A Life Sentence for Possessing Child Pornography?

[schaubj57]

But the statement is about the punishment in the afterlife. Yes, abusing children is worse, than adultery in my opinion only, but in God’s eyes there is a lot more than just one mortal sin. Deliberately ditching Mass when you know it is a mortal sin will also get you to Hell. I guess I am uncomfortable when we start damning people in the afterlife, as Jesus taught us that is not something we are to do.

FYI - Adultery can also tear up children and leave them permanently scarred.

My statement is based off of the teachings of Jesus. Matthew 18:6 is one such verse I base my statment off of. Certainly a child who is abused and molested loses faith thatt God is real. In that verse also states it is better for the one who causes a child to lose faith in God to have never been born at all or certainly never come into the presence of God. I have to believe that those who harma child will most certainly have a difficult time in the after life.

 

[schaubj57]

Is that true for regular porn as well?

Ex porn star Shelly Lubben gives talks about how women are mistreated, taken advantage of, and victimized in the porn industry.

(Don’t believe me? Look here [though viewer discretion is advised]: shelleylubben.com/pornstars )

So in your logic, are all men who have looked at regular porn sex offenders on the same level as molesters?

No. Adult porn, while absolutely offensive in every way shape and form, involves consenting adults who know right from wrong if they were raised properly in a Christian or Catholic home. They have made the concious choice to engage in ornographic movies. Those who watch such things are also making a choice and if they were raised in a Christian or Catholic home know it’s wrong to watch, purchase or aid in displaying such things.

Child porn is made with a person who can not consciously make the decision to actively part take in such things or can not avoid being involved in making such things from either threats of the adult filming it or the “verbage” the adult uses to convice the child to be in it.

There is indeed a huge difference between adults who choose to watch adult porn and adults who choose to watch and partake in child porn.

 

[Debora123]

No. Adult porn, while absolutely offensive in every way shape and form, involves consenting adults who know right from wrong if they were raised properly in a Christian or Catholic home. They have made the concious choice to engage in ornographic movies. Those who watch such things are also making a choice and if they were raised in a Christian or Catholic home know it’s wrong to watch, purchase or aid in displaying such things.

Child porn is made with a person who can not consciously make the decision to actively part take in such things or can not avoid being involved in making such things from either threats of the adult filming it or the “verbage” the adult uses to convice the child to be in it.

There is indeed a huge difference between adults who choose to watch adult porn and adults who choose to watch and partake in child porn.

A lot of girls who get picked up by the porn industry are very broken and suffer psychological issues. Sure, they “consent” but how worthy is this consent if it is coming from an 18 year old girl who is not mentally stable? The first testimony on the link I posted was about being raped on a porn set. That is not consent.

Now, I’m not saying child porn isn’t worse - because it is. I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that “a person who looks at child porn is the same as a person who molests children because the child is being victimized.” If that were the case, then likewise, men who look at porn are the same as men who abuse women - because many of those women ARE being victimized.

Meaning that according to your logic, probably about 90% of men here on CAF abuse women.

 

[Warrenton]

salon.com/2011/11/13/child_abuse_were_making_the_problem_worse/

Here is an interesting article which argues that our treatment of sex-offenders actually makes them more likely to re-offend.

I’m not certain it said that exactly. It says that the treaetment has to be matched to the problem with the person. Group therepy, for instance, does not work with sociopaths, because they do not have a moral sense that enables them to process the information.

The article was just wrong (probably a mistake by the journalist, rather then the Canadian interviewee) when it said incarceration does not work. It not only works, it works most of the time. However, it does appear that certain kinds of sex offenders reoffend at higher rates than other types of criminals.

With proper treatment, which, includes secure, in patient treatment and sometimes drug therapy, with proper post release monitoring and counseling, the re-offense rates of sexual predators can be reduced to very low levels.

 

[Warrenton]

Meaning that according to your logic, probably about 90% of men here on CAF abuse women.

I agree with your reasoning. For what it may be worth, our government completely abdicated its responsibility to protect the welfare of the people when it refused to enforce anti pornography laws.

