real...You do know this, don't you? However, a child being raped/molested and video taped or having photographs taken of them and distributed online IS real. You see, there happens to be a difference between reality, and fiction. Movies are fiction, and child porn is very much a part of reality. And regardless of whether he is paying for it or not, he IS, in fact, supporting it by downloading it.
First of all, download does not = support otherwise there would be no such thing as piracy, paying = support. Regarding my examples, it doesn't matter if it's fictious or not. The point is, are you going to act out on what you see on your monitor? If pedo's can't watch their CP then guess what, they're probably going to be forced to step it up to the next level and nobody wants that.
Um - there is absolutely no way that this guy should receive a life sentence for this.
But if you think he shouldn't be punished, you're a fucking idiot. Period. End of discussion. It is not a valid opinion to hold that someone possessing child pornography should not be punished. Get the fuck off our forum you pathetic human beings.
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.
But I will concede that it is fucked up to some degree I can't comprehend that his punishment would have been lighter had he actually touched someone. Both are equal crimes to me. He may not have touched the children in those photos/videos, but SOMEBODY did and he enjoyed it.
Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
You're fucked up.
Kind of ridiculous that the punishment is this severe. The guy has a fucked up fetish, who cares. I wonder if the people claiming he deserves the sentence criticize crazy catholics for having god hates fags signs.
this
these people didn't choose to have these fucked up fetushes they just got unlucky
a guy like this doesn't deserve punishment imo he didn't touch any kids he kept it to himself and we give him life i'm so fucking glad i'm into legs and ass and not children
How can you know? Maybe he has molested a child,, maybe he got away with it.. By keeping his fetish to himself instead of trying to combat it he shows a complete disregard for children's safety and he needs to be punished.
Life might be very harsh,, too harsh some would say. I can't judge wheter it is or not because the guy is to me worth less than todays breakfeast, just like many other nameless sacks of flesh out there.
It might be better if he gets marked as a pedophile so that people will know he's out there and know to keep their guard up around him.
He's innocent until proven guilty. You're being stupidly judgmental and you're making assumptions based on one quality of a person.
He's been proven guilty of possession of child pornography, not of molesting or assaulting a child.
Here's the thing...you really aren't in an immediate position to be so condescending. The fact of the matter is, as others have written, sexual fetishes tend to not be things within our control. He indulged in his apparent fetish for underage children, and he should be punished for it, yes. However, giving him life in prison instead of a chance to reform when he didn't directly endanger or assault a child is dumb.
I didnt judge him, i said i can't. But something needs to be done in these cases, but yes, life might be too harsh(again i can't judge wheter it is or not) . He should get help, he should've gotten help a long time ago, instead of partially embracing this shit. He has taken a huge shit on so many people by watching and taking pleasure in seeing children getting destroyed, and he needs to own up to that.
I never said he should get life, or that life is the right punishment. Just saying that he should be punished becase he made the choice of enjoying what he is, when that means surrendering to something that might lead to him molesting children.
Forced counceling and surveillance is something i think would be fitting, even though that's not even a punishment. Some com-service on top of it maybe.
The judge must be a very old man. It may have been something to have 400+ child pornography images back in the 1980s since that would take a lot of your time and resources to gather - not to mention you would probably know whoever makes them.
But it's the present day. 1 Click to download a torrent, another to run in in your program, and bam - 400+ images in two clicks. And he got it for free. This isn't possession of cocaine, more is really kinda irrelevant in the digital age as long as you aren't buying or selling.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite 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.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite wrote: 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.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite wrote: Fuck this guy and fuck every guy like him. Right up the ass with a barbed stick. Multiple times.
He deserves it simply cuz its to much of a risk to let a person who could ruin a child life free. There are very few cases where the accused is sentenced to life prison and there are even cases where the crimes are higher then this one but those cases should be the one where they also get life prison not this one that should not. There is not one good reason to let a guy who was in possession of child porn free unless it was something like 15-8 yers old porn that the justice system still class "child" porn in some countries or if the guy actually did not knew what he was downloading. Its not worth the risk of this guy making something with his life to let him free and risk a child getting raped and maybe even killed resulting in him ruining a life that would most likely have been much more "productive" then his own.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite wrote: He has taken a huge shit on so many people by watching and taking pleasure in seeing children getting destroyed, and he needs to own up to that.
so many of you people don't seem to understand this.
On November 06 2011 15:37 Dhalphir wrote: so many of you people don't seem to understand this.
Westboro Church shits on people getting destroyed and takes pleasure in it. Should we lock them all up in jail for life as well?
How about religious fundamentalists? Or political extremists? They shit on people, even children, all the fucking time and take pleasure in it. You shit on a dozen sexual deviances every time you fap to your computer, just like everyone else.
Shitting on people and taking pleasure in it isn't a crime, it's a right. It's when your shitting actually does something that shit starts to matter. And if you're going to tell people that downloading child porn is worse than actually molesting children...well, it's your right to shit on them, too, but you'll look like an idiot doing so.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite wrote: He has taken a huge shit on so many people by watching and taking pleasure in seeing children getting destroyed, and he needs to own up to that.
so many of you people don't seem to understand this.
Proportionality. I think it's you who doesn't understand, buddy.
On November 06 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: He deserves it simply cuz its to much of a risk to let a person who could ruin a child life free. There are very few cases where the accused is sentenced to life prison and there are even cases where the crimes are higher then this one but those cases should be the one where they also get life prison not this one that should not. There is not one good reason to let a guy who was in possession of child porn free unless it was something like 15-8 yers old porn that the justice system still class "child" porn in some countries or if the guy actually did not knew what he was downloading. Its not worth the risk of this guy making something with his life to let him free and risk a child getting raped and maybe even killed resulting in him ruining a life that would most likely have been much more "productive" then his own.
What kind of stupid logic is this? I saw it brought up by that Zinnwaldite guy as well, about punishing someone for crimes that may/may not have committed, or in your case, what they may commit in the future... How can you possibly support this?
You saying we should lock up a shop lifter forever, just as a precaution in case they decide to escalate into armed robbery? We should give a life sentence to someone for assault, to prevent them from ever murdering anyone? We should lock somebody up who watches S&M porn just in case they decide to go tie up some chick and rape her?
Sorry man that's a stupid argument, you don't give someone life just to prevent something that they MIGHT do, you punish them for the crime they HAVE done. And in this case, a shorter prison sentence + serious counselling might actually have the same effect in preventing him for re-offending, instead of locking his life up and throwing away the key.
Edit: I'm not saying that denying someone parole because you think they are likely to re-offend is wrong, but blatantly punishing someone for something they have never done before is just stupid...
On November 06 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: He deserves it simply cuz its to much of a risk to let a person who could ruin a child life free. There are very few cases where the accused is sentenced to life prison and there are even cases where the crimes are higher then this one but those cases should be the one where they also get life prison not this one that should not. There is not one good reason to let a guy who was in possession of child porn free unless it was something like 15-8 yers old porn that the justice system still class "child" porn in some countries or if the guy actually did not knew what he was downloading. Its not worth the risk of this guy making something with his life to let him free and risk a child getting raped and maybe even killed resulting in him ruining a life that would most likely have been much more "productive" then his own.
Life in prison to all people who look at gore on various websites because we can't risk them going out and killing people.
Let's be safe and put people in jail for crimes they haven't commited... reminds me of a bad Tom Cruise movie... If you honestly can't see the moral dilemma in that, I'm really glad you don't have any real political power.
On November 06 2011 15:32 Zinnwaldite wrote: He has taken a huge shit on so many people by watching and taking pleasure in seeing children getting destroyed, and he needs to own up to that.
so many of you people don't seem to understand this.
I don't view it as a helpful way to handle things. You need to understand that.
Maybe one day we'll come close to having an ideal society but if we start giving out life sentences to people who need mental help, that's a good sign that we're not being too progressive.
Granted, some people are all about retribution and couldn't care less about running things intelligently... Maybe they weren't raised right =)...
This situation seems fairly complex. To make a simple statement, though. I think it's unfair. He's a twisted guy for beating off to child porn but... I don't really have anything to come after but. As soon as I said but I thought about the children in the pictures that he was wanking to. It's not their fault that people are exploiting them, these people ruin the lives of infants frequently. He's supporting something that is absurd and disgusting. There is no arguing that. So if you're going to put him in jail for looking at pictures....... JAIL every single child rapist that is convicted, simple fix. I'm talking about jail for life to clarify. Man up justice system.
No since its only porn, if he did not produce or reenact it in any way. I do not mean it is not sick, I just mean that it should not be life. 5 to 20 years is good.
EDIT:
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
Makes a lot of sense.
It's apparently the hot political move around the world... The Victorian government is trying to do the exact same thing here in Aus. Complete idiocy.
The argument is that by downloading/viewing CP for free you're supporting the CP industry and the production of CP.
Then why are people also killing the movie/videogame industry when they download moives/games for free?
I think CP is nasty and they should definitely do whatever they can to go after the producers and people who pay for it, but it seems like you never hear about that, it's always the people who download it.
That is beyond gross. It is more disgusting to support this sort of punishment than the crime he committed. Rape carries less punishment than what he is getting, what is more harmful?
Somewhat side not, I actually feel bad for pedophiles, they cannot force themselves to have normal sexual tendencies so they either are labeled a monster or they cave in to their baser urges in ways that harm children (directly or indirectly). It would be hell.
Holy shit. Some people here need to calm down. No one is defending the fact that this sick fuck had Child Porn. Rather they're taking the implications of the ruling and stating their discomfort with its potential ramifications as it sets a precedent. What's more the punishment is disproportionate relative to other more heinous crimes.
That doesn't mean we find his activities any less disgusting or vile. Just that we're willing to look past the trees in order to see the forest.
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
Makes a lot of sense.
Crime rates are down does not mean crime is gone. We can do more. I want Canada to bring back the death penalty so idiots like Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson get what they deserve.
I have not seen any results of this lower crime rate. Edmonton is in record murder territory. Huge amounts of drugs and guns are on the streets. Violent crimes and stabbings are still on the rise. More needs to be done.
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
Makes a lot of sense.
It's apparently the hot political move around the world... The Victorian government is trying to do the exact same thing here in Aus. Complete idiocy.
I heard Australia banned porn that features women with small breasts, because they look too much like a child.
Off topic, is it weird that as an American it makes me feel better to know the US isn't the only country with insane people in charge of things?
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
Makes a lot of sense.
It's apparently the hot political move around the world... The Victorian government is trying to do the exact same thing here in Aus. Complete idiocy.
I heard Australia banned porn that features women with small breasts, because they look too much like a child.
Off topic, is it weird that as an American it makes me feel better to know the US isn't the only country with insane people in charge of things?
Not really. Our classification board has a rule, which is employed on a case by case basis, that if a porno appears to be depicting children (regardless of whether they are children or not), it must be refused classification. Which is effectively a ban. It's not a ban on porn with small breasted women.
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
I still don't get how this makes any sense. Like. HOW?! WHY?! Good god, and the fact that they point it out in the article makes it more ridiculous. It's like saying yea he should have done something worse (by standards of 99%+ people) and things would have turned out better. Sometimes the judicial system man... Needs to get updated.
On November 06 2011 16:41 phiinix wrote: Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
I still don't get how this makes any sense. Like. HOW?! WHY?! Good god, and the fact that they point it out in the article makes it more ridiculous. It's like saying yea he should have done something worse (by standards of 99%+ people) and things would have turned out better.
The ones who were cited as pointing it out were questioning the verdict, not endorsing it.
yea this sentence is a bit much but im not losing any sleep over it. i guarantee u this precedent will deter at least a few people from watching kiddie porn therefore potentially stopping rapes and deaths of childs. i support that.
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.
I guess the judge was having a bad day. This is complete bullshit, how the fuck do people even think that is acceptable!? I mean if you rape someone you probably won't get fucking life. He got life for looking at porn, are you fucking kidding me?
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
please this
rather than standard emotion filled knee jerk reactions i'd honestly like to see an intelligent post trying to justify this
you're not going to get one because one does not exist i'm afraid. this was one of the most heavy handed sentences i've ever seen (not quite as bad as the guy that had the potential to get life for filming police)
On November 06 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: He deserves it simply cuz its to much of a risk to let a person who could ruin a child life free. There are very few cases where the accused is sentenced to life prison and there are even cases where the crimes are higher then this one but those cases should be the one where they also get life prison not this one that should not. There is not one good reason to let a guy who was in possession of child porn free unless it was something like 15-8 yers old porn that the justice system still class "child" porn in some countries or if the guy actually did not knew what he was downloading. Its not worth the risk of this guy making something with his life to let him free and risk a child getting raped and maybe even killed resulting in him ruining a life that would most likely have been much more "productive" then his own.
What kind of stupid logic is this? I saw it brought up by that Zinnwaldite guy as well, about punishing someone for crimes that may/may not have committed, or in your case, what they may commit in the future... How can you possibly support this?
You saying we should lock up a shop lifter forever, just as a precaution in case they decide to escalate into armed robbery? We should give a life sentence to someone for assault, to prevent them from ever murdering anyone? We should lock somebody up who watches S&M porn just in case they decide to go tie up some chick and rape her?
Sorry man that's a stupid argument, you don't give someone life just to prevent something that they MIGHT do, you punish them for the crime they HAVE done. And in this case, a shorter prison sentence + serious counselling might actually have the same effect in preventing him for re-offending, instead of locking his life up and throwing away the key.
Edit: I'm not saying that denying someone parole because you think they are likely to re-offend is wrong, but blatantly punishing someone for something they have never done before is just stupid...
Someone who is shop lifting can be thought not to shop lift. Someone who is having sexual pleasure from watching children actually has something wrong with there brain, you should not by any means naturally be sexually excited by freaking pre pubescent humans and the fact that they actually download child porn to "satisfy" this fetish instead of just forgetting about it shows that there will/logic might not be strong enough to resist raping a child in the future. Locking him up is a horrible thing but until the actual reason for this is found so that this kind of ppl can get treatment for it and/or chemical castration is considered safe/legal in USA so that he can be let free without running a high risk of him doing anything locking him up is the only way. Raping a child fucks him up for life and is a burden for a whole family, the guy knew that what he does is illegal and that it would show the police ( if they got him ) that he is a pedophile and still downloaded that shit to "satisfy" himself, why wouldn't he do the same with a kids in 10 years "after all a 7 years old won't be able to describe to the police who i am and i can just move to another state and get a new haircut". I personally do not have kids nor plan to but if i did i would be pretty pissed if this kind of guys were getting free after 3-4 years of prison where there condition most likely got worse if anything due to prison "treatment".
Interesting fact, here in finland you can get off with a warning and having to pay about 3000e to victin if you rape a child on the street. If you do it again, then you can get 2,5 years in prison.
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
The child molestor should get a life sentance or worse too.
There is nothing worse than a life sentence beyond familial extermination. There's literally no difference between life imprisonment and the death sentence, and I'd argue that the death sentence is better and more humane anyways. So in effect, what you are advocating is for all potential closet pedophiles to actually rape and murder children, because you do not differentiate having child porn with actual rape and murder. There's no more reason to suppress or control these urges because either way, the person with these desires is fucked.
The actual porn is never all that bad, you can have pretty much anything on screen. It's just that beastiality and child porn have waaaay unethical means to actually produce it. There are many people out there that never show their attraction to animals or children, only a fraction of them actually go about molesting people. Don't get me wrong, the people producing the movies and the people who molest deserve the highest amount of punishment possible in the justice system. But I think as long as the people are sane about it they should be able to, how unethical it may seem, watch the porn to keep their lusts in check.
Pedophiles are humans too, albeit ones with a messed up brain. As long as they abide by the law and keep themselves in check they should be able to go about living without suffering major punishment like life sentence. We don't see people getting life sentences in india for having porn of cows, do we?
So if you want someone to spend his life in prison, you plant 600 or more images of child pornography on his computer? Hackers will have a field day ...
edit:
On November 06 2011 13:48 LuCiD37 wrote: Yeah I think it should be punishable, but life in prison? Apparently in the United States we think it's okay to make laws based on how gross we think something is. I guess this generates enough "eeewwws" to warrant taking away the man's entire life... Above all our problems, our justice system is hands down the worst of all of them.
This.
For all we know this guy did nothing but a virtual crime, and no real people were hurt. Who says he even paid for that stuff? We all know how the internet works, don't we? He might have fought off his urges for many years. If anything he is sick and needs help.
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
The child molestor should get a life sentance or worse too.
There is nothing worse than a life sentence beyond familial extermination. There's literally no difference between life imprisonment and the death sentence, and I'd argue that the death sentence is better and more humane anyways. So in effect, what you are advocating is for all potential closet pedophiles to actually rape and murder children, because you do not differentiate having child porn with actual rape and murder. There's no more reason to suppress or control these urges because either way, the person with these desires is fucked.
Good system bro.
I know right! The person with the these desires might see the punishment and think "fuck that" and not do it, or try and get help for himself so he doesn't. Either way is a victory. If that doesn't stop him, lock him up, throw away the key. The penial system has proven itself ineffective at rehabilitation so no point letting him out.
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
The child molestor should get a life sentance or worse too.
There is nothing worse than a life sentence beyond familial extermination. There's literally no difference between life imprisonment and the death sentence, and I'd argue that the death sentence is better and more humane anyways. So in effect, what you are advocating is for all potential closet pedophiles to actually rape and murder children, because you do not differentiate having child porn with actual rape and murder. There's no more reason to suppress or control these urges because either way, the person with these desires is fucked.
Good system bro.
Exactly. Punishing people in comparable ways for molesting a child and for possession of computer files is essentially stating that they are equal crimes, both equally wrong. So if someone has urges to get involved with this stuff, the law is saying "you might as well go out and actually harm people and do the real thing".
There are unhealthy people who get a rush out of committing certain crimes... but due to fear of large punishments, they keep it at the level of petty shoplifting, vandalism, and things like that. If the punishment for these is life imprisonment... some of the people will stop, but those who can't resist their urges will go all-out and start robbing banks and stealing cars and killing people if they need to. The law would have removed any incentive to keep their crime to a minimum.
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
The child molestor should get a life sentance or worse too.
There is nothing worse than a life sentence beyond familial extermination. There's literally no difference between life imprisonment and the death sentence, and I'd argue that the death sentence is better and more humane anyways. So in effect, what you are advocating is for all potential closet pedophiles to actually rape and murder children, because you do not differentiate having child porn with actual rape and murder. There's no more reason to suppress or control these urges because either way, the person with these desires is fucked.
Good system bro.
I know right! The person with the these desires might see the punishment and think "fuck that" and not do it, or try and get help for himself so he doesn't. Either way is a victory. If that doesn't stop him, lock him up, throw away the key. The penial system has proven itself ineffective at rehabilitation so no point letting him out.
Good system indeed.
If you're serious about this, you need to be educated about how the justice system works. "Death penalty for everything! there won't be any more crime!" actually doesn't work very well, believe it or not.
Why is child porn so incredibly hated by most? I mean, child molesting is terrible and the people who do it should be punished heavily, but people only seeing the result are no where near as bad. I understand some punishment to keep people who have such fetishes from being tempted to actually molest, but life sentence? The guy needs therapy, not a life sentence.
On November 06 2011 15:36 Orcasgt24 wrote: Im all for harsher sentencing. I think more crimes needs much more punishment because the current ones do not detour crime.
So yay, enjoy your prison cell.
It's amazing that how people like you are basically enabling the nonsense crime bills to pass in Canada right now under the premise that crime is getting worse or that the current system fails at deterring crime when Canada is currently showing the lowest crime rate in decades.
Crime rates are down? Better put more people in prison and build more prisons.
Makes a lot of sense.
Crime rates are down does not mean crime is gone. We can do more. I want Canada to bring back the death penalty so idiots like Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson get what they deserve.
I have not seen any results of this lower crime rate. Edmonton is in record murder territory. Huge amounts of drugs and guns are on the streets. Violent crimes and stabbings are still on the rise. More needs to be done.
I hate people with your logic, so glad you're not a lawyer or a judge.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question:
If your aim is to eliminate all crime, is it justifiable to give the death penalty for a stealing a loaf of bread from a store? And if EVERY crime came with the punishment of the death penalty then by your logic no crime would ever be committed!
By your logic, harsher penalties result in the crime being committed less often.
In reality, it doesn't.
People don't commit a crime saying "Oh the punishment for murder is 20 years jail? That is a fair trade, let me go kill this person I dislike". They commit crimes on the premise that they believe they will not get caught, not because they think the punishment isn't very harsh.
I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
On November 06 2011 16:57 Xaggah wrote: To me this is justice. Child porn is fucked up!
Please explain why you feel this man should get a life sentence and a child molestor should not.
The child molestor should get a life sentance or worse too.
There is nothing worse than a life sentence beyond familial extermination. There's literally no difference between life imprisonment and the death sentence, and I'd argue that the death sentence is better and more humane anyways. So in effect, what you are advocating is for all potential closet pedophiles to actually rape and murder children, because you do not differentiate having child porn with actual rape and murder. There's no more reason to suppress or control these urges because either way, the person with these desires is fucked.
Good system bro.
I know right! The person with the these desires might see the punishment and think "fuck that" and not do it, or try and get help for himself so he doesn't. Either way is a victory. If that doesn't stop him, lock him up, throw away the key. The penial system has proven itself ineffective at rehabilitation so no point letting him out.
Good system indeed.
If you're serious about this, you need to be educated about how the justice system works. "Death penalty for everything! there won't be any more crime!" actually doesn't work very well, believe it or not.
Im not so niave to think that their will ever be "no crime". Thats impossible. I just want way harsher penalties for sicko criminals
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
1.) He doesn't have "mutant" genes. He is a human being with a fetish. Nice try with rhetoric though
2.) Read the article. Is it OK to convict because you FEAR what he'll do, or what he has done. Because that's counter to "innocent until proven guilty."
3.) Apparently you do care, since you're posting your opinion on TL
4.) Because judges were always right in the past, correct?
On November 06 2011 17:48 LAN-f34r wrote: Why is child porn so incredibly hated by most? I mean, child molesting is terrible and the people who do it should be punished heavily, but people only seeing the result are no where near as bad.
It's a unique category of crime. For any other kind of crime that I can think of, it's only illegal if you're directly involved in committing the murder/theft/whatever. This is the only one where watching a recording of someone else's crime is illegal.
It's illegal for good reasons, since it potentially incites the viewer to take things a step further and do it himself, and because it harms the victim to know that people are out there watching the video of what happened to them.
But anyway, I think people just don't think it through completely... it's an "ewwww" subject, people see "the guy's a criminal, somewhere along the line a child was harmed, so fuck him. he's evil scum". They don't stop and consider that there are more serious and less serious offenders.
This subject just made me think of something pretty fucked up... so it's illegal to possess this stuff because there's an underage victim of a crime involved. Is it only the underage part that makes it illegal?
I don't believe it's illegal to possess or watch a video of a murder taking place. It features a non-consenting victim... but not only is it legal, some of the less-gory parts of it are shown right on television.
Then is it illegal to possess or watch a video of a woman being raped, as long as she is of legal age? It's no different from the murder footage. Or is video footage treated differently when it's a sex crime?
I seriously hope it's massively illegal, because the unsettling thought that occurred to me is that someone could go out and rape a celebrity, accept the punishment, and have a partner record and sell the footage to get rich.
Another random thought: if we lived in a more peaceful world with different cultural values... would it then be illegal to possess or watch a recording of a violent crime or a murder? Would people be disgusted by the viewer, and think the video would incite him to murder someone?
Would they see today's action movie producers in the same way Australia sees producers of porn that feature a just-old-enough girl dressed up to look underage?
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
So much BS in one post is a sight to behold.
This guy doesn't deserve life sentence when way worse crimes (child molest, rape etc.) does not even give close to the same punishment.
And mutant genes? Do you know ANYTHING about biology at all? -.-
There are types of therapies that can cause someone to rewrite the parts of their brain that control attraction responses, since the guy himself didn't film the pictures so I don't think life imprisonment is appropriate to the crime, especially if he got the pics for free.
Now, for people that make/produce/distribute child pornography, life imprisonment is totally appropriate IMO and chances are, if word gets out about what they're in for it's more akin to a death sentence once the other inmates find out.
IMO, the guy was made an example of. Happens all the time.
Also, the age of the kids in the material is important at least to determine if they were in puberty or not, that sort of fetish is a lot easier to condition out of someone than one who's into the lollis.
ok so this guy gets life in prison but murderers and rapists, ACTUAL CHILD RAPISTS AND MURDERERS get out of jail... so much for living in a free country..
At the bottom of this is punishing someone for something that's out of their control which is the definition of injustice and stupidity.
Also,
I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
This is an incredibly, incredibly stupid point of view. I have no idea about you're beliefs but from the way you say "If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves." Leads me to believe you're a lot more mentally handicapped than the guy being charged. Also, saying that collecting images of child porn means he is likely to molest a child is incredibly stupid. That's like putting a kid in prison for stealing his friends toy, just in case he turns out to be a bank robber when he grows up.
Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
Everyone making the argument that he only got sentenced because we think child porn is "gross" is stupid. Child porn is the lowest of the low. It's has nothing to do with "ickyness" or "fetishes" or any of that. The people on here equating homosexuality with pedophilia are the stupidest people. One involves two consenting adults, the other involes raping children.
If you launder money that you know was stolen, you're in trouble. It's the same concept, only with the worst, vilest, most souless crime in the world: violating a child in a way that he/she will probably never recover from. They should punish people who possess child porn and punish them harshly.
However, I think this is too harsh. This is over the line.
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
Have you ever watched porn? How soon after watching porn did you start raping women?
ppl are irrational over crime and punishment and always have been. obv the US justice system should strongly deter people from hurting (or enabling the suffering of) ppl who cannot defend themselves. we still have problems with human trafficking in the western world. this is really just beyond stupid, tho. people who DO worse, who act more maliciously than this, get better treatment and protection by the law. just another example of the US court laying equal or more hurt on nonviolent offenders as it does for violent offenders, who are imo far more dangerous and destructive.
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.
I don't know about this specific case but this kind of scaling for sex crimes is pretty common, at a certain level of offense you're no longer considered able to be rehabilitated so the rationale is that life in prison is the only choice. I guess people think that isn't true for violent crimes, I can't speak for how true any of that is though.
This is a good point. So the question becomes is this guy so deviant as to never be rehabilitated? The article doesn't shed any light on this, but I suspect that he would be able to be rehabilitated =/
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
Would you sentence to death a man who got drunk, started a fight, and beat him violently with a weapon?
Clearly the guy's an alcoholic scumbag of little positive value to society, I would agree. He's a potential drunk driver who could kill someone, or he might cripple or kill someone in another fight, or he might get drunk and beat his wife... after all, his crimes have been escalating since he first got that drunk in public charge.
1) Would you honestly sentence this man to life imprisonment or death?
2) If so, is that because you're in favor of far stricter punishment for crime all across the board? Or is it just a case of "this guy seems like a loser and has no positive future anyway, so fuck him"?
My guess is you'd be far more lenient on the drunk guy, and tell me "I was only referring to the sicko pedophile guy"... in which case you're admitting the "ewwww" factor (and not justice) is the reasoning for your decision.
The more I think of it, the "ewwww that's fucked up, get that guy away from me" factor is a larger part of this situation than I first thought. It's not so much about protecting the children... there are no special extra-harsh laws about physically harming a child. I don't think the punishment for kidnapping a child is much harsher than the punishment for kidnapping an adult, if at all. And if an adult punched a child in the face, he'd receive a significant punishment for it, but nothing drastically worse than if he attacked an adult.
Life sentence for possession of child porn for a guy with no previous record? That's 6 months in my book, one year tops. Most offenses where actual financial or physical damage is caused get much less than a life sentence, and by downloading free pictures the man didn't actually harm anyone.
On November 06 2011 14:48 Kamais_Ookin wrote: I am deeply sad and embarrassed about the justice system of U.S.
A more severe injustice has occurred and it's not the viewing of CP, it's the ridiculous life-time jail with no chance of parole. Absolutely sickening how more heinous crimes get less duration of punishment,
Back in the day many, many people thought being gay is horrible but now people are more respectable towards it. I hope one day pedophiles will be viewed the same way. Pedophile is the same thing as being gay, you can't change it so why is only one of them being condemned? Of course, I'm not talking about the act of molesting the child but rather the viewing of a realistic portrayal of it. For example:
On November 06 2011 14:05 Hiroruby wrote: Yes, we can all agree that child exploitation is wrong. What I can't understand, is the unconditional condemnation of people aroused by it. Think for a moment with me. Think (not to hard mind you!) about whatever it is that gets you aroused. Did you ever in your life make a concious decision to be turned on by that? ( cumshots, anal, big breasts, whatever).
I think in most cases, the answer is no. You were attracted to it, and you always have been, to some extent. An obvious example here are gay people, they don't make a choice to become aroused by other men or women. They simply do. Now please, take that principle and apply it to child porn. These people shouldn't be chemically castrated, exiled, or even "treated", whatever that means, seeing as you can't get rid of an innate desire.
In my opinion there should just be an open market of lolicon hentai for those people. Call me crazy, but I think satisfying their demands in a way that harms absolutely no one, and hell, will even provide employment, can't be a bad thing. Artists are pretty ingenious. Make movies that are realistic, make shit that looks appealing. If it is good, then demand for the "real" product will be negated among people willing to control their desires. These are people you don't want to lock up, because they can keep their shit together.
No, this won't stop the other people from attacking real children. Nothing can, much like you can't stop people from murdering others once they get the idea. What it will do is sate the desires of otherwise contributing members of society, who just have an obtuse fetish.
In summary: Give an outlet for pedophiles who don't want to break the law. Don't look down on them because they have urges, look down on people who actually harm others with those urges. Prison is for people who damage the world, not people who want ot have an orgasm quickly so they can get back to browsing reddit, go to work, or read a book.
Pedophilia in and of itself isn't bad when you put it that way, sure.
But in NO way should it ever be viewed the same way as homosexuality is now. It should not ever be encouraged in any way. You're going way too far off the opposite end.
Why should the fetish of underage children be punished but not of gay? I understand that if you stick your cock in a little girls ass you deserve to be locked away for a long time but I simply can't understand why viewing some CP can induce jail time let alone life in prison. Anyone with a fetish of big tits or anal etc etc can watch all the porn they want but pedo's can't watch cp, where is the freedom? I don't agree with the bs arguement of watching = supporting. First of all he's not even paying for the damn thing and whether he watches or not it's still going to be uploaded. Does watching a violent horror movie with a axe smashed between the eyes mean you support murder? A rape scene!?
User was temp banned for this post.
The issue with child pornography is that it exploits children sexually. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to persons who have not yet developed secondary sex characteristics. These are kids way below the age of consent who can't even be held accountable for first degree murder by law in most US jurisdictions. To be frank, there's no way to produce child pornography without manipulating and exploiting the underdeveloped mental capacity of a child. It's a safe assumption to say that nearly all, if not all, child pornography that's ever existed and will likely exist in the future will have been produced as a byproduct of the sexual assault and molestation of the children featured.
That's a very good reason why child pornography is problematic.
The possession of child pornography should definitely be a serious offense. However, no, I don't believe the convicted in this case was fairly punished. At most, he should have gotten a few years in jail, paroled, and have had his name input into the national registry. He's not a violent offender, after all. The viewing of child pornography, however, creates support for it in a similar way YouTube content creators were supported by their viewers before YouTube began monetarily compensating traffic. You produce content others enjoy and consume, and you're driven to make more of it. There's pride to be taken in that. Further, the sharing of content creates community where individuals with common interest of one kind or another can communicate and support each other. If you still vehemently disagree, then I really don't know what else to say. I can't argue against delusion.
Now keep in mind that I don't think all pedophiles should be hunted and curb stomped or anything. I don't believe their fetish was a choice of theirs like you say. I do believe that there's no acceptable way for them to indulge in their fetish, and that that's something they'll have to deal with for the rest of their lives. Life sucks.
This seems more like one of those "let's send all the child porn guys a message" cases. Every time they do this I feel a little sad for the guy receiving the punishment, but I mean it technically is illegal and the guy did have a whole shit ton of it. He also helped distribute it a lot (p2p). I'm kind of on the fence with this one. They're punishing one guy so severely that people will have second thoughts before downloading child porn because of the risks involved. This is only a good thing, the decision will inevitably help the war on child porn, but at the cost of this one guy.
As bad as I feel for the guy, he went in knowing the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, yeah? The children come before the guys that watch/distribute the child porn.
I hate the american judicial system. File sharers, encryption breakers, small-time hackers, weed smokers and these people, who cause indirect harm at best, are hit with absurd punishment, while murderers, baby killers, drug lords, cult leaders walk freely. Hey, let's punish the weak and the nonviolent, they won't fight back anyway, but leave alone the psychopaths, they are still human or something.
Mr. Hollander said Mr. Vilca had consistently said he did not know the images were on his computer. He refused a plea bargain of 20 years in prison, after which the state attorney increased the charges. The sentence will be appealed, Mr. Hollander said.
And it's quite possible said images were planted on his computer by a third party. Accusing someone of being a rapist or a pedophile is the easiest way of getting rid of him. They should investigate it properly, at the very least they should look at the timestamps of the files.
Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is now a law professor at the University of Utah, said there was no question that “consumers of child pornography drive the market for the production of child pornography, and without people to consume this stuff there wouldn’t be nearly as many children being sexually abused.”
If we can believe the music and movie industry, piracy actually helps in killing the industry.
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.
I don't know about this specific case but this kind of scaling for sex crimes is pretty common, at a certain level of offense you're no longer considered able to be rehabilitated so the rationale is that life in prison is the only choice. I guess people think that isn't true for violent crimes, I can't speak for how true any of that is though.
This is a good point. So the question becomes is this guy so deviant as to never be rehabilitated? The article doesn't shed any light on this, but I suspect that he would be able to be rehabilitated =/
Sex offenders have relatively low rates of committing another sex crime after being caught, only 5.3% in a 2002 study. (Thieves are in the 70-80% range). I assume some of them got quite a shock when they were caught, realize "oh shit I let myself take things way too far", and make an effort to avoid letting it happen again... some of them, anyway, maybe not so much with the ones who plan out rapes like a thief plans out a robbery.
I wonder about being rehabilitated. Can they just find another way to get off, so that urges to do illegal stuff don't get too strong? From TV I've heard about chemical castration.
Looking at recidivism rates, I guess it's not as easy to get rid of the urge to steal something or the urge to use drugs. Fun fact I just learned from wikipedia- the average male in the US will be arrested twice by age 65. Seems crazy, but I guess the ones who get arrested 20-30 times skew the numbers.
This seems more like one of those "let's send all the child porn guys a message" cases. Every time they do this I feel a little sad for the guy receiving the punishment, but I mean it technically is illegal and the guy did have a whole shit ton of it. He also helped distribute it a lot (p2p). I'm kind of on the fence with this one. They're punishing one guy so severely that people will have second thoughts before downloading child porn because of the risks involved. This is only a good thing, the decision will inevitably help the war on child porn, but at the cost of this one guy.
As bad as I feel for the guy, he went in knowing the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, yeah? The children come before the guys that watch/distribute the child porn.
