|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The other topic was getting long and off topic.
But I define right and wrong by the harm an action causes.
I believe punishment of an action should be equivalent to the harm the action caused.
Producing child porn causes a lot of harm to the children involved. But watching child porn causes little to no harm...
Criminalising the act of watching child porn is punishing a consumer of a product.
It's like criminalising people that use cosmetics tested on animals rather than the companies that produce the cosmetics by testing on animals.
I don't believe watching child pornography should be free game. But look at the punishments given out. It's akin to the punishment for rape...
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
(snip)
> Producing child porn causes a lot of harm to the children involved. But watching child porn causes little to no harm...
I'm genuinely undecided about whether watching child pornography acts as an outlet for someone's desires, and so reduces the chance of them actually doing anything to kids, or whether it normalises the experience, desensitises the viewer, and so makes it more likely that the viewer will put their desires into practice.
As with the somewhat similar question of violence in movies, the research I've seen has been contradictory, and the many changes in society make historical comparisons difficult anyway.
I think we'd all agree that the 16-year old who looks at pictures of his 15-year-old boyfriend is not in any meaningful sense a consumer of child pornography. But excluding such cases, I do have a sneaking suspicion - based on no evidence whatsoever - that the kind of individual who looks at family snapshots of naked kids in the shower is very different from the kind of individual who watches movies of three-year-olds being raped, and that the former may be less likely to progress to being an actual child abuser.
In short, I don't think we can say with confidence that "watching child porn causes little to no harm...", even though for some individual cases that may be true. So I remain in favour of keeping consuming child porn illegal. I do feel though, that for both producers and consumers, a MUCH wider range of sentences is appropriate - the aforementioned 16 y.o with a 15 y.o. boyfriend meriting a slap on the wrist, a regular producer of violent child rape movies for profit meriting a life sentence.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fingolfin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265
|
|
|
Nothing to be added, NW, you hit the nail accurately.
Marek
It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Saben,
From your point of view I guess doing as much harm to someone as they have done harm seems fair but that is close to lex talionis - a claw for a claw and a tooth for a tooth. I don't know of anyone worth paying attention to that has anything to say in favour of lex talionis. [Maybe there are some ayatollahs?]
If what we are talking about is what the LAW ought to be then I think it should be well adapted to prevent the unwanted behaviour. And when unwanted behaviour cannot be subject to policing then there is no point in having a law about it. And this gives a lot of point to 1984 and similar dystopias.
And while it is impossible to police the internet then no internet behaviour should be punishable.
The British data protection act outlaws doing things on computers that would be quite legal if done on paper! How can that be good law? And I wonder if looking at oil or watercolour picture of naked children is as illegal as photos of the same scenes via the internet.
And when the unwanted behaviour is particularly hard to police then the lawmakers deal with the problem by increasing the penalty! How stupid! That was tried in the eighteenth century when stealing a lamb or a shilling was punishable by transportation for life and many juries, given the choice of either an obvious verdict of guilty and unfair punishment or an obviousl;y wrong verdict of not guilty and no punishment chose to find the obviously guilty defendant not guilty. I'm glad to say there are still plenty of people like me who would happily be part of such a perverse jury.
I completely agree that the punishment for looking at 'child pornography' is disproportionate. By the way the definition of child pornography has led a Boots photolab to report someone's pictures of their children in the bath! And the police took it up!
At the moment they are considering prosecuting those who helped the paralysed ex-rugby player to commit suicide! What a stupid law that is.
My dentist got prosecuted for looking at picture of children on the web. I doubt whether they were pornographic at all but he still got done. I encouraged my daughter to continue to take her children to see him. He's a nice man and a good dentist and I can't imagine him being a danger to anyone.
I do hope the authorities fail to find a way of policing the internet. As far as I am concerned it is one of the really good changes of the last thirty years. The value of free speech and free interchange of ideas vastly outweighs the bad aspects of it.
And the gutter press habit of grouping the worst of all crimes under the heading 'sex and violence' should not be accepted for a moment by any thinking person.
But I don't know how to stop the production and dissemination of child pornography. Do you have any idea?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear NW,
What would the slap on the wrist be for, exactly?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
See, what amazes me is the inclination that to be against child porn one must be classified as a non-thinking person.
But you see, I am a thinking person.... What separates me is that I am against child porn and am for the prosecution of those that produce, traffic, purchase, view it and all at the expense of the children who are forced or duped into this mess.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc my dear friend....Im against child porn and the exploitation of children. Im also open to the rights of others and realize that there has to be a balance between all concerned. A man was arrested in Canada for possesion of child porn. A Canadian high Judge (like our supreme court judges) declaired that no crime was commited and the man must be turned loose. All these posters arnt arguing against you about this. They also see that like all of life there are degrees. Life is full of give and take and as society goes it must do its best to safeguard all our rights, even the rights of lowly pedophiles.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite so, Roger.