The young man in this article, as reprehesible as were his crimes, never, ever should have been placed in a position where he could easily have access to such materials. The technology to prevent this is here. The data that proves it is abusive is here. It is moral cowardice that our leaders won’t stop it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

That’s quite a system - is that what you use in Arizona?

It’s still done the ole fashion way here in Virginia. If the defense attorney isn’t awake, lead away! Variations in testimony are strictly for the jury to weigh, if the defense even knows about them. The quality of Brady material varies with the county.

Though the Arizona (?) system does seem more fair, it appears to take some of the sport out of the thing.

No, you use the same system in Virginia. In fact, every state in the Union uses the same system. Here’s a list of the MDCs in Virginia, which include some of the best-run in the nation:

virginia.nationalchildrensalliance.org/index.php?s=3357

Here’s how it works. When an allegation is made of abuse against a child (sexual abuse or non-sexual physical abuse), the receiving agency directs the complainant to bring the child to an MDC, a Multidisciplinary Center (also called a Family Violence Center). A Forensic Interviewer interviews the child there. The police detectives assigned and often the prosecutor will monitor the interview. As I said, an age-appropriate, non-leading protocol is used in a non-theatening environment. A Pediatric Physician or certified SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) will conduct a medical examination if appropriate. The number of interviews is limited as that could also be coercive. Based on the results of the interview, if a disclosure is made, a decision is made to conduct further investigation, which could include seeking corroborative evidence, interview with witnesses, etc., before presenting the case to a grand jury. If indicted, and an arrest warrant is issued, the victim may have to testify in open court, based on local circuit case law. Depending on state law, the victim may receive his or her own counsel, a guardian ad litem, who represents the interest of the child and can subpoena information, conduct depositions, etc. The taped forensic interviews of the child are ALWAYS included as Brady material. For a defense attorney not to ask for them would be unheard of.

What you’re discussing appears to be claims of inadequate defense counsel once the case has gone to trial. Poor lawyering is no excuse for scrapping a legal system that has to balance the rights of the accused and the victim, but then our nation’s legal colleges are not turning out the quality of attorneys they once did.

 

[Warrenton]

There is a huge difference between people who have looked at adult porn and those who have looked at child. One inolves consenting adults, and while I find it repulsive, it’s legal.

The other type involves innocent and unable to consent children.

The reasoning is not good, though.

A couple of legal examples prove the problem.

It’s illegal for an boy who is 18 years old to make a porn video with a girl who is 17 years old and 363 days.
Two days later, its probably legal.
(I say probably because many states still have anti fornication laws, but they are probably now unconstitutional).
If the video were made one day earlier, the conduct itself is a misdemeanor, but the publication of the video is felonious.

Objectively, the laws are beyond ludicrous. Nothing material changes between the actors in the three days under consideration, but the effect of the law is huge - from a few weeks in jail or a fine to life in prison.

It gets better. If someone pays the 18 year old for a sex act, it is illegal. If someone pays the 18 year old boy and girl to have sex, films it, and sells the film, it is protected commerce. In both cases, we are dealing with a sex act for money. Back up the day such that the actors are 17 years and 364 days old, and we’re dealing with life in prison again. The law is beyond ludicrous - it is irrational.

When the government refused to enforce is censorship laws, it opened itself up to this. IT must change. The inconsistencies in the law are well known to the pornographers, and they will continue to chip away until everthing is legal.

 

[Debora123]

The reasoning is not good, though.

A couple of legal examples prove the problem.

It’s illegal for an boy who is 18 years old to make a porn video with a girl who is 17 years old and 363 days.
Two days later, its probably legal.
(I say probably because many states still have anti fornication laws, but they are probably now unconstitutional).
If the video were made one day earlier, the conduct itself is a misdemeanor, but the publication of the video is felonious.

Objectively, the laws are beyond ludicrous. Nothing material changes between the actors in the three days under consideration, but the effect of the law is huge - from a few weeks in jail or a fine to life in prison.