The trouble is this same logic would justify life sentencing for an individual who tax evades, steals, drink drives, speeds, gets caught dealing drugs, in some places prostitutes themselves, commits fraud, perjury, assault, vandalsim etc.
What about this specific example means that it is acceptable to give an extreme life penalty to an individual, and treat them as a means to an end, on the basis that it would dissuade others, where in the different (and many unmentioned) examples above it would not?
Or would you similarly defend life sentences for all of the above, on the same basis?
Downloading something without paying for it is supporting the industry? If I were ever on trial for piracy, I would love to have a judge who thinks like that.
And it's not that long when they still legally and actively made child porn around here. The wind has changed direction quite quickly.
I don't even understand that sentence. If this fetish is a sickness of mind you shouldn't be thrown to jail for it, but somewhere where you can get help. If it is not, the easier it should be to "cure" him. I don't know how "throwing a guy into a cell forever" is a humane option, especially when he hasn't actively hurt anyone. Right now I'm more disgusted by the legal organ.
On November 06 2011 18:40 Frigo wrote: If we can believe the music and movie industry, piracy actually helps in killing the industry.
To be fair, it's comparing apples and oranges. Music piracy is widespread and many people do it specifically for the reason of getting what they want without having to pay for it. It's a large industry with billions of customers.
The underground file sharing of illegal porn among criminals is a totally different situation that probably no one can analyze accurately. I think it's very safe to say that it's -possible- that the spread of these files is creating interest in the subject matter, including some of them who are willing to pay for its creation or even go out and create it themselves.
I don't understand why there's any debate here. If instead of downloading pictures, he would have kidnapped and kept a child as a sex-slave for a year he would have received a shorter sentence. This is crazy. I understand the moral outrage, but as far as I'm concerned, this is equivalent to saying watching porn is equivalent to (or worse than) raping prostitutes. Anyone supporting this should be checked into an asylum.
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
Anyone who thinks this man deserves this punishment is actually a complete moron. It is not necessary to explain why. If you are stupid enough to believe that this man deserves life in prison for this, then you are too stupid to understand why you are stupid, and it would therefore be a waste of time to explain why you are so completely fucking stupid.
Try not paying your taxes! A murderer gets out in 8 years while someone who skims the government of their taxes can go to jail for life. While the CEO of a corporation who cheats the government didnt actually hurt anyone, he stills goes to jail longer in certain cases. It seems this is the MOST sensitive area of our legal justice system, and this guy looked at it in the face and gave it the finger. Over 400 photos recovered. Not 1 that could be accidently downloaded, not 2 that could have been an experimentation. This guy got caught red handed for something the justice system and society look at as the foulest act. Sounds to me like this guy woulda gotten out in 10 with good behavior and been able to finish his life. Now he has none because he didnt show the judge that he made a mistake. In other countrys they put you to death for stealing so our justice system needs to have some balls too.
I read a song of ice and fire, which involves 13 year old having sex with 30 year olds. Jail time?
I feel that sometime in the distant future society will laugh at how barbaric our laws are concerning child pornography. Is having sex with children wrong? Derp a herp no shit. Should a man be imprisoned for life for looking at child pornography? Derp a herp no he shouldn't.
This seems more like one of those "let's send all the child porn guys a message" cases. Every time they do this I feel a little sad for the guy receiving the punishment, but I mean it technically is illegal and the guy did have a whole shit ton of it. He also helped distribute it a lot (p2p). I'm kind of on the fence with this one. They're punishing one guy so severely that people will have second thoughts before downloading child porn because of the risks involved. This is only a good thing, the decision will inevitably help the war on child porn, but at the cost of this one guy.
As bad as I feel for the guy, he went in knowing the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, yeah? The children come before the guys that watch/distribute the child porn.
people dont get hands cut off because of stealing apples, crime needs to meet proper punishment, no more story to it really...
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.
I don't know about this specific case but this kind of scaling for sex crimes is pretty common, at a certain level of offense you're no longer considered able to be rehabilitated so the rationale is that life in prison is the only choice. I guess people think that isn't true for violent crimes, I can't speak for how true any of that is though.
This is a good point. So the question becomes is this guy so deviant as to never be rehabilitated? The article doesn't shed any light on this, but I suspect that he would be able to be rehabilitated =/
As far as i know, through whatever therapy, a Pedophile will still always be sexually attracted to kids, well because he just likes kids that way. The majority of persons that commit violent crimes, probably have something like an anger management issue, and didnt commit the crime because they genuily like violence for the violence. If they do however, at least here in germany, they get locked down forever as well because they cannot be rehabilitated.
In some countries, Pedophiles can choose to chemicly castrate themself, if they are willing to do that, and actually do it, i would consider them as close to rehabilitated as possible. With doing that he shows he doesnt want to be of any harm to kids, and realises his desires are baaaaaaaaaaad.
Imo, altho it is not proportional, lock everyone of those child porn liking freaks away, unless they choose to go for chemical castration. Better to lock down 10 freaks, than to get 1 future innocent kid raped.
A close familymember of mine has worked with pedofiles trying to rehabilate into society for 10 years and from what I've heard from her it's basically impossible to get rid of the urges. Exactly the way there is no "cure" for gays.
Chemical castration is done in certain countries, but only works to a certain degree, it lessens sexual fantasies and helps people have greater control over there sexual behaviour. However, it doesn't take them away - so there is still quite a chance the pedo goes back to his old behaviour.
This is what makes the situation extremely hard in my opinion, can you punish someone for things he has barely any control over? Obviously we should to protect the children in society, but is it humane? The best thing would be to crack down all producers of child pornography (however, that is next to impossible).
On November 06 2011 19:01 InsomniAA wrote: About rehabilitation:
A close familymember of mine has worked with pedofiles trying to rehabilate into society for 10 years and from what I've heard from her it's basically impossible to get rid of the urges. Exactly the way there is no "cure" for gays.
Chemical castration is done in certain countries and works to a certain degree, it lessens sexual fantasies and helps people have greater control over there sexual behaviour. However, it doesn't take them away - so there is still quite a chance the pedo goes back to his old behaviour.
This is what makes the situation extremely hard in my opinion, can you punish someone for things he has barely any control over? Obviously we should to protect the children in society, but is it humane? The best thing would be to crack down all producers of child pornography (however, that is next to impossible).
On November 06 2011 19:01 InsomniAA wrote: About rehabilitation:
A close familymember of mine has worked with pedofiles trying to rehabilate into society for 10 years and from what I've heard from her it's basically impossible to get rid of the urges. Exactly the way there is no "cure" for gays.
Chemical castration is done in certain countries and works to a certain degree, it lessens sexual fantasies and helps people have greater control over there sexual behaviour. However, it doesn't take them away - so there is still quite a chance the pedo goes back to his old behaviour.
This is what makes the situation extremely hard in my opinion, can you punish someone for things he has barely any control over? Obviously we should to protect the children in society, but is it humane? The best thing would be to crack down all producers of child pornography (however, that is next to impossible).
On November 06 2011 18:01 mud123 wrote: I totally support this sentence. If it was possible I'd sentence him to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because he hasn't yet hurt a child directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that he won't ever. In fact I'd say that if he is collecting images of child abuse that he is likely at some point to abuse a child himself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge agrees with me and that's all that matters. I hope he likes being abused in prison for the rest of his pathetic life.
I think you should be locked up. If it was possible, I'd sentence you to death. No need to have freaks running around with their mutant genes reproducing more human waste like themselves. Not to mention that just because you haven't yet hurt a forum goer directly (which might not be the case) is no indication that you won't ever. In fact I'd say that if you are violently phrasing your forum posts that you are likely at some point to become an axe murderer yourself. Anyone who disagrees with me can really f*ck off I don't care. Obviously the judge won't yet agree with me and that's all that matters. I hope you like being beaten into a pulp in prison for the rest of your life.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
On November 06 2011 18:56 Cooloff wrote: Try not paying your taxes! A murderer gets out in 8 years while someone who skims the government of their taxes can go to jail for life. While the CEO of a corporation who cheats the government didnt actually hurt anyone, he stills goes to jail longer in certain cases. It seems this is the MOST sensitive area of our legal justice system, and this guy looked at it in the face and gave it the finger. Over 400 photos recovered. Not 1 that could be accidently downloaded, not 2 that could have been an experimentation. This guy got caught red handed for something the justice system and society look at as the foulest act. Sounds to me like this guy woulda gotten out in 10 with good behavior and been able to finish his life. Now he has none because he didnt show the judge that he made a mistake. In other countrys they put you to death for stealing so our justice system needs to have some balls too.
Cheating on the taxes is pretty serious though. If all the rich people in the US haven't cheated with paying their taxes, America would be nowhere near the debt they are in now. And it affects the poorest of the American people, people that rely on government-funded things like schools etc.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
Do you have the same view of other crimes? Extremely harsh punishment in an attempt to clean society of such behavior?
Children are defenseless, yes. So are many other victims of crime. If a group of five beat a person bloody, should they be sentenced to life in prison?
in germany you get 2 years jail .... i always say us system is crap with lifetime for something you get 2 years in europe, but in this i really am on the us side, but in fact that he not directly did something i dont know lifetime ... harsh cant really judge here the correct lenght cause its to hard to decide
I'm completely disgusted by the nature of the crime but I can't disagree with the quote below
“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”
Either there is a lot more that was unpublished or this seems like it will be overturned by a less incredible appeals court.
On November 06 2011 19:50 duckmaster wrote: I think that punishment is just retarded and ridiculously unjustified. The judge who gave him life is actually more fucked up than this guy.
Ok you make me want to just silently disagree with the punishment -_-
Just wait until we get people sentenced for looking at fictional materials (cartoons or stories) depicting child pornography
These people should ofc, be sent to jail for life for the same reason that you send people who own child pornography to life - because they might watch the real thing later! A guy watching fictional material might watch the real thing later, a crime punishable by life!
....
people should know that pedophilia is not curable in the same way being gay is not curable So what should a law-abiding pedophile do?
Of course, many of you don't really care since you don't even believe they are human beings
As a civilized society it is our duty to be civilized to others, even to criminals
It seems in certain countries, we have totally and utterly failed in that quest.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
there is "no place in society" for a lot of people if we go by the standards of each individual or group within our (US) society. that is 1 reason we have laws and hope they are enforced with some integrity and proper judgment.
Kinda on topic, just a thought, don't laws against possesion of child pornography actually increase it's production? If only creation and commercialized sharing was illegal, all the stuff that's out there would be pirated and suddenly the producers would make much less money. What do you think, are there any flaws in my reasoning? Not that I would be content with videos of abused children freely floating around the internet, but it seems like something that would decrease child porn production, which is what the laws are there for.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
Why is there so much hate on child porn (not molestation)? I would consider furries fked up, but do they get life in prision?
On November 06 2011 20:00 crystyxn wrote: I never understood this, so he found some child porn on the internet and downloaded it = life in prison? wtf?
You make it sound like he tripped, fell on his keyboard and it accidentally brought up and downloaded child pornography.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
I have watched videos of murders on the internet, should I also receive a longer sentence than the person doing the murder? Maybe you could help me out on this one because I think that I shouldn't, but you seem quite sure that I should.
Not so long ago some Iranian men were executed for being gay. Do you think that is a just sentence? Taking someones life for hurting absolutely no one? The Iranians would claim that they were sick and demented, and that they have no place in society...
I have never been more glad that I don't live in a country where the punishment for Murder is less than the punishment for looking at some pictures on the internet.
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?
I actually know someone to whom this has happened, and it's a nightmare ><
On November 06 2011 20:00 crystyxn wrote: I never understood this, so he found some child porn on the internet and downloaded it = life in prison? wtf?
You make it sound like he tripped, fell on his keyboard and it accidentally brought up and downloaded child pornography.
If someone deliberately downloads videos of violent murders, should we imprison them for life as well? After all, anyone who likes watching murders is sick, twisted, and likely to murder other people themselves, right?
Wow. Just wow. I am NOT condoning ANY form of child porn, but keep in mind that: 1) Pedophilia is a medical condition. 2) This is probably his only way of keeping it under control without anyone else getting hurt. Mental institution? Sure. Prison sentence? Weeeeell, maybe. A fucking life sentence without the possibility of parole? Fucking ridiculous. These people need help, and he at least had the willpower and decency not to actually, you know, rape and hurt kids.
It's a unacceptable sexual orientation and the society needs to do something. However it seems pretty expensive to put him away for life even though I assume it's related to how it's really hard to convert someone sexually.
I think a much shorter sentence followed by a period with chemical castration would be better. Then being forced to have spyware installed on his computer and possibly electronic tagging.
On November 06 2011 20:25 Patriot.dlk wrote: I think a much shorter sentence followed by a period with chemical castration would be better. Then being forced to have spyware installed on his computer and possibly electronic tagging.
Wow, has this guy actually hurt anyone? Since when could you be charged on thought-crime? Chemical castration based on downloaded files? I sure dont wanna live in your state. People have heaps of fucked up shit on their computers. Yes pedophilia is terrible but locking someone up for life for having some downloaded files on his computer is just retarded. It's not like he's killed/raped anyone or even supported the industry.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Seriously though, what 'crime' has he actually committed beyond possession of illegal computer files. If I have a video of someone getting murdered, or a collection of snuff films does that mean I should be charged to the same degree as a serial killer? I agree that actual molesters should be given the severest of punishments but you can't lump this guy in with them.
that's fucking ridiculous, just tending to the disproportionate disgust people have for people with paedophilic fetishes. i agree that sexual interest in children is sickening and repulsive, but comparing this sentence to other horrific acts makes it seem completely ridiculous, the fact that other sentences for terrible criminal acts receive much lighter sentences makes the judicial system lose all crebility.
i think a sentence in a mental institution, or some form of castration would be a better option.
I have a question for you guys~ Let's say the system got him psychological help instead of prison... would they make him pay for that or use the tax payers money? If so which would cost the tax payers money more psych help or prison time?
Now that's an overkill... absurd, as you said, he has a fetish and if he hasn't filmed it himself or harmed a child.
Well then... I guess I could end up being shot to death because at some point I liked Dolcett. I have never harmed a girl or anything, nor even have such impulses but for some reason I just liked it. Not anymore tho.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
Funny how you yourself note that he is sick person and yet you support this sentence ? You understand that him being a pedophile is something you are most likely born with. That does not excuse pedophiles hurting anyone and even it does not excuse him from possession. But it should be reflected in the sentence. He watched something and life sentence is not proportionate to the crime.
Just to put it into perspective are you supporting life sentences for people watching videos of people torturing other people ? Are you supporting the same sentences for drug users as for narcomafia members, because they support business that has probably much more suffering on its hands than child pornography business (also being a drug addict is more voluntary than being a pedophile) ?
He should be sentenced proportionate to the crime and he should go through psychiatric evaluation and based on that he should be placed in mental institution if he requires it or put in prison for reasonable time if he does not and after release he should be made to stay under observation of psychiatrists and police. If he is placed in mental institution it is quite possible he will stay there for life anyway, but that is different thing. Of course in America mental patients are often placed into prisons, because you gutted your system of mental institutions and thus even bigger hell is created.
*deleting all child porn off of my computer* Na joking(or am i), but this is just insane... Lifetime prison for downloading pictures? Really? Over here a man got 21 years for murdering 76 people. In USA, the law system is just as extreme but the other way around. U have some fetish pictures on your computer? Say hello to lifetime in prison.
On November 06 2011 19:40 MrBitter wrote: I fully support the sentence.
For people saying molesting children gets a lesser punishment:
It shouldn't. That's fucked up. People who commit crimes against children are the lowest of the low.
Whether the guy directly hurt a child or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. He is a sick, demented person (watching 6 year old boys have sex with adults? Are you fucking serious?) and there is no place in society for someone like that.
Why is there so much hate on child porn (not molestation)? I would consider furries fked up, but do they get life in prision?
Because making of that porn requires sex with a child, isn't it obvious ? That is the ethical reason for punishing it. Of course even if he watched anime child porn he would still be hated as sex with children is fucked up in principle.
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)?
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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)
On November 06 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: He deserves it simply cuz its to much of a risk to let a person who could ruin a child life free. There are very few cases where the accused is sentenced to life prison and there are even cases where the crimes are higher then this one but those cases should be the one where they also get life prison not this one that should not. There is not one good reason to let a guy who was in possession of child porn free unless it was something like 15-8 yers old porn that the justice system still class "child" porn in some countries or if the guy actually did not knew what he was downloading. Its not worth the risk of this guy making something with his life to let him free and risk a child getting raped and maybe even killed resulting in him ruining a life that would most likely have been much more "productive" then his own.
What kind of stupid logic is this? I saw it brought up by that Zinnwaldite guy as well, about punishing someone for crimes that may/may not have committed, or in your case, what they may commit in the future... How can you possibly support this?
You saying we should lock up a shop lifter forever, just as a precaution in case they decide to escalate into armed robbery? We should give a life sentence to someone for assault, to prevent them from ever murdering anyone? We should lock somebody up who watches S&M porn just in case they decide to go tie up some chick and rape her?
Sorry man that's a stupid argument, you don't give someone life just to prevent something that they MIGHT do, you punish them for the crime they HAVE done. And in this case, a shorter prison sentence + serious counselling might actually have the same effect in preventing him for re-offending, instead of locking his life up and throwing away the key.
Edit: I'm not saying that denying someone parole because you think they are likely to re-offend is wrong, but blatantly punishing someone for something they have never done before is just stupid...
Someone who is shop lifting can be thought not to shop lift. Someone who is having sexual pleasure from watching children actually has something wrong with there brain, you should not by any means naturally be sexually excited by freaking pre pubescent humans and the fact that they actually download child porn to "satisfy" this fetish instead of just forgetting about it shows that there will/logic might not be strong enough to resist raping a child in the future. Locking him up is a horrible thing but until the actual reason for this is found so that this kind of ppl can get treatment for it and/or chemical castration is considered safe/legal in USA so that he can be let free without running a high risk of him doing anything locking him up is the only way. Raping a child fucks him up for life and is a burden for a whole family, the guy knew that what he does is illegal and that it would show the police ( if they got him ) that he is a pedophile and still downloaded that shit to "satisfy" himself, why wouldn't he do the same with a kids in 10 years "after all a 7 years old won't be able to describe to the police who i am and i can just move to another state and get a new haircut". I personally do not have kids nor plan to but if i did i would be pretty pissed if this kind of guys were getting free after 3-4 years of prison where there condition most likely got worse if anything due to prison "treatment".
Ummm....really? If I watch the Saw movies because i like to watch people get all cut up occasionally and fantasize about doing it, does this mean that since i cant control my impulse to watch the movie that i should be jailed because i will obviously not resist my eventual urge to go kill people myself? I think you made a leap in logic there that doesn't really hold
So by playing Modern Warfare 2, and shooting all those people in the airport I should be put in jail for the rest of my life (with the logic of this judge and jury). It's absolutely ridiculous, people with severe war crimes in WWII got off scott free. Rapists and kidnappers don't even get a sentence this large. Murderers and thiefs dont get a sentence this large. I'm all for harsh punishments against child porn, but punishments is the keyword. Not a death sentence to be committed after 60 years of the inside of a 4x4 box. With sentences like this, I forsee alot of abuse of a system like this. It's not hard to transfer files and hide them. Any normal computer user could be put under serious blackmail. It's scary, what if some trojan downloader becomes a child porn downloader? What happens then?
Honestly, take down the servers and networks that distribute the filth. Give their operators a life sentence. It's like persecuting the average north american for downloading a few hundred songs off the internet. Congratulations, you threw a man in jail for his entire life. Theres probably ten thousand other men who have downloaded those same images and ten thousand other men who are currently distributing them. Ridiculous.
If you guys have read about the Anonymous takedown of a fileserver hosting child porn, then you may understand where i'm coming from. It's like persecuting a heroin addict for his addiction, and not even pursuing the fucks who bring the crap into the country on a daily basis and murder people as a result of overdose. Absolutely atrocious representation of the legal system. I'm actually offended and these peoples stupidity.
What the hell... if that happened in my vicinity I think I'd be brave enough to protest against this. This punishment is WAY!!! too hard. I think if someone wants to have some child porn without harming anyone directly, some porn that ALREADY exists anyways - the worst thing that should happen to him is an obligation to show up at a psychologists' place every 2 weeks of his entire life or smth , but this...
This is exactly the same as giving someone life in prison for first degree murder for watching a video of someone committing first degree murder and distributing it to other people on the internet, except it isn't because for some reason people believe that watching a video of a child being molested creates a demand for more videos of children being molested. Unfortunately for this guy he was caught file sharing child pornography similar to how people are being prosecuted for downloading copyrighted material illegally.
The second article alludes to the notion that the man actively shared the images on the internet through a file sharing network. Certainly participating in the active redistribution of child pornography is helping to promote the smut more than just downloading it as an end user. It sounds like the law that this guy was prosecuted under needs revision and lacks the nuances that one would expect of a violation capable of sending a man to prison for life. The gross injustice in this case is that someone who actually commits child molestation or abuse could have received a lighter sentence. I expect this verdict to be overturned in appeals as it is a grave miscarriage of justice.
The even scarier part is that the prosecutor states something to the effect of, "the child is a victim once in the creation of the pornography and then again every time someone views the pornography." This is an absurd notion suggesting that the victim of physical sexual abuse is somehow harmed by another person viewing the crime without their knowledge. This is like saying someone who was robbed on the street is harmed by someone viewing footage of the crime without their knowledge.
I can't believe that someone would insinuate, or actually be of the opinion that someone who views child pornography deserves the same punishment as someone who secondarily distributes child pornography and also deserves the same punishment as those engaging in the production and primary distribution of child pornography. A person who views child pornography does not deserve punishment equal to a child molester, or even a drunk driver.
I don't like the idea of punishing people for creating demand. The person molesting a child is guilty most of all, not the person looking at pictures of it. I feel it's like punishing people who smoke weed for any drugs war related crimes in Mexico. And it's worse since pedophilia is a mental illness. He should be getting psychiatric help and maybe some time in prison/fine. It's still illegal to look at those pictures for good reason. But in a way he's a victim too, locking him up for the rest of his life does nothing.
I will say the idea of being molested and then knowing footage of that is watched by a lot of men is really creepy to me. I do think it can prolong suffering for the victim. It must be quite disgusting and I can imagine that for a victim of this, that as long as there are videos out there they can never quite move on.
But still, you can't really expect people to not follow up on a fetish. Instead of our society ignoring the problem and locking those people up, they should be getting more psychiatric help and alternate methods of fulfilling their fantasies that don't harm anyone, so that the demand for these pictures goes away.
I struggle to understand why he'd go to prison for this anyway, he's young, first time offender and if I read correctly wasnt distributing or creating?
This is the kind of thing that should merit enforced some sort of reformation program and a close eye being kept. Maybe a low sentence but without actually harming anyone he was just following an impulse, an impulse which should be tackled.
It reminds me of the hugely disproportionate fines for downloading a song, I think someone summed up lost income due to a first degree murder charge and in one case of a women getting charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a few songs it worked out she'd have been better off killing someone.
It makes you question judges, most do a great job im sure but this kind of depersonalisation and proportionality should be the first port of call for any judge.
This seems more like one of those "let's send all the child porn guys a message" cases. Every time they do this I feel a little sad for the guy receiving the punishment, but I mean it technically is illegal and the guy did have a whole shit ton of it. He also helped distribute it a lot (p2p). I'm kind of on the fence with this one. They're punishing one guy so severely that people will have second thoughts before downloading child porn because of the risks involved. This is only a good thing, the decision will inevitably help the war on child porn, but at the cost of this one guy.
As bad as I feel for the guy, he went in knowing the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, yeah? The children come before the guys that watch/distribute the child porn.
The trouble is this same logic would justify life sentencing for an individual who tax evades, steals, drink drives, speeds, gets caught dealing drugs, in some places prostitutes themselves, commits fraud, perjury, assault, vandalsim etc.
What about this specific example means that it is acceptable to give an extreme life penalty to an individual, and treat them as a means to an end, on the basis that it would dissuade others, where in the different (and many unmentioned) examples above it would not?
Or would you similarly defend life sentences for all of the above, on the same basis?
People get punished to scare other offenders all the time. The only reason this is in the limelight is because it has to do with child porn. IMO this is more deserving of the punishment than others who have been punished just as heavily for lesser crimes.
Don't pretend your sense of justice and law enforcement is more developed than the judges and cops themselves. It's easy to sit behind a screen and blab about all these "unjust" punishments but you're not the one getting molested and fucked by people 30 years older than you while the videos/pictures get spread among sick perverts like the guy on trial here.
Those who are saying 'HE DESERVES IT' are overly emotional. No, looking at images is not the same as committing the act depicted. You can argue whatever arbitrary morals you want, but they are not the same. One is actively hurting a child, another is not. There's no comparison, and in fact by making that comparison you're letting off the REAL sickos who actually DO abuse and molest children.
A life sentence for possession is simply astounding. I don't see how it isn't cruel/unusual punishment. The fact that so many people support out of their disgust for the crime without giving rational thought to the implications is what's really frightening.
The fact that so many people support out of their disgust for the crime without giving rational thought to the implications is what's really frightening.
this
the fact that soooo many people are just like "fuck him he deserves worse, the fucking pedo isn't even human" scares the shit out of me.....
On November 06 2011 22:01 Gnax wrote: Why are people so upset about a pedo getting a harsh sentence?
Newsflash, they are not people, and therefore not worthy of justice.
Newsflash, they are. Also, not worthy of justice? Surely everyone is worthy of justice, just depending on the crime that justice may be extremely harsh. In this example, the actual harm caused by his actions is incredibly minor at most (given that the biggest contribution he made to the industry is downloading, which... isn't contributing at all). He should get almost zero punishment, not a life sentence in prison.
If all the info is true (He wasn't involved in the distribution/making, he simply found the material, downloaded it and, well, fapped to it), this is extremely disturbing. Furthermore, he didn't even have any previous offenses. He has a mental illness and he should be punished to some degree.
But locking a person up for the rest of his life when he didn't present any threat to society whatsoever is beyond retarded. Looks like yet another scapegoat..
The fact that so many people support out of their disgust for the crime without giving rational thought to the implications is what's really frightening.
this
the fact that soooo many people are just like "fuck him he deserves worse, the fucking pedo isn't even human" scares the shit out of me.....
Yep, there are so many retards out there it's scary. The fact that some of those retards actually have a lot of power in society, like this judge, is even scarier.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
On November 06 2011 22:01 Gnax wrote: Why are people so upset about a pedo getting a harsh sentence?
Newsflash, they are not people, and therefore not worthy of justice.
This thread is getting worse than the Brevik thread with the kneejerk illogical non-thought through responses making it seem like we're living in the 1400s. People making responses like this makes me lose faith in humanity more than pedos.
So you're saying a world without pedos living in the same society as young children would be bad for some reason? and in the 1400s the view on these types of things were leaning heavily towards the other way, so that comment makes no sense.
I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Congratulations, might be the dumbest post in the thread so far.
My view of this is pretty simple. He is basically getting a life sentence for a thought crime. And I think we can all agree that thought crimes are a fascist notion. And fascism is bad. Amirite?
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
As for thinking that the fetish itself is harmful... would depend on the person. There is very little to suggest that child porn acts as a gateway to child molestation. Certainly some do act upon their desires, but that is what should be punished, the act. Not thought crime. Being homicidal isn't a crime, murder is.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Congratulations, might be the dumbest post in the thread so far.
Ehh he's completely right. We're by our very nature destructive and terrible creatures. Killing is part of survival as sad as that is. Rape is not.
On November 06 2011 22:34 Osmoses wrote: My view of this is pretty simple. He is basically getting a life sentence for a thought crime. And I think we can all agree that thought crimes are a fascist notion. And fascism is bad. Amirite?
He didn't just think he looked. He didn't just look he downloaded. There was no thought crime bullshit going on your point is invalid.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Congratulations, might be the dumbest post in the thread so far.
Ehh he's completely right. We're by our very nature destructive and terrible creatures. Killing is part of survival as sad as that is. Rape is not.
On November 06 2011 22:34 Osmoses wrote: My view of this is pretty simple. He is basically getting a life sentence for a thought crime. And I think we can all agree that thought crimes are a fascist notion. And fascism is bad. Amirite?
He didn't just think he looked. He didn't just look he downloaded. There was no thought crime bullshit going on your point is invalid.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Congratulations, might be the dumbest post in the thread so far.
Ehh he's completely right. We're by our very nature destructive and terrible creatures. Killing is part of survival as sad as that is. Rape is not.
On November 06 2011 22:34 Osmoses wrote: My view of this is pretty simple. He is basically getting a life sentence for a thought crime. And I think we can all agree that thought crimes are a fascist notion. And fascism is bad. Amirite?
He didn't just think he looked. He didn't just look he downloaded. There was no thought crime bullshit going on your point is invalid.
Rape is very much apart of our history. Sadly, even child rape since what we consider children now isn't even close to what is was in the past. You could definitely call is part of our survival as the strongest man was able to pass on his genes.
EDIT NO FUCK THIS I JUST FELL IN THE GENERAL FORUM TRAP OF ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING ONLY MILDLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT.
This punishment is disproportionately severe compared to the crime and will be overturned in appeal. I am confident of this. It goes without saying that I agree on harsher punishments for rape and child porn but this goes well beyond harsher and into the realm of ridiculous.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
This is not a case about someone who sexually abused children, but rather a case about someone who possessed child pornography created by other people over a file sharing network. Do you honestly think this man is worse than a drunk driver, a rapist, or someone who engages in domestic violence? Since you brought up the "harmless" furry fetish, there are many stories on furry websites that describe child pornography and incest but refer to children as "cubs." Are people who write stories describing child pornography just as guilty as those who produce real child pornography? People are going to fantasize regardless of whether or not actual child pornography exists. The act of indulging in that fantasy by molesting a child is the real crime, not the act of fantasizing.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
I dont see why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry that make a living by sexualy abusing small children. It is by far the most disgusting and perverted thing a person can do if you ask me. I also dont see how the fact that its his first crimminal offence should factor into this. Its more like that its just the first time he got caught. This sentence is obviously a statement and the high sentence is meant to scare the pedos. Like that woman that got fined 1.5 millon for share 100 songs. Anyway, If they are going to lock the guy up until he dies they might aswell put him down right then and there. Whats the point of locking him up just to wait for him to die?
if you dont see "why this guy should get off easier than a murderer for supporting an industry..." you are actually not qualified to say anything. and your last paragraph...JEZ, yours views are totally twisted.
He was "only" looking at it! Not producing it! Not directly hurting anyway! Supporting the industry indirectly: in a way. But hell, this is no reason for giving a freakin life sentence. This is madness. And yes, it is possible that he didnt even know these pictures were on his computer.
I have a conspiracy theory that most of these media publications are not real. They serve as a warning for future cases. It is an attempt to terrorize the population as to not behave a certain way. You are meant to go just like "shit, shit, I am never getting anywhere near child pornography because I risk a life sentence from our disproportional justice system".
Though, this theory can be easily argued. I mean, why would they make such controversial news that raises so many questions, such as: Did he get this sentence because of his Latino origins? Is the justice system fair? Etc...
Who knows, though? o_O Maybe it just sucks, really. Though I totally disagree with child pornography, it was indisputably wrong to sentence a guy to life prison from merely possessing these pictures. Sounds like a decision you'd have from an authoritarian, rather than democratic, state.
This sentence is ridiculous, that man did not harm anybody and could probably more or less easily helped and rehabilitated, without ever doing harm to a child in his life. Instead he gets sentenced to life in prison, if he ever gets out he will probably kill or rape someone, and then die.
The sentence will probably be turned down by a highter instance, everything else would be ridiculous.
PS: It goes without saying that I am highly disgusted by child pornography aswell, but that does not mean that people who watch it lose their human rights.
On November 06 2011 22:43 Probe1 wrote: Carush please elaborate on why rape is not more cruel than murder instead of just throwing out some pithy response. General forum usually is not a place I like to inhabit for reasons completely explained by your post.
Edit: You said "our" history. I was referring to a more broad outlook on all species. A moose doesn't rape other meese.
Dolphins gang rape other dolphins, and they're, I think, the third most intelligent species on the planet.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
On November 06 2011 22:43 Probe1 wrote: EDIT NO FUCK THIS I JUST FELL IN THE GENERAL FORUM TRAP OF ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING ONLY MILDLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT.
This punishment is disproportionately severe compared to the crime and will be overturned in appeal. I am confident of this. It goes without saying that I agree on harsher punishments for rape and child porn but this goes well beyond harsher and into the realm of ridiculous.
I'm done with this. Dolphins do not rape new born dolphins.
On November 06 2011 22:43 Probe1 wrote: EDIT NO FUCK THIS I JUST FELL IN THE GENERAL FORUM TRAP OF ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING ONLY MILDLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT.
This punishment is disproportionately severe compared to the crime and will be overturned in appeal. I am confident of this. It goes without saying that I agree on harsher punishments for rape and child porn but this goes well beyond harsher and into the realm of ridiculous.
I'm done with this. Dolphins do not rape new born dolphins.
Didn't say they do. I'm in no way advocating rape, just pointed out a species that does rape. Relatedly, looking at pictures of rape =/= rape.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
@2. How do you know people dont enjoy watching murders? And what has that got to do with anything? You have no idea why this guys was downloading CP.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
@2. How do you know people dont enjoy watching murders? And what has that got to do with anything? You have no idea why this guys was downloading CP.
Yes I do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people download CP.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
Wait... you think raping a child, is worse than murdering a child?
On November 06 2011 22:43 Probe1 wrote: EDIT NO FUCK THIS I JUST FELL IN THE GENERAL FORUM TRAP OF ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING ONLY MILDLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT.
This punishment is disproportionately severe compared to the crime and will be overturned in appeal. I am confident of this. It goes without saying that I agree on harsher punishments for rape and child porn but this goes well beyond harsher and into the realm of ridiculous.
I'm done with this. Dolphins do not rape new born dolphins.
if you're done with this, then be done with this. quit adding in new things that are probably wrong. forced copulation is indeed observed between other animals as well as infanticide and cannibalism of the young and old. i will be fair. i don't know if there are child molester dolphins.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
@2. How do you know people dont enjoy watching murders? And what has that got to do with anything? You have no idea why this guys was downloading CP.
Yes I do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people download CP.
Im sure alot of pedophiles justify them watching CP the same way you do with watching murders though....
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
Sex, and sex-based crimes have always received a disproportionate amount of punishment and scorn from society.
You can view videos of a child getting killed online, without being arrested. But, if you view a video of a child being raped, you end up like this guy.
There are plenty of cases available for study where a rapist receives a worse sentence than a murderer.
I believe it has to do with western culture and its views on sex in comparison to its views on violence. Again, you can see videos of people getting killed, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, on television and in theaters. But, you will never see a full-frontal sex scene where you can see the penis or vagina clearly.
EDIT: The people who posted before me are perfect examples of how warped society's view on sex and sex crimes are.
Someone actually thinks this guy should be executed for possession for looking at kids naked online.
wise words
The urge to kill is an important human instinct. We wouldn't exist whithout it. Whereas fucking a child is not so much needed.
Congratulations, might be the dumbest post in the thread so far.
Ehh he's completely right. We're by our very nature destructive and terrible creatures. Killing is part of survival as sad as that is. Rape is not.