One of the 3 hour essay subjects in my final exam in Moral Philosophy went as follows:
"I got rights." said Al Capone as the police finally arrested him. What, exactly, had Al Capone got?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
> Dear NW,
>
> What would the slap on the wrist be for, exactly?
Getting caught?
More seriously, I don't think that there's really any sensible step-change along the continuum from clearly legal adult porn to the worst kind of child porn ... there's such a vast area in the middle. But unless we're going to say that everything is legal unless a child has clearly been coerced or distressed, we have to pick some kind of arbitrary point - and I'm as happy with 16 as I am with any other random figure.
Actually, my emotions tell me that the critical cut-off is puberty, and looking at picture of prepubertal kids in a sexual way is always wrong ... though as a pre-pubertal boy I was definitely turned on by lads my own age, so that doesn't exactly work, either. And, of course, puberty is a pretty long-drawn-out process - am I really talking about balls dropping? public hair? ability to ejaculate?
There aren't any easy answers, and our legal system is not designed to deal with borderline cases. But the closer to the borderline a case is, the milder the admonition should be ... a slap on the wrist was about the mildest that sprang immediately to mind!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Again, I have to concur here, what possible benefit is there to those who wish to view child porn? Are they not just as guilty as the ones producing the films/stills of children in sexual situations?? Some of you try to minimize the criminal act of viewing children under the legal age (18 I would guess is legal) in wanton sexual acts. This is porn video that is being talked about here. Not private sexual encounters between 16 and 17 year old's to which I have no problem with, unless it is a porn film being made for the pleasure or 'some' to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the points like Marc made was that if you remove the people who would look at child porn that would stop anyone from wanting to produce it. Unfortunately this hasnt worked. So the alternative is to go after the ones producing the kiddy porn.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks - just a few thoughts here.
I've read several posts on this issue, and I finally decided to jump in. I think it's fair to say that the law is a complex thing and it evolves over time. Nothing is truly absolute in a free society, despite what people may say.
Having said that, child pornography is an ugly business. Monsters create it, feed off it, and profit from it. You have to tackle the source of the problem and get at those who generate it. They truly harm the kids in the first place.
Simply watching it, while disgusting and appalling, does not constitute the same crime (in my mind) as generating it or being involved in using children in such a way. There are degrees of offenses - just like there are degrees of other types of crime.
To Roger's point, I'm not sure solving the "demand" side of this problem will work. Look at several other examples - drugs being the most obvious one - that the most effective solution (usually) is to tackle the drug supply side - availabibility of drugs with the producers, vs. arresting the users who simply get out of jail the next day and go back to using.
I understand Benjie's point of view - that viewing it is a crime (which I'm sure it is in many places). However, it's probably harder to enforce that side of it vs. trying to attack the producers, who actually harm the children physically by producing the videos.
The end result is that you have a situation like Australia's where they have to do a large scale enforcement act which infringes on the freedoms of others. It's easy to say something like "well, I would give up some freedoms in order to have people be safer etc.". Just exactly how much freedom are people willing to surrender to the greater security? Think 9/11 and wiretaps and a lot of other examples. These types of things can get out of control quickly, and before you know it, those freedoms are gone and not coming back.
Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I agree with the sentiment you expressed, by and large. And I agree that you have the extremes of the scale right.
As for the person that watches videos of a 3-year-old being raped? Much harder to say. Regardless of whether or not they are more likely to progress to child abuse we cannot allow that to influence sentencing decisions. We can only look at the crime they have committed.
What is the appropriate sentencing for such a crime? Thinking about a video of a 3-year-old being raped brings a gnawing sense of disgust that sits in the pit of my stomach... It's hard not to say in such a despicable case that the law should apply equally to producer and consumer. But just because it is easy to saw "throw the book at him, he's disgusting" that does not mean it is right.
Producers and consumers should be treated very differently. The drug-addict and the druglord are treated differently. The poacher is treated differently to the owner of an ivory piano...
Incitement to commit a criminal act is criminal in and of itself. But when child pornography is distributed for free on file sharing networks like limewire, how is a person accessing these freely distributed images and movies encouraging anything? There's no profit to be had. Maybe the producers distribute images just because they enjoy it.. Maybe a decrease in demand wouldn't change anything...
I'm not saying I know the answers. But I don't think a knee-jerk "eww, disgusting, people who look at anyone under 18 should be shot regardless" is the right or civilised approach.