It gets better. If someone pays the 18 year old for a sex act, it is illegal. If someone pays the 18 year old boy and girl to have sex, films it, and sells the film, it is protected commerce. In both cases, we are dealing with a sex act for money. Back up the day such that the actors are 17 years and 364 days old, and we’re dealing with life in prison again. The law is beyond ludicrous - it is irrational.

When the government refused to enforce is censorship laws, it opened itself up to this. IT must change. The inconsistencies in the law are well known to the pornographers, and they will continue to chip away until everthing is legal.

good post

 

[Warrenton]

Warrenton;8570605:

No, you use the same system in Virginia. In fact, every state in te Union uses the same system. Here’s a list of the MDCs in Virginia, which include some of the best-run in the nation:

I see what you mean. As a matter of practice, they usually don’t video the interviews here, or at least not regularly.

It is hard to get the clinical notes of the interview under Virginia’s narrow construction of Brady. Thus, the lawyers usually don’t have prior inconsistent statements to impeach the child witness. And at trial, in Virginia, the children usually take the stand if they are six or older.

The defense lawyer better be on his or her toes when that happens. Prosecutors tend to lead in a big way.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I would prefer innocent beyond reasonable doubt. While I desire all sex offenders to be convicted, I am still a believer that it is better to let an guilty man go free than convict an innocent man. If I was on a jury, I do not thinkg I could find someone guilty on testimony only, without corraborating evidence. The majority of children are telling the truth and lying is uncommon, but it does happen, and older children are sophisticated enough to do so.

How would “Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt” work? As the burden of proof is on the prosecution, how would they be able to prove that someone is innocent? As it stands, the burden is on the prosecution, and they must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can’t prove their case to that legal standard, the defendant walks and need not even introduce any evidence.

You seem to be trying to make it easier to convict an innocent man with that standard.

The jury system is the bulwark of protection for the unjustly accused, but without corroborating evidence, the case would never make it that far past the checks and balances built into the system.

 

[Warrenton]

good post

Thanks Debora. YOur observation that lots of us are abusing other people was a great comment.

Morally, there are many who deserve to be sitting where the young man in the article is sitting. I can’t understand why the government lacks the power of the conviction of the vast majority of the people on this. I have never understood it. If Washington and Adams could come back today, they would understand why slavery was abolished, they would understand why women received the franchise. They would not understand the mentality claims free speech, which enshrines political discourse, protects pornography in the kind and amount that afflicts our society.

It’s madness. I pray that the Church will take this issue in a similar way to its fight against abortion.

 

[schaubj57]

A lot of girls who get picked up by the porn industry are very broken and suffer psychological issues. Sure, they “consent” but how worthy is this consent if it is coming from an 18 year old girl who is not mentally stable? The first testimony on the link I posted was about being raped on a porn set. That is not consent.

Now, I’m not saying child porn isn’t worse - because it is. I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that “a person who looks at child porn is the same as a person who molests children because the child is being victimized.” If that were the case, then likewise, men who look at porn are the same as men who abuse women - because many of those women ARE being victimized.

Meaning that according to your logic, probably about 90% of men here on CAF abuse women.

You are bringing in a documented incident that is a crime (rape). If she is raped on a porn set that is a crime and the one who raped her should be dealt with properly. If she is 18 (the common age of consent) and consents to porn she is making the choice. If she is obviously mentally unstable then the porn industry should be held to a standard and made accountable for it, not the 18 year old.

It’s still two vastly different things. Adult men who look at porn are not the same as adult men who look at child porn. Child porn is known and documented as a crime. There is no flaw in my logic. I don’t think there is really a need to judge someone’s logic or reasoning if it is a logic or reasoning that goes against what you think.

In return, it seems you have a problem with guys looking at porn. I have a problem with it as it’s not an activity that is virtuous and contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches us we should do. If you feel that guys who look at porn look at women as objects I would agree but I don’t think that’s what you are getting at.

Aslo, for the record I have seen porn and I hope and pray you aren’t trying to group me into the 90% because when I saw porn it was during the times I sexually abused and raped by my brother. He’d force me to watch it and act out the scenes. So don’t go making any generalizations about people here as that is just cruel and demeaning.