I think he's completely wrong. The instinct to kill is to murder as the instinct to have sex is to rape. He's creating a false dichotomy.
Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
If the main reason to lock people up was the harm caused, then it would make more sense to remove prisons and give everyone fines. The main reason why people are locked up is because they are a danger to the society. And to me someone watching CP is potential future child molester/raper AKA danger to society.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
If the main reason to lock people up was the harm caused, then it would make more sense to remove prisons and give everyone fines. The main reason why people are locked up is because they are a danger to the society. And to me someone watching CP is potential future child molester/raper AKA danger to society.
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
yes, i agree with this post, mostly. saying someone would rather be dead after being abused is stupid. no one knows what a victim of abuse really thinks except for the victim and, of all things, trying to guess that they would rather die (in light of all of the other options involving living - like maybe forgetting what happened or moving on) seems very dark.
If it's proven he supported child porn by distributing it further or paying for it the sentence is fine for me. It's hard alright, but when i compare it to the sentences these monsters get over here...
In Leverkusen, Germany a Teacher got sentenced to 2 and a half years in jail, because he molested 62 children. That's the same sentence a dealer in Hamburg, Germany got for selling 100g of hash...
I can understand many pedophiles need help, but if they cross the line, actively taking part in crimes like that, they have to be removed from society. The life of the children is most certainly destroyed. Some can "deal" with it but most of them can't.
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
I said they would rather be killed before it happened. Not necessarily after.
You say you're fed up with people who make claims about something they have no clue. You just made a claim a bout something you have no clue about yourself. Someone very close to me was raped as a child and many times attempted suicide. Her whole life has been shit because of one person made those sick fantasies real. So yeah, I have a pretty good clue about what I'm talking about.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
If the main reason to lock people up was the harm caused, then it would make more sense to remove prisons and give everyone fines. The main reason why people are locked up is because they are a danger to the society. And to me someone watching CP is potential future child molester/raper AKA danger to society.
people are innocent until proven guilty for what they are charged, and the punishment is meant for that crime(s) alone. it doesn't really matter what it is to you personally.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
If the main reason to lock people up was the harm caused, then it would make more sense to remove prisons and give everyone fines. The main reason why people are locked up is because they are a danger to the society. And to me someone watching CP is potential future child molester/raper AKA danger to society.
Why stop at that? Why not lock up people for live, who watch murder video's? or rape video's? or those who have a lolicon collection? Or those who have cybersex on the internet while pretending to be little girls? Or how about the government watches them 24/7? makes perfect sense.
So one is ill, but he still managed to don't harm children directly because he uses his pictures to satisfy his desires. Then he goes in jail for life? He's ill and has not commited direct harmed.
you must have a twisted mind yourself to even consider this to be injust, anyone who could do that doesnt warrant a place on this earth, torture him to death the wanker
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
I said they would rather be killed before it happened. Not necessarily after.
You say you're fed up with people who make claims about something they have no clue. You just made a claim a bout something you have no clue about yourself. Someone very close to me was raped as a child and many times attempted suicide. Her whole life has been shit because of one person made does sick fantasies real. So yeah, I have a pretty good clue about what I'm talking about.
1 person's life is not another's. you can't say the person you know lives or thinks the same way other victims do, and choosing death over life is something that should be considered very personal and off-limits to someone else's assumptions.
it's just really weird that you say they would rather be killed before it happens too.
On November 06 2011 22:26 ayaz2810 wrote: I'm more terrified that people in this thread are referring to liking child port like it's a harmless furry fetish. The exploitation of children for pornography or sexual pleasure in general is pretty much the worst thing someone can do short of killing another human being. In some cases, it could probably be considered worse. It amounts to psychological torture during the abuse, and for years after. I obviously can't speak for any other cultures or countries, but I think a zero tolerance approach here is a pretty good one.
Granted, I understand that the American justice system is fucked up. The prisons are overcrowded, and there are some ridiculous "crimes" out there, but being involved in CP in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable. Maybe I'm just biased because I have a 7 year old and a 5 year old daughter. Regardless, sterilize him and lock him up.
Firstly, in this particular case, he contributed to the actual bad thing a negligible amount. No one is saying that sexually abusing children is alright.
The punishment should fit the harm caused by the crime. How much harm is caused by this crime? Pretty much none. He saw pictures. That's it. Since you've mentioned killing a human being... how many people have seen pictures of murdered people? Essentially everyone. How many people have seen videos of someone being murdered? A lot of people. These are seen as relatively normal, and no one accuses you of contributing to the murder. Yet seeing a video or even pictures of a lesser (not trivializing it, but it is not as bad as murder) crime taking part is somehow so much worse? It isn't.
Compairing CP to videos/pictures of murders is beyond retarded. Do you people who do this even believe in that argument yourselves?
1. Child rape is arguably a worse crime than murder. Some people who were raped as children would probably rather get killed before it happened. That's how damaged they are after it.
2. Even if you say murder is worse, comparing someone watching someone get murder and someone beating off to CP is two completely different things. And very few people actually enjoy watching someone get murdered. But they still do it because it's one of those things you think is horrible but can't stop watching. While someone watching CP is liking it. Completely different things.
1. Not particularly relevant. I'm extremely against child rape, the perpetrators should be punished very severely for that, as should the perpetrators of murder. Murder still deserves a harsher sentence though, even if only for strictly practical purposes. If the harshest sentence possible is given for rape, then the person has nothing to lose and a much higher possibility of getting away with it if they kill them as well.
2. I'm not really saying that the motivations for people watching a murder and someone watching child porn are the same, but the important thing is not the motivation, but the act done and the harm caused by it. In both cases, the harm caused is... ~none.
If the main reason to lock people up was the harm caused, then it would make more sense to remove prisons and give everyone fines. The main reason why people are locked up is because they are a danger to the society. And to me someone watching CP is potential future child molester/raper AKA danger to society.
people are innocent until proven guilty for what they are charged, and the punishment is meant for that crime(s) alone. it doesn't really matter what it is to you personally.
You're right about that. That doesn't stop me however from having no problem with him being locked up. And that's why I'm stating my opinions on a forum and not the streets with protest signs or go to government meetings.
On November 06 2011 23:24 Connor987 wrote: you must have a twisted mind yourself to even consider this to be injust, anyone who could do that doesnt warrant a place on this earth, torture him to death the wanker
So because he has a mental illness he deserves to be tortured? and you call us twisted?
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
Difference is, you haven't shown signs of doing it. Nobody, nobody looks at porn and thinks, I'm happy with this, I never want to have sex with woman/men like that, I will stay on porn forever!
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
So i guess you know what you're talking about? You're some kind of expert in psychology? Did you study how traumatic events in your childhood can reflect on your later life? You make me sick.
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
I said they would rather be killed before it happened. Not necessarily after.
You say you're fed up with people who make claims about something they have no clue. You just made a claim a bout something you have no clue about yourself. Someone very close to me was raped as a child and many times attempted suicide. Her whole life has been shit because of one person made does sick fantasies real. So yeah, I have a pretty good clue about what I'm talking about.
1 person's life is not another's. you can't say the person you know lives or thinks the same way other victims do, and choosing death over life is something that should be considered very personal and off-limits to someone else's assumptions.
it's just really weird that you say they would rather be killed before it happens too.
That's why I used the words "some" and "probably". I know it's 1/1 persons feelings. And my brain tells me, it's likely someone elses feelings aswell. That's how brains work.
Let's say someone gets raped at 10 and goes through hell until she's 20. And then is given the option to either end it peacefully or go through the same thing again. Do you really think it would be weird to choose the former?
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
Difference is, you haven't shown signs of doing it. Nobody, nobody looks at porn and thinks, I'm happy with this, I never want to have sex with woman/men like that, I will stay on porn forever!
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
Difference is, you haven't shown signs of doing it. Nobody, nobody looks at porn and thinks, I'm happy with this, I never want to have sex with woman/men like that, I will stay on porn forever!
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
Difference is, you haven't shown signs of doing it. Nobody, nobody looks at porn and thinks, I'm happy with this, I never want to have sex with woman/men like that, I will stay on porn forever!
Why would you play a game you don't want to experience in real life?
That's why it's called fantasy. People do fantasize about weird shit all the time, and they also realize that they can't act out those fantasies. Hell, most guys would love to have sex with a 16 year old virgin, but they don't go out acting on it.
Now, the problem I see is the child porn production. Children getting hurt is the problem that lawmakers think they're combating by outlawing the product. The general population just likes that a pedo is going to jail. And in the end they just ruin somebodies life so that they feel better about something they're not making any better.
Life in prison for child porn is outrageous. Rapists who cause serious bodily injury get 5-8 years max, most of them get out in half that time. Rapists who don't cause serious bodily injury get 2-5 years, and again most get out in half that time.
I think rapists should get a much higher sentence than that, but I think any rational person can agree that a guy looking at child porn (but never touching a child or even communicating with a child) doesn't deserve a life term, and probably should get months of jail time rather years.
On November 06 2011 23:26 Gigglesstarcraft wrote: Just shows no restraint if you ask me, who says he won't get 'tempted'. 90% of these comments most likely say "good" and you know what, I agree.
Who says I won't get tempted to kill you? It's one the main arguments people use against games like Grand Theft Auto.
Difference is, you haven't shown signs of doing it. Nobody, nobody looks at porn and thinks, I'm happy with this, I never want to have sex with woman/men like that, I will stay on porn forever!
so you're saying that you have sex with your bf/gf exactly the same way you see it in a porn movie? im positive 99% of people dont do the stuff you see in porn. Why? because fantasy and actually doing something are very far apart.
On November 06 2011 23:42 KingAce wrote: Someone needs to protect children. Child porn not okay, hell if he got the death penalty I would care. We have to draw a line as a society.
But this isn't the way to do it. Just because he looked at child porn doesn't mean he's going to actually molest children. That's like saying everyone who plays first person shooter video games will actually shoot and kill people.
If you want to protect children, give people who actually molested children a much tougher sentence than what they get now. As my previous post said some child rapists get as little as a 2 year term and most of them get out in half that time.
On November 06 2011 23:06 Mecker wrote: Claiming that rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
Besides, how many people have you actually met who were molested as a child? Might be that they think life is fucking awesome and are happy that they're alive. Seriously fed up with insensitive, irrational, posters who dare to make these claims about something they have no clue.
I said they would rather be killed before it happened. Not necessarily after.
You say you're fed up with people who make claims about something they have no clue. You just made a claim a bout something you have no clue about yourself. Someone very close to me was raped as a child and many times attempted suicide. Her whole life has been shit because of one person made does sick fantasies real. So yeah, I have a pretty good clue about what I'm talking about.
1 person's life is not another's. you can't say the person you know lives or thinks the same way other victims do, and choosing death over life is something that should be considered very personal and off-limits to someone else's assumptions.
it's just really weird that you say they would rather be killed before it happens too.
That's why I used the words "some" and "probably". I know it's 1/1 persons feelings. And my brain tells me, it's likely someone elses feelings aswell. That's how brains work.
Let's say someone gets raped at 10 and goes through hell until she's 20. And then is given the option to either end it peacefully or go through the same thing again. Do you really think it would be weird to choose the former?
that's actually not how brains work, unless you mean we have a way of placing our thoughts into the heads of others and thinking we are right in doing so. it is quite natural to assume what others are thinking, probably or some or whatever. i don't think it's a big deal until we get to serious subjects like suicide, life sentences, etc.
i'm not going to go through rape-themed hypotheticals involving the victim being given a choice between living a repeat, mirrored existence or dying. if you can't see why i think that's weird (and i'll add that it's pointless to me) then i'll just let it go.
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder. If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
No life sentence worthy offense.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote:Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder.
So it's perfectly okay to give a life sentence to people with a mental disorder instead of helping them? I hear a lot of talk of Scandinavian prison systems being about rehabilitation, not keeping people in for-profit prison systems forever.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder. If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
Then why does downloading music/movies hurt the movie/music industry?
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder. If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
If they didn't pay for it, they really didn't support anything at all. Plus, you can't assume that they are gonna commit a completely separate crime like molestation and charge them more harshly for that. That is simply nonsensical, disgusting, and unjust. You don't know what they will do. Also, indirectly harming someone in this manner is not grounds for anything even CLOSE to a life sentence. I'm sure you and every person in this thread has purchased something that was made by a child laborer at one point or another, by your logic we are awful people and we support child labor.
Also let me say this again, second hand smoke kills 3,000 people every year. Does that make every smoker who supports the smoking industry a murderer, or at least partially responsible?
If you have a problem with a group of cells in a certain area of your body do you solve the problem by basicly taking the right to live away from one of these cells, hoping it will cause other to stop having and feeding the problem ?
That is yet another injustice and the real problem is that the system of justice itself commits terrible injustice. It all comes back around and the group of cells will continue to have the problem because system of justice does not bring justice, it fuels injustice - just as this one cell of a problematic group of cells has a problem and fuels the problem.
If you would want to go around it the way of vengance, you would need to now take one guy from the system of justice and sentence him for life for fueling the problem of the system of justice commiting terrible injustice.
Would that be justice ? No and that's the point. This sentence is fucking silly and simply represents the dysfunction of our society - at least relative to the presented side of the issue.
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?
I agree with this guy, sure its wrong and gross but its not murder. and if you look at celebs they don't even go to fucking jail because they are famous which is bullshit. he should be fined and sent to jail but not for life. as morgan freeman said, "When they send you in for life, that's exactly what they take, a life."
The sentence is too harsh and it appears they are trying to make an example of this guy. He should get maybe half the time child molesters get.
Edit: also there's really no way to prove he downloaded the pictures himself or looked at them for that matter, unless he had them set as his desktop or something. Like Jonoman92 said, someone could be setting him up. Especially suspicious of this situation because of the length of the sentence.
Edit2: I'm passwording my computer that only I have access to and only I use. Just so some scumbag can't set me up with anything like this ever. Not that it will ever happen but it's better to be safe and save the REST OF MY LIFETIME by passwording my computer.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder. If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
Then why does downloading music/movies hurt the movie/music industry?
Because the argument is just self serving biased bullshit. People apply it when it when it confirms their standpoint. If childporn was legal I'm sure the producers of that shit would claim people sharing their stuff for free is hurting their industry. In this hypothetical situation proponents against CP would applaud people downloading it for free.
The only way I can see that downloading this stuff for free would be harmful (to society, not the cp industry) is that it can enforce the thought that the acts depicted are normal/acceptable
This is pretty crazy, most murderers don't get such a severe sentence and rapists get considerably less. Surely violent crimes should be more severely punished than downloading some sick child porn?
On November 07 2011 00:05 bonifaceviii wrote: People who rape children hardly ever get life sentences, much less dudes who just look at it. Who did this guy piss off?
Edit: yes, yes, child porn is bad but damn that dude had an enemy somewhere...
Child rapists never get life sentences, they usually get 2 years for their first offense and with good behavior they can get out in 1 year.
On November 07 2011 00:19 hp.Shell wrote: The sentence is too harsh and it appears they are trying to make an example of this guy. He should get maybe half the time child molesters get.
Edit: also there's really no way to prove he downloaded the pictures himself or looked at them for that matter, unless he had them set as his desktop or something. Like Jonoman92 said, someone could be setting him up. Especially suspicious of this situation because of the length of the sentence.
Edit2: I'm passwording my computer that only I have access to and only I use. Just so some scumbag can't set me up with anything like this ever. Not that it will ever happen but it's better to be safe and save the REST OF MY LIFETIME by passwording my computer.
Well someone could set up anyone for any crime, not just this one. And there is never really any way to prove that someone did commit a crime, just comes down to "reasonable doubt" or whatever.
Btw if anyone wanted to set you up passwording your computer isnt gonna stop them.
Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
In my opinion this is way harsh, if someone rapes a child, like a real child and real rape, not getting tricked by a 17 year old hooker, they deserve a good solid 10-20 year sentence or life for all i care, because that is some messed up stuff, but for merely having pictures on his computer this seems an absurd punishment, if you must give him jail time give him a year or 2 to rethink his life. As mentioned earlier child molesters get a lighter sentence. As to all the people who say good riddance to bad rubbish I think you are not being objective about this and don't realize the implications of setting such a precedent. Edit. to previous poster: don't compare homosexuals with pedophiles, i realize you are just trying to be open minded but it comes off as really insulting to gay people there is nothing wrong with being gay, there is something wrong with being sexual attracted to children, they should not as you say be put in the same boat either accepting or shunning both of them, I am not gay but i have no problem with the idea and i don't think there is anything sick or wrong with gay people, i do however think that if someone is genuinely attracted to young children there is something wrong with them, they are sick mentally, not to say that this guy deserves what he got, but its not the same as being gay at all and its really insulting to say so. Im sorry if I seem to be bashing you but because you seem intelligent but that is not a good comparison.
On November 07 2011 00:19 hp.Shell wrote: The sentence is too harsh and it appears they are trying to make an example of this guy. He should get maybe half the time child molesters get.
Edit: also there's really no way to prove he downloaded the pictures himself or looked at them for that matter, unless he had them set as his desktop or something. Like Jonoman92 said, someone could be setting him up. Especially suspicious of this situation because of the length of the sentence.
Edit2: I'm passwording my computer that only I have access to and only I use. Just so some scumbag can't set me up with anything like this ever. Not that it will ever happen but it's better to be safe and save the REST OF MY LIFETIME by passwording my computer.
Alternatively you could go live in a civilized country.
It's already been said that he would have been better off raping a child, than looking at pictures on the internet. Even people who are committing first degree murder are often getting more lenient punishments (25 to life/life with parol) than this guy (life without parol). How people can defend the sentence after knowing that, is beyond my comprehension.
Downloading pictures from 4chan/kazaa is not the same as hitting someone in the face with an axe.
I've always been perplexed by society's views towards child molesters. It's been shown time and again that people who molest children were almost certainly molested themselves when they were kids. The impulse to then molest a person is not based on a sexual urge necessarily, but as a response to wanting to feel control and power as a result of their earlier helplessness. At some point in time a child who was molested goes from "victim" to "disgusting freak" if they feel this impulse, and I feel that's a huge logical disconnect. If somebody has a problem the focus should be on helping them. Of course this behavior can in no way be tolerated and the safety of innocents should be held paramount, but attaching labels like "freak" and stating that "they deserve to be executed" isn't going to deter people. It's just going to marginalize them and lower the chances that they'll approach the support groups that they would need to prevent them from becoming offenders. Now I know some "holier-than-thou" people will scoff and continue to want to simply state that they're scum, the interest should be doing whatever it is that would prevent these crimes from occuring, not making the people who didn't commit them feel better about themselves.
This guy isn't supporting any industry. He's downloading for free, so he's not creating a market. Further more creating a "demand" doesn't really do anything since this is about as profitable as having your stuff pirated. You see software companies scrambling to output software because there are lots of people pirating their stuff? If anything's weird, it's the idea that people would be sharing this stuff. There's absolutely nothing in it for them. Is there a porn sharing fetish?
So i guess you know what you're talking about? You're some kind of expert in psychology? Did you study how traumatic events in your childhood can reflect on your later life? You make me sick.
Lets ask the dead.. sure they will give you an answer. Saying that rape is worse than dead is stupid, are you going to give a low prison time to a rapist because he killed the person? That he show mercy?
That is almost the something to say that abort is better for the child than foster-home, its so stupid.
On November 06 2011 23:54 IMStyle wrote: ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Although it seems harsh... This would make others think twice before actually downloading child porn again. They might not have violated any children directly, but indirectly they have, by supporting the child porn community.
Enjoying child porn is far from a fetish...it is sick and most likely a mental disorder. If given the opportunity, these people will actually commit the crime of molesting or raping a child, that time just Havnt arrive for him yet.
Bolded is so much bullshit it hurts.
There are plenty of people who fantasize about stuff without ever going through with it.
So i guess you know what you're talking about? You're some kind of expert in psychology? Did you study how traumatic events in your childhood can reflect on your later life? You make me sick.
Lets ask the dead.. sure they will give you an answer. Saying that rape is worse than dead is stupid, are you going to give a low prison time to a rapist because he killed the person? That he show mercy?
That is almost the something to say that abort is better for the child than foster-home, its so stupid.
Agreed. Rape is traumatic but for most people it's better than being killed.
On November 07 2011 00:36 ddrddrddrddr wrote: This guy isn't supporting any industry. He's downloading for free, so he's not creating a market. Further more creating a "demand" doesn't really do anything since this is about as profitable as having your stuff pirated. You see software companies scrambling to output software because there are lots of people pirating their stuff? If anything's weird, it's the idea that people would be sharing this stuff. There's absolutely nothing in it for them. Is there a porn sharing fetish?
About as much as there is a music sharing fetish. It is just a way to get access to more of the product. I've been thinking about the argument you bring up the last few days as it has passed through some of the threads here. Thing is, we are comparing apples and oranges. Since CP is illegal the dynamics of the market for it is very different. Therefore you can't apply the reasoning in the same way. Consider the music industry if music was illegal: In that case it is completely feasible to assume that little communities where people share music would be promoting music in general. In an industry that is widespread, like the music industry in RL, there is some merit to the thought that sharing music is harmful to the development of new material. When it is not widespread, these sharing communities help make it widespread so in that case it would not be harmful.
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
DRUG USERS DO NOT GO TO JAIL!!! We try to help them in whatever way they can. These people probably can't help what they like, and we're condemning them instead of rehabilitating them back into society. Are you people serious?
On November 06 2011 14:20 Piggiez wrote: Sure, he hasn't harmed any children directly, but he's still contributing to the problem. How do you think the children being video taped / photographed feel when they're uncle, brother, father, whomever is violating them? It's like drug trafficking in some regard, being that you may just be on your basement couch snorting a line of coke of a coffee table - but somewhere in Columbia blood is being shed for the sake of your high.
edit: That being said, I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Anyone convicted of a sex related crime will get exactly what they deserve during their sentence. Prisoners have a pretty good way of imposing their own punishments on pedophiles, so I figure that should be sufficient.
DRUG USERS DO NOT GO TO JAIL!!! We try to help them in whatever way they can. These people probably can't help what they like, and we're condemning them instead of rehabilitating them back into society. Are you people serious?
Also unlike drug users who have to pay for their drugs and therefore directly supporting the illegal drug industry, this guy simply downloaded it for free (although he denies doing so, there's a chance he's been set up) therefore not directly supporting the child porn industry.
Also another point I haven't seen anyone mention on the recent pages of this thread is the fact that a life term will cost taxpayers a ton of money, plus with the overcrowded jails his term will cause a murderer or someone worse to go free sooner so that they came free up room.
Alright, this is getting ridiculous; I'm looking at the past 15+ pages and I see the 1 line posts of things substantiating to "This guy deserves what was coming to him, he should be executed", and I am disgusted. There is absolutely NO reason to give this man a life sentence in jail for what he has done.
Is he GUILTY of downloading collections of pornographic images of children? Almost certainly. From what I can tell from the article, there is substantial proof that he willingly downloaded these images and videos. There should be no further question of that. However, we CANNOT say anything more about his motives. We do not know HOW he used those images, whether he used them for sexual pleasure or for any other reason, we cannot say.
I should also stress that there is NO proof, whatsoever, that he participated in, distributed, produced, or in any other way (besides viewing) took part in the pornographic images on his computer. He is guilty of nothing more than downloading and viewing these images.
Now, as a second point of contention, I will demonstrate how inappropriate it is for our legal system to sentence this man to a lifetime sentence without the possibility of parole.
In almost no circumstances is it reasonable (not an opinion, it's actually the precedent in law) for a rapist (if it is the only crime he has committed) to being sentenced to the punishment deserving to a convicted murdered.
Why? Simply because they (the government) has deemed it BETTER for the raped person to live than to die. It is a necessary precaution to 'stack' the punishments in this way, to ENCOURAGE the person who is committing the crime to NOT kill their victim, even if they have already committed some crime. So that they do not commit a greater crime.
In some ways, you can think of it like the slippery slope argument, or, at least, the antithesis of it. This precedence is intended to counteract the slippery slope that the criminal/potential worse criminal would take to prevent the first crime from being discovered. [I'm not sure if I am getting my point across in this paragraph, if someone else could explain it better than I, please do so].
Anyways, the point is, the man should NOT be sentenced to such an egregious sentence.
Forget your knee-jerk reactions where you INSTANTLY say "Oh god! That's terrible! Burn the child-pornography viewer!", think about how much ACTUAL harm he is doing.
When you think about it, it really isn't much. If those children were at all harmed in the making of these images (it's possible that they were; we don't know; we can't prove it) then they were harmed, and that sucks, no one condones the people who did that; but you cannot say that this man did any of those things. Because he didn't. He didn't harm those children in any way other than the negligible pain of the POTENTIAL for those children to be harmed in thought on only the most remote and immaterial way.
There is no tangible evidence that this man harmed those children any more than they had already been harmed.
This man deserves a sentence. In fact, a very lofty sentence; give him 5+ years if you have to.
But to sentence this man to life in jail for downloading a picture? That is far too out of proportion for the crime he has committed.
Let the crime fit the punishment, don't give this man an incredible sentence for what, in reality, is a fairly minor crime (though still deserving of many years in jail).
[Forgive me if the discussion has moved on since I began writing this: I started when the last post was on page 30]
On November 07 2011 00:36 ddrddrddrddr wrote: This guy isn't supporting any industry. He's downloading for free, so he's not creating a market. Further more creating a "demand" doesn't really do anything since this is about as profitable as having your stuff pirated. You see software companies scrambling to output software because there are lots of people pirating their stuff? If anything's weird, it's the idea that people would be sharing this stuff. There's absolutely nothing in it for them. Is there a porn sharing fetish?
About as much as there is a music sharing fetish. It is just a way to get access to more of the product. I've been thinking about the argument you bring up the last few days as it has passed through some of the threads here. Thing is, we are comparing apples and oranges. Since CP is illegal the dynamics of the market for it is very different. Therefore you can't apply the reasoning in the same way. Consider the music industry if music was illegal: In that case it is completely feasible to assume that little communities where people share music would be promoting music in general. In an industry that is widespread, like the music industry in RL, there is some merit to the thought that sharing music is harmful to the development of new material. When it is not widespread, these sharing communities help make it widespread so in that case it would not be harmful.
Well maybe of they're trading, sure. If the music industry industry is illegal, you might protest by sharing music illegally to show people how music is good and to promote the production of music. It would be done with a willingness to self sacrifice. This would mean that pedophiles are molesting children and/or taking images with the belief that it is a good thing to do and for others to do and they''re standing up for what's right. I can hardly imagine anyone advocating for such things. If someone has a fetish, they'll want a way to fulfill that craving, but it's hard to believe that it would be seen as anything more than an involuntary desire.
Well, I think sometimes laws are passed to punish, and sometimes laws are passed to deter.
I think the sentence for possession of child porn was clearly deterrent in character. It was never meant to be commensurate to the crime. It was meant to scare people into never doing that crime. In this case, it didn't work.
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
I think the production of child porn supports a life sentence, but not the possession of.
And anyways, considering how little this guy actually had to do with the creation of the pornography or the support of the creators, he should get a sentence akin to someone buying illegal drugs.
To Dknight's post: By that logic, being homosexual is also biologically pathological because partners of the same sex are not reproductively viable. Yet homosexuality is becoming widely more accepted (well not in some places). Should gay people be considered mentally ill and be imprisoned?
About the article, I do believe the sentence is excessive. If they want to make sure he doesn't commit any "heinous" crimes (quoted because of society's obsession with punishing sexual crimes over violent ones), they should give him a few years in jail and put him on the Sexual Offenders list. I do not believe life in prison is a fair punishment. Child molesters and rapists are not treated very well in prison, and that guy can't really be considered either because he hasn't done anything yet.
So i guess you know what you're talking about? You're some kind of expert in psychology? Did you study how traumatic events in your childhood can reflect on your later life? You make me sick.
Lets ask the dead.. sure they will give you an answer. Saying that rape is worse than dead is stupid, are you going to give a low prison time to a rapist because he killed the person? That he show mercy?
That is almost the something to say that abort is better for the child than foster-home, its so stupid.
I never said rape is worse than beeing killed in general. Every person is different. Some can deal with it. Some can't.
But on the one hand making a strong claim like
rape is worse than murder is nothing but irrational. Saying that people who were molested as children would rather be dead is complete nonsense and you all know it - if they wanted to be dead they would be dead. They might claim that they want to be dead but then they're just lying.
and on the other hand calling people who got a different opinion
One thing I hate about stuff like this, is the fact that people think all pedophiles rape childeren. Most of them will never admit to being attracted to them(outside of the internet), simply because everybody will hate them for it. Which means they will not seek help, which they do need(peadophiles)
I never said homosexuality is not biologically pathological. I actually think it is. It's more widely accepted because homosexuality occurs between two consenting, mature adults. Pedophilia involves sexual contact with children who the government has deemed unable to give consent because their mental state is not ready.
A lot of prisons that house convicted sex offenders require at least 40% of the population to be a sex offender to ensure they're not mistreated by the rest of the prisoners. In effect, it's creating 'sex offender gangs' in prisons now just as white gangs began. Just an interesting sidenote.
It seems some people in this thread feel that rape is worse than murder for the victim of the crimes. While I appreciate it may be a little off topic would that belief not require a decent society to kill the victims of rape to lessen the effect on them? I don't mean that as a sarcastic comment or a strawman I'm just genuinely curious as that would seem to make sense.
Sorry mods if this is too off topic, it is related to the discussion being had so I *hope* it's an ok question.
I think the reason why he got life w/o parole is probably because the judge is a parent. A lot of judges are old, and are parents, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that the judge allowed the fact that he/she has a child to influence their sentence.
Parents tend to feel very strong about anything concerning children, especially young ones and especially their own. Regardless, the fact that if he actually raped a child he could've gotten less time still throws a spanner in the works.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
On November 07 2011 02:05 Thienan567 wrote: I think the reason why he got life w/o parole is probably because the judge is a parent. A lot of judges are old, and are parents, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that the judge allowed the fact that he/she has a child to influence their sentence.
Parents tend to feel very strong about anything concerning children, especially young ones and especially their own. Regardless, the fact that if he actually raped a child he could've gotten less time still throws a spanner in the works.
On November 06 2011 10:11 Tremendous wrote: Execute the bastard! No need to waste a prison cell on scum like that !
Did you read the article? It questions whether or not downloading child pornography merits a similar punishment as first degree murder, and whether judges should sentence according to what they fear (looking at child porn leading to molestation) versus what they actually did (looking at child porn). I'm not sure downloading the stuff warrants execution.
Hello, slippery slope...
You can't punish someone for a crime they might commit. Fortunately, real life isn't Minority Report.
This case basically sets precedent to increase child molestation because the punishment for actually molesting a child is far less than owning about 100 pornographic images on a file sharing network. The idea that this sentence will deter people from making child pornography is farcical. The number of suppliers of child pornography will probably increase as the decline of online transfer of CP goes down. As long as people are willing to pay for this smut people that could previously get their fix online will probably seek out local producers.
Just like cracking down on substance abusers to try to decrease demand didn't work, the only way to decrease the production of child pornography is to hit the suppliers in the wallet. You can hate and despise people who make or look at CP all you want, but it is unlikely that what happened to this man will deter the CP industry in the slightest. I also think it is unlikely for this sentence to hold up on appeal. For those of you who would rather have the man dead, don't worry too much because as soon as the prison population hears what he was convicted of he is as good as dead. The prison population in US prisons despise child molesters so much that he will likely be sodomized at any opportunity and if he doesn't kill himself he will likely be killed by one of the inmates if he spends any appreciable time in jail. Keep in mind that this is going to happen to someone who never molested a child and had no prior criminal history.
On November 07 2011 02:18 Excomm wrote: This case basically sets precedent to increase child molestation because the punishment for actually molesting a child is far less than owning about 100 pornographic images on a file sharing network. The idea that this sentence will deter people from making child pornography is farcical. The number of suppliers of child pornography will probably increase as the decline of online transfer of CP goes down. As long as people are willing to pay for this smut people that could previously get their fix online will probably seek out local producers.
Just like cracking down on substance abusers to try to decrease demand didn't work, the only way to decrease the production of child pornography is to hit the suppliers in the wallet. You can hate and despise people who make or look at CP all you want, but it is unlikely that what happened to this man will deter the CP industry in the slightest. I also think it is unlikely for this sentence to hold up on appeal. For those of you who would rather have the man dead, don't worry too much because as soon as the prison population hears what he was convicted of he is as good as dead. The prison population in US prisons despise child molesters so much that he will likely be sodomized at any opportunity and if he doesn't kill himself he will likely be killed by one of the inmates if he spends any appreciable time in jail. Keep in mind that this is going to happen to someone who never molested a child and had no prior criminal history.
The worst part about it is that there is no one to help this person. He can't get out of this because no one is going to stand up and say "this is wrong" because of the subject matter being dealt with. This person is marked for life as not worthy to live, and there's no real life for him even if he doesn't go to jail... Yay, society is awesome!
On November 07 2011 02:18 Excomm wrote: For those of you who would rather have the man dead, don't worry too much because as soon as the prison population hears what he was convicted of he is as good as dead. The prison population in US prisons despise child molesters so much that he will likely be sodomized at any opportunity and if he doesn't kill himself he will likely be killed by one of the inmates if he spends any appreciable time in jail. Keep in mind that this is going to happen to someone who never molested a child and had no prior criminal history.
It's impossible to prove, but what if the images of child/man/woman activities were consensual? Would that make him owning the images better in the scenario that he has them just to control his fantasy?
I don't think paedophilia is a good thing, but I have no issues with people who know they have this urge but control it in a safe environment. Pictures do not harm people (you can say that the pictures harm people who were raped/abused, but in reality they aren't getting harmed from it), and unless the images were depicting a forced scenario (child not wanting to engage in actions) then I do not see why this man has to have his life ended.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already (I skimmed through the thread) but to put this in perspective the age of consent for sex is NOT 18 in all of the United States. In the U.S. the age of consent can go as low as 16, which means that a 50 year old man/woman can legally have sex with a 16 year old boy/girl. There are a lot of European countries with the age of consent at 14-16 and Canada I believe has a general age of consent at 16.
Now this particular guy had pictures of boys from ages of 6-12, so he does not exactly fit this argument, but I am generalizing here since you can get a pedophile charge with anyone photographed under the age of 18. Think about that for a moment. You can legally have sexual intercourse, not rape or something illegal, with a 16 year old, but if you have pictures of that same 16 year old you can go to jail.
That is some serious hypocrisy. Essentially, at 16 year now old enough to decide if you are ready for sex, but not old enough to decide whether someone can photograph you doing said act.
I will be going slightly offtopic with this post, but i hope it will help people in thinking about the root of the problems rather than making judgements about the symptoms. Please excuse any grammar mistakes in advance, thanks.
please treat this post rather as personal opinions and theories rather than a listing of scientific facts. It is more a mix of both.
topic #1 - pedophilia itself I will start with the question: How do people realize what their sexual orientation is? In an experiment about sexual attraction, two groups consisting of pairs of straight men and women were made. In one group, the so created couples had to cross a safe bridge, in the other group, they crossed an apparently unsafe one. At the end of the task, the respective couples were asked how attractive they found their partner at task. Results: The people crossing the unsafe bridge found their partner at task to be siginificantly more attractive. Interpretation: The arousal while crossing the unsafe bridge wasn't attributed to the anxiety, but to the task partner being attractive. Now, apart from this result being interesting in general, why did i mention this experiment? Cause the first question is: How do pedophiles find out that they are pedophiles? Like with homosexuals who have to find out that they actually are homosexual, there have to be situations which help people in discovering such parts of their selves.They have to attribute their state to a trait and accept it as stable.