And I don't think trying to stop consumers of child pornography should be justification for stripping away the rights of law abiding citizens.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I don't think you are entirely non-thinking, Marc. But I do think it is non-thinking to say that all crimes of a particular nature are equal. There are definitely degrees.
I am for prosecution of producers, traffickers, purchasers and viewers of child porn. In particular exploitive and violently produce child porn. But let's take those in order and sentence in order of severity.
Producers should be penalised the most heavily- they are the ones actually causing the harm to the children themselves. Traffickers enable an industry based on abuse to thrive. Purchasers prop up the industry. Viewers? Well as I said earlier, though don't really do anything to encourage the producers... Which is why I support leniency.
Violent and exploitive child pornography causes a lot of harm. But what about a 16 year old (over the age of consent) who makes a video of himself and posts it online? It's a dumb choice, but he could legally be out fucking anyone he sees without use of a condom which is equally a dumb choice. Someone watching a voluntarily made video of someone over the age of consent should not be prosecuted...
In Germany the age of consent is 14 and a 14 year old can legally make a video of themselves. But for anyone of any age to watch a video of someone under the age of 18 is illegal. If you think such inconsistent laws are right, then the word "non-thinking" does start to return to mind.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but that was not the tack you took regarding this thread previously.
But then you just have to poke me with that last comment didn't you?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I was still a little sore from being poked myself. You are obviously intelligent, but that's why your dismissal of all "kiddie perverts" as being the same frustrates me.
"If you have to ask that question then it is obvious at least to me that you will never understand the answer."
was kind of blunt and I was frustrated by it. Kiddie porn comes in different shapes and sizes. Offences come in different shapes and sizes. Society doesn't acknowledge the differences. I believe rational thinkers need to ignore the yucky feelings evoked by the worst case scenarios and acknowledge that some cases are treated worse than they should be.
You seem to be uncompromising on this, however. Whenever age is involved, for whatever reason, it's flatout "wrong" with no analysis of degrees of wrong... That is frustrating when you obviously have a strong academic background. Academics usually try to look at both sides of a coin before making a judgement. It is the herd majority that let their gut instincts control them.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I don't support "an eye for an eye". What I support is punishing criminals that inflict harm. Not punishing them in-kind, however.
But surely the law should be focused on crimes with victims rather than pursuing perpetrators of victimless crimes.
Most child pornography is not created by "victimless crimes" but some is. And the act of watching something is itself victimless, even though as I said above, it can be classified as incitement to commit a crime.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear NW,
I agree that it's very difficult to make rules for any kind of behaviour and on this subject there seem to be more exceptions than ever.
I think a relevant consideration is the difference in ages between the participants. That was really why I wouldn't have slapped the wrist of your hypothetical 18 year-old.
But I think of my friend Lewis, who was at a boarding school where the housemaster would sit on boys' beds in the dormitory and fondle them. And, Lewis told me he just ached for that to happen to him. And then it did and he loved it. By Saben's criterion of not doing harm I would not want to punish that - but, of course, I would want to stop the said housemaster from doing it to anyone who would dislike it or worse.
I think young people are a good deal more resilient than we allow for. I think the attitude of The History Boys in the film is far more typical.
I also think of Lewis Carroll who, in middle age travelled with toys and puzzles in his bag in the hope of finding a little girl on the train that he could entertain. Or Edward Lear. But I do go off the subject.
So I ask "What would the punishment be and would it encourage the perpetrator to stop such behaviour or would it just get him to take more care not to get caught?" I think the purpose of a prohibitive law should be to reduce or stop the unwanted behaviour and if that can't be done then no such law should be attempted. In that case at least it can be openly admitted to and if people know then they can avoid people that do that. It is when such a person threatens and even terrorises the child concerned (to try to avoid getting found out) that it becomes traumatic, or, of course, if it becomes a physical assault.
I'm inclined to think that there should be no punishment but a compulsory education in sexual and psychological health - but I have no faith at all in psychology.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Saben, If you thought that I really was accusing you of believing in the lex talionis I'm sorry! It was because I couldn't believe that, that I brought it up - as a way of showing you how near the unacceptable what you wrote was.
And I agree with you completely about victimless crimes! There shouldn't be any because if there is no victim it shouldn't be a crime! And, as you say, some viewers of child porn are as blameless as those of us who saw films of Belsen when it was just discovered. And that was a good deal more pornographic than anything I've seen on the web.
And I don't see any kind of nudity as pornographic - but then I'm a signed up nudist who would always rather swim or lie in the sun without clothing.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