 

[Warrenton]

The jury system is the bulwark of protection for the unjustly accused, but without corroborating evidence, the case would never make it that far past the checks and balances built into the system.

No corrobation for sex crimes is required under the common law. There are thousands of cases upholding this rule. It’s black letter law: the complaining witness’s accusation is sufficient. If a judge instructed a jury to consider the lack of corroboration in a rape trial, it would be grounds for a retrial in those jurisdictions permitting the prosecution the right of appeal.

 

[Debora123]

You are bringing in a documented incident that is a crime (rape). If she is raped on a porn set that is a crime and the one who raped her should be dealt with properly. If she is 18 (the common age of consent) and consents to porn she is making the choice. If she is obviously mentally unstable then the porn industry should be held to a standard and made accountable for it, not the 18 year old.

…But that’s the point. A lot of terrible things happen behind the scenes of porn sets that we don’t know about. A lot of abuse.

It’s still two vastly different things. Adult men who look at porn are not the same as adult men who look at child porn. Child porn is known and documented as a crime. There is no flaw in my logic. I don’t think there is really a need to judge someone’s logic or reasoning if it is a logic or reasoning that goes against what you think.

So it’s vastly different because one is a crime and the other is not? For what it’s worth, I think regular porn SHOULD be a crime. Don’t you? If they were both illegal, would you still think they were vastly different to the point where the viewer of one should get life in prison and the viewer of the other should not?

In return, it seems you have a problem with guys looking at porn. I have a problem with it as it’s not an activity that is virtuous and contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches us we should do. If you feel that guys who look at porn look at women as objects I would agree but I don’t think that’s what you are getting at.

Huh?

Aslo, for the record I have seen porn and I hope and pray you aren’t trying to group me into the 90% because when I saw porn it was during the times I sexually abused and raped by my brother. He’d force me to watch it and act out the scenes. So don’t go making any generalizations about people here as that is just cruel and demeaning.

No need to get defensive. I was not trying to group anyone into anything - I was only putting your logic into perspective.

When I said 90%, I didn’t mean it literally. Obviously, I don’t know the exact percentage. I only meant it as a way of expressing that the vast majority of men on here DO or HAVE willfully looked at porn at some point in their lives.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My statement is based off of the teachings of Jesus. Matthew 18:6 is one such verse I base my statment off of. Certainly a child who is abused and molested loses faith thatt God is real. In that verse also states it is better for the one who causes a child to lose faith in God to have never been born at all or certainly never come into the presence of God. I have to believe that those who harm a child will most certainly have a difficult time in the after life.

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”

When Jesus got that specific about a sin, it should be evident that He considered it a Big Deal, bigger than adultery or missing mass. Depending on the translation and interpretation, Jesus was either saying that it would be better to hang a weight around someone’s neck and toss him in the ocean for a slow, agonizing death (compared to what punishment awaits him in the afterlife, after Christ has passed judgement), or else He was saying that WE should tie a rock around his neck and toss him in the ocean, so as to prevent it happening again - if so, this would be the only instance in scripture where Jesus called for secular capital punishment for an offense against Him. I’ll defer to the teachings of the Magisterium on this issue (whatever they may be), but I don’t think I’m that far off the mark when I said earlier that a sentence greater than life imprisonment may be appropriate.

 

[schaubj57]

…But that’s the point. A lot of terrible things happen behind the scenes of porn sets that we don’t know about. A lot of abuse.

So it’s vastly different because one is a crime and the other is not? For what it’s worth, I think regular porn SHOULD be a crime. Don’t you? If they were both illegal, would you still think they were vastly different to the point where the viewer of one should get life in prison and the viewer of the other should not?

Huh?

No need to get defensive. I was not trying to group anyone into anything - I was only putting your logic into perspective.

When I said 90%, I didn’t mean it literally. Obviously, I don’t know the exact percentage. I only meant it as a way of expressing that the vast majority of men on here DO or HAVE willfully looked at porn at some point in their lives.