I'm thinking of various alternatives:
1. They get aroused near children This doesn't automatically show them that they are pedophile, cause the arousal doesn't have to be sexual, like you don't automatically get an erection while you are near chicks, they might just feel uneasy etc, they might think that they don't like children in general.This is where the individual attribution determines the outcome. (now the deductional part) -> This point might explain why sexual abuse mostly happens where people constantly interact with children (examples: priests, teachers, fathers and other relatives). Those are also the groups which are most at risk for such cases. Most of those people simply didn't know they were pedophiles until they came into contact with children. But that's not all! What the groups have in common here is that they all have a position of authority towards the children.But at this point it's too late to draw them away from this position, cause the pedophilia was latent all the time, now that those people have found the niche, they automatically abuse the power to exploit the children (willingly or not, abuse of positions of authority is very common among humans, see the stanford prison experiment for further information.) So we can identify this as a factor putting these people at risk: position of authority over the children under the condition that pedophilia was never discovered (letting them achieve such a position).
2. They come across child pornography on the internet and get sexually aroused Compared to point 1, this one is a pretty much immediate indicator of pedophilia. If one sees child pornography and doesn't close it, delete it or whatever, instead starts jacking off to it, he should have realized that he has a problem.
I don't have any reference regarding the interaction of attitude (towards pedophilia) and nature (pedophile or not), which comes into play when people commit sexual crimes towards children or keep child pornography on their computer, thus "embracing" that part of themselves.
Now i don't state that this is complete, you are free to add your own thoughts to this, but i want to skip to my Interpretation and conclusion:
Looking at the points above, it has to be understood that being a pedo is not a choice. Someone in this thread mentioned a 30 % prevalence found on a wikipedia article, which i personally find hard to believe, but i don't have any data.
For the hardliners on this thread:
1.Pedophilia isn't a choice, it's a disease.Both the children and the pedophiles are victims of a system of taboo not allowing optimal treatment until it's too late for both of them. 2.Now in this specific case they found a consumer of child pornography, but did they find the creators of that awkward material?This can't be called justice until the people who made these photos and videos are found and given an harder verdict.Don't forget that this guy only had the chance to embrace his pedophilia when he found the material under circumstances we don't know, but in any case, the main fault is of the people seeding and creating it. 3. You might even be a pedophile, but not knowing it yet. We are a product of genome,environment and own behavior , and if your genome favors pedophilia and the environment made it pop out, it might only be partially your fault.
Now this is a critical point: If people realize that they are pedophiles when they have an authority position over children, then it might be too late to avoid abuse. Considering this, the material on the internet is a double-edged sword:
1. It helps pedophiles in recognizing the sexual orientation, so opening the possibility of a treatment where it's possible before any child gets damaged. 2. It might favor the embracement of the disease, most likely in an environment where they have to keep that orientation secret cause they wouldn't get any help.They might aswell neglect their nature.
What i think is a better system for society:
-Give opportunites for people to out themselves anonymous as pedophiles in a medical environment and offer treatment, recognize it as a disease, not a choice. (And i believe there is even treatment for this kind of disease despite some people seeing castration as the only alternative.If not, just keep them away from children or under electronic surveillance or in an asylum)
-If you found material on the internet just now, would you report it to the police under the risk of being suspected of the possession? The criteria for guilt concerning possession of material are way too strict now for normal people to help the law enforcement at removing the material. I would probably just close/delete it and try to forget what i saw cause everything else would be too risky under the current circumstances.
-Once it's recognized as a disease, law enforcement will be able to obtain the sources of the material from the pedophiles in exchange for no penalty and therapy In this way the true baddies in the system will be discovered: 1.Pedophiles who want to earn money with this disease. 2.Pedophiles who want to look for and create "peers" sharing the same interest.Bringing them together would only make sense in a therapy.
-Teach pedophiles about the effects of sexual abuse on children to show them what the real problem is.A law shouldn't be justified out of itself.It will also help them at making the right choices.Every human being has at least some slight control over his actions.It's not like it's different for criminals.
topic # 2 - American law system in general
I don't have enough knowledge of it to make judgements.
topic # 3 - the catharsis hypothesis
Now there are people wondering whether it's better for people to consume something you are "addicted" to, though in this case it's not a drug, but pornographic material. The catharsis hypothesis by Freud stated that to get rid of an emotion, you had to give in to that emotion. This has been proven as false. The best way to deal with an emotion is to control it and canalize it into constructive directions instead of repressing it or giving in to it. There are no actual results known to me concerning pornographic consumption, but i suggest that it's worse to be exposed to such material and pedophiles should be kept away from child pornography in order to live a normal life.
Yes, that judge is batshit insane, but doesn't surprise me. I would never enjoy being a judge, go figure in the US. Deciding over other peoples fates with the risk of being wrong and ruining innocent lives cause politicians want you to do so based on the hunt of electoral votes and other interests is something only few people can do while remaining normal.
[QUOTE]On November 06 2011 10:14 stokes17 wrote: Its basically equating possession (not production or distribution) of child pornography with first degree murder or first degree rape. Is this fair? I'm not sure.... but is interesting for sure.
EDIT: the article points out that he would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if he had actually molested a child.... seems a little odd[/QUOTE]
Obviously, what he did is wrong and should be punished. But the fact that he would be punished less severely for actually molesting a child..... that is just blatantly messed up.
The life sentence may be enforced in this case to scare other Child Porn users/distributers/watchers/etc. They will see this trail and know that the justice system does not mess around with this kind of stuff.
I'm not entirely convinced that possession of (or viewing) the pornography should be illegal. Essentially it's a recording of an illegal act, and I'm not aware of any other situations in which a photo or video of an illegal act is itself criminal to possess.
It is rather simple to find videos of vandalism, assault, even murder. As far as I know you would not be prosecuted for viewing or downloading them.
On November 07 2011 03:48 Steelavocado wrote: The life sentence may be enforced in this case to scare other Child Porn users/distributers/watchers/etc. They will see this trail and know that the justice system does not mess around with this kind of stuff.
The justice system is designed to give each his own due. A punishment fitting the crime.
How can you possibly justify the law being used to spike a persons head on the wall to "scare the peasants"?
What if you drove through a red light and a judge said "fuck it, i wanna send a signal, give this guy 5 years instead of a fine".
You commit a crime, you get a punishment for that crime. No person deserves to see his life destroyed so society can make a point out of him.
This collectivist thinking is really fucked up.
As for the punishment the guy got, it is clearly to harsh. When raping a child lands you a smaller punishment then looking at child porn the scale seems to be off. Nobody is argueing wether he should or should not receive a punishment, simply the degree is up for debate.
I believe life is too long. He can receive help for his condition, learn to supress his urges and go back into society leading a somewhat normal life.
On November 07 2011 04:11 Pertinacious wrote: Certainly seems like overkill.
I'm not entirely convinced that possession of (or viewing) the pornography should be illegal. Essentially it's a recording of an illegal act, and I'm not aware of any other situations in which a photo or video of an illegal act is itself criminal to possess.
It is rather simple to find videos of vandalism, assault, even murder. As far as I know you would not be prosecuted for viewing or downloading them.
The thing is, no one (I hope) is paying money to watch those kind of things. (If they are they can just watch movies) But with CP you are encouraging the distributor to continue in said practice, which ultimately leads to more crimes commited.
On November 07 2011 04:11 Pertinacious wrote: Certainly seems like overkill.
I'm not entirely convinced that possession of (or viewing) the pornography should be illegal. Essentially it's a recording of an illegal act, and I'm not aware of any other situations in which a photo or video of an illegal act is itself criminal to possess.
It is rather simple to find videos of vandalism, assault, even murder. As far as I know you would not be prosecuted for viewing or downloading them.
The thing is, no one (I hope) is paying money to watch those kind of things. (If they are they can just watch movies) But with CP you are encouraging the distributor to continue in said practice, which ultimately leads to more crimes commited.
How?
If you're not paying then how, unless you personally encourage the maker, do you actually support it? I mean, the people who do it (for free), let's be honest, are most of the times "normal" people who put it online as part of the sexual arousal, I believe. The joy they get, aside from people encouraging them over forums or whatever, is probably just having uploaded it. As far as you anonymously download the pictures for free without any encouragement then how are you supporting the market?
I read nothing of him giving the maker(s?) thumbs up, you know?
On November 07 2011 02:18 Excomm wrote: For those of you who would rather have the man dead, don't worry too much because as soon as the prison population hears what he was convicted of he is as good as dead. The prison population in US prisons despise child molesters so much that he will likely be sodomized at any opportunity and if he doesn't kill himself he will likely be killed by one of the inmates if he spends any appreciable time in jail. Keep in mind that this is going to happen to someone who never molested a child and had no prior criminal history.
Its a sad world we live in..
Its true, Unless this man goes on a "secure offenders" ward then most likley he will be killed, since as this man rightly put it, the prison population hate sex offenders. For example, in the UK a while back there was a man killing all the rapists and sex offenders he was put in a cell with, and said he would continue to do it if they put more in the call with him It is funny that even in prison, where the scum of the earth usually ends up, they have a warped sense of moral justice.
I feel whatever he got he deserved, you say he didnt harm any children, and i feel that is wrong in many ways. Sure he didnt make the porn himself or produce it, but without the demand, there would be no supply.
On November 07 2011 04:33 FusionMrWet wrote: I feel whatever he got he deserved, you say he didnt harm any children, and i feel that is wrong in many ways. Sure he didnt make the porn himself or produce it, but without the demand, there would be no supply.
What if he didn't express any demand? Then media are the ones to verify demand, rather than this indivudal user.
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.
On November 07 2011 04:11 Pertinacious wrote: Certainly seems like overkill.
I'm not entirely convinced that possession of (or viewing) the pornography should be illegal. Essentially it's a recording of an illegal act, and I'm not aware of any other situations in which a photo or video of an illegal act is itself criminal to possess.
It is rather simple to find videos of vandalism, assault, even murder. As far as I know you would not be prosecuted for viewing or downloading them.
The thing is, no one (I hope) is paying money to watch those kind of things. (If they are they can just watch movies) But with CP you are encouraging the distributor to continue in said practice, which ultimately leads to more crimes commited.
How?
If you're not paying then how, unless you personally encourage the maker, do you actually support it? I mean, the people who do it (for free), let's be honest, are most of the times "normal" people who put it online as part of the sexual arousal, I believe. The joy they get, aside from people encouraging them over forums or whatever, is probably just having uploaded it. As far as you anonymously download the pictures for free without any encouragement then how are you supporting the market?
I read nothing of him giving the maker(s?) thumbs up, you know?
They don't pay? Hmm. I'm no purveyer of Child Porn, so I can't really say -.-.
My guess is that the "operaters" that put up the child porn probably base it off of views? If no one's viewing your stuff, do you really bother putting up more. Again, I've never managed a collection of CP, so I can't say -.-.
I suppose if viewing it provided no encouragement for it whatsoever, then it might be okay. (eww.) Then again, I think you're hurting the kid that partook in the making just by viewing, so I dunno. Just make CP anime or something and make it available for people that actually want to watch that shit. Bleh
On November 07 2011 04:33 FusionMrWet wrote: I feel whatever he got he deserved, you say he didnt harm any children, and i feel that is wrong in many ways. Sure he didnt make the porn himself or produce it, but without the demand, there would be no supply.
I'm sure you and every person in this thread has purchased something that was made by a child laborer at one point or another, by your logic we are awful people and we support child labor.
Also let me say this again, second hand smoke kills 3,000 people every year. Does that make every smoker who supports the smoking industry a murderer, or at least partially responsible?
Regardless of what you "feel" this man did not get what he deserved, in anyway shape or form. Punishment simply does not fit the crime.
On November 07 2011 04:11 Pertinacious wrote: Certainly seems like overkill.
I'm not entirely convinced that possession of (or viewing) the pornography should be illegal. Essentially it's a recording of an illegal act, and I'm not aware of any other situations in which a photo or video of an illegal act is itself criminal to possess.
It is rather simple to find videos of vandalism, assault, even murder. As far as I know you would not be prosecuted for viewing or downloading them.
The thing is, no one (I hope) is paying money to watch those kind of things. (If they are they can just watch movies) But with CP you are encouraging the distributor to continue in said practice, which ultimately leads to more crimes commited.
How?
If you're not paying then how, unless you personally encourage the maker, do you actually support it? I mean, the people who do it (for free), let's be honest, are most of the times "normal" people who put it online as part of the sexual arousal, I believe. The joy they get, aside from people encouraging them over forums or whatever, is probably just having uploaded it. As far as you anonymously download the pictures for free without any encouragement then how are you supporting the market?
I read nothing of him giving the maker(s?) thumbs up, you know?
They don't pay? Hmm. I'm no purveyer of Child Porn, so I can't really say -.-.
My guess is that the "operaters" that put up the child porn probably base it off of views? If no one's viewing your stuff, do you really bother putting up more. Again, I've never managed a collection of CP, so I can't say -.-.
I suppose if viewing it provided no encouragement for it whatsoever, then it might be okay. (eww.) Then again, I think you're hurting the kid that partook in the making just by viewing, so I dunno. Just make CP anime or something and make it available for people that actually want to watch that shit. Bleh
Well, there are people who pay I'm sure. However, there are nothing in the article that says Daniel paid for the pictures. And, yeah, okay. They may base it off of views. But what if someone is curious? Or saves one picture in order to see what to stay away from or whatever and forget to throw it, is that ok?
I believe, if you were to view it for yourself only if you in no way promote it (not giving views, money, comments, traffic or in any way encourage the makers) i don't see the harm. I mean, the damage is done. Are you victimizing the child even if he/she doesn't know you're looking? "If a tree falls and no one hears it ..." It's a thin line to walk anyway.
And besides, about the anime, in Sweden it's illegal to have pictures of _any_ kind of sexual content with at least one party under 18. That's cartoon, anime or real. That's fucked up for real. I mean, cartoons?!
People here actually think this punishment is justified or even want him killed for watching a video?! Sure, child porn should be illegal (when real kids are involved, banning cartoons or stuff like that is rather stupid imo, legalizing them might actually prevent pedophiles from harming children). But as long as he didn't harm a child and didn't even support the creator of this footage by paying him money, I don't see why he should be put in jail at all. Monetary penalty or probation would be just fine. But even is you sentence him to jail, there's no way a lifelong penalty is justified.
Also, for all the people saying "it will send a message to the others", think about it. Will they care? Will people supplying really care? Will the people who can't help but like this care? An easier example: many drug addicts have their lives ruled and ruined by the drugs, and it isn't a secret or unknown truth, yet people still do it. It barely deters people at all. Will drug dealers care about it?
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
Lock him up. Leave him there. He will be taken care of by the inmates. Nobody wants a pedo near them. It's imo the 3rd most putrid act you can commit behind murder and rape.
Life sentence for that? I mean come on, it's obviously not a good thing to be doing, but aren't there other things to do than to give a 26 year old life for having a certain quirk, why can't the courts give life sentences to people that DO deserve them.
i think its a bit too much age of 26 to life sentence... i didnt understand though is it just for possessing or he actually films child porn... if its jsut for possessing THATS WAY TOO MUCH
On November 07 2011 06:25 ranshaked wrote: Lock him up. Leave him there. He will be taken care of by the inmates. Nobody wants a pedo near them. It's imo the 3rd most putrid act you can commit behind murder and rape.
He needs a slap and a short jail term...life....Americans! Don't let this happen :-(
America is one scary place...Check out this vid on how many people are actually in jail in the USA - unbelievable.
Stephen Fry on American Prisons, from the TV show QI
The prison facts mentioned here,
I'll start with a fact everyone(well nearly everyone) knows.
1. Three "strikes" and you get life in jail. Even for trivial crimes, Leandro Andrade is serving 2 consecutive life sentences for shoplifting 9 video tapes with a value of $153 2a. 1% of Americans are in jail(2.3million) 2b On a per capita bases this equates to twice as many in South Africans, more than 3 times Iran and 6 times China's prison population. 3. No society in history has imprisoned as many people as America. 4. 1 in 30 men aged 20 - 34 in in prison. 5.1 in 9 black males are in prison. 6. There are more 17 year old black males in prison than in college. 7. 5% of the world are American...25% of all prisoners are American. 8. America prohibits importing goods made through forced labor or prisoners... YET... ...American prisons produce 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet proof vests, 9. 93% of domestically used paints, 36% of home appliances, 21% of office furniture, which allows America to compete with factories in Mexico. 10. You get solitary confinement if you refuse to work!
11. Thus America has successfully reinvented the slave trade.
On November 06 2011 11:57 Dark_Chill wrote: When I think about it, gambling is sort of like a psychological addiction, and ruins people's (child porn owners) lives all the time. Casinos (child porn distributors) give people a place to encourage this. Gamblers (child porn owners) support this by gambling, hurting other people's lives too. Now of course, I am not saying gambling is akin to possessing child porn, but like gambling, we should instead try to help these people recover from their psychological problems, not throw them away. They're still people, and they can be molded back into ideal members of society.
I agree with you 100%. This person should get help to understand why his behavior is unacceptable and get help to stop it. I guess they could take away his computer and Internet while he's in treatment as well. I think any prison time at all is too harsh of a sentence in a case like this. On top of that, the money is better spent on getting him back to society asap. It's not like he's a proven danger to anyone.
In prison, pedophilia is sort of the lowest of the low. The person should try to keep his mouth shut why he is in there, otherwise he is going to be living hell. Even a murderer can care for his/her family.
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.
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
Homosexuality has social acceptance because it's between consenting adults, where as pedophilic acts would involve a minor unable to consent. The two are similar in that they're both a preference, however in order for the later to take place, legal abuse must happen.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be looked down on for being pedophilic. Though the rational of enjoying the thought of intercourse with a minor is gross to me, so are many other sexual fetishes. These people are more than entitled to their fantasies or whatever gets their jollys off, but when someone actually gets abused (in the case of child pornography, molestation, etc) the line is crossed where it needs to be dealt with.
As for this case... Meh, way too much time for a bunch of images. Arguments of if or if not viewing CP benefits the industry indirectly through demand increase, I'd rather very hefty charges get dealt to the people actually raping children. Give people that view it a fine, maybe some jail time (such as this case with so many counts, a few years maybe) and a ton of community service/sex offender registration/etc. The amount of time in this case can only be from a knee-jerk reaction.
Child porn is unacceptable, but I don't think life sentence to prison for possession of it is reasonable. The justice system is either flawed or seriously conservative in the United States.
If it without all doubt then I don't know, I don't know what the pictures or videos show or what made the court feel that it was warrant such a sentence.
Do I agree with it? I don't know, not from a swedish law point of view but can I understand it? Yes.
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
The difference is that children cannot consent. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and hell, even sterile heterosexual couples are only alike in the respect that those relationships do not produce offspring. So sure, one could argue that they're biologically pathological... if one was only considering the assumption that everyone wanted to reproduce and pass on our genetic traits. However, that's not everyone's intentions anymore (people sometimes don't want to have kids), and that's where the similarities end between pedophilia and these other adult relationships.
It's illegal to have sex with a minor, because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences and repercussions of that action. That's why it's considered (statutory) rape. Therefore, it's for very good reasons to accept homosexual relationships (two mature, consenting adults) and still be wary of pedophilia.
And here we come to something that may or may not result in a large hate war: what are these consequences and repercussions? I've seen this argument before, where people ask what effects would remain if the negative social stigma was taken out of the equation. I doubt studies were done to show how children react to this without society's dislikes placed on it, due to it being unethical, but nevertheless, this is something that should at least be discussed.
I think it's a bit troubling when people are so blinded by their knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing (which is, of course, very serious child abuse) that all logic and proportionality gets thrown out the window and a witch-hunt ensues. The "he should be put to death" view is just baffling. Surely child sexual abuse is terrible and should be dealt with very harshly, but is it equivalent to murder? Of course not. And the man in question was only involved with it in a very indirect manner. I get that this sort of thing sets off some sort of limbic reaction of disgust (especially to those who have children of their own), but I think it's a problem when the topic is so taboo that the vast majority of people would never publicly criticize this sentencing (doing it online is a hell of a lot easier). I don't think jail time should be out of the question, but I feel that there should be a larger focus on rehabilitation and counseling for those who have committed these crimes but not directly harmed children. I think police resources should be focused on locking up the REAL perpetrators who are producing child pornography. I doubt locking up consumers of it will do much to stop production; unlike the illegal narcotics trade, I suspect it's more of a sick hobby than a rational business model that would shut down due to lack of profit.
On November 06 2011 18:57 Chrispy wrote: I read a song of ice and fire, which involves 13 year old having sex with 30 year olds. Jail time?
I feel that sometime in the distant future society will laugh at how barbaric our laws are concerning child pornography. Is having sex with children wrong? Derp a herp no shit. Should a man be imprisoned for life for looking at child pornography? Derp a herp no he shouldn't.
Lion of Ireland by Morgan Llewellen has a similar scene, but that's more ephebophilia which while still bad, is far less bad than full-on pedophilia (IMO). Teens, while still not fully accountable, have hormones and a sex drive, and are capable of consent (even if poorly conceived).
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
Homosexuality has social acceptance because it's between consenting adults, where as pedophilic acts would involve a minor unable to consent. The two are similar in that they're both a preference, however in order for the later to take place, legal abuse must happen.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be looked down on for being pedophilic. Though the rational of enjoying the thought of intercourse with a minor is gross to me, so are many other sexual fetishes. These people are more than entitled to their fantasies or whatever gets their jollys off, but when someone actually gets abused (in the case of child pornography, molestation, etc) the line is crossed where it needs to be dealt with.
As for this case... Meh, way too much time for a bunch of images. Arguments of if or if not viewing CP benefits the industry indirectly through demand increase, I'd rather very hefty charges get dealt to the people actually raping children. Give people that view it a fine, maybe some jail time (such as this case with so many counts, a few years maybe) and a ton of community service/sex offender registration/etc. The amount of time in this case can only be from a knee-jerk reaction.
Finally someone who shares my views. I feel for pedophiles, what conflicts they must have in their lives.
On November 07 2011 08:23 Dark_Chill wrote: And here we come to something that may or may not result in a large hate war: what are these consequences and repercussions? I've seen this argument before, where people ask what effects would remain if the negative social stigma was taken out of the equation. I doubt studies were done to show how children react to this without society's dislikes placed on it, due to it being unethical, but nevertheless, this is something that should at least be discussed.
Is this a serious question?
There are countless sites that give good explanations; it's summed up pretty well on Wikipedia (under "Child sexual abuse"):
"Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.[1][2] ...
Effects
Psychological harm
Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life.[9][21] Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression,[5][22][23] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6][24] anxiety,[7] eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain,[23] sexualized behavior,[25] school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse,[26][27] self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty,[28][29][30] crime in adulthood and suicide.[11][31][32][33][34][35] A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified[36] and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations.[5][37][38]
A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused."[27]Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse.[8][26] Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism.[39] Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services.[23] A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former.[40]
Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children.[33][41][42][43][44] The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used.[45] The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force.[9][21][46][47] The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children,[47][48] and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments.[49][50]
Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Main articles: Dissociation and Posttraumatic stress disorder Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories.[51] The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse.[52] When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent.[52]
Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology."[6] Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.[53]
Research factors
Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[54] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[21][37][55][56] In a 1998 review of related literature, Martin and Fleming state "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[57] Other studies have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[7][21][37]
Kendler et al. (2000) found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[37]
A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al. generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm, that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as "consensual."[58] The study was criticized for flawed methodology and conclusions.[59][60] The US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities.[61]
Physical harm
Injury
Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation.[63]
Infections
Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported.[64]
Neurological damage
Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"[67] Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects;[68] Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood;[69] Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse;[70] and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children.[71]
Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system.[70] Teicher et al. (1993)[68] used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected.[68][72]
Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.[73]"
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
Well, it says that he probably didn't pay for them because it was from a file sharing website...
On November 07 2011 08:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL.
The problem with the data you present is that it makes no division between statutory/'consensual' (as far as a person under the age of majority can consent) and non-consensual sex/rape. Violent rape is obviously traumatic regardless of whatever age you might be, but what about mere statutory rape? Further, it makes no distinction between a 'child' at the age of 6 or at the age of 17, both of which would be labelled as victims of child sexual abuse if they had sex with an adult.
To put it another way, if you were a 12-year-old boy whose wish for a blowjob from Megan Fox came true, how traumatized do you think you would be? Probably not at all, and any negative effects would likely be far less than that experienced by, say, a 6-year-old being violently raped by an adult.
People automatically assume that 'child porn' means adults molesting toddlers, but a nude picture of yourself at age 17 is also 'child porn' under the law.
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
The difference is that children cannot consent. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and hell, even sterile heterosexual couples are only alike in the respect that those relationships do not produce offspring. So sure, one could argue that they're biologically pathological... if one was only considering the assumption that everyone wanted to reproduce and pass on our genetic traits. However, that's not everyone's intentions anymore (people sometimes don't want to have kids), and that's where the similarities end between pedophilia and these other adult relationships.
It's illegal to have sex with a minor, because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences and repercussions of that action. That's why it's considered (statutory) rape. Therefore, it's for very good reasons to accept homosexual relationships (two mature, consenting adults) and still be wary of pedophilia.
I think his point was that pedophila should not be considered a sickness. I don't think he was arguing that it should be legal just because homosexuality is nor that homosexuallity and pedophila should be treated the same. He only disagree with the thought "Pedophilia is disgusting and not aimed towards reproduction, therefore pedophiles are sick". That was what people was saying about homosexuals just a few decades ago, but now a days people generaly agree that homosexuality is not a sickness.
As I was saying I don't agree with adults fucking kids, but I do think that anyone are allowed to think and have any sexual orientation they want. As long as it do not harm anyone else. But since pedophila by defenition will harm someone I don't agree with actually doing it.
On November 07 2011 08:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL.
The problem with the data you present is that it makes no division between statutory/'consensual' (as far as a person under the age of majority can consent) and non-consensual sex/rape. Violent rape is obviously traumatic regardless of whatever age you might be, but what about mere statutory rape? Further, it makes no distinction between a 'child' at the age of 6 or at the age of 17, both of which would be labelled as victims of child sexual abuse if they had sex with an adult.
To put it another way, if you were a 12-year-old boy whose wish for a blowjob from Megan Fox came true, how traumatized do you think you would be? Probably not at all, and any negative effects would likely be far less than that experienced by, say, a 6-year-old being violently raped by an adult.
Pedophilia and the use of 'child' in 'child pornography' strongly implies pre-adolescent children.
On November 07 2011 08:59 AutomatonOmega wrote:Pedophilia and the use of 'child' in 'child pornography' strongly implies pre-adolescent children.
It's deliberately implied, but that doesn't mean it's true.
If you were caught with a porn video that has a 17-year-old in it, you would also be arrested for child porn and everyone would still call you a pedophile.
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.
While I firmly condemn CP and everything related, it has become quite clear that pedophiles are the modern witches, a subject of pure hatred from modern society, often to the point of paranoïa. It's sad, but I'll finish by advising people to watch M by Fritz Lang.
On November 06 2011 21:48 adwodon wrote: I struggle to understand why he'd go to prison for this anyway, he's young, first time offender and if I read correctly wasnt distributing or creating?
He was distributing it, he had it in a shared folder on a large file sharing network. This warrants a harsher punishment, just like selling drugs gets you a longer sentence than using drugs. (Certainly not a life sentence though.)
On November 06 2011 23:28 idonthinksobro wrote: I dont really know how the US court system works but isn't there a chance to appeal? It looks like a redneck judge just doesn't know what he is doing.
You are correct. He will appeal, the sentence will be reduced, and the judge is already being embarrassed by having the media cover this story and expose his incompetence. He just has to hope the judges in the appeals process are more competent.
On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote: Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content.
There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless.
You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol).
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).
According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate.
The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
Both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual deviations. The difference between them is that, as many posters noted, one is between consenting adults that do not cause any clear harm to each other and to society, the other is non-consensual and often causes harm.
As for calling it mental illness. The name is not really importnant, but mental conditions are mostly treated as illness if they cause the person having them to not be able to lead normal life as a human being or as a member of society. Mental conditions that do not satisfy these criteria are not considered illness. This is the reason why calling homosexuality an illness is incorrect as it does not satisfy the criteria. Pedophilia actually does as it makes it impossible for you to lead a life as a member of the society.
To answer few possible counterarguments before hand. Pedophile that is highly asexual and thus can easily lead a life in society should not be considered sick as a pedophile. But it is possible (evidence of negative effects of asexuality would be necessary) that sexual life is actually important for healthy life and thus he could be considered sick as an asexual. But that is much milder mental condition (if it even is one) and definitely does not necessitate stay in mental institution and similar.
Second, claim that with my definition of mental illness homosexuality would be mental illness in the past, as it was making it impossible to lead normal life in society, is somewhat correct. But the problem is easily rectified by noting that society without gay intolerance is not worse off than the one with such (it is actually clearly better) and thus the problem was with society and not with the homosexuals. There is no possible scenario where a society that allows pedophilia is not worse off.
On November 07 2011 03:35 Cattivik wrote: I will be going slightly offtopic with this post, but i hope it will help people in thinking about the root of the problems rather than making judgements about the symptoms. Please excuse any grammar mistakes in advance, thanks.
please treat this post rather as personal opinions and theories rather than a listing of scientific facts. It is more a mix of both.
topic #1 - pedophilia itself I will start with the question: How do people realize what their sexual orientation is? In an experiment about sexual attraction, two groups consisting of pairs of straight men and women were made. In one group, the so created couples had to cross a safe bridge, in the other group, they crossed an apparently unsafe one. At the end of the task, the respective couples were asked how attractive they found their partner at task. Results: The people crossing the unsafe bridge found their partner at task to be siginificantly more attractive. Interpretation: The arousal while crossing the unsafe bridge wasn't attributed to the anxiety, but to the task partner being attractive. Now, apart from this result being interesting in general, why did i mention this experiment? Cause the first question is: How do pedophiles find out that they are pedophiles? Like with homosexuals who have to find out that they actually are homosexual, there have to be situations which help people in discovering such parts of their selves.They have to attribute their state to a trait and accept it as stable.
I'm thinking of various alternatives:
1. They get aroused near children This doesn't automatically show them that they are pedophile, cause the arousal doesn't have to be sexual, like you don't automatically get an erection while you are near chicks, they might just feel uneasy etc, they might think that they don't like children in general.This is where the individual attribution determines the outcome. (now the deductional part) -> This point might explain why sexual abuse mostly happens where people constantly interact with children (examples: priests, teachers, fathers and other relatives). Those are also the groups which are most at risk for such cases. Most of those people simply didn't know they were pedophiles until they came into contact with children. But that's not all! What the groups have in common here is that they all have a position of authority towards the children.But at this point it's too late to draw them away from this position, cause the pedophilia was latent all the time, now that those people have found the niche, they automatically abuse the power to exploit the children (willingly or not, abuse of positions of authority is very common among humans, see the stanford prison experiment for further information.) So we can identify this as a factor putting these people at risk: position of authority over the children under the condition that pedophilia was never discovered (letting them achieve such a position).
2. They come across child pornography on the internet and get sexually aroused Compared to point 1, this one is a pretty much immediate indicator of pedophilia. If one sees child pornography and doesn't close it, delete it or whatever, instead starts jacking off to it, he should have realized that he has a problem.
I don't have any reference regarding the interaction of attitude (towards pedophilia) and nature (pedophile or not), which comes into play when people commit sexual crimes towards children or keep child pornography on their computer, thus "embracing" that part of themselves.
Now i don't state that this is complete, you are free to add your own thoughts to this, but i want to skip to my Interpretation and conclusion:
Looking at the points above, it has to be understood that being a pedo is not a choice. Someone in this thread mentioned a 30 % prevalence found on a wikipedia article, which i personally find hard to believe, but i don't have any data.
For the hardliners on this thread:
1.Pedophilia isn't a choice, it's a disease.Both the children and the pedophiles are victims of a system of taboo not allowing optimal treatment until it's too late for both of them. 2.Now in this specific case they found a consumer of child pornography, but did they find the creators of that awkward material?This can't be called justice until the people who made these photos and videos are found and given an harder verdict.Don't forget that this guy only had the chance to embrace his pedophilia when he found the material under circumstances we don't know, but in any case, the main fault is of the people seeding and creating it. 3. You might even be a pedophile, but not knowing it yet. We are a product of genome,environment and own behavior , and if your genome favors pedophilia and the environment made it pop out, it might only be partially your fault.
Now this is a critical point: If people realize that they are pedophiles when they have an authority position over children, then it might be too late to avoid abuse. Considering this, the material on the internet is a double-edged sword:
1. It helps pedophiles in recognizing the sexual orientation, so opening the possibility of a treatment where it's possible before any child gets damaged. 2. It might favor the embracement of the disease, most likely in an environment where they have to keep that orientation secret cause they wouldn't get any help.They might aswell neglect their nature.
What i think is a better system for society:
-Give opportunites for people to out themselves anonymous as pedophiles in a medical environment and offer treatment, recognize it as a disease, not a choice. (And i believe there is even treatment for this kind of disease despite some people seeing castration as the only alternative.If not, just keep them away from children or under electronic surveillance or in an asylum)
-If you found material on the internet just now, would you report it to the police under the risk of being suspected of the possession? The criteria for guilt concerning possession of material are way too strict now for normal people to help the law enforcement at removing the material. I would probably just close/delete it and try to forget what i saw cause everything else would be too risky under the current circumstances.
-Once it's recognized as a disease, law enforcement will be able to obtain the sources of the material from the pedophiles in exchange for no penalty and therapy In this way the true baddies in the system will be discovered: 1.Pedophiles who want to earn money with this disease. 2.Pedophiles who want to look for and create "peers" sharing the same interest.Bringing them together would only make sense in a therapy.
-Teach pedophiles about the effects of sexual abuse on children to show them what the real problem is.A law shouldn't be justified out of itself.It will also help them at making the right choices.Every human being has at least some slight control over his actions.It's not like it's different for criminals.
topic # 2 - American law system in general
I don't have enough knowledge of it to make judgements.
topic # 3 - the catharsis hypothesis
Now there are people wondering whether it's better for people to consume something you are "addicted" to, though in this case it's not a drug, but pornographic material. The catharsis hypothesis by Freud stated that to get rid of an emotion, you had to give in to that emotion. This has been proven as false. The best way to deal with an emotion is to control it and canalize it into constructive directions instead of repressing it or giving in to it. There are no actual results known to me concerning pornographic consumption, but i suggest that it's worse to be exposed to such material and pedophiles should be kept away from child pornography in order to live a normal life.
Yes, that judge is batshit insane, but doesn't surprise me. I would never enjoy being a judge, go figure in the US. Deciding over other peoples fates with the risk of being wrong and ruining innocent lives cause politicians want you to do so based on the hunt of electoral votes and other interests is something only few people can do while remaining normal.
well i wrote this as a PM coz no1 is really reading this thread just posting 1-liner and obvious crap, but thought i might aswell throw it in:
ur post was kinda interesting,
ive found that it is "latent" in a lot of people.
eg 1 for a lot of people, they are into anime, then they realise they like the young anime chicks, then they look at some older lolicon, then they look at some younger lolicon, then they find child modelling sites and realise "oh shit this is hot", then they go thru a fear/rejection phase, then maybe they come back to it and accept/embrace it
eg 2 ive linked friends to underage girls when they are horny and suddenly they are like "omg this is awesome....but i shouldnt be lookin at it...agh". they were completely oblivious until they started taking an interest
eg 3 the cool study that used to be on wiki in the "prevalence" section said they tested 100 men by attaching a ssensor to their penis and showing them a) pix/videos of women b) pix/videos of lil girls c) sexual sound of women & lil girls d) sound of pain of women & lil girls. the results were remarkable (damning). maybe you can check thru the log history of the wiki page to see what happeend to that section
it is a VERY complex psychological issue, either we (humans) are brainwashed to not find them attractive to begin with (lots of ways that this happens), or we learn it as a fetish, or many other things.
what i know for sure is once you are attracted to kids it doesnt make you desperate to go out and rape them. you need to be fucked up already , like any other rapist. wiki says (currently) that prevalence is around 1 person in 20 so thatd be pretty scarey if true. the weird thing is when you find people who are EXCLUSIVELY attracted to kid, or even worse to very young kids. a peroon could possibly brainwash himself into that dark avenue, just like a person can be brainwashed into knee-jerking puking when they hear about someone fancying a 15 year old.
i think us humans generally have a "base" attraction to certain things like big eyes, small heads (MAJOR factor in korean beauty), petite bodies, breasts, hips, smooth skin, youth, silky hair, cute vulnerable voices, etc etc. ontop of that lies the commanding psychological/brainwash aspect which controls what aspects a person notices or values or prefers, and more.
whether or not CP/child models is an "okay thing for people to view if its not hurting anyone else" is difficult. on one hand it does re-inforce the attraction (eg 1 if you make friends with a chubby girl and start to fancy her , then when you look for porn online you'll find yourself looking for chubby girl characteristics as your preferences suddenly become that. eg 2 you might look at 15 year olds, then suddenly find that the things you like in them (big eyes, small head) are even more prominent and cute in 14 year olds, then 13 year olds, then 12 year olds....until you reach a certain age of whatever fits.)
idk i wrote this coz i saw your ranty-style post and thought you'd like a response. youre not gonna get a decent one in a thread like that
this is ridiculous even if this man has fetishes for little children and has gone out of his way to possess cporn why throw out the possibility of rehabilitation or reeducation? why just stamp a guy for life like that this is silly
the choices he made were sick, but even murder victims find freedom down the road. locking this guy away till the end of his days is... its just too much.
As a man sexually attracted to underage boys i find it very disturbing to said the least that this will encourage others with less self control to actually molest children instead of finding others source of relieve, not that i agree with child porn because i do not but you could say i have the inside view of the issue, hell there's always fictional histories and Japanese manga to all kind of fetish that does not harm any living creature, some may argue that fiction is the first step to moving into reality and while i cant speak for everyone that is not the case for me.
Just to clarify i have never nor do i want to rape/molest any boy, i do not own any kind of cp either, it may sound cliche but i really love boys and it breaks my heart to see or hear of one suffering afterall its not their fault who im attacted to.
Why would we empathize with a criminal. Especially a pervert like this guy. It isn't like if hes an actual human being or anything.
Ohwai.
Its this kind of attitude is why the American justice system is so fucked up. There are no such thing as criminals only people who commit crimes. A justice system should aspire to punish crime itself, rather then create criminals.
This kind of thing happens when a society is less interested in stopping the crime itself and more interested refusing to acknowledge someone who does these things can exist.
On November 07 2011 09:43 Tyrant0 wrote: Christfuck what the hell happened to the justice system
Progress happened, good sir... yeah, I thought that after starting to accept homosexuals, we would be a bit more tolerant and understanding, but nope, I guess we're not that mature
On November 07 2011 09:39 Half wrote: Why would we empathize with a criminal. Especially a pervert like this guy. It isn't like if hes an actual human being or anything. Might as well just gas the fuckers.
Ohwai.
Its this kind of attitude is why the American justice system is so fucked up. There are no such thing as criminals only people who commit crimes. A justice system should aspire to punish crime itself, rather then create criminals.
This kind of thing happens when a society is less interested in stopping the crime itself and more interested refusing to acknowledge someone who does these things can exist.
Well, there is such a thing as criminals, just look at the mafia. But yeah, this is an important distinction to make. This was the guy's first offense, it's not like he's some career criminal.
I'm seriously worried about the American society these days though. What happened to the Constitution, and human rights?
I mean really, we're legislating about what people are allowed to think now? And people are OK with this? 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.
On November 07 2011 09:36 PepperMD15 wrote: As a man sexually attracted to underage boys i find it very disturbing to said the least that this will encourage others with less self control to actually molest children instead of finding others source of relieve, not that i agree with child porn because i do not but you could say i have the inside view of the issue, hell there's always fictional histories and Japanese manga to all kind of fetish that does not harm any living creature, some may argue that fiction is the first step to moving into reality and while i cant speak for everyone that is not the case for me.
Just to clarify i have never nor do i want to rape/molest any boy, i do not own any kind of cp either, it may sound cliche but i really love boys and it breaks my heart to see or hear of one suffering afterall its not their fault who im attacted to.
I think it's both mature and brave for you to come out with this post, but at the same time I think a lot of the pedos out there could learn from your example. Attraction devices are developmental, environmental, and oftentimes as unique to each person as their own fingerprint, but knowing the limits to how safe the expression of those devices is in a real world context is an important next step in the process that a lot of people never develop the wherewithal to properly cope with.
On November 07 2011 09:36 PepperMD15 wrote: As a man sexually attracted to underage boys i find it very disturbing to said the least that this will encourage others with less self control to actually molest children instead of finding others source of relieve, not that i agree with child porn because i do not but you could say i have the inside view of the issue, hell there's always fictional histories and Japanese manga to all kind of fetish that does not harm any living creature, some may argue that fiction is the first step to moving into reality and while i cant speak for everyone that is not the case for me.
Just to clarify i have never nor do i want to rape/molest any boy, i do not own any kind of cp either, it may sound cliche but i really love boys and it breaks my heart to see or hear of one suffering afterall its not their fault who im attacted to.
Funny, then, that the Swedish legal system recently took a turn to include drawn images under the CP law. Funny in a very sad, maniac-laughter, kind of way.
Edit: This from a translator who was prosecuted for possessing anime, which he was translated, which included underage nudity of some sort. I'm not completely on the clear exactly what the anime pertained because I never cared to read the articles too much. To me, it doesn't matter if it was hardcore sex anime or innocent "I'm taking a bath" anime where some underage kid just happened to be naked in the story.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
i outright disagree with this philosophy. make an example of one person? sacrifice him for the flock? this is a horrible terrible thing. there are other ways to better the world and we should be uniting as a people and pursing those rather than accepting things like this. they are unacceptable.
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.
The vast majority of the German populace knew nasty things were happening to the Jews and other persecuted groups. Most probably didn't know the full extent, but just about everyone knew they were being shipped off "Somewhere". Further, most of the major concentration camps were within a few miles of large cities.
As for this being a fine ruling because its making an example of him, as Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
That link was pretty cool though, definitely a good read, aside from the Zionist conspiracy stuff.
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 11:25 DarkwindHK wrote: 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.
well, i think the law takes "intent" into account. the intent of viewing that video was not for sexual pleasure, as it can easily be linked to the discussions etc surrouding it if you got reported and arrested for it. but if you couldnt convince a jury of that then yeah i guess you could get convicted and spend a life in jail, coz after all , 1) you're a "proven" risk to society for finding pleasure in it 2) you're potentially supporting it by "showing" people that there is a demand
On November 07 2011 12:08 Millitron wrote: The vast majority of the German populace knew nasty things were happening to the Jews and other persecuted groups. Most probably didn't know the full extent, but just about everyone knew they were being shipped off "Somewhere". Further, most of the major concentration camps were within a few miles of large cities.
As for this being a fine ruling because its making an example of him, as Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
That link was pretty cool though, definitely a good read, aside from the Zionist conspiracy stuff.
I only meant the first part. The theory of National Socialism. Not conspiracy stuffs, its just like communism, in theory it works well. ^__^; Also, I've seen videos of propaganda of why you would go to a camp with other Jewish people. There were a lot that would go willingly based off these videos. Kids playing together and laughing, full meals at big family tables, and promise of jobs. [At a time of the great depression this was a blessing.] Of course propaganda is propaganda, but I'm pretty sure none of the German people knew that the Jewish populace was to be gassed and incinerated. It's not like you could just take a bus or ask to go inside. There is a reason why it was called "Nazi Occupied Germany."
As far as the Mr. King quote sure it's bad, and yes as I said I feel bad for the one guy, but this is one case. Its not like people are going to go protest that he gets an easier sentence because then it looks like society is supporting that kind of behavior. No one is going to speak out about it because it's widely accepted as wrong. Sure the sentencing is too long for the crime. But if it'll slow or even stop an industry because more people are too scared to do it. [Which isn't the way we want things done but still.] I am all for it.
to think you actually get less time for raping children. Well, lesson here to pedophiles is. Don't search the internet for pictures of little boys, go after the real thing.
It will not stop anything. This event will piss people off and make the legal system look like an even bigger joke in the eyes of the people. People who distribute and produce child porn will not care, and I doubt they'll even take notice. How many drug dealers will sell less drugs if they know they're ruining people's lives. In fact, this would work a lot better in a drug situation, because if you like little children, you probably cannot help it. This is really ridiculous, because what you're doing is actually deterring them from venting out their sexual feelings through simple pictures and videos, instead of going out and satisfying your urges.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but lawyers are slowing building up the case of relating pedophilia to homosexuality. Currently, there are several cases where lawyers are arguing that pedophiles should be given the same rights as homosexuals based on: the argument that pedophilia is not a mental disorder (removed from most official lists of mental disorders), some people are pedophilia by nature (<---debatable) - homosexuals are not a mental disorder in the eyes of most people, some people are born homosexual (<--- debatable) which leads to: since homosexuals are protected under several sex discrimination laws, so pedophiles should be also (which would allow the distribution of child porn since homosexual porn is allowed) which leads to: more rights for pedophiles to do whatever they want with "willing" children since pedophilia is close to the same terms as homosexuality
I don't support this line of reasoning, but it is gaining ground. I do believe that people shouldn't bash people because they're pedophiles, but I don't support that much of an expanse of pedophilia rights,
And since Hitler got in here, Goldwin's Law takes effect and this discussion is over.
read this in an article somewhere, not really going to follow up here though. I don't really like TL political threads that turn into mud-slinging.
do you have any source for that? i dont see any lawyer in his right mind trying to pursue that...?? especially with such an insane lack of scientific evidence (you say its being removed from the mental disorder list? i read somewhere that the list is being reviewed/re-written in the next few years so maybe you mean some people are discussing it....)
On November 07 2011 13:39 NationInArms wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but lawyers are slowing building up the case of relating pedophilia to homosexuality. Currently, there are several cases where lawyers are arguing that pedophiles should be given the same rights as homosexuals based on: the argument that pedophilia is not a mental disorder (removed from most official lists of mental disorders), some people are pedophilia by nature (<---debatable) - homosexuals are not a mental disorder in the eyes of most people, some people are born homosexual (<--- debatable) which leads to: since homosexuals are protected under several sex discrimination laws, so pedophiles should be also (which would allow the distribution of child porn since homosexual porn is allowed) which leads to: more rights for pedophiles to do whatever they want with "willing" children since pedophilia is close to the same terms as homosexuality
I don't support this line of reasoning, but it is gaining ground. I do believe that people shouldn't bash people because they're pedophiles, but I don't support that much of an expanse of pedophilia rights,
And since Hitler got in here, Goldwin's Law takes effect and this discussion is over.
read this in an article somewhere, not really going to follow up here though. I don't really like TL political threads that turn into mud-slinging.
What?
Consent is kind of a big thing. I don't see how anyone could even hope to argue a similarity as a grounds for removing bans on child pornography!
Since I just posted that the blog mentioned above which brought me to this topic, I might as well share my thoughts here as well:
To everyone who thinks "capital punishment" like in the case stated in the OP is the best possible solution. Even better, you should hang him instantly:
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain.
Yes, I do get that this is a very, very thin ice topic. However, please take a deep breath and consider these facts: -Sexual impulse towards children (or animals, your mother or your grandpa for all that I care) is not "wrong" itself. It's an impulse. If you're a human being you will have impulses which indicate to rip someone elses throat out and shove a knife up his ass (hint, that's what your impulse towards the OP sounds like. Does that make me call you a sick fucker? No.). -Acting on your impulses is a whole different story.
-The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment is, among people who actually care about the psychology behind it, often considered the best possible "treatment". There is a thin line between desensitizing and satisfying. Desensitizing is what happens a lot of the time when people are being isolated and get some kind of "material" about their original input. Satisfying is what happens when you (dingding) are confronted with your impulse in a socially accepted way.
For a brief time I used to do some workshops on an entirely different matter with a psychologist who is specialized in bringing out testimonies by pedophiles who actually did rape/molest children and assisting convicted ones during their prison time and we had quite some talks about that exact topic. In his opinion the people who actually DO commit those crimes are, emotionally, cornered between their "impulse", social (or rather emotional) isolation and their sense of what's actually right or wrong. Here's the trick: The more they isolate themselves from societies standards, the more likely they're going to act on their impulse.
Once this kind of "spiral" starts, no one cares about punishment anymore. It doesn't matter if they get sentenced for life or killed. There's just the initial impulse left and the thin string that keeps them from committing the crime (the knowledge that it's wrong) keeps getting thinner and thinner. THAT is where the real danger lies.
What I meant by "The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment" considering childporn would actually be (don't laugh, things like that exists e.g. in Japan) stuff like e.g. a brothel with legal girls who look as if they're not legal yet or lolicon. By giving people who have such impulses or conditions the possibility to legally get some kind of substitute you keep them socially integrated and the bond that says "This is my society, I know that my impulses are off the chart but, hey, this is not all of it but it's enough for me" gets stronger and people are less likely to commit actual crimes.
tl;dr:
Anyway, if someone is attracted to children and can't do anything about it he or she needs help, not isolation.
To put it more simple, there is a huge difference between: -Wanting to hit someone so badly because you're pissed (cheesed for the fiftieth time on sc2 ladder?) -Playing Q3 or watching a brutal movie to calm down -Going out and looking for a place where someone else get's beat up -Going out, taking a random person with you, dragging them into your apartement and beating the crap out of them. -Film the whole thing and put it on the interweb for money.
Same line goes for "attracted to children" -> "consuming cp" -> "actively moving to molest/'scout'" -> "commiting a childrape" -> "distributing a childrape"
I agree with the argument that you made, and I am impressed with how well you made it. There is a very serious ethical and moral dilemma going on here. I hope you don't let the masses who couldn't be bothered to actually contemplate this situation get you down.
honestly the courts are run by judge impulse instead of by moral reason. there's so much evidence in celebrity and racial sentencing that this really shouldn't come as a surprise. i remember reading an article from a guy who witnessed a crime and got brought in for questioning and described how they tried to make him confess to stuff he didn't do in the most devious ways. he described how they tried to twist his words as much as possible and take statements as implied guilt. it really went to show how fucked up our justice system is. the criteria for becoming a judge are far too lax... if anything it should be harder to become a judge than a doctor.
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
Ok, I can see what you're saying there, I hadn't thought about them having a range of attraction. I would guess that there is almost certainly a spread of people, with one end liking solely children of a certain sex and the other liking anything that moves.
But my issue is, if someone likes pre-pubescent children as well as adults, then they should find it easier to control. I guess this is similar to what you're thinking, because you relate this to being less likely to actually do something physical with a child. But we're talking about ones who have looked at child porn. In this case, someone who has looked at child porn involving two boys engaging in sexual acts, something he knows will have been exploitative and damaging. This is someone who has already proven themselves unable to resist.
So there are probably people who find pre-pubescent girls attractive but have never indulged their urges at all, instead engaging in legal acts with other people they find attractive. But these people are not known about, impossible to find, haven't done anything wrong. In fact they've demonstrated resolve. But I would separate this group from people who have downloaded child porn. At that point, I'd call them a risk.
I still think they should have a punishment fitting the crime, so something way less than that life without parole prison sentence. But then I guess the radical part of my viewpoint is that I think they shouldn't really be reintroduced into society unless we can somehow develop a sure method of "curing" them. So not prison, but as I suggested in a previous post, an area out in the countryside with restricted internet and TV, computer games, and work to do throughout the day. Whether that work be farming for themselves or packing boxes in a factory. I guess that would be dependent upon their current condition, I wouldn't put the raving rapists in with the awkward guy who downloaded stuff. So basically a commune, and research into "curing" it.
On November 07 2011 14:37 r.Evo wrote: Since I just posted that the blog mentioned above which brought me to this topic, I might as well share my thoughts here as well:
To everyone who thinks "capital punishment" like in the case stated in the OP is the best possible solution. Even better, you should hang him instantly:
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain.
Yes, I do get that this is a very, very thin ice topic. However, please take a deep breath and consider these facts: -Sexual impulse towards children (or animals, your mother or your grandpa for all that I care) is not "wrong" itself. It's an impulse. If you're a human being you will have impulses which indicate to rip someone elses throat out and shove a knife up his ass (hint, that's what your impulse towards the OP sounds like. Does that make me call you a sick fucker? No.). -Acting on your impulses is a whole different story.
-The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment is, among people who actually care about the psychology behind it, often considered the best possible "treatment". There is a thin line between desensitizing and satisfying. Desensitizing is what happens a lot of the time when people are being isolated and get some kind of "material" about their original input. Satisfying is what happens when you (dingding) are confronted with your impulse in a socially accepted way.
For a brief time I used to do some workshops on an entirely different matter with a psychologist who is specialized in bringing out testimonies by pedophiles who actually did rape/molest children and assisting convicted ones during their prison time and we had quite some talks about that exact topic. In his opinion the people who actually DO commit those crimes are, emotionally, cornered between their "impulse", social (or rather emotional) isolation and their sense of what's actually right or wrong. Here's the trick: The more they isolate themselves from societies standards, the more likely they're going to act on their impulse.
Once this kind of "spiral" starts, no one cares about punishment anymore. It doesn't matter if they get sentenced for life or killed. There's just the initial impulse left and the thin string that keeps them from committing the crime (the knowledge that it's wrong) keeps getting thinner and thinner. THAT is where the real danger lies.
What I meant by "The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment" considering childporn would actually be (don't laugh, things like that exists e.g. in Japan) stuff like e.g. a brothel with legal girls who look as if they're not legal yet or lolicon. By giving people who have such impulses or conditions the possibility to legally get some kind of substitute you keep them socially integrated and the bond that says "This is my society, I know that my impulses are off the chart but, hey, this is not all of it but it's enough for me" gets stronger and people are less likely to commit actual crimes.
Anyway, if someone is attracted to children and can't do anything about it he or she needs help, not isolation.
To put it more simple, there is a huge difference between: -Wanting to hit someone so badly because you're pissed (cheesed for the fiftieth time on sc2 ladder?) -Playing Q3 or watching a brutal movie to calm down -Going out and looking for a place where someone else get's beat up -Going out, taking a random person with you, dragging them into your apartement and beating the crap out of them. -Film the whole thing and put it on the interweb for money.
Same line goes for "attracted to children" -> "consuming cp" -> "actively moving to molest/'scout'" -> "commiting a childrape" -> "distributing a childrape"
excellent post, I agree with everything you've said
People need to realize that those who consume child pornography most likely (like 99% probable) didn't CHOOSE to get attracted by this. Say you are into (adult -.-) lesbian porn, which is 100% legal.....many are. Thinking back, did you ever "choose" that you were going to like looking at two women going at each other? Or did you start to get attracted by it once kinda randomly and can't even remember when it started?
I have a great sense of pity for those who get aroused by kids but are too afraid to get help. Because of the high chance that they'll end up having a police squadron invading their home. Let alone that they can change their name and move to a different city if someone in the neighborhood found out about it.
On November 06 2011 10:23 Josealtron wrote: Lock him up in jail for the rest of their life? lol. Because apparently looking at disgusting images is as bad as killing somebody...
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.
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.
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.
Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
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?
On November 06 2011 10:23 Josealtron wrote: Lock him up in jail for the rest of their life? lol. Because apparently looking at disgusting images is as bad as killing somebody...
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.
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.
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.
This defense is like saying it's okay for people who get off on killing people to watch snuff films instead.
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...
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.
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.
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
On November 06 2011 10:23 Josealtron wrote: Lock him up in jail for the rest of their life? lol. Because apparently looking at disgusting images is as bad as killing somebody...
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.
You are actually hurting the CP industry according to music activist groups.
I guess some people think that it's not really relevant that Murder is worse than possession of CP. If you do either you've crossed a line, and if you cross that line you deserve jail for life.
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.
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.
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!
For those who think that the sentence is justified because this supports child molestation: Do you think people should go to jail for viewing snuff films? Do you think someone should go to jail for accidentally downloading child porn?
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?
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
You know society is fucked up when it is legal to view obscene, graphic material of dead people (and children) but viewing pictures of kids with their clothes off? Sentence for life!
How can anyone defend that possession of two pictures (two counts) can have a comparable sentence to someone who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk driving?
On November 08 2011 06:12 setzer wrote: You know society is fucked up when it is legal to view obscene, graphic material of dead people (and children) but viewing pictures of kids with their clothes off? Sentence for life! ?
Same goes for lolicon... which for some strange reason is illegal in severall European countries.
and as I read this topic I find out that a coach at a major university molested about a dozen kids. He wont be in jail for life. Why should this guy be in jail for life for POSSESSION. in the world we live apparently owning pictures if kids is worse than actually molesting them.
On November 08 2011 06:12 setzer wrote: You know society is fucked up when it is legal to view obscene, graphic material of dead people (and children) but viewing pictures of kids with their clothes off? Sentence for life! ?
Same goes for lolicon... which for some strange reason is illegal in severall European countries.
On November 08 2011 06:12 setzer wrote: You know society is fucked up when it is legal to view obscene, graphic material of dead people (and children) but viewing pictures of kids with their clothes off? Sentence for life!
How can anyone defend that possession of two pictures (two counts) can have a comparable sentence to someone who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk driving?
Because possession of child porn is as guilty as murder people in computer games, possession of blood diamond, paying tax to invade other country.. oh wait....
This is incredibly stupid. Pictures? For one, people don't even get that for DOING THE ACT. For two, that means people who watch gore should be life imprisonment because of their viewing of dead/mutilated people?
This is like sending a message saying it's okay to hurt kids because if you get caught you won't get life.
This is the only time I will ever even somewhat defend a person who possesses child porn, this is just wrong. If OJ Simpson gets away scot-free for killing somebody... >.>
On November 08 2011 06:12 setzer wrote: You know society is fucked up when it is legal to view obscene, graphic material of dead people (and children) but viewing pictures of kids with their clothes off? Sentence for life! ?
Same goes for lolicon... which for some strange reason is illegal in severall European countries.
I think the problem with society as a whole, people in general, also the legal system is that one you do something wrong we throw you in the slammer then do nothing and by the time you're out you have learned nothing usually depending on the person. You are re-entered into the world with a lot of resentment and hate and continue to practice these disliked behaviors what I'd also like to point out is that the programs in place for these things to "help" people sometimes do their job but not always.
In a situation like this we are failing as a society to correct or help individuals and instead showing them that we are more focused on discarding the unwanted like a piece of trash than take the time necessary to reform the person like recycling trash and integrating them back into society to be useful.
Then the question comes to who is willing to take up their own time to help these individuals? Who as in who are the proper people who's going to get the job done and have a say 70% success rate. As we look at it now the legal system doesn't help always because if it did we'd have less problems as we do now and neither does society. Society cares as much like a kid passing another person being bullied we just ignore problems in our face and move on instead of dealing with them right here and right now.
Ps. I believe that all people can be useful regardless of their talents. Real men don't make excuses!
When i was 11, i used to be on IRC chatting with people i considered to be my friends. One of them was really nice to me so i used to speak with him a lot about my life and the little problems i had with my parents at this time.
One day he asked me to come to his house for a week end so we could speak and see eachother in real life. I remember him saying that my sex and age wasn't a matter to him. I answered him that i did not have enough money for that. To which he responded that he would pay me the ticket and my parents would never know about this. I really wanted to see him, he was the only person i though that could really understand me. He always gave me good advices and was always here to hear me. I didn't come to his house, not because of him, but because my parents would have known and i thought they would have been mad at me because i though they didn't like me.
Few years later, this same man showed me pictures of a man with two little girl (approx 3) completely naked. He was holding the first girl by her feet so that the little girl could suck his dick. The other girl was only watching the camera on the bed. This picture shocked me. Since then, nothing really shocked me. I've seen many horrible things including picture of dead bodies, video of assassinations, extreme body modifications, torture, .. Nothing seems to affect me anymore.
A year after that, i heard that this guy got caught for possession of child porn on his hard drive. He was sentenced to jail and psycatric sessions. He flew to Guinea for some times and went back again. He never actually went to jail nor did he recieved any psycatric help.
I'm still speaking to him. Two years ago he went to my house where i saw him in real life for the first time while he was still being purchased by the police. We never spoke about the day he asked me to come to his house, we just watched movies drink beers and talked.
Soon after that, i started to search for child pornography pictures on the internet and found some. I never intended to like that. I wanted to see the picture he showed me to see if i was able to feel something again. I wanted to be shocked, i wanted to feel bad watching this. I didn't feel anything. So i searched again and again, i thought it was the only last thing that could makes me feel bad but actually, i started to enjoy it. When i realised i was looking up for cp for excitment rather than remorse, that's when i started to feel guilt. I realised i was becoming like him and that scared the shit out of me. I felt horrible thinking i was hurting someone by looking at these picture. At that time i had two options : see a shrink or kill myself. I decided to see a shrink first and if it failed then suicide.
I was able to see someone specialized in deviant sexual behaviour and she first put me on antidepressant. It didn't really help (talking to her did afterwards) so she asked me to be followed by an hospital on regular basis for a month or two. I panicked, i didn't know what to do. It was the first time i talked to my parents about all this. They felt bad for not knowning this all this time but said that i didn't need hospitalization. That it was too hard for a treatment and that i could overcome my urges without it. I did, and i'm so happy about that. I never thought i would.
What i want to say is all the pedophiles aren't the same. The guy i met is a good person. He's smart, educated and really nice to everybody. He doesn't deserve to be locked in jail for life and he doesn't deserve death penalty. He is just sick. He needs help, not punishment. And i'm the one he nearly abused when i was a child who says that. I saw his side and i don't think jail would have helped me like my shrink did. Of course there are pedophiles who won't ever change but they're only a little part of them. For the others, help can't hurt, punishment do. I saw a videos of a pedophile being hit to death by dozens of angry men. All i thought was "If it was me ? Did i deserve that ?". My answer is no and whatever this guy did, i think those men who killed him because of his sickness are the one who should be punished.
English isn't my native language, i'm sorry for my mistakes. I hope i was clear, i'm getting a bit emotional when it comes to this subject.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
seriously? I mean.. I know lolicon/doujins are illegal, but lifelong for watching that is the definition of extreme.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
No you can't.
You shouldn't, but since each image can be convicted as a seperate charge, 100 images at 1 year per image, it technically could happen. It wouldn't, but it could.
Edit: Though I'm unsure if cartoons are illegal in the US if we were referring specifically to the US.
Yeah, this does seem disproportionate, based more on what we fear the defendant could do in the future than what has actually been done. Some of the posts in this thread are a bit worrying - the guys who are acting like he's done nothing wrong, or should just get a slap on the wrist - but a first offender should have a sentence that aims for rehabilitation.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
No you can't.
You shouldn't, but since each image can be convicted as a seperate charge, 100 images at 1 year per image, it technically could happen. It wouldn't, but it could.
Edit: Though I'm unsure if cartoons are illegal in the US if we were referring specifically to the US.
Its illegal in the US and several European countries.
Well he did steal that life of the child. For now on the child will have nightmares about it and will never grow up to be the same person had it not happened. It's very fair.
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote: he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
you could get the same sentence for watching children hentai. do you harm actually harm any child then?
No you can't.
You shouldn't, but since each image can be convicted as a seperate charge, 100 images at 1 year per image, it technically could happen. It wouldn't, but it could.
Edit: Though I'm unsure if cartoons are illegal in the US if we were referring specifically to the US.
Its illegal in the US and several European countries.
Ah right, I know it was in a lot of countries but after I posted I had a little doubt in my mind that I may have been wrong about it being the same in the US. Thank ye.
On November 09 2011 01:45 SySLeif wrote: Well he did steal that life of the child. For now on the child will have nightmares about it and will never grow up to be the same person had it not happened. It's very fair.
He didn't do anything like that. I think you misread the article.
Idk guys.. This is a grim world we live in... Im scared for our future with all the hate in the world and injustice.
I don't even want to comment on this situation really. Child Porn is fuckkkkkkeeeddd up... But I've seen murderers get off for less. I'd rather see some of this guy's prison years taken away and slapped onto a cold blooded murderer.
Also I don't even want to touch on the fact that this case borders the situation of punishing someone for their thoughts (all he actually did was download.. the real crime was in his head). So is the government is punishing us for our thoughts now? Oh big brother is watching... Minority Report anyone? O.o the future is that scary.
Regardless our justice system is messed. I wish we had perfect justice. Where's our Dark Knight? We need him...
On November 09 2011 01:21 NanaCry wrote: When i was 11, i used to be on IRC chatting with people i considered to be my friends. One of them was really nice to me so i used to speak with him a lot about my life and the little problems i had with my parents at this time.
One day he asked me to come to his house for a week end so we could speak and see eachother in real life. I remember him saying that my sex and age wasn't a matter to him. I answered him that i did not have enough money for that. To which he responded that he would pay me the ticket and my parents would never know about this. I really wanted to see him, he was the only person i though that could really understand me. He always gave me good advices and was always here to hear me. I didn't come to his house, not because of him, but because my parents would have known and i thought they would have been mad at me because i though they didn't like me.
Few years later, this same man showed me pictures of a man with two little girl (approx 3) completely naked. He was holding the first girl by her feet so that the little girl could suck his dick. The other girl was only watching the camera on the bed. This picture shocked me. Since then, nothing really shocked me. I've seen many horrible things including picture of dead bodies, video of assassinations, extreme body modifications, torture, .. Nothing seems to affect me anymore.
A year after that, i heard that this guy got caught for possession of child porn on his hard drive. He was sentenced to jail and psycatric sessions. He flew to Guinea for some times and went back again. He never actually went to jail nor did he recieved any psycatric help.
I'm still speaking to him. Two years ago he went to my house where i saw him in real life for the first time while he was still being purchased by the police. We never spoke about the day he asked me to come to his house, we just watched movies drink beers and talked.
Soon after that, i started to search for child pornography pictures on the internet and found some. I never intended to like that. I wanted to see the picture he showed me to see if i was able to feel something again. I wanted to be shocked, i wanted to feel bad watching this. I didn't feel anything. So i searched again and again, i thought it was the only last thing that could makes me feel bad but actually, i started to enjoy it. When i realised i was looking up for cp for excitment rather than remorse, that's when i started to feel guilt. I realised i was becoming like him and that scared the shit out of me. I felt horrible thinking i was hurting someone by looking at these picture. At that time i had two options : see a shrink or kill myself. I decided to see a shrink first and if it failed then suicide.
I was able to see someone specialized in deviant sexual behaviour and she first put me on antidepressant. It didn't really help (talking to her did afterwards) so she asked me to be followed by an hospital on regular basis for a month or two. I panicked, i didn't know what to do. It was the first time i talked to my parents about all this. They felt bad for not knowning this all this time but said that i didn't need hospitalization. That it was too hard for a treatment and that i could overcome my urges without it. I did, and i'm so happy about that. I never thought i would.
What i want to say is all the pedophiles aren't the same. The guy i met is a good person. He's smart, educated and really nice to everybody. He doesn't deserve to be locked in jail for life and he doesn't deserve death penalty. He is just sick. He needs help, not punishment. And i'm the one he nearly abused when i was a child who says that. I saw his side and i don't think jail would have helped me like my shrink did. Of course there are pedophiles who won't ever change but they're only a little part of them. For the others, help can't hurt, punishment do. I saw a videos of a pedophile being hit to death by dozens of angry men. All i thought was "If it was me ? Did i deserve that ?". My answer is no and whatever this guy did, i think those men who killed him because of his sickness are the one who should be punished.
English isn't my native language, i'm sorry for my mistakes. I hope i was clear, i'm getting a bit emotional when it comes to this subject.
Wow that is a really strong post. Thank you for sharing that with us.
You're right too, I don't mean to sound like I'm defending pedophiles but people tend to forget that everyone has a story and there's an actual person involved. Sure there may be some really terrible people out there that will never stop and seriously harm children. Those people I have no mercy for. But I do show leniency towards the people who appear to just need help take you in this story for example; you recognized your problem and sought help. That's very respectable.
I too have had my own problems with something similar to things like this. Not CP directly but somewhat related.
As for the OP it's really sad that he's been sentenced that amount of time. I don't think the time will stick though. This will most definitely end up in the supreme courts and overturned. Given the fact he just possessed pictures he found online. (The method in which he got them are somewhat unknown though. I don't know if he paid someone for them or what?) It's not like he went out and actually raped children.
You could argue that he helped harm the children in an indirect way but I think that depends on the method in which he obtained the photos. If they were already out there and he just collected them from various file sharing sources then I'd say that's hardly worth his punishment. Also if you factor in his age he just most likely needs some serious psychological help. Which he will not get in the American judicial system.
On November 09 2011 01:21 NanaCry wrote: When i was 11, i used to be on IRC chatting with people i considered to be my friends. One of them was really nice to me so i used to speak with him a lot about my life and the little problems i had with my parents at this time.
One day he asked me to come to his house for a week end so we could speak and see eachother in real life. I remember him saying that my sex and age wasn't a matter to him. I answered him that i did not have enough money for that. To which he responded that he would pay me the ticket and my parents would never know about this. I really wanted to see him, he was the only person i though that could really understand me. He always gave me good advices and was always here to hear me. I didn't come to his house, not because of him, but because my parents would have known and i thought they would have been mad at me because i though they didn't like me.
Few years later, this same man showed me pictures of a man with two little girl (approx 3) completely naked. He was holding the first girl by her feet so that the little girl could suck his dick. The other girl was only watching the camera on the bed. This picture shocked me. Since then, nothing really shocked me. I've seen many horrible things including picture of dead bodies, video of assassinations, extreme body modifications, torture, .. Nothing seems to affect me anymore.
A year after that, i heard that this guy got caught for possession of child porn on his hard drive. He was sentenced to jail and psycatric sessions. He flew to Guinea for some times and went back again. He never actually went to jail nor did he recieved any psycatric help.