If it made a crime then yes it should be life in prison. But guess what, it isn’t a crime in the world, just in religious faith.

I will get defensive when someone tries to present a bias against men that is completely unfounded, even you admitted it wasn’t based on anything just your own perspective which you admit is even wrong. You admitted to grouping men into that percentage yet now you are trying to back track because someone took you to taks over it. Think before you speak is a great life lesson.

Don’t act (the huh response) like you don’t know what I am talking about.

Here’s a question for you: How about women who willfully look at porn? Are they to be classified as sex offenders too?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The reasoning is not good, though.

A couple of legal examples prove the problem.

It’s illegal for an boy who is 18 years old to make a porn video with a girl who is 17 years old and 363 days.
Two days later, its probably legal.
(I say probably because many states still have anti fornication laws, but they are probably now unconstitutional).
If the video were made one day earlier, the conduct itself is a misdemeanor, but the publication of the video is felonious.

Objectively, the laws are beyond ludicrous. Nothing material changes between the actors in the three days under consideration, but the effect of the law is huge - from a few weeks in jail or a fine to life in prison.

It gets better. If someone pays the 18 year old for a sex act, it is illegal. If someone pays the 18 year old boy and girl to have sex, films it, and sells the film, it is protected commerce. In both cases, we are dealing with a sex act for money. Back up the day such that the actors are 17 years and 364 days old, and we’re dealing with life in prison again. The law is beyond ludicrous - it is irrational.

When the government refused to enforce is censorship laws, it opened itself up to this. IT must change. The inconsistencies in the law are well known to the pornographers, and they will continue to chip away until everthing is legal.

In the example you cited, it would depend on whether the crime was charged under state or federal law, and with what crime you would charge the 18 year-old. If he crossed state lines to have sex with the girl (which I presume would be necessary in your example), he might actually get a pass under the federal criminal code, if the film was consensual, and he didn’t try to pass it for profit or using an interstate conveyance (such as the Internet) (although he could be charged with the manufacture of pornography if he used a device manufactured or transported in interstate conveyance, such as a digital camera or iPhone), as there is less than a 4-year age gap between them. That would be for the crime of traveling in interstate commerce for illicit sexual conduct with a minor. He could still be charged under federal law for manufacture of pornography, as the 4-year pass doesn’t apply. I have no problem with that. If you are doing something as egregious as manufacturing pornography, you are subject to greater risks.

In the same way, I agree with state laws that do not require knowledge by a john that a prostituted female was under the age of 18 to charge him with a felony. There are certain risks associated with the commission of crimes, and a man who wants to have sex with a prostitute puts himself at greater legal risk. He should have exercised greater diligence and caution because he knew he was committing a criminal act.

State law would vary. In Virginia, for instance, in the actual sexual violation of an 17 year old by an 18 year old In Virginia, for instance, your 18 year old could be charged for the sex act, but not if he was just under 18.

You could argue that it is unfair, in some way, for a 17 years and 364-day old male to be able to get away with sex with a 17 year old, or for manufacturing pornography using her body, but not the 18 year old. But the law recognizes finite limits, and that some areas of the law should not have gray areas but strict parameters. The standards are harsh, but they should be to prevent the behavior.

I wouldn’t use him as a moral authority in many issues, but as Lester Maddox once said, if you don’t like my jails, don’t break my laws.

 

[Debora123]

If it made a crime then yes it should be life in prison. But guess what, it isn’t a crime in the world, just in religious faith.

I will get defensive when someone tries to present a bias against men that is completely unfounded, even you admitted it wasn’t based on anything just your own perspective which you admit is even wrong. You admitted to grouping men into that percentage yet now you are trying to back track because someone took you to taks over it. Think before you speak is a great life lesson.

Don’t act (the huh response) like you don’t know what I am talking about.

Here’s a question for you: How about women who willfully look at porn? Are they to be classified as sex offenders too?

Wow. I have no idea where so much hostility and defensiveness is coming from. I don’t know why you are acting like I have personally offended you, but that was not my intent.