I'm still speaking to him. Two years ago he went to my house where i saw him in real life for the first time while he was still being purchased by the police. We never spoke about the day he asked me to come to his house, we just watched movies drink beers and talked.
Soon after that, i started to search for child pornography pictures on the internet and found some. I never intended to like that. I wanted to see the picture he showed me to see if i was able to feel something again. I wanted to be shocked, i wanted to feel bad watching this. I didn't feel anything. So i searched again and again, i thought it was the only last thing that could makes me feel bad but actually, i started to enjoy it. When i realised i was looking up for cp for excitment rather than remorse, that's when i started to feel guilt. I realised i was becoming like him and that scared the shit out of me. I felt horrible thinking i was hurting someone by looking at these picture. At that time i had two options : see a shrink or kill myself. I decided to see a shrink first and if it failed then suicide.
I was able to see someone specialized in deviant sexual behaviour and she first put me on antidepressant. It didn't really help (talking to her did afterwards) so she asked me to be followed by an hospital on regular basis for a month or two. I panicked, i didn't know what to do. It was the first time i talked to my parents about all this. They felt bad for not knowning this all this time but said that i didn't need hospitalization. That it was too hard for a treatment and that i could overcome my urges without it. I did, and i'm so happy about that. I never thought i would.
What i want to say is all the pedophiles aren't the same. The guy i met is a good person. He's smart, educated and really nice to everybody. He doesn't deserve to be locked in jail for life and he doesn't deserve death penalty. He is just sick. He needs help, not punishment. And i'm the one he nearly abused when i was a child who says that. I saw his side and i don't think jail would have helped me like my shrink did. Of course there are pedophiles who won't ever change but they're only a little part of them. For the others, help can't hurt, punishment do. I saw a videos of a pedophile being hit to death by dozens of angry men. All i thought was "If it was me ? Did i deserve that ?". My answer is no and whatever this guy did, i think those men who killed him because of his sickness are the one who should be punished.
English isn't my native language, i'm sorry for my mistakes. I hope i was clear, i'm getting a bit emotional when it comes to this subject.
Wow that is a really strong post. Thank you for sharing that with us.
You're right too, I don't mean to sound like I'm defending pedophiles but people tend to forget that everyone has a story and there's an actual person involved. Sure there may be some really terrible people out there that will never stop and seriously harm children. Those people I have no mercy for. But I do show leniency towards the people who appear to just need help take you in this story for example; you recognized your problem and sought help. That's very respectable.
I too have had my own problems with something similar to things like this. Not CP directly but somewhat related.
As for the OP it's really sad that he's been sentenced that amount of time. I don't think the time will stick though. This will most definitely end up in the supreme courts and overturned. Given the fact he just possessed pictures he found online. (The method in which he got them are somewhat unknown though. I don't know if he paid someone for them or what?) It's not like he went out and actually raped children.
You could argue that he helped harm the children in an indirect way but I think that depends on the method in which he obtained the photos. If they were already out there and he just collected them from various file sharing sources then I'd say that's hardly worth his punishment. Also if you factor in his age he just most likely needs some serious psychological help. Which he will not get in the American judicial system.
I love you people you actually think! Thank you for sharing that story and you are right I love people like you that actually share your experiences because it is in only that way might we be able to overcome things as to saying a person is sick and there is no help for them. People who say that are sick themselves sadly we only get a shrink after we have committed the crime!
I was recently diagnosed with schizophrenia but a long story short you wouldn't believe how many times in my life I was brought to the edge from losing control. The talking has helped with not only the shrink but other friends and understanding things has become more clear. Though I don't believe that people understand the gravity of their actions because like the guy with the CP experience in how he felt nothing I too have experienced a life like this and at times unable to feel complete emotions or satisfaction of any form. The only example I can give you is that yesterday I was sitting at home doing nothing and a friend invited me to MW3 launch party somehow the guy who won the grand prize was not there and they drew again... I won but after everyone was celebrating I knew what was happening to me in reality where I was manufacturing false emotions I really had no interest somewhat.
Regardless I am making some changes and trying for the best because I know I have a problem and am facing just like that guy did. The best thing to do though for people who don't know though is step outside of yourself and look at your self analyze and examine. When you find or see a problem acknowledge it and deal with it because ignoring problems only makes it worse!
OK, f**k it. So here's an example from the other side.
First of all why is it so goddamn hard to talk about it at all? While writing this i was mostly thinking to just delete it and forget about it. This site is normally not the place to talk about it, but many arguments in this thread made me feel sick. I see pedos/near-pedos telling their story but none of the victims, so here it is. It's not well written i'm not a native english speaker and there's so much more to tell. It's just so complicated... And this is just my story. Every person is different. It got longer than i wanted, some stuff might seem confusing but i tried. I hope it's readable and understandable. I'll spoiler it.
I have caring great parents, was good student and overall a really bright kid. Working class household but the kids were always first as it's supposed to be. I was just crying a lot and still do and emotions and feelings are kind of a book with seven seals to me, just too powerful most of the time in both ways (hate/love). Also people touching me in any way was always a no-go until i absolutely trust them. Also heavy claustrophobia and some other stuff not nice to have. When growing up, problems were starting to get serious. I was just not able to understand myself. Why those strong feelings all the time? Why this strange behavior?
At the time i finished school (abitur/a-levels without ever learning, bright kid heh?), i started taking drugs. Weed only for the first years but others were to come. Finally i had something to soothe myself but as you can imagine it wasn't quite healthy on the long run. My behavior made it hard to find friends many people saw me as a weirdo, i guess and i can't blame 'em. Worst were the questions like "your quite attractive and so nice, why you don't have a girlfriend", ("you're so smart, why don't you make more of your life" became my favorite in the last years) and all that stuff. Good questions i also asked myself thousands of times. Why? I did not have answer so something must be really wrong with me. But what?
Then there was this evening. One of the evenings i normally really cherish. I was 23 at that time just started university (which i quit after a couple of months). Two of my best friends (of the 5 or so overall left...) and me just getting drunk, playing cards, having fun, me feeling normal. We started to wrestle at some point just for the lulz which ended in my best friend, who is a lot stronger than me, pinning me to the ground without me being able to move. That's when i was "triggered" (as i know now). I started hyperventilating, crying, every muscle in my body cramped and my brain just went nuts. He was going nuts as well, like "i'm so sorry, what did i do, i'm so sorry, what did i do? please calm down!". Second worst night of my life. That's when i realised there's something terribly wrong. But I was still not able to get it together, thinking for days about that and my whole life so far. I decided to kill myself in the end, because nothing made sense anymore. No "crying for help" shit just end it. I am a man of principles though and when i was ready to jump the train, the thought came up, that i cannot do this to my parents and my family. Better a failing son, than one who killed himself. (to all the smartasses who go like "if you really want to kill yourself you'd be dead").
So i kept on going for years without any destination just for the sake of staying alive. Changing my shitty jobs every year or so when people started coming too close asking those damn questions again.
Then there was this worst day of my life: Four years ago my brother beat my sister over something trivial. Violence never occured in my family and i was not willing to let him get away with this (family/best friends > all). When i told my mother i am going to beat the crap out of him, she told me i don't understand! After i insisted she has to declare to me why, or i am still going to beat him she told the story (crying): Family Holiday, he was 9 i was 5, a guy looked after us when my parents wanted an evening for themselves, you can put the rest together for yourself... Explained a lot. After first hearing the story i wasn't even thinking about myself and she wasn't speaking about me. I have absolutely no memory of it and already stopped caring about myself in general. I was just thinking about that *guy* (words can not describe the hate) destroying the life of my brother. But it didn't take long until it clicked. I had to swear never to talk to my brother and father about this. I agreed with this because he's finally able to lead a normal life atm and i don't want to pull him back in there. Concerning my father, he definately would have killed the guy if he knew, so he doesn't. Should he know? I decided he shouldn't because he's a great dad (He's over 70, no need to put that onto him).
I can just be sure my brother was raped and i was there as well. What did he do to me? Should i be glad i have no memory of it? Would it help me to deal with it if i knew?
Unfortunately i was always able to hide my problems from my parents quite well. Maybe they never made the connection and i don't blame 'em. Or do they know and the guilt is just too much? The human mind does crazy things sometimes. Never talked to them about it, even after i knew the story. Always tried my best to fake that everything is OK. I am so damaged, even after knowing all this stuff it's impossible for me to deal with it and my strange behavior stays the same. Also i just cannot talk about it to anyone and still fake being ok as far as possible. This is basically the first time... I am 31 now. Well my body is, my mind clearly isn't. My second try finding a therapist starts soon. I really would like to be happy again, because killing myself is not an option for me.
My case is kind of soft and it was enough to severely damage my whole psyche. What about children being molested over years or even by their own family? I don't want to imagine. That's also one of the things that keeps me going. "There's worse. If they can make it, you have to!"
So why am i telling this? I don't know for sure. It helps that's one thing. The other is, i want pedos to know what they are doing to children. Too many people are way too tolerant in this thread. Yes perhaps many of the victims are able to lead a normal life, but if you risk to destroy someone just to fullfil your sexual needs, you deserve the worst! If you feel those needs, seek help! If you can't help it and cross the line or support CP in any way, you deserve to die in pain. I get a bad conscience from killing a fly, but if you are pedo who actually molested a child, i could kill you with my bare hands without feeling any remorse.
On November 09 2011 09:37 r00ty wrote: OK, f**k it. So here's an example from the other side.
First of all why is it so goddamn hard to talk about it at all? While writing this i was mostly thinking to just delete it and forget about it. This site is normally not the place to talk about it, but many arguments in this thread made me feel sick. I see pedos/near-pedos telling their story but none of the victims, so here it is. It's not well written i'm not a native english speaker and there's so much more to tell. It's just so complicated... And this is just my story. Every person is different. It got longer than i wanted, some stuff might seem confusing but i tried. I hope it's readable and understandable. I'll spoiler it.
I have caring great parents, was good student and overall a really bright kid. Working class household but the kids were always first as it's supposed to be. I was just crying a lot and still do and emotions and feelings are kind of a book with seven seals to me, just too powerful most of the time in both ways (hate/love). Also people touching me in any way was always a no-go until i absolutely trust them. Also heavy claustrophobia and some other stuff not nice to have. When growing up, problems were starting to get serious. I was just not able to understand myself. Why those strong feelings all the time? Why this strange behavior?
At the time i finished school (abitur/a-levels without ever learning, bright kid heh?), i started taking drugs. Weed only for the first years but others were to come. Finally i had something to soothe myself but as you can imagine it wasn't quite healthy on the long run. My behavior made it hard to find friends many people saw me as a weirdo, i guess and i can't blame 'em. Worst were the questions like "your quite attractive and so nice, why you don't have a girlfriend", ("you're so smart, why don't you make more of your life" became my favorite in the last years) and all that stuff. Good questions i also asked myself thousands of times. Why? I did not have answer so something must be really wrong with me. But what?
Then there was this evening. One of the evenings i normally really cherish. I was 23 at that time just started university (which i quit after a couple of months). Two of my best friends (of the 5 or so overall left...) and me just getting drunk, playing cards, having fun, me feeling normal. We started to wrestle at some point just for the lulz which ended in my best friend, who is a lot stronger than me, pinning me to the ground without me being able to move. That's when i was "triggered" (as i know now). I started hyperventilating, crying, every muscle in my body cramped and my brain just went nuts. He was going nuts as well, like "i'm so sorry, what did i do, i'm so sorry, what did i do? please calm down!". Second worst night of my life. That's when i realised there's something terribly wrong. But I was still not able to get it together, thinking for days about that and my whole life so far. I decided to kill myself in the end, because nothing made sense anymore. No "crying for help" shit just end it. I am a man of principles though and when i was ready to jump the train, the thought came up, that i cannot do this to my parents and my family. Better a failing son, than one who killed himself. (to all the smartasses who go like "if you really want to kill yourself you'd be dead").
So i kept on going for years without any destination just for the sake of staying alive. Changing my shitty jobs every year or so when people started coming too close asking those damn questions again.
Then there was this worst day of my life: Four years ago my brother beat my sister over something trivial. Violence never occured in my family and i was not willing to let him get away with this (family/best friends > all). When i told my mother i am going to beat the crap out of him, she told me i don't understand! After i insisted she has to declare to me why, or i am still going to beat him she told the story (crying): Family Holiday, he was 9 i was 5, a guy looked after us when my parents wanted an evening for themselves, you can put the rest together for yourself... Explained a lot. After first hearing the story i wasn't even thinking about myself and she wasn't speaking about me. I have absolutely no memory of it and already stopped caring about myself in general. I was just thinking about that *guy* (words can not describe the hate) destroying the life of my brother. But it didn't take long until it clicked. I had to swear never to talk to my brother and father about this. I agreed with this because he's finally able to lead a normal life atm and i don't want to pull him back in there. Concerning my father, he definately would have killed the guy if he knew, so he doesn't. Should he know? I decided he shouldn't because he's a great dad (He's over 70, no need to put that onto him).
I can just be sure my brother was raped and i was there as well. What did he do to me? Should i be glad i have no memory of it? Would it help me to deal with it if i knew?
Unfortunately i was always able to hide my problems from my parents quite well. Maybe they never made the connection and i don't blame 'em. Or do they know and the guilt is just too much? The human mind does crazy things sometimes. Never talked to them about it, even after i knew the story. Always tried my best to fake that everything is OK. I am so damaged, even after knowing all this stuff it's impossible for me to deal with it and my strange behavior stays the same. Also i just cannot talk about it to anyone and still fake being ok as far as possible. This is basically the first time... I am 31 now. Well my body is, my mind clearly isn't. My second try finding a therapist starts soon. I really would like to be happy again, because killing myself is not an option for me.
My case is kind of soft and it was enough to severely damage my whole psyche. What about children being molested over years or even by their own family? I don't want to imagine. That's also one of the things that keeps me going. "There's worse. If they can make it, you have to!"
So why am i telling this? I don't know for sure. It helps that's one thing. The other is, i want pedos to know what they are doing to children. Too many people are way too tolerant in this thread. Yes perhaps many of the victims are able to lead a normal life, but if you risk to destroy someone just to fullfil your sexual needs, you deserve the worst! If you feel those needs, seek help! If you can't help it and cross the line or support CP in any way, you deserve to die in pain. I get a bad conscience from killing a fly, but if you are pedo who actually molested a child, i could kill you with my bare hands without feeling any remorse.
The thing is though, this guy DIDN'T actually hurt a child. He just downloaded some images. He didn't support the industry either, because he got them from a filesharing site, he didn't pay for them. If pirates are hurting the music industry by downloading without paying, then I don't see how this guy could be supporting the CP industry.
I'm not saying it isn't bad, it definitely IS. And he definitely should face some kind of punishment, like big fines, maybe a little jail time, and certainly rehab. The people who actually made the CP are the ones to hate. They're the ones who should be locked up for good.
But giving this guy life in prison would be like giving a smalltime pothead life in prison while the dealers only get a few years.
On November 09 2011 09:37 r00ty wrote: OK, f**k it. So here's an example from the other side.
First of all why is it so goddamn hard to talk about it at all? While writing this i was mostly thinking to just delete it and forget about it. This site is normally not the place to talk about it, but many arguments in this thread made me feel sick. I see pedos/near-pedos telling their story but none of the victims, so here it is. It's not well written i'm not a native english speaker and there's so much more to tell. It's just so complicated... And this is just my story. Every person is different. It got longer than i wanted, some stuff might seem confusing but i tried. I hope it's readable and understandable. I'll spoiler it.
I have caring great parents, was good student and overall a really bright kid. Working class household but the kids were always first as it's supposed to be. I was just crying a lot and still do and emotions and feelings are kind of a book with seven seals to me, just too powerful most of the time in both ways (hate/love). Also people touching me in any way was always a no-go until i absolutely trust them. Also heavy claustrophobia and some other stuff not nice to have. When growing up, problems were starting to get serious. I was just not able to understand myself. Why those strong feelings all the time? Why this strange behavior?
At the time i finished school (abitur/a-levels without ever learning, bright kid heh?), i started taking drugs. Weed only for the first years but others were to come. Finally i had something to soothe myself but as you can imagine it wasn't quite healthy on the long run. My behavior made it hard to find friends many people saw me as a weirdo, i guess and i can't blame 'em. Worst were the questions like "your quite attractive and so nice, why you don't have a girlfriend", ("you're so smart, why don't you make more of your life" became my favorite in the last years) and all that stuff. Good questions i also asked myself thousands of times. Why? I did not have answer so something must be really wrong with me. But what?
Then there was this evening. One of the evenings i normally really cherish. I was 23 at that time just started university (which i quit after a couple of months). Two of my best friends (of the 5 or so overall left...) and me just getting drunk, playing cards, having fun, me feeling normal. We started to wrestle at some point just for the lulz which ended in my best friend, who is a lot stronger than me, pinning me to the ground without me being able to move. That's when i was "triggered" (as i know now). I started hyperventilating, crying, every muscle in my body cramped and my brain just went nuts. He was going nuts as well, like "i'm so sorry, what did i do, i'm so sorry, what did i do? please calm down!". Second worst night of my life. That's when i realised there's something terribly wrong. But I was still not able to get it together, thinking for days about that and my whole life so far. I decided to kill myself in the end, because nothing made sense anymore. No "crying for help" shit just end it. I am a man of principles though and when i was ready to jump the train, the thought came up, that i cannot do this to my parents and my family. Better a failing son, than one who killed himself. (to all the smartasses who go like "if you really want to kill yourself you'd be dead").
So i kept on going for years without any destination just for the sake of staying alive. Changing my shitty jobs every year or so when people started coming too close asking those damn questions again.
Then there was this worst day of my life: Four years ago my brother beat my sister over something trivial. Violence never occured in my family and i was not willing to let him get away with this (family/best friends > all). When i told my mother i am going to beat the crap out of him, she told me i don't understand! After i insisted she has to declare to me why, or i am still going to beat him she told the story (crying): Family Holiday, he was 9 i was 5, a guy looked after us when my parents wanted an evening for themselves, you can put the rest together for yourself... Explained a lot. After first hearing the story i wasn't even thinking about myself and she wasn't speaking about me. I have absolutely no memory of it and already stopped caring about myself in general. I was just thinking about that *guy* (words can not describe the hate) destroying the life of my brother. But it didn't take long until it clicked. I had to swear never to talk to my brother and father about this. I agreed with this because he's finally able to lead a normal life atm and i don't want to pull him back in there. Concerning my father, he definately would have killed the guy if he knew, so he doesn't. Should he know? I decided he shouldn't because he's a great dad (He's over 70, no need to put that onto him).
I can just be sure my brother was raped and i was there as well. What did he do to me? Should i be glad i have no memory of it? Would it help me to deal with it if i knew?
Unfortunately i was always able to hide my problems from my parents quite well. Maybe they never made the connection and i don't blame 'em. Or do they know and the guilt is just too much? The human mind does crazy things sometimes. Never talked to them about it, even after i knew the story. Always tried my best to fake that everything is OK. I am so damaged, even after knowing all this stuff it's impossible for me to deal with it and my strange behavior stays the same. Also i just cannot talk about it to anyone and still fake being ok as far as possible. This is basically the first time... I am 31 now. Well my body is, my mind clearly isn't. My second try finding a therapist starts soon. I really would like to be happy again, because killing myself is not an option for me.
My case is kind of soft and it was enough to severely damage my whole psyche. What about children being molested over years or even by their own family? I don't want to imagine. That's also one of the things that keeps me going. "There's worse. If they can make it, you have to!"
So why am i telling this? I don't know for sure. It helps that's one thing. The other is, i want pedos to know what they are doing to children. Too many people are way too tolerant in this thread. Yes perhaps many of the victims are able to lead a normal life, but if you risk to destroy someone just to fullfil your sexual needs, you deserve the worst! If you feel those needs, seek help! If you can't help it and cross the line or support CP in any way, you deserve to die in pain. I get a bad conscience from killing a fly, but if you are pedo who actually molested a child, i could kill you with my bare hands without feeling any remorse.
Thanks for sharing all of this. I'm sorry for your pain, I really am, I can't fully identify with it obviously, because I just can't make myself feel this way about someone (the bolded sentence). Just to be clear, I'm certainly not defending CP, but I can be fully against it while being against killing someone involved in it. Similarly, I can be fully against it while being against sentencing someone found guilty of accessing it to life in prison.
I do agree that if you find someone abusing a child in that way, he should be given a very stiff sentence. I guess even though I think it's horrible, I'm fortunate enough to have an emotional distance from the issue that you weren't lucky enough to have. No matter how horrible I might see someone guilty of that as, there is another part of me that sees them as a human being who has problems and pain in their life. I know that's not what you want to hear, and I don't want to offend you by saying it, but nevertheless I believe it's at least somewhat true. For that reason I always hated "to catch a predator," or forcing people convicted of such crimes to tell people they were found guilty of it. It's taking someone who's already fucked up and crippling them beyond belief in a horrible way. It won't help them change, and we're capable of showing more compassion than that.
Anyway, I hope you never have to get your hands on a pedophile.
On November 09 2011 08:01 Brosaurus wrote: Why are we ready to lock away someone who looks on child porn based on the idea that they are creating a market for the abuse of children.
Yet, our community will exonerate pot smokers who monetarily support the cartels that have been murdering people for decades in Latin America.
Just some food for thought.
That's why my friends and I get our bud from Cali, grown in the US. No monetary aid to drug cartels. Also, by that reasoning, anyone who purchases Nike products is perpetuating child labor around the world. Almost any purchase you make is probably contributing in some small way to an "immoral" cause.
That being said, I agree with you he shouldn't be pinned with the charge of perpetuating child abuse if he has never physically touched a child. He should be punished yes, but not nearly as harshly as this.
If you have people close to you who share the belief that this person and people like him should be executed, what do you do. I'm horrified by what these people (people close to me) think, but I can't seem to get them to see something really simple to see. Any suggestions?
A bizarre world we live in - I reckon the judges / DA wanted to be seen to be making a strong stance on child porn but they have gone about it the wrong way. This man should've been sentenced to strict rehabilitation. It's a bit ridiculous that if he had molested a child he would've received a lighter sentence. Life in prison should be reserved for the scum of society - murderers, rapists, etc.
NanaCry's post is a very powerful one about "the other side".
On November 09 2011 11:52 Dark_Chill wrote: If you have people close to you who share the belief that this person and people like him should be executed, what do you do. I'm horrified by what these people (people close to me) think, but I can't seem to get them to see something really simple to see. Any suggestions?
There will forever be ignorance in this world and people who throw reasoned logic out the window and instead choose to follow blind emotion.
On November 09 2011 08:01 Brosaurus wrote: Why are we ready to lock away someone who looks on child porn based on the idea that they are creating a market for the abuse of children.
Yet, our community will exonerate pot smokers who monetarily support the cartels that have been murdering people for decades in Latin America.
Just some food for thought.
That's why my friends and I get our bud from Cali, grown in the US. No monetary aid to drug cartels. Also, by that reasoning, anyone who purchases Nike products is perpetuating child labor around the world. Almost any purchase you make is probably contributing in some small way to an "immoral" cause.
That being said, I agree with you he shouldn't be pinned with the charge of perpetuating child abuse if he has never physically touched a child. He should be punished yes, but not nearly as harshly as this.
What makes you think pot grown in cali isn't grown by drug lords? It's a well known fact that there are guys with guns out in certain areas of the northern Californian forest that will kill you for disturbing their growing operation. I smoke too, but I'm just questioning your reasoning for absolving yourself from guilt.
Viewing CP, the first thought crime now on the books (precedent). America's fucked.
Next up, viewing intellectual property without permission is stealing. Oh wait, thar's what all the studios want the world to believe. We need to stop this shit... Now.
I shouldn't have written what i wrote, but i won't delete it. Maybe it gives people some insight. It's a topic far too complicated and serious to be discussed here normally and getting so personal was a wrong thing to do, won't happen again.
Just felt many people weren't taking the effects serious enough ("it's just pictures"), that was the main point. I did not want to say they all have to be killed, i just loose my temper a bit when thinking too much about it...
In fact (might sound crazy now), i also say the sentence for that guy is too hard. He needs help first of all. But i stick to my point of view, if they cross the line, they cannot expect mercy. Where to draw the line? I shouldn't be asked for obvious reasons.
If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
NanaCry's post was really strong in deed and the post and the answers to it were one of the main reasons i wrote my story. He got messed up by getting shown a picture. How messed up must the girls be?
On November 10 2011 11:01 r00ty wrote: If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
Would he still have deserved to die if he hadn't killed all those people and instead had just downloaded pictures of the murders?
On November 10 2011 11:01 r00ty wrote: If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
Would he still have deserved to die if he hadn't killed all those people and instead had just downloaded pictures of the murders?
No he wouldn't. What's wrong with you? Are you even trying to get the context?
Ok, i didn't make myself clear enough. I wanted to point out, that if someone actually raped a child and can't help but giving into his needs, then to me it wouldn't matter how insane he was, he has to be removed from society.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
On November 10 2011 11:01 r00ty wrote: If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
Would he still have deserved to die if he hadn't killed all those people and instead had just downloaded pictures of the murders?
No he wouldn't. What's wrong with you? Are you even trying to get the context?
Ok, i didn't make myself clear enough. I wanted to point out, that if someone actually raped a child and can't help but giving into his needs, then to me it wouldn't matter how insane he was, he has to be removed from society.
Had to edit sry.
The context I saw was "If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasure, don't expect mercy." That sounded like you think that something bad should happen (otherwise why would they need mercy?) to people who "get off to CP" and "accept all the horrible consequences", even if they don't produce it.
The part about "If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves" was ambiguous: maybe in your head, as you wrote that, it clearly referred to not being able to control oneself from "actively taking part in it", but it could easily be taken as "control yourselves from downloading/viewing CP", which is how I took it.
If you expected me to figure out your meaning from context, you should have done a better job of separating the two different subjects that you were talking about.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
You have an incredibly biased and uninformed opinion. Of course child molestation starts as a fetish, just like murder starts as a motive. Just because it has a starting point does not mean that the starting point always eventuates into the conclusion. Just because he is physically attracted to underage people does NOT mean he will become a child molester. You're diving into the realm of thought crime, trying to justify this man's life sentence based on crimes he DID NOT COMMIT.
There are millions of people around the world who do NOT act on their fetishes because they know it is morally incorrect to have sex with a person under the age of consent, regardless of if the thought turns you on or not. You cannot punish someone for their thoughts or feelings but only their actions. His actions in this case has been downloading pictures from the internet.
Given this action, he has not paid for/supported the child porn industry and yet you are equating downloading pictures of the crime as equal to committing the crime itself ("he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children"). He did not touch, rape or molest a single child, the people pictured in the images he downloaded are the criminals who did this. He didn't give money to or support the people committing the crime.
People aren't dangerous simply because of a fetish. It takes a certain sinister type of person to cross the line between fantasy and reality when it comes to this situation. Just in the same way that not every heterosexual person is a rapist, not every pedophile is a child molester.
By your logic, if I were to look at images of somebody being murdered, it would make me the equivalent of a murderer. Fucked up logic bro.
On November 10 2011 11:01 r00ty wrote: I shouldn't have written what i wrote, but i won't delete it. Maybe it gives people some insight. It's a topic far too complicated and serious to be discussed here normally and getting so personal was a wrong thing to do, won't happen again.
Just felt many people weren't taking the effects serious enough ("it's just pictures"), that was the main point. I did not want to say they all have to be killed, i just loose my temper a bit when thinking too much about it...
In fact (might sound crazy now), i also say the sentence for that guy is too hard. He needs help first of all. But i stick to my point of view, if they cross the line, they cannot expect mercy. Where to draw the line? I shouldn't be asked for obvious reasons.
If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
NanaCry's post was really strong in deed and the post and the answers to it were one of the main reasons i wrote my story. He got messed up by getting shown a picture. How messed up must the girls be?
I agree with this post completely. The line you speak of would be actively taking part in it, I presume. Just remember that getting help isn't always easy. I don't want to sound like I'm in favor of this activity, but I'm trying to see both sides. NanaCry gave us a good example of how random stuff can lead to this, and that it's not all their fault. Still, thinking of the children, they must have been pretty fucked up by this. Jeffrey would be a good example of crossing the line. Just because you're insane, doesn't mean that going out and harming people is any less wrong. It would be a lot easier if there was a way for these people to have access to CP which didn't involve people being hurt. Someone brought up lolicon, but apparently it's illegal in most places as well. And maybe, in the future, our society will be able to accept the fact that these people need help, and that making them feel ashamed is counter-intuitive.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
You have an incredibly biased and uninformed opinion. Of course child molestation starts as a fetish, just like murder starts as a motive. Just because it has a starting point does not mean that the starting point always eventuates into the conclusion. Just because he is physically attracted to underage people does NOT mean he will become a child molester. You're diving into the realm of thought crime, trying to justify this man's life sentence based on crimes he DID NOT COMMIT.
So, if I give you a firearm knowing you're going to kill someone with it. What happens to me? I go to jail also. I did NOT commit the crime, simply loaned a piece of metal to you and you went and did the crime. BTW, for someone so 'informed', murder is also a sex crime in some cases. Do some research before spouting on the interwebs on how much you know. As to a 'starting point', so you have a guy who is actively watching child porn, the next step in the progression is he gets his hands on a child and goes to town. I'd be willing to bet a months pay that those guys you see on "To catch a predator" have child pron on their computers, causation vs correlation I don't know, but still sick individuals that shouldn't be in the general mix without some kind of serious observation, but then again, that does not work either.
There are millions of people around the world who do NOT act on their fetishes because they know it is morally incorrect to have sex with a person under the age of consent, regardless of if the thought turns you on or not. You cannot punish someone for their thoughts or feelings but only their actions. His actions in this case has been downloading pictures from the internet.
Therein lies the problem, watching this type of thing is an action that is in and of itself illegal. The production is immoral if not illegal (some countries have no moral structure). He did the act when he downloaded the pictures/video. And no, I don't have to watch you kill someone before I arrest you. You show your intent and you go to jail for attempted murder/rape/whatever.
Given this action, he has not paid for/supported the child porn industry and yet you are equating downloading pictures of the crime as equal to committing the crime itself ("he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children"). He did not touch, rape or molest a single child, the people pictured in the images he downloaded are the criminals who did this. He didn't give money to or support the people committing the crime.
You are kidding right? Playing devil's advocate? If there was no profit motive, the stuff wouldn't be produced. Just because something can be downloaded for free does not mean money did not change hands at some point. There are entire trafficking rings that deal with kidnapping young children for this type of thing. I can download regular porn for free, so there must not be any profit in the porn industry, counter-intuitive logic there.
People aren't dangerous simply because of a fetish. It takes a certain sinister type of person to cross the line between fantasy and reality when it comes to this situation. Just in the same way that not every heterosexual person is a rapist, not every pedophile is a child molester.
Again, having a fetish does not equate to anything. When that fetish is immoral and you act on it, in this case acquiring illicit material, then yes, it is a huge red flag that should warn someone. So you're saying someone who looks at a 10 yr old and is sexually aroused is 'normal' by any standard?
By your logic, if I were to look at images of somebody being murdered, it would make me the equivalent of a murderer. Fucked up logic bro
Not being sick, but if you had some sexual response to watching people murdered, then yes, I'd say the chances would be very high that eventually you would progress to move violent interactions. Do some reading, you say it's fucked up, but there's plenty to back up my logic.
.
edit: As to the 'bias' in my post. I've looked at literally hundreds of criminal records. Want to know how many sexual predators had only one entry for a sex crime?
And here we are in a forum about games which involve killing people... Oh shi- And let's not start about the games that involve grand theft auto and peddling drugs.
Shouldn't we all be thrown in jail by that logic of thought leads to motive to action to crime? AKA thought crime? So an angry look = OFFICER HE'S GOING TO KILL ME!!!1
On November 09 2011 09:37 r00ty wrote: OK, f**k it. So here's an example from the other side.
First of all why is it so goddamn hard to talk about it at all? While writing this i was mostly thinking to just delete it and forget about it. This site is normally not the place to talk about it, but many arguments in this thread made me feel sick. I see pedos/near-pedos telling their story but none of the victims, so here it is. It's not well written i'm not a native english speaker and there's so much more to tell. It's just so complicated... And this is just my story. Every person is different. It got longer than i wanted, some stuff might seem confusing but i tried. I hope it's readable and understandable. I'll spoiler it.
I have caring great parents, was good student and overall a really bright kid. Working class household but the kids were always first as it's supposed to be. I was just crying a lot and still do and emotions and feelings are kind of a book with seven seals to me, just too powerful most of the time in both ways (hate/love). Also people touching me in any way was always a no-go until i absolutely trust them. Also heavy claustrophobia and some other stuff not nice to have. When growing up, problems were starting to get serious. I was just not able to understand myself. Why those strong feelings all the time? Why this strange behavior?
At the time i finished school (abitur/a-levels without ever learning, bright kid heh?), i started taking drugs. Weed only for the first years but others were to come. Finally i had something to soothe myself but as you can imagine it wasn't quite healthy on the long run. My behavior made it hard to find friends many people saw me as a weirdo, i guess and i can't blame 'em. Worst were the questions like "your quite attractive and so nice, why you don't have a girlfriend", ("you're so smart, why don't you make more of your life" became my favorite in the last years) and all that stuff. Good questions i also asked myself thousands of times. Why? I did not have answer so something must be really wrong with me. But what?
Then there was this evening. One of the evenings i normally really cherish. I was 23 at that time just started university (which i quit after a couple of months). Two of my best friends (of the 5 or so overall left...) and me just getting drunk, playing cards, having fun, me feeling normal. We started to wrestle at some point just for the lulz which ended in my best friend, who is a lot stronger than me, pinning me to the ground without me being able to move. That's when i was "triggered" (as i know now). I started hyperventilating, crying, every muscle in my body cramped and my brain just went nuts. He was going nuts as well, like "i'm so sorry, what did i do, i'm so sorry, what did i do? please calm down!". Second worst night of my life. That's when i realised there's something terribly wrong. But I was still not able to get it together, thinking for days about that and my whole life so far. I decided to kill myself in the end, because nothing made sense anymore. No "crying for help" shit just end it. I am a man of principles though and when i was ready to jump the train, the thought came up, that i cannot do this to my parents and my family. Better a failing son, than one who killed himself. (to all the smartasses who go like "if you really want to kill yourself you'd be dead").
So i kept on going for years without any destination just for the sake of staying alive. Changing my shitty jobs every year or so when people started coming too close asking those damn questions again.
Then there was this worst day of my life: Four years ago my brother beat my sister over something trivial. Violence never occured in my family and i was not willing to let him get away with this (family/best friends > all). When i told my mother i am going to beat the crap out of him, she told me i don't understand! After i insisted she has to declare to me why, or i am still going to beat him she told the story (crying): Family Holiday, he was 9 i was 5, a guy looked after us when my parents wanted an evening for themselves, you can put the rest together for yourself... Explained a lot. After first hearing the story i wasn't even thinking about myself and she wasn't speaking about me. I have absolutely no memory of it and already stopped caring about myself in general. I was just thinking about that *guy* (words can not describe the hate) destroying the life of my brother. But it didn't take long until it clicked. I had to swear never to talk to my brother and father about this. I agreed with this because he's finally able to lead a normal life atm and i don't want to pull him back in there. Concerning my father, he definately would have killed the guy if he knew, so he doesn't. Should he know? I decided he shouldn't because he's a great dad (He's over 70, no need to put that onto him).
I can just be sure my brother was raped and i was there as well. What did he do to me? Should i be glad i have no memory of it? Would it help me to deal with it if i knew?
Unfortunately i was always able to hide my problems from my parents quite well. Maybe they never made the connection and i don't blame 'em. Or do they know and the guilt is just too much? The human mind does crazy things sometimes. Never talked to them about it, even after i knew the story. Always tried my best to fake that everything is OK. I am so damaged, even after knowing all this stuff it's impossible for me to deal with it and my strange behavior stays the same. Also i just cannot talk about it to anyone and still fake being ok as far as possible. This is basically the first time... I am 31 now. Well my body is, my mind clearly isn't. My second try finding a therapist starts soon. I really would like to be happy again, because killing myself is not an option for me.
My case is kind of soft and it was enough to severely damage my whole psyche. What about children being molested over years or even by their own family? I don't want to imagine. That's also one of the things that keeps me going. "There's worse. If they can make it, you have to!"
So why am i telling this? I don't know for sure. It helps that's one thing. The other is, i want pedos to know what they are doing to children. Too many people are way too tolerant in this thread. Yes perhaps many of the victims are able to lead a normal life, but if you risk to destroy someone just to fullfil your sexual needs, you deserve the worst! If you feel those needs, seek help! If you can't help it and cross the line or support CP in any way, you deserve to die in pain. I get a bad conscience from killing a fly, but if you are pedo who actually molested a child, i could kill you with my bare hands without feeling any remorse.
Unreal dude. I am seriously so sorry for what happened to you even though I dont know you at all. Thank you for sharing. Posting something like that on a community site takes a lot of (courage?) Cant find the right word.
On November 10 2011 11:46 weekendracer wrote: So, if I give you a firearm knowing you're going to kill someone with it. What happens to me? I go to jail also. I did NOT commit the crime, simply loaned a piece of metal to you and you went and did the crime. BTW, for someone so 'informed', murder is also a sex crime in some cases. Do some research before spouting on the interwebs on how much you know. As to a 'starting point', so you have a guy who is actively watching child porn, the next step in the progression is he gets his hands on a child and goes to town. I'd be willing to bet a months pay that those guys you see on "To catch a predator" have child pron on their computers, causation vs correlation I don't know, but still sick individuals that shouldn't be in the general mix without some kind of serious observation, but then again, that does not work either.
Because handing someone a gun is facilitating murder. This guy was NOT handing anything to the child rapists producing this material. And once again you're turning the issue in reverse. Child molestors (on "To catch a predator") of course they're willing to download child porn if they're willing to rape a child. What I'm arguing is that not every person who looks at child pornography is going to go rape children, why can you not understand that logic? A child rapist is much more likely to look at child pornography than a person who looks at child pornography is to rape a child. Saying this guy is one step away from raping a child is irrelevant, the FACT is that he HASN'T raped a child, and hence you're trying to have him punished for a crime he HASN'T COMMITTED. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?
On November 10 2011 11:46 weekendracer wrote:Therein lies the problem, watching this type of thing is an action that is in and of itself illegal. The production is immoral if not illegal (some countries have no moral structure). He did the act when he downloaded the pictures/video. And no, I don't have to watch you kill someone before I arrest you. You show your intent and you go to jail for attempted murder/rape/whatever.
And that is what I'm trying to argue, the observation of these images shouldn't be illegal - the PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION and PURCHASING of this material MOST DEFINITELY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. This guy didn't produce the material, so I don't know why you're telling me its illegal and immoral (no shit...).
Attempted murder/rape/whatever is SIGNIFICANTLY different to what this individual did. He did not attempt to rape any children, he did not try and kidnap any children, or anything along those lines. This situation is equivalent to that of thinking about murdering someone which, coincidentally, isn't illegal. It is when you take those THOUGHTS and put them into ACTION that murder / attempted murder becomes illegal.
On November 10 2011 11:46 weekendracer wrote:You are kidding right? Playing devil's advocate? If there was no profit motive, the stuff wouldn't be produced. Just because something can be downloaded for free does not mean money did not change hands at some point. There are entire trafficking rings that deal with kidnapping young children for this type of thing. I can download regular porn for free, so there must not be any profit in the porn industry, counter-intuitive logic there.
This guy didn't contribute to the profits of child porn distributors, he downloaded it from file sharing sites, he didn't purchase it. Do you know why piracy of movies / music is such a big issue with record and movie companies? Because people are getting their product and they are getting ZERO profit from it. It is the same with this issue right here, he's obtaining the child porn without giving any money to those producing it. The reason you can get regular porn for free is twofold. 1) Advertising earns the profit rather than the porn itself. 2) Samples to encourage people to purchase the real product.
In the situation of child porn, number 1 is irrelevant as if you're downloading from file sharing sites it is the file sharing site that profits from the advertising not the producer of the child porn. Number 2 is partially relevant, but if he never actually purchases the real product he's still not providing for the producers of child pornography.
On November 10 2011 11:46 weekendracer wrote:Again, having a fetish does not equate to anything. When that fetish is immoral and you act on it, in this case acquiring illicit material, then yes, it is a huge red flag that should warn someone. So you're saying someone who looks at a 10 yr old and is sexually aroused is 'normal' by any standard?
And once again you're equating a guy jerking off in his room to that of a guy kidnapping and molesting a child. "Acting" on that fetish shouldn't be immoral if you're not contributing to the harm of anyone. Meaning, so long as you're not encouraging the production of child pornography through purchasing the pornography, and you're not raping children then in my opinion you're not doing anything wrong. Likewise if you're aroused by seeing people get killed, in my opinion watching videos of that isn't immoral. When you start actively encouraging people to murder others to produce content for you, or you go murdering people yourself for you own sexual pleasure THAT is where it becomes immoral.
On November 10 2011 11:46 weekendracer wrote:Not being sick, but if you had some sexual response to watching people murdered, then yes, I'd say the chances would be very high that eventually you would progress to move violent interactions. Do some reading, you say it's fucked up, but there's plenty to back up my logic.
I'd say you're wrong. Pedophilia is suspected to be a LOT more common than recordable (because how many people in this society where it is so looked down upon would admit it?) yet you don't have millions of people in every country out there raping kids now, do you? And even if they DID have desire to rape children, if they NEVER ACTUALLY DID IT, what right do you have to punish them? You're trying to punish people for thought crime.
If I have desires to <commit crime: murder, rape, anything illegal>, should I be locked up for my urges, given there is no guarantee I will act on them?
On November 10 2011 13:18 weekendracer wrote: edit: As to the 'bias' in my post. I've looked at literally hundreds of criminal records. Want to know how many sexual predators had only one entry for a sex crime?
And there is the bias, you're looking at people convicted of sex crimes. If someone is willing to cross the line and offend a child in that way then without a doubt they're also willing to download pictures of naked children. On the other hand, people willing to download pictures of naked children aren't always willing to cross the line into the realm of committing the crimes themselves. You're equating them as one in the same and that people who look at child porn are child molesters.
tl;dr If it is not raping children or encouraging people to rape children in any way shape or form, why should it be illegal?
tl;dr If it is not raping children or encouraging people to rape children in any way shape or form, why should it be illegal?
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.
tl;dr If it is not raping children or encouraging people to rape children in any way shape or form, why should it be illegal?
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.
I'll respond to each of your paragraphs
1st paragraph: Yes in this case I'm assuming no money changed hands, but my opinion is that (ignore this case specifically) if money isn't changing hands it shouldn't be illegal for that reason. Someone jerking off to child porn that they haven't purchased and haven't produced themselves is in no way assisting or promoting child pornography. That is my argument. You can't say that "we don't know if money has changed hands or not so lets assume it has hence he's guilty."
2nd paragraph: You could argue that going home and dealing with sensations is also a progression so why is it not illegal to masturbate while thinking about children? Because that is blatant thought crime. Take this as a similar example: If police believe I have desire to murder someone, that is all fine and well they can't do anything about that. If I then go out and get my gun license and purchase a firearm, can they then arrest me? That is progression towards murder, but in NO WAY does it indicate that I actually will kill that person whom I desire to kill. It is not illegal to have desires to kill someone and then progress to buying a gun. You're still pushing the illogical idea that we should be punishable for our thoughts rather than our actions. Masturbation when you're looking at pornography rather than picturing it in your head is in no way any closer to molestation. Regardless, neither case guarantees you're going to molest children.
3rd paragraph: I have close personal relationships with people touched by this issue and much much worse, it is ignorant to dismiss my opinion on the simple fact that you've seen evils and more so to think I wouldn't believe in the possibilities. I know what this can do to a person but you're completely ignoring the fact that the people posting these stories were the people who have been victims to the child molesters, not the people masturbating at home alone. I'm supporting FREEDOM OF THOUGHT. I agree that child molestation is horrid beyond all belief and that it seriously and irreversibly affects people, but you fail to recognize the difference between thoughts and actions. Your examples from your case studies and data have all shown that child molesters (the people caught by the cops, the ones included in your data and case studies) are all pedophiles but you have zero evidence showing that pedophiles are all child molesters. How do I know this? Because pedophilia is scorned in our society and hence these desires are often hidden from the public by those who possess them. Nobody goes out on the street singing "I LOVE LOOKING AT NAKED LITTLE GIRLS" or they would quickly get beaten or worse, killed. Pedophilia shouldn't be a crime, the fact remains that in modern society it often at times is. Child molestation should be what is illegal, because that is what causes the damage, pain and suffering of these victims.
Please, for your next post, separate actions and thoughts as well as pedophilia and child molestation, because in both cases they are vastly different yet you equate them as synonymous.
tl;dr Pedophilia and Child Molestation are different Thoughts and Actions are different
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
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.
On November 10 2011 14:25 weekendracer wrote: 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.
I believe in this case the progression is not sufficient to warrant a life sentence. The danger lurks, but is not manifested. Your logic of preemptive punishment is severely flawed.
You are allowing personal experiences to cloud your judgement. What evil you have encountered is not representative of the world at large.
You quote examples of people who started 'somewhere' and the progressed into further evil. But do you have records of people who actually stopped before crossing that line? I truly believe such a statistic will be grossly disproportionate to those who have actually crossed it.
There are people who might have such tendencies in their youth and yet managed to curb and rise above them. You are in effect condemning them before they have the chance to change for the better.
On November 10 2011 11:01 r00ty wrote: I shouldn't have written what i wrote, but i won't delete it. Maybe it gives people some insight. It's a topic far too complicated and serious to be discussed here normally and getting so personal was a wrong thing to do, won't happen again.
Just felt many people weren't taking the effects serious enough ("it's just pictures"), that was the main point. I did not want to say they all have to be killed, i just loose my temper a bit when thinking too much about it...
In fact (might sound crazy now), i also say the sentence for that guy is too hard. He needs help first of all. But i stick to my point of view, if they cross the line, they cannot expect mercy. Where to draw the line? I shouldn't be asked for obvious reasons.
If you get off to CP, think about what had to be done to produce it... Get Help! If you accept all the horrible consequences just for your sexual pleasue, don't expect mercy. If you actively take part in it, go to hell. If you are so sick you just can't help it and and are just not able to control yourselves, what to do? Let me put it like this: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Damn yes he was! Did he still deserve to die? Hell yeah!
NanaCry's post was really strong in deed and the post and the answers to it were one of the main reasons i wrote my story. He got messed up by getting shown a picture. How messed up must the girls be?
I agree with this post completely. The line you speak of would be actively taking part in it, I presume. Just remember that getting help isn't always easy. I don't want to sound like I'm in favor of this activity, but I'm trying to see both sides. NanaCry gave us a good example of how random stuff can lead to this, and that it's not all their fault. Still, thinking of the children, they must have been pretty fucked up by this. Jeffrey would be a good example of crossing the line. Just because you're insane, doesn't mean that going out and harming people is any less wrong. It would be a lot easier if there was a way for these people to have access to CP which didn't involve people being hurt. Someone brought up lolicon, but apparently it's illegal in most places as well. And maybe, in the future, our society will be able to accept the fact that these people need help, and that making them feel ashamed is counter-intuitive.
An action being wrong and an individuals accountability for said action are different. If you are actually insane (Meaning NGRI, Insane) then you don't deserve to die because you are unable to appreciate the gravity of your actions. It's the same reason we don't execute retarded people. If I remember right with the Dahmer case he wasn't declared NGRI because the psychologist asserted that he suffered from a necrophilia which is a Fetish, not a mental disorder. I haven't read about it in a while though, so I could be mistaken somewhat there.
As far as our penal system goes. Retribution doesn't work. It just creates more recidivism. We should treat people, not put them in jail for retarded amounts of time to dehumanize them, that breeds recidivists. Let me reference one my favorite places to find out little fun facts, the lovely people over at cracked. http://www.cracked.com/article_19489_5-terrible-ideas-that-solved-huge-global-problems.html Number three. The problem with America is politically people still want retribution, and any politician who has the balls to point out how the death penalty is retardedly expensive (Cost roughly 6x as much to kill someone vs life in prison 1.2mil vs around 200k.) and serves no actual deterrent effect compared to life in prison, and that actually treating offenders and trying to not completely fuck them has a way better result economically in the long term, and socially makes us better people. We like to pretend we are more civilized then rest of the world and then pull this retarded shit.
Sorry if that's kind of poorly worded, I am tired as shit.
You don't seem to understand though, these people are sick. Nothing can help them anymore. They're not even human beings at this point... oh wait... If stuff like this could actually happen in most places, we'd be living in a much better place. Active places ready to help people, a society willing to change them for the better instead of helping them proceed further onto the path that the society doesn't like sound pretty good. Good job Norway.
I'd like to share my story and ask you a couple of important questions. Now please read carefully before answering.
When I was in my mid-teens, I was a curious little brat and (since I was living in a country with legalized digital piracy at that point of time) I was downloading all kind of stuff from the internet. In particular, I downloaded a few pictures of murder, child rape and some zoo- and necrophiliac content. Whether anything of it arose me, I'd like to keep it for myself. Now the laws regarding Internet content have changed even in developing countries, and I am not downloading any non-licensed stuff anymore (even when I'm occasionally back to the country of my birth). I have also never committed or encouraged any crime (digital or otherwise), and sure as hell I'm not going to.
The questions are the following: Did I do anything wrong, and should anything be done about me? If nothing should be done about me, then how can anything other than having to pay a fine for illegal file sharing happen to the guy being put in jail?
I'd like to share my story and ask you a couple of important questions. Now please read carefully before answering.
When I was in my mid-teens, I was a curious little brat and (since I was living in a country with legalized digital piracy at that point of time) I was downloading all kind of stuff from the internet. In particular, I downloaded a few pictures of murder, child rape and some zoo- and necrophiliac content. Whether anything of it arose me, I'd like to keep it for myself. Now the laws regarding Internet content have changed even in developing countries, and I am not downloading any non-licensed stuff anymore (even when I'm occasionally back to the country of my birth). I have also never committed or encouraged any crime (digital or otherwise), and sure as hell I'm not going to.
The questions are the following: Did I do anything wrong, and should anything be done about me? If nothing should be done about me, then how can anything other than having to pay a fine for illegal file sharing happen to the guy being put in jail?
It is not illegal to engage in an act that was legal at the time. But idiots with agendas will like it not to be so. Aside from the damaged goods here, there's nothing wrong with you. What idiot believes you are a bad person because of bad thoughts? So a Micheal Jackson's murderer should be acquitted for having good thoughts/intentions when he OD'd Micheal to his death by that logic.
This is just another ridiculous decision made by the American justice system. This doesn't even fit the completely proven not to work, "omg he must pay" retribution attitude Americans seem to have. This is just absurd. I'd argue pedophilea is even more hated than homosexuality was back in the day. It is very similar, nobody chooses to be a pedophile, and tossing them in jail for life for simply owning (not even spreading, or god forbid making) child porn is just beyond words; it is not comparable to child molestation or rape, it's equivalent to executing a gay person for looking at pictures of other (nude) males in a sexual way.
Mindlessly hating and forcing pedophiles to go into hiding and hide their condition will not fix anything, it's a disease and denying them any treatment and jailing them the second they admit to having this disease will not fix the problem. I don't condone child molestation but mindlessly throwing every pedophile in jail makes you no better than your grand-grandparents when they wanted to kill all the gays because they were "morally wrong and abominations of god", and it's exactly that attitude that's making pedophilea a much bigger problem than it should be.
Drugs exist that take away sexual urges from people, yet instead of giving them to people that need it because they were born with this condition we shun them away and turn them into bad people. Instead of helping people that have these urges like we help people that have suicidal or even homicidal urges, we tell them they're disgusting and throw them into jail. It's pretty amazing how everyone mindlessly follows what they're being told, no matter how hypocritical it is. Homosexuality is not a choice, but for whatever reason pedophilea is, and they have to pay for that choice, right? It's absurd.
However hard it is for me to have pity on a man who takes pleasure from seing children being raped and thus being scarred for life afterwards, even I think that life is too harsh.
I have no pity on the man, but justice is justice, and he only drew pleasure from the rape, didn't pay, didn't commit any crime himself and generally kept his obsession to himself. I say he should be locked up for a short amount of time, and afterwards be forced to report his movement and be kept under surveillance. The thing is, while it IS "just" a fetish, it is a fetish that causes lives to be ruined from childhood, suicides and generelly egotistical and inhumane actions. This is NOT having a fetish for braces or shit or whatever.
In Canada we don't punish child molesters and child porn distributors harshly enough. 1-2 years for some crimes and they still get out early (though there are notable cases where these people take their own lives after sentencing). That said, I'm not convinced that these people can be rehabilitated at all, so I think all we're doing by throwing them in the clink is segregating them from the rest of society. I think an overall better way to deal with this issue in general is education. There is still a massive stigma for victims to speak out, and we don't go far enough to educate our kids in an open and explicit way that this danger exists.
It's just one of those fucked up things about the world. There's no right way to solve it.
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.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
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)
tl;dr If it is not raping children or encouraging people to rape children in any way shape or form, why should it be illegal?
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.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
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)
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.
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.
I think people like this should be counselled, not jailed. I can totally understand an obsession with increasingly hardcore fetishes, and child porn is just the darkest area of that. The people have problems, they're not the sick fucks that people make them out to be. Ultimately, you can't help what you love.
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 ?)
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.
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?
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
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)
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.
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..
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.
On November 06 2011 10:21 Steel wrote: He should be sentenced, no doubt. For life? No fucking way.
I think he should mostly be under surveillance for a long time..
Yeah, because 'surveillance' worked so well for Elizabeth Smart.
To address another point, he got a higher sentence because he lead to the molestation/rape of HUNDREDS of children vs just molesting ONE child. If you don't understand these children can not consent to the act by law so every picture is a picture of a rape in progress.
Read John Douglas's books on predatory sex crimes. They all start as a 'fetish' then progress. There are hundreds of kids missing in the US alone, not all of them are blonde/blue eyed media attention getters.
These people are dangerous, period. Beyond rehabilitation for the most part. Whoever let's this guy go has to live with the consequences of letting him back into the general public.
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)
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.
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..
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.
Watching CP encourages the production. Doing/buying drugs encourages the production. Watching a certain TV show encourages the production.
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.
sweden can't beat usa on the length of the punishment but the content. A swedish person had to pay prison time for posession of manga comics which displayed children in sexual situations. Yeah that's right. Nobody was hurt exept the translator of the manga comics.
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.
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.
As horrible and gross childpornography is, i dont think this kind of punishment is necessary. 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.
It doesn't break my heart, but I think this is grossly disproportionate considering what other crimes receive. It's not a huge stretch to say that in terms of the greater good, a justice system that's capable of getting away with such inequity is more dangerous than this guy has proven to be if he just walks.
That being said, he needs to be in jail for a long, long time.
I'm still not sure what the point of putting him in prison is. It's not like he'll be treated or helped, so after he gets out, he'll probably do it again. At this point, life is better in prison, since when he gets out, the social tags applied to him aren't going to let him live a normal life.
[QUOTE]On November 11 2011 06:47 Hertzy wrote: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because its not like he's human or anything. And yes, he does need counselling and treatment. People with mental disorders need to be treated. It's how society works. Take this for example: people who are insane may not understand their actions, and may kill people (among other possible actions) if they are not helped. By this logic, he should be sent to jail for life because he might do something. I can only guess you are a parent who is very happy with his family and you do not want this person in society. I can understand that, but please, don't forget that people have a chance to change.
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.
I think you need to be incarcerated right now. You're having thoughts about killing someone, which is very dangerous. A prison sentence equating first-degree murder should be good enough. No one is arguing that people who act on urges and harm others should not be dealt with. Remember though, murder does not get the death penalty, so just reassure me that you mean murder should be dealt with more severely.
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.
I think you need to be incarcerated right now. You're having thoughts about killing someone, which is very dangerous. A prison sentence equating first-degree murder should be good enough. No one is arguing that people who act on urges and harm others should not be dealt with. Remember though, murder does not get the death penalty, so just reassure me that you mean murder should be dealt with more severely.
I love that you, who seems to be in support of the point that the pedophile got way too much time, thinks that thought policing is okay.
Also, you completely misunderstood his entire post.
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.
I think you need to be incarcerated right now. You're having thoughts about killing someone, which is very dangerous. A prison sentence equating first-degree murder should be good enough. No one is arguing that people who act on urges and harm others should not be dealt with. Remember though, murder does not get the death penalty, so just reassure me that you mean murder should be dealt with more severely.
I love that you, who seems to be in support of the point that the pedophile got way too much time, thinks that thought policing is okay.
Also, you completely misunderstood his entire post.
Damn it, it's hard to convey sarcasm on the internet. From what I understood, the post was concerning how people who actually take part in this or take action are deserving of prison time. If I'm wrong, then I'd like him to say what his actual message was.
So, following the same logic. If somehow I deliberately watch a record of a crime scene... I should spend the rest of my life in jail, not the actual murdered. Makes sense... Q_Q
The sad part is.. Well, a guy watching child porn is definitely sick, but he needs treatment I guess, not this(
On November 11 2011 16:18 Elefes wrote: So, following the same logic. If somehow I deliberately watch a record of a crime scene... I should spend the rest of my life in jail, not the actual murdered. Makes sense... Q_Q
The sad part is.. Well, a guy watching child porn is definitely sick, but he needs treatment I guess, not this(
OMG I MUST STOP WATCHING CSI LEST IT MOTIVATE ME TO MURDER. Seriously the displacement of reality (They are bad people, this will never happen to me) here is astounding... more so that some are going to be our future PhD professors and mental health professionals.
Not only is the punishment not suitable for the crime, but the criminal is one who I'd say could be rehabilitated and/or regulated, and hence should never be sentenced to drastically-prolonged or infinite duration penalties or death penalties for such crimes.
The prison and justice system has so many problems which results in too many needless prisoners, and too much taxpayer money spent. Most prisoners should be rehabilitated, and repeated criminally insane, and sociopath offenders should be killed. It's certainly a contentious issue, but I would like to think people would rather have that, than silly cases of some guy —doing virtually nothing wrong to anyone— costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
He has to be punished.....But while real murders and rapist get like 6 years or something....he gets lifelong.... That ain't right. He definitly needs to sit in jail for like 8 year or something and definitly needs treatment, but he can't be punished harder then a murder or rapist.....that's also SICK!
On November 11 2011 09:39 Dark_Chill wrote: I'm still not sure what the point of putting him in prison is. It's not like he'll be treated or helped, so after he gets out, he'll probably do it again. At this point, life is better in prison, since when he gets out, the social tags applied to him aren't going to let him live a normal life.
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.
Yeah, because its not like he's human or anything. And yes, he does need counselling and treatment. People with mental disorders need to be treated. It's how society works. Take this for example: people who are insane may not understand their actions, and may kill people (among other possible actions) if they are not helped. By this logic, he should be sent to jail for life because he might do something. I can only guess you are a parent who is very happy with his family and you do not want this person in society. I can understand that, but please, don't forget that people have a chance to change.
But just how far can a society with finite resources be expected to care for this kind of people? Personally, I'd say that it's the insane individual's duty to seek help before acting on their impulses.
For example, if someone kills people out of insanity, they have established that they are more likely to act on their insane impulses rather than to seek help. Therefore, I would say that the society should not be expected to expend limited resources on the hope that if the treatments reverse, the perpetrator will seek help unlike the first time.
Pedophilia is another such mental disease, and thus, the onus should be on the pedophile to seek help before acting on their impulses.
On November 11 2011 09:39 Dark_Chill wrote: I'm still not sure what the point of putting him in prison is. It's not like he'll be treated or helped, so after he gets out, he'll probably do it again. At this point, life is better in prison, since when he gets out, the social tags applied to him aren't going to let him live a normal life.
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.
Yeah, because its not like he's human or anything. And yes, he does need counselling and treatment. People with mental disorders need to be treated. It's how society works. Take this for example: people who are insane may not understand their actions, and may kill people (among other possible actions) if they are not helped. By this logic, he should be sent to jail for life because he might do something. I can only guess you are a parent who is very happy with his family and you do not want this person in society. I can understand that, but please, don't forget that people have a chance to change.
But just how far can a society with finite resources be expected to care for this kind of people? Personally, I'd say that it's the insane individual's duty to seek help before acting on their impulses.
For example, if someone kills people out of insanity, they have established that they are more likely to act on their insane impulses rather than to seek help. Therefore, I would say that the society should not be expected to expend limited resources on the hope that if the treatments reverse, the perpetrator will seek help unlike the first time.
Pedophilia is another such mental disease, and thus, the onus should be on the pedophile to seek help before acting on their impulses.
The difference between a pedophilia and a murderer is that the first one doesn't hurt anybody directly.
Being attracted to 13yo girls/boys is actually not pedophilia(assuming they have hit puberty). I'm pretty sure its actually normal, not that most people will ever admit it.
His actions have harmed nobody, he's acting on his impulses in a way that do not harm either children or society.
If I have thoughts of murdering the president and download a game that has me shooting and killing him in multiple ways does that mean I will get life in prison? or the death penalty, use your logic.
Life is short. Everyone knows what is right and wrong in society. It isn't a big deal to shorten someones length of time in society if they can't obey the law.
I would vote for a death sentence myself. Of course murderers, rapists and many other types of criminals should also get death sentences. (fast, not with a decade of drawing it out). There might be money to help rehabilitate minor criminals then, or go into problem families and sort them out before they raise deadbeat kids.
Being attracted to 13yo girls/boys is actually not pedophilia(assuming they have hit puberty). I'm pretty sure its actually normal, not that most people will ever admit it.
It is mostly a society thing. Child producing is attractive and 13yo is capable of that and historically getting married at that age was not uncommon. With that in mind I have to ask what kind of judge sets a president where you get more jail time for watching child porn than you would get for actually raping a child.
Well, that explains why US prison population is so ridiculously high.
That's so fucking ridiculous. I read a guy got 10 years for stealing 100 dollars this year. This is a parody of justice. At least we know who it benefits.
Well, that explains why US prison population is so ridiculously high.
That's so fucking ridiculous. I read a guy got 10 years for stealing 100 dollars this year. This is a parody of justice. At least we know who it benefits.
archaic drug and sentencing laws
also judges have almost total freedom in sentencing and sentencing guidelines are generally broad. and once you go in on a multiyear sentence it's pretty hard to get parole before you do a majority of your sentence.
so there's lots of guys who've been there for 10 or 12 years on a 15 year sentence when they probably shoulda been let out after 6 or 7, things like that.
politicians make building prisons too attractive to businesses that build and run them and to smaller towns where the new prisons are usually built.
new jobs, new bloated contracts, new taxes, new campaign donations + a "tough on crime" talking point, everybody gets their big fat piece of the pie. except the prisoners of course. and, in the end, the taxpayers.
Well, that explains why US prison population is so ridiculously high.
That's so fucking ridiculous. I read a guy got 10 years for stealing 100 dollars this year. This is a parody of justice. At least we know who it benefits.
archaic drug and sentencing laws
also judges have almost total freedom in sentencing and sentencing guidelines are generally broad. and once you go in on a multiyear sentence it's pretty hard to get parole before you do a majority of your sentence.
so there's lots of guys who've been there for 10 or 12 years on a 15 year sentence when they probably shoulda been let out after 6 or 7, things like that.
politicians make building prisons too attractive to businesses that build and run them and to smaller towns where the new prisons are usually built.
new jobs, new bloated contracts, new taxes, new campaign donations + a "tough on crime" talking point, everybody gets their big fat piece of the pie. except the prisoners of course. and, in the end, the taxpayers.
Yeah. It's really bad when stuff like prisons get privatized. Suddenly some very powerful groups really have interest so that the biggest amount of people go in jail for as long as possible. And well, unfortunately, interest of those groups are not necessarily the interest of Justice.
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
Well, that explains why US prison population is so ridiculously high.
That's so fucking ridiculous. I read a guy got 10 years for stealing 100 dollars this year. This is a parody of justice. At least we know who it benefits.
archaic drug and sentencing laws
also judges have almost total freedom in sentencing and sentencing guidelines are generally broad. and once you go in on a multiyear sentence it's pretty hard to get parole before you do a majority of your sentence.
so there's lots of guys who've been there for 10 or 12 years on a 15 year sentence when they probably shoulda been let out after 6 or 7, things like that.
politicians make building prisons too attractive to businesses that build and run them and to smaller towns where the new prisons are usually built.
new jobs, new bloated contracts, new taxes, new campaign donations + a "tough on crime" talking point, everybody gets their big fat piece of the pie. except the prisoners of course. and, in the end, the taxpayers.
Yeah. It's really bad when stuff like prisons get privatized. Suddenly some very powerful groups really have interest so that the biggest amount of people go in jail for as long as possible. And well, unfortunately, interest of those groups are not necessarily the interest of Justice.
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
The real problem, as always, is the 24-hour news cycle. Point out how dumb some particular clause in an anti-CP law is, and bam, CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC are all over it, and label you as some pervert weirdo. Its even worse for politicians, i.e. the people who actually have the power to do something. If they raise the point that some law is dumb, well their opponent says "HURR DURR SO-AND-SO IS SOFT ON CRIME" and they have to try to defend themselves in a couple of sentences, because that's all the news media is going to play. And so sentences never ever get lowered, only increased, until you get nonsense like the 3-strike law in California, where petty shoplifters end up with LIFE IN PRISON because they got busted one too many times.
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
and this is why when I discovered child pornography on my computer about 3 years ago (I to this day have no idea how it got there, it was after a LAN party) I literally destroyed the hard drive with an axe as soon as possible.
With penalties like this being thrown around, it was not even worth going to the police and saying "hey, i just found this on my computer I have no idea how it got there" isn't worth it. It's a shame really...
On November 12 2011 12:26 skipgamer wrote: and this is why when I discovered child pornography on my computer about 3 years ago (I to this day have no idea how it got there, it was after a LAN party) I literally destroyed the hard drive with an axe as soon as possible.
With penalties like this being thrown around, it was not even worth going to the police and saying "hey, i just found this on my computer I have no idea how it got there" isn't worth it. It's a shame really...
I don't think they would really do anything bad. I don't think that they'd lock you up when you came them and revealed it. They'd have to have pretty weird minds to somehow justify them putting you in prison.
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
wow i think that sentance is a bit over the line. :o i cant really see whats wrong with watching child porn except for more people who watch child porn = more people make child porn. i always go after the "everyone have their own personal taste"
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
I must admit, it weirds me out saying this, but I too think this is an overreaction. In the interview it states he has no idea how the pictures came to be on his computer. Okay, it's probably a lie, but unless it can be proven that he willingly downloaded those things, he shouldn't even get the minimum penalty. And 20ish years seem more then enough for me, as long as there is no direct offence.
An emotional issue where the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime. Any issues related with child pornography are always vastly blown out of proportion. He could have killed or raped a child and gotten off with a smaller sentence.
This is a disgrace that set's a worrying precedent - sentencing via manipulation of the emotions of the masses.
On November 14 2011 01:43 ThePinkFloyd wrote: I must admit, it weirds me out saying this, but I too think this is an overreaction. In the interview it states he has no idea how the pictures came to be on his computer. Okay, it's probably a lie, but unless it can be proven that he willingly downloaded those things, he shouldn't even get the minimum penalty. And 20ish years seem more then enough for me, as long as there is no direct offence.
What the fuck? You realize what 20 years is?
Now, just make a fucking effort, just think, and imagine that now you go to jail for 20 years. Your life is destroyed. You won't marry. You won't have kids. You won't study. You won't have a job. Your parents will be dead when you get out. And you will have spent 2 fucking decades in a ultra violent monstrous environment. So on top of that you'll be seriously traumatized when, at 45, you finally get out to end up you miserable and wasted life.
You talk of 20 ish years as if it was nothing. I think you just don't think. I hope you don't think.
This guy should take 3 years at most, which is already a lot considering that all he did is to get stupid stuff on the net. 3 years is an enormous punishment already. That's like, between now and god damn 2015. A judge who is not an idiot or a criminal would give him few months or a year in jail, and twice more of provisional sentence.
The judge who did that and the idiots who agreed just don't have a soul.
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Awesome strawman. I'm sure it's a matter of fact that governments barely oversee the spending.
On November 13 2011 23:54 Westy wrote: Some of the replies in this thread really make me ashamed to live on this planet.
He could of just gone out and killed a child, and would probably have a less harsh sentence.
The thing is that most of the people would rather someone be "HELPED" and corrected/cured if you will as to sweeping the mess under the carpet if you know what I mean. Most people would like it dealt with and dealt with properly and I'm not going to get into equality of sexes but really I do hope you understand.
If not just take a good moment to think about it, place yourself or a friend in a similar situation because not all sicknesses are visible most people feel cornered or trapped where there is no escape, making it increasingly difficult to make it out on your own.
For example mine Schizophrenia I had to go to the doctor my self after years and years of hiding (My doctor was surprised himself) at some point I knew there was a problem I started in November 2007 trying to get help and only now 2011 am I getting it and still struggling with it but remember I had to do this on my own most people never get any help it's not something that people ask about everyday most people don't care. So when I ask someone how are you, I really mean it when I ask not gonna listen and say oh after a heart felt explanation I'm gonna get involved on some level.
If there is something that I dislike about this site is the lack of engagement. All I really tend to read are the most dodgy, cowardly and afraid to commit excuses at times. Men are engaging real men are engaging and hardly make excuses we also think through logic reason and understanding please utilize these tools more and you can understand people better.
Finally he got caught and sent away for life, right now I'd say a great majority think it's right and the others wrong not gonna bash the legal system it's a circus anything we don't like can or dislike can happen. What needs to be done now is take preventative measures like having guards in place so a bank robbery is not attempted that metaphor yes I like it. Now I don't have all the ideas but people themselves or at least communities can come up with ways to spot things as these. Education really helps in these moments as a tool for good!
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
The thing is though, these broken infrastructures DON'T NEED MORE MONEY, but all politicians can think to do is throw more money at the problem. The infrastructures need to be completely redesigned, not just have more money.
I agreed with you that lobbying sucks, and that too many politicians are on big business's payroll, but you can't blame ONLY the big businesses. Again, thats like only punishing the guy who hired the hitman, while letting the hitman go free.
I can't stand Fox News, and if you'd even read my other replies, you'd already know this. I can't stand ANY of the 24-hour news channels, because NONE of them are balanced or fair at all. Maybe you should quit listening to Keith Olbermann all day.
On November 13 2011 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 10:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Funny you don't get it.
No you?
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
The thing is though, these broken infrastructures DON'T NEED MORE MONEY, but all politicians can think to do is throw more money at the problem. The infrastructures need to be completely redesigned, not just have more money.
I agreed with you that lobbying sucks, and that too many politicians are on big business's payroll, but you can't blame ONLY the big businesses. Again, thats like only punishing the guy who hired the hitman, while letting the hitman go free.
I can't stand Fox News, and if you'd even read my other replies, you'd already know this. I can't stand ANY of the 24-hour news channels, because NONE of them are balanced or fair at all. Maybe you should quit listening to Keith Olbermann all day.
Sure. The way to fix, for example your completely outdated electric system that is 70 years old is not to put money into it. You know, you can make a new one by just good will. Maybe if you pray, it also works.
And you think that government want to spend money, just for the sake of it; that politicians "jump on every chance to spend money". Like they have too much or something... So they increase the number of prisoners to spend more in something as useless, unproductive and sterile such as prisons.
I don't want to sound arrogant or dismissive, but it's not even a question of being misinformed or anything, your argument defy common sense. It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's that it's so far from the most basic fact of modern politics that I just can't find the rational behind it. Every single government now has budget problems: means they are trying to keep decent services without increasing too much taxes that would be detrimental to the economy.
On November 13 2011 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 10:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Funny you don't get it.
No you?
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
The thing is though, these broken infrastructures DON'T NEED MORE MONEY, but all politicians can think to do is throw more money at the problem. The infrastructures need to be completely redesigned, not just have more money.
I agreed with you that lobbying sucks, and that too many politicians are on big business's payroll, but you can't blame ONLY the big businesses. Again, thats like only punishing the guy who hired the hitman, while letting the hitman go free.
I can't stand Fox News, and if you'd even read my other replies, you'd already know this. I can't stand ANY of the 24-hour news channels, because NONE of them are balanced or fair at all. Maybe you should quit listening to Keith Olbermann all day.
Sure. The way to fix, for example your completely outdated electric system that is 70 years old is not to put money into it. You know, you can make a new one by just good will. Maybe if you pray, it also works.
And you think that government want to spend money, just for the sake of it; that politicians "jump on every chance to spend money". Like they have too much or something... So they increase the number of prisoners to spend more in something as useless, unproductive and sterile such as prisons.
I don't want to sound arrogant or dismissive, but it's not even a question of being misinformed or anything, your argument defy common sense. It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's that it's so far from the most basic fact of modern politics that I just can't find the rational behind it. Every single government now has budget problems: means they are trying to keep decent services without increasing too much taxes that would be detrimental to the economy. Can I ask you how old are you?
I never said that making new infrastructures was free, just that the current systems are broken beyond repair. Putting more money into them would only delay the inevitable. Say you have an old, beat-up junker of a car. Would you continue spending tons of money on constant repairs, or would you just get a new car?
To be fair though, the electric system, and all the utilities really, probably could just use more money. Its more complicated infrastructures, like the education system, the healthcare system, and the prison system that need to be completely redesigned.
Congress LOVES spending money, because they go up for election constantly. They can point to this or that bill and say, "Look at all this Federal money I brought to our district, vote for me."
Honestly, the only real problem I have with your position is that you seem to completely absolve politicians of all blame. To you, its only big corporations that are to blame. Well, they wouldn't be able to lobby and bribe anything they wanted through Congress if the politicians in Washington wouldn't stand for it. Some of these big corporations are to blame too, but its not JUST them.
Biff, because there are so many different sources of information and opinions being put into this thread, I can't really be sure which one is right or if they all have bits of truth in them, HOWEVER, if you feel you do not agree with one, don't treat them like 10year old or retards. If you disagree with them, present your opinion without all the scorn. I've seen you in threads before, your opinions are well developed, but each time you're brutally attacking someone. That being said, Millitron, you can't assume that all politicians are idiots. Some have most definitely identified the issue, and want to change things for the better. One problem is that the general population don't like things to undergo huge changes, and politicians respond to this.
On November 14 2011 05:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 14 2011 04:42 Millitron wrote:
On November 13 2011 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 10:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Funny you don't get it.
No you?
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
But anyway, one has to be fucking dumb to even have the idea of privatizing prisons, huhu?
I'm sure you'll come with a twisty reasoning explaining why it's because government is too important, though. It will be tough, but I'm sure you'll make it Saying that it's politicians who make it attractive instead of corporation that corrupt / influence politicians is a good place to start.
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
The thing is though, these broken infrastructures DON'T NEED MORE MONEY, but all politicians can think to do is throw more money at the problem. The infrastructures need to be completely redesigned, not just have more money.
I agreed with you that lobbying sucks, and that too many politicians are on big business's payroll, but you can't blame ONLY the big businesses. Again, thats like only punishing the guy who hired the hitman, while letting the hitman go free.
I can't stand Fox News, and if you'd even read my other replies, you'd already know this. I can't stand ANY of the 24-hour news channels, because NONE of them are balanced or fair at all. Maybe you should quit listening to Keith Olbermann all day.
Sure. The way to fix, for example your completely outdated electric system that is 70 years old is not to put money into it. You know, you can make a new one by just good will. Maybe if you pray, it also works.
And you think that government want to spend money, just for the sake of it; that politicians "jump on every chance to spend money". Like they have too much or something... So they increase the number of prisoners to spend more in something as useless, unproductive and sterile such as prisons.
I don't want to sound arrogant or dismissive, but it's not even a question of being misinformed or anything, your argument defy common sense. It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's that it's so far from the most basic fact of modern politics that I just can't find the rational behind it. Every single government now has budget problems: means they are trying to keep decent services without increasing too much taxes that would be detrimental to the economy. Can I ask you how old are you?
I never said that making new infrastructures was free, just that the current systems are broken beyond repair. Putting more money into them would only delay the inevitable. Say you have an old, beat-up junker of a car. Would you continue spending tons of money on constant repairs, or would you just get a new car?
To be fair though, the electric system, and all the utilities really, probably could just use more money. Its more complicated infrastructures, like the education system, the healthcare system, and the prison system that need to be completely redesigned.
Congress LOVES spending money, because they go up for election constantly. They can point to this or that bill and say, "Look at all this Federal money I brought to our district, vote for me."
Honestly, the only real problem I have with your position is that you seem to completely absolve politicians of all blame. To you, its only big corporations that are to blame. Well, they wouldn't be able to lobby and bribe anything they wanted through Congress if the politicians in Washington wouldn't stand for it. Some of these big corporations are to blame too, but its not JUST them.
Infrastructure system beyond repair needs massive investment to make a new ones. The reason it is not being done is that your government doesn't have this money and that nobody would agree to raise taxes that would allow such investment. In case you don't know, your government and every government in every single western democracy has enormous issues with a debt crisis and is under enormous financial pressure.
So if your government "loooved to spend money", they would have done it by replacing these infrastructures. Simple as that. They didn't do it because half of Americans think taxes are evil and that your government is too broke to offer stuff as basic as a healthcare or decent public transports to its population. So you see, infrastructures are n°375 priority.
Now, nobody "loooves to spend money". Taxes has constantly decreased since thirty years. I understand your point that if they spend money they get elected (classical conservative argument), but that's a completely invalid point in the case of prisons. Nobody will elect a government because it throws money into something useless. If we talk about the fact that, in order to be elected, government look tougher and tougher on crime, that's an other question, but it has nothing to do with "wanting to spend money". You will also notice that the "though on crime" bullshit comes from the same that want to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government: the right wing. So it makes even less sense (like, what, Reagan "wanted to spend money?")
I do blame politicians. I blame politicians for being under the influence of corporations and of a financial elite, and to serve private interests instead of serving society as a whole (or justice in that case). I blame your political system which is structurally corrupt, since your political life is funded by private individuals and company.
The reason your country went into this completely mad repressive mania is because politicians have been serving the interests of prison corporations (that shouldn't exist in the first place) instead of serving the interest of the society.
Which explains why:
1- Your prison population exploded basically the year the system was privatized. 2- It didn't happen anywhere else, since you are basically the only country that privatized completely prisons.
On November 14 2011 05:32 Dark_Chill wrote: Biff, because there are so many different sources of information and opinions being put into this thread, I can't really be sure which one is right or if they all have bits of truth in them, HOWEVER, if you feel you do not agree with one, don't treat them like 10year old or retards. If you disagree with them, present your opinion without all the scorn. I've seen you in threads before, your opinions are well developed, but each time you're brutally attacking someone. That being said, Millitron, you can't assume that all politicians are idiots. Some have most definitely identified the issue, and want to change things for the better. One problem is that the general population don't like things to undergo huge changes, and politicians respond to this.
I'm sure there ARE good politicians. Its just it always seems the good ones get ignored, at least on the national level. It seems that the media just wants conflict, and to hear more party-line soundbytes, and not actually any good ideas. But thats a different discussion entirely.
Biff, spending money just to spend money is called Pork-barrel politics. Its fairly common political tactic. Now, I agree its not the whole reason politicians want to build prisons, but it IS part of it. As for prisons being something useless to throw more money into; the tough-on-crime crowd don't see it as useless. I agree they're wrong, but I'm only one vote, they're hundreds of thousands of votes.
I think what would help the most is to institute term limits in congress. That way it's not just a job for Congressmen, they are there to actually help the country. This would decrease lobbying too, because those big corporations would have to bribe way more people way more often to get the same effect. Plus, maybe some of this tough-on-crime BS would go away as we get some new, hopefully more open-minded representatives.
On November 14 2011 05:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 14 2011 04:42 Millitron wrote:
On November 13 2011 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 10:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Funny you don't get it.
No you?
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
On November 13 2011 05:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 13 2011 03:57 Millitron wrote:
On November 12 2011 22:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 12 2011 11:53 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
well it does take two to tango.
there's usually a family or personal connection going on at the local level for the construction / maintenance and a union connection since the new jobs will undoubtedly be union jobs. also the state government provides money with little oversight on how the locals spend it, as long as a prison gets built. and then since there's this new concentration of convicts local police start saying they need more money; it builds on itself.
you can't end pigs overfeeding at the government trough if the government has the food and the inclination to feed indiscriminately. moderate government's hunger to throw more money at any problem and you're a third of the way to a solution.
Funny you don't get it.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
Well, it IS partly some Keynesian plot. Building prisons IS an easy way to boost employment. That's not all of it, there are lobbying interests with huge amounts of money to spend on it, but you can't blame ONLY them.
Who goes to jail for bribery? It's not only the person paying the bribe; the person accepting it is just as guilty.
Do you want me to facepalm to death?
France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> much more "keynesian", socialist, or whatever you want than the US France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> prison sector not privatized France, Germany, Italy, etc... ===> 0,07% people in jail against 1% in US
Conclusion: people are not put in jail to create artificially employment, but because it benefits a for-profit industry.
Seriously, just the fact that you can believe something like that leaves me speechless.
I agreed with you. I totally agree that lobbying is a big part of it. Its not the whole story though; politicians jump at any chance to spend money, because its an easy way to show the voters that they're involved.
Saying ONLY lobbyists are to blame is like only punishing the guy who solicited a hit-man, while letting the hit-man go free.
Politicians struggle like hell to pay for social services such as education and health services. They don't even have money to fix your broken and obsolete infrastructures. If you think they spend money just for fun by throwing it in a useless and unproductive industry because people want more taxes, you should maybe stop watching Fox News and get other referents than Glenn Beck.
Now, people who have invented and supported this "law and order" shit are precisely the one who have privatized prisons. Namely, the Republicans, under Reagan and afterward.
The thing is though, these broken infrastructures DON'T NEED MORE MONEY, but all politicians can think to do is throw more money at the problem. The infrastructures need to be completely redesigned, not just have more money.
I agreed with you that lobbying sucks, and that too many politicians are on big business's payroll, but you can't blame ONLY the big businesses. Again, thats like only punishing the guy who hired the hitman, while letting the hitman go free.
I can't stand Fox News, and if you'd even read my other replies, you'd already know this. I can't stand ANY of the 24-hour news channels, because NONE of them are balanced or fair at all. Maybe you should quit listening to Keith Olbermann all day.
Sure. The way to fix, for example your completely outdated electric system that is 70 years old is not to put money into it. You know, you can make a new one by just good will. Maybe if you pray, it also works.
And you think that government want to spend money, just for the sake of it; that politicians "jump on every chance to spend money". Like they have too much or something... So they increase the number of prisoners to spend more in something as useless, unproductive and sterile such as prisons.
I don't want to sound arrogant or dismissive, but it's not even a question of being misinformed or anything, your argument defy common sense. It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's that it's so far from the most basic fact of modern politics that I just can't find the rational behind it. Every single government now has budget problems: means they are trying to keep decent services without increasing too much taxes that would be detrimental to the economy. Can I ask you how old are you?
I never said that making new infrastructures was free, just that the current systems are broken beyond repair. Putting more money into them would only delay the inevitable. Say you have an old, beat-up junker of a car. Would you continue spending tons of money on constant repairs, or would you just get a new car?
To be fair though, the electric system, and all the utilities really, probably could just use more money. Its more complicated infrastructures, like the education system, the healthcare system, and the prison system that need to be completely redesigned.
Congress LOVES spending money, because they go up for election constantly. They can point to this or that bill and say, "Look at all this Federal money I brought to our district, vote for me."
Honestly, the only real problem I have with your position is that you seem to completely absolve politicians of all blame. To you, its only big corporations that are to blame. Well, they wouldn't be able to lobby and bribe anything they wanted through Congress if the politicians in Washington wouldn't stand for it. Some of these big corporations are to blame too, but its not JUST them.
Infrastructure system beyond repair needs massive investment to make a new ones. The reason it is not being done is that your government doesn't have this money and that nobody would agree to raise taxes that would allow such investment. In case you don't know, your government and every government in every single western democracy has enormous issues with a debt crisis and is under enormous financial pressure.
So if your government "loooved to spend money", they would have done it by replacing these infrastructures. Simple as that. They didn't do it because half of Americans think taxes are evil and that your government is too broke to offer stuff as basic as a healthcare or decent public transports to its population. So you see, infrastructures are n°375 priority.
Now, nobody "loooves to spend money". Taxes has constantly decreased since thirty years. I understand your point that if they spend money they get elected (classical conservative argument), but that's a completely invalid point in the case of prisons. Nobody will elect a government because it throws money into something useless. If we talk about the fact that, in order to be elected, government look tougher and tougher on crime, that's an other question, but it has nothing to do with "wanting to spend money". You will also notice that the "though on crime" bullshit comes from the same that want to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government: the right wing. So it makes even less sense (like, what, Reagan "wanted to spend money?")
I do blame politicians. I blame politicians for being under the influence of corporations and of a financial elite, and to serve private interests instead of serving society as a whole (or justice in that case). I blame your political system which is structurally corrupt, since your political life is funded by private individuals and company.
The reason your country went into this completely mad repressive mania is because politicians have been serving the interests of prison corporations (that shouldn't exist in the first place) instead of serving the interest of the society.
Which explains why:
1- Your prison population exploded basically the year the system was privatized. 2- It didn't happen anywhere else, since you are basically the only country that privatized completely prisons.
You can't blame private corporations for the huge growth of the prison population. It's not only too simple of an answer but it's wrong. The privatization of prisons was a result of US policy makers whose laws created a demand for more prisons which could not be met by the states/federal government and so the void was filled by private companies. It started because of the 'war on crime' which had followed the 'war on poverty' from the 1970s which had attempted to attack the root of crime. Politicians support these tactics because honestly, what politician who wants to be re-elected will allow himself or herself to be seen as 'soft on crime' or 'soft on drugs'?
With the election of Reagan and the Republicans back in charge, the US changed tactics and declared a 'war on crime' and 'war on drugs.' One crucial change was the passing of the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984 in which federal parole was abolished and rehabilitation was no longer considered important. US's criminal justice system is punitive and based on the just-desserts model. In essence, the US returned to classical crim theory that criminals are rational and choose crime because the rewards are higher than the consequences. Deterrence theory is based on three principles: certainty of apprehension, celerity of prosecution, and severity. If punishments are increased then people won't commit crime (or so the supporters say). One (of several important policies that came out of this) is three strikes. Because of the reliance on deterrence (even though research has said time and time again it doesn't work), you end up with individuals receiving sentences that are much longer and hence an explosion in the prison system. Interestingly enough, there's a tipping point in communities where once a certain number of individuals are incarcerated, crime rates start to actually go up because the area has been destabilized so much.
It's pretty easy to blame the govt. for things, but something has to be said for the fact that most of the prison population are in fact criminals. Sure, some people have ended up with ridiculously harsh sentences due to interpretations of laws, but most are in jail serving "fair" sentences.
It's also easy to draw conclusions when looking at certain numbers side by side. Just because Americans are jailed more than Europeans doesn't mean that their government is any more of a slave to big money, even if it coincides with the privatization of prisons. Maybe there are just more Americans than Europeans breaking the law and getting caught? This could be a symptom of police in America doing their jobs better.
You could draw a number of conclusions, and I just don't see why this is being debated so heavily in this thread. Was justice served in the case in the OP? No. If the system is supposed to be based around rehabilitation there is no question that this was abuse of a judge's authority to make a point.
Kind of a ridiculous sentence when murderers can get parole and shortened sentences for far worse acts. Especially when this guy is guilty of having a different orientation and didn't actually commit an act.
On November 14 2011 08:11 divito wrote: Kind of a ridiculous sentence when murderers can get parole and shortened sentences for far worse acts. Especially when this guy is guilty of having a different orientation and didn't actually commit an act.
Except a bald chick had a vision of him having his way with a child at one point in his life, so they brought in Tom Cruise and he busted that SOB's ass!
On November 12 2011 07:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: Yeah. It's really bad when stuff like prisons get privatized. Suddenly some very powerful groups really have interest so that the biggest amount of people go in jail for as long as possible. And well, unfortunately, interest of those groups are not necessarily the interest of Justice.
The area of child pornography is a socially and legally difficult one: digital technology has changed the way people interact with the world, and has left many moral inconsistencies within our current legal framework. Any act that takes advantage of the venerable should be condemned, both legally and socially - however the current legal framework fails to take into account ignorance and psychologically-sound consent.
Before digital media, the law was clear cut: a child that was not mentally developed enough to make decisions should be protected by society from exploitation (sexual or otherwise); so if anyone else attempted any exploitation, then they should be punished. As society began to develop, along with our understanding of the brain, we began to understand how and when we mature - and reached the conclusion that girls sexually matured at the age of around 16, while guys took two years longer. Therefore, the minimum age for a couple to have consensual sex would be a 16 year old girl with a 18 year old guy.
And then photography (and, by legal and moral extension, the internet) came along. Suddenly we had a social dilemma: what would the visual manifestation of the act be classified as? As pornography was for consumption of society, there needed to be stricter laws in order to ensure that consent was given, and that the subject was mentally developed enough to understand what was happening: thus the minimum age given was 18. However, this leaves an interesting moral contradiction (most prominently bought up in the 'sexing' phenomena) : how can a 16 and 18 year old couple who are having consensual sex be prosecuted for 'sexting' each other? Personally, I believe this contradiction can be cleared up by ensuring that the relationship is both personal and consensual - otherwise maintaining the the legal age of 18.
However, all that aside, we now come to the fuzzy area of 'guilt of the mind', vs 'guilt of the act' - as the source of most of this material does not state the age of whom is being modelled. This would pass guilt first too the uploader, who can be verifiable proven to be aware of the situation, and then the content provider - who has to ensure that all content shown on their site is legal. So, should this man be proven he was aware that what he had was illegal, then his guilt is inevitable.
And next, punishment and rehabilitation. Again, this area is difficult to assess: the psychological damage done must be accounted for, but is difficult to quantify. I don't think it's justifiable to state that the accused has lost all ability to redeem himself and change, nor for his damage to society to be taken back in punishment - so a life sentence is a little heavy. What is clear is that there is that the accused is morally damaged, and that he has psychologically damaged an innocent: but how can this ever be reconciled? Unfortunately, such things are nearly unquantifiable - but this should spur investigation into what makes such a person do such a thing, and the effects on the victim; rather than outright blind condemnation.
However, now that the act has been committed, and the punishment given - I hope that both the perpetrator and the victim recover from the event, and that justice is proportionately given and served.
The distribution of child pornography is one thing, but viewing it is completely different.
If this guy were a cocaine addict, and was caught with cocaine or under the influence, he would not likely even be sentenced to jail. It's more likely that he would be sent to a rehabilitation center, where he would have to stay until he passed a series of tests.
This man deserves to be helped with his problem. He is holding a steady job with no criminal record, and this is his first offense. Give him counseling and make him remove all of the images. Monitor his computer to make sure he doesn't do it again, and if he does, then you can reconsider his sentence.
IMO, our justice system is failing this man horribly.
In France we have proportionally TEN TIMES less prisoners than the US. Why? Because nobody is making pressure on the parliament and the judges, and do hardcore lobbying like pigs to make more and more repressive laws, because nobody has interest to increase the number of prisoners (and no, it's not some Keynesian evil plot by government and unions to create employment by making huge prison public sector. How do you manage not to laugh by writing things THAT dumb?)
You don't know anything about the situation in the United States, you just have to view everything through your narrow anti-capitalist prism.
Privatization of prisons is something that's become widespread in the last 20 years, it has been almost 35 years since the start of the prison boom. Business moved in after government made it a cash cow. Harsher sentences as part of the "law and order" mood of the country post-Counterculture era was in the late 70s and early 80s. Harsh anti-drug sentences are from the 80s. Get tough on crime was a reaction to hippies, race riots, and then the crack epidemic. All those things went away but get tough on crime remained. Before prison privatization.
You don't know what happened and you don't know why it happened. Cleaning up the business end is just a third of the solution, but you seem to only care about solutions where government has its nose in business everywhere but no similar burden being placed on government. Because I guess government can't possibly be run by corrupt men unless business is free to corrupt them, right?
You don't know the history so you just have to try to stretch your presumptions to fit an explanation and call stuff dumb.
In America, prison are for profit, therefore you have groups that spend 400 million dollars a year in lobbying so that politicians make more and more repressive laws, and surprise! People and groups with money are influential and you end up with people going to jail for life because they had some bad stuff on their computer.
Profit of who? You don't know everyone that profits, you seem to think it's just one group.
You blame the government. You shouldn't. That's precisely because your government is weak and vulnerable to your almighty corporations that things like that happen. You should blame the ones that make pressure on the government, and the absence of laws that should prevent these same people to do wild lobbying. Pity, you do exactly the opposite, all day long.
How can a weak government have enough power to be an attractive target of plutocrats?
Your cognitive dissonance is almost as bad as your contempt.
Conclusions: don't privatize prisons and the problem is fucking solved.
Simplistic and ignorant reasoning results in simplistic and ignorant conclusions. That would not solve the problem. State and local governments aren't going to release huge numbers of prisoners just because privately-run prisons aren't around. They'll just build more themselves so they can keep saying they're "tough on crime." The sentencing guidelines and harsh sentencing / parole approval mindset aren't a product of business pressure. They predate widespread prison privatization.
(PS: and no, the problem is NOT that government want to spend more money by putting more people in jail because you know, they want to spend more money. Just preventing the dumb irrational reasoning that is obviously coming)
If government had little money to give and little power to make and break the rules, what benefit would business get corrupting it?
Dumb irrational pity those are all the signs of a weak argument voiced from passion not reason.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.
http://diversityinc.com/investigative-series/who-profits-from-the-prison-boom/ "For decades, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and other private-prison companies have been active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobby based in Washington, D.C., responsible for numerous laws that have put millions of people behind bars."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995.
Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That's still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade.
Did you even read the quotes you just posted? Look:
"$133 million in net income"
Wow, bug number. How much does the US spend on prisons, though? 47 billion.
"still less than five per cent of the total market"
So, less than 5 percent is privatized, but privatization is what has caused the problem? Really?
"$8 a share in 1992" "Ten years ago [1990] there were just five privately-run prisons in the country" "more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws"
Wait, when did that prison spike start again? Early nineteen eighties? So, for 7-10 years, there were at most 5 privately run prisons, but the privatization of prisons still caused the entire nation's incarceration levels to sky rocket?
Now, do you know what was happening culturally and socially in the USA in the 1980's? Do you know what the trends for crime were before and during that time period? Specifically, violent crime? Drug related crime? Do you know the history behind the War on Crime or the War on Drugs or the rise of mandatory minimum sentencing and three strikes laws? How about the history of prison overcrowding from the 1980's onward?
You do not, because no one who does would actually think that privatization of the prison system was the main cause, or even an original minor cause of of the USA's prison problem.
On November 14 2011 15:51 ODieN wrote: I just read the title, and all I have to say is: This man deserves it.
Wow, I thought we were done with people like this in the thread, but apparently not. Please read the article, and if you still think so, then this means: 1. You believe possession of pictures is enough for life. 2. You think murder is better than possession of pictures or rape. 3. You should get help, because your thought process is really scary.
Also, read the actual thread please, your opinion might be a little more developed if you do.
On November 14 2011 15:51 ODieN wrote: I just read the title, and all I have to say is: This man deserves it.
Wow, I thought we were done with people like this in the thread, but apparently not. Please read the article, and if you still think so, then this means: 1. You believe possession of pictures is enough for life. 2. You think murder is better than possession of pictures or rape. 3. You should get help, because your thought process is really scary.
Also, read the actual thread please, your opinion might be a little more developed if you do.
Note #2 doesn't necessarily hold, the poster may believe that murders/rapist should also get life without parole.. or something worse.
On November 14 2011 15:51 ODieN wrote: I just read the title, and all I have to say is: This man deserves it.
Wow, I thought we were done with people like this in the thread, but apparently not. Please read the article, and if you still think so, then this means: 1. You believe possession of pictures is enough for life. 2. You think murder is better than possession of pictures or rape. 3. You should get help, because your thought process is really scary.
Also, read the actual thread please, your opinion might be a little more developed if you do.
Note #2 doesn't necessarily hold, the poster may believe that murders/rapist should also get life without parole.. or something worse.
Mostly because I can't think of anything worse than life in prison, and murder should not be anywhere near equal to the others, I'd still have to say 2 bears some ground.
I still think there's something wrong with giving even murder a life sentence. I can't even really explain why, just to do with morals and stuff I guess. Can't really find a way to argue that murderers shouldn't get life
On November 14 2011 15:51 ODieN wrote: I just read the title, and all I have to say is: This man deserves it.
Wow, I thought we were done with people like this in the thread, but apparently not. Please read the article, and if you still think so, then this means: 1. You believe possession of pictures is enough for life. 2. You think murder is better than possession of pictures or rape. 3. You should get help, because your thought process is really scary.
Also, read the actual thread please, your opinion might be a little more developed if you do.
Note #2 doesn't necessarily hold, the poster may believe that murders/rapist should also get life without parole.. or something worse.
Mostly because I can't think of anything worse than life in prison, and murder should not be anywhere near equal to the others, I'd still have to say 2 bears some ground.
I still think there's something wrong with giving even murder a life sentence. I can't even really explain why, just to do with morals and stuff I guess. Can't really find a way to argue that murderers shouldn't get life
Well capital punishment is practiced in the US (although whether that is worse or better than life in prison is debatable... it is definitely More than life in prison). Not to mention there are a whole lot of punishments that are or used to be practiced in other nations that are worse than life in prison (even for a child sex related criminal).
mmm i find this such a hard topic, i am no judge and don't know specifics of the case, like are we talking 1 zip download or an collection over time so i can't decide if this punishment is suitable. literately, my first thought was "thats kinda over the top". but pondering a bit more, and i kinda agree with setting an example. ( side notes here didn't read anything other then OP en last page). I assume the dude can get out earlier, knowledge of US law is to lil to make any assessment, but i kinda assume that if he behaves well in prison he'll be out pretty soon, (sorry if i was to lazy and it's no chance on parole) and the precedent set by this i assume will be a good deterrent in the future for (other)/those monsters. I say this because i do think crimes against children are the worst imaginable, and i assume that the Law fields of Internet childpornography are not that well threaded.
On November 15 2011 08:09 henkel wrote: mmm i find this such a hard topic, i am no judge and don't know specifics of the case, like are we talking 1 zip download or an collection over time so i can't decide if this punishment is suitable. literately, my first thought was "thats kinda over the top". but pondering a bit more, and i kinda agree with setting an example. ( side notes here didn't read anything other then OP en last page). I assume the dude can get out earlier, knowledge of US law is to lil to make any assessment, but i kinda assume that if he behaves well in prison he'll be out pretty soon, (sorry if i was to lazy and it's no chance on parole) and the precedent set by this i assume will be a good deterrent in the future for (other)/those monsters. I say this because i do think crimes against children are the worst imaginable, and i assume that the Law fields of Internet childpornography are not that well threaded.
it's life without parole...
i hope he wins his appeal. he had 500 pictures on his comp. he got 5y per picture, a 'little' over the top. ~10y sounds more reasonable.
interesting how less then 1 minute of downloading the wrong stuff can get you life without parole... ridiculous much?
On November 15 2011 08:09 henkel wrote: mmm i find this such a hard topic, i am no judge and don't know specifics of the case, like are we talking 1 zip download or an collection over time so i can't decide if this punishment is suitable. literately, my first thought was "thats kinda over the top". but pondering a bit more, and i kinda agree with setting an example. ( side notes here didn't read anything other then OP en last page). I assume the dude can get out earlier, knowledge of US law is to lil to make any assessment, but i kinda assume that if he behaves well in prison he'll be out pretty soon, (sorry if i was to lazy and it's no chance on parole) and the precedent set by this i assume will be a good deterrent in the future for (other)/those monsters. I say this because i do think crimes against children are the worst imaginable, and i assume that the Law fields of Internet childpornography are not that well threaded.
it's life without parole...
i hope he wins his appeal. he had 500 pictures on his comp. he got 5y per picture, a 'little' over the top. ~10y sounds more reasonable.
interesting how less then 1 minute of downloading the wrong stuff can get you life without parole... ridiculous much?
5 years per picture huh? Good thing he didn't have a single 15 second video clip. At 60 frames per second, thats 900 images, and so 4500 years in prison. Such an absurd way to calculate sentences.
This is kind of absurd that you can download videos of executions with no punishment but get life sentence for child porn. I mean couldn't the same arguments be applied for execution videos, ie it encourages more executions by watching them ect ect. I think both are gross but I don't want life sentences for either one.
On November 15 2011 11:38 adacan wrote: This is kind of absurd that you can download videos of executions with no punishment but get life sentence for child porn. I mean couldn't the same arguments be applied for execution videos, ie it encourages more executions by watching them ect ect. I think both are gross but I don't want life sentences for either one.
Indeed. That argument never worked for me.
What does work for me is that the victims feel even worse knowing that there are people watching the abuse they went through (and probably even worse knowing they're enjoying it).
At the same time, though, the argument that people are at least more likely to film and share if there are people to film and share to when it comes to child porn doesn't seem that far fetched. People murdering so that other people can watch, however, does. (And filming a murder doesn't exactly make it worse, the person is dead)
This is kind of obscene, considering people have gotten much leaner sentences when convicted of rape. If you compared rape and downloading "illegal" porn, I think too be honest. The more normal punishment would be a fine and prison time.
I don't condone child porn, but the people who deserve this sentence are the people involved in the film. The truth is, child porn is extremely disturbing. But child molestation is not that uncommon in the United States. I for some reason feel like the justice system flaws revolve arrogant judges not giving a fuck and doing whatever they please.
Just like some kids being sent to juvie for being gay. Fix the problem not the symptom.
On November 15 2011 08:09 henkel wrote: mmm i find this such a hard topic, i am no judge and don't know specifics of the case, like are we talking 1 zip download or an collection over time so i can't decide if this punishment is suitable. literately, my first thought was "thats kinda over the top". but pondering a bit more, and i kinda agree with setting an example. ( side notes here didn't read anything other then OP en last page). I assume the dude can get out earlier, knowledge of US law is to lil to make any assessment, but i kinda assume that if he behaves well in prison he'll be out pretty soon, (sorry if i was to lazy and it's no chance on parole) and the precedent set by this i assume will be a good deterrent in the future for (other)/those monsters. I say this because i do think crimes against children are the worst imaginable, and i assume that the Law fields of Internet childpornography are not that well threaded.
it's life without parole...
i hope he wins his appeal. he had 500 pictures on his comp. he got 5y per picture, a 'little' over the top. ~10y sounds more reasonable.
interesting how less then 1 minute of downloading the wrong stuff can get you life without parole... ridiculous much?
5 years per picture huh? Good thing he didn't have a single 15 second video clip. At 60 frames per second, thats 900 images, and so 4500 years in prison. Such an absurd way to calculate sentences.
If he didn't pay for them, I don't see how he's supporting the industry. I also don't get how he'd get a lighter sentence by actually molesting a child, compared to having images of someone else molesting a child (and isn't that person who's in the picture going to get punished too..?) .. Also think that whenever they catch someone looking at sick shit like child porn, they should identify the people who are in the pictures molesting the children and find the person/people producing the pictures. o___o;;
On November 15 2011 23:42 Undrass wrote: Wait, what. Is it possible to convict thought-crime too now?
yeee bro 1984.
I find it actually stupid how possession of child porn can get such a heavy punishment. This guy has a fetish or sth, he doesnt even act on it. He's harmless. Now, if he acted on his urges it would be different, but arresting this guy for possession of child porn is stupid. If other people were treated like this for normal porn, every male over 14 would get arrested -_-
Ludicrious how somebody who instead of actually performing the act on other children just watches it and is given a bigger sentence than murderers. I also find it disgusting how he most likely would of got a less harsh sentence if he had actually sexually abused a child. lolololoolol what a legal system.
On November 15 2011 23:42 Undrass wrote: Wait, what. Is it possible to convict thought-crime too now?
I was thinking about this too, but then I realized that it is several times worse than that. This man was deemed dangerous because it's possible that he may go out and molest a child. Think about that. He's being persecuted for a crime he might be thinking about doing. --> The possibility of thought-crime. To put it into an easier situation, let's say that there was someone who pissed you off a bit. You weren't too mad, just a bit annoyed. Police would then come and arrest you by saying you might have been thinking about going and killing that person. They have no proof that he were thinking about going out and molesting children, and they probably won't ever because revenge is easier and apparently a lot better than rehabilitation.
Regardless of the question whether he deserved it or not, I think we all agree that a law system where having child pornography is punished harsher than sexually abusing a child itself is seriously wrong, right?
I wish there was some kind of media which points a finger on all the idiotic circumstances - which outright defies general logic - that exists around the world, so that they get more publicity and the politicians are pressed to resolve them. There are some satirical magazines, and I follow the onion myself, but it has kind of gotten "harmless" lately.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/FEMA+Trailer+Park+Residents+Facing+June+1+EGUqu0iJHyJl.jpg)
*) . 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! 
Not conspiracy stuffs, its just like communism, in theory it works well. ^__^;