You are jumping to conclusions, making assumptions about me, and are terribly wrong on your statements above.

So where do I even start after a response like that??

Well for starters, I don’t have a “bias against men.” I’m sorry if my estimate of 90% affected you so much, it wasn’t meant to be taken to heart like that. As I said, I didn’t state it as FACT, I stated it as an estimate to represent the fact that the vast majority of men do or have looked at porn willfully at some point in their lives. This is not any prejudice, this is simply the truth. I apologize for your misunderstanding of my estimate and for not having been able to provide you with an exact percentage. Also, I was not “grouping anyone.” To “group” someone would be to say something like “all red haired men are porn users.” That’s grouping.

Second of all, my “huh” was truly genuine and I still have no idea what you are trying to imply. You can tell me if you’d like, and I can either admit fault if you are right in your assumption, or I can liberate myself if your assumption is incorrect. How about it?

Now to answer your question, NO, I don’t think women who look at porn are sex offenders. I don’t think men who look at porn are sex offenders either, and I never said they were. Likewise, I don’t think people who look at child porn are child molesters - I disagree that the man in the article should have gotten life in prison.

I am still confused as to where all this is coming from, but I think it’s due to your misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make in my original statement to you a few posts back.

I hope that you will be less hostile in your response, and that we can have a legitimate, grown up discussion about this. I think it’s an interesting topic.

 

[schaubj57]

Wow. I have no idea where so much hostility and defensiveness is coming from. I don’t know why you are acting like I have personally offended you, but that was not my intent.

You are jumping to conclusions, making assumptions about me, and are terribly wrong on your statements above.

So where do I even start after a response like that??

Well for starters, I don’t have a “bias against men.” I’m sorry if my estimate of 90% affected you so much, it wasn’t meant to be taken to heart like that. As I said, I didn’t state it as FACT, I stated it as an estimate to represent the fact that the vast majority of men do or have looked at porn willfully at some point in their lives. This is not any prejudice, this is simply the truth. I apologize for your misunderstanding of my estimate and for not having been able to provide you with an exact percentage. Also, I was not “grouping anyone.” To “group” someone would be to say something like “all red haired men are porn users.” That’s grouping.

Second of all, my “huh” was truly genuine and I still have no idea what you are trying to imply. You can tell me if you’d like, and I can either admit fault if you are right in your assumption, or I can liberate myself if your assumption is incorrect. How about it?

Now to answer your question, NO, I don’t think women who look at porn are sex offenders. I don’t think men who look at porn are sex offenders either, and I never said they were. Likewise, I don’t think people who look at child porn are child molesters - I disagree that the man in the article should have gotten life in prison.

I am still confused as to where all this is coming from, but I think it’s due to your misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make in my original statement to you a few posts back.

I hope that you will be less hostile in your response, and that we can have a legitimate, grown up discussion about this. I think it’s an interesting topic.

My “hostility” comes from people throwing out things then when called upon they back track. You stated and I quoted what you stated and are now back tracking to reword what you said. I don’t like people that back track on what they’ve said when someone questiosn it. If you are going to make a statement then stand behind it, don’t change things or make a “well it wasn;t to be taken as a fact” when what was said was intended as a fact. I don’t like it when people try to push an angenda then defned it when they get called out on it.

This bickering back and forth is doing nothing constructive to the discussion.

 

[Debora123]

My “hostility” comes from people throwing out things then when called upon they back track. You stated and I quoted what you stated and are now back tracking to reword what you said. I don’t like people that back track on what they’ve said when someone questiosn it. If you are going to make a statement then stand behind it, don’t change things or make a “well it wasn;t to be taken as a fact” when what was said was intended as a fact. I don’t like it when people try to push an angenda then defned it when they get called out on it.

Lol like I’ve explained to you, I did not back track anything. I didn’t state it as fact and was not intended to be taken as such, period. You misunderstood. It’s really silly that you’re getting so upset about it after I’ve already explained it to you and apologized. But there’s not much else I can do at this point, since you’ve already stated that you don’t like me.

This bickering back and forth is doing nothing constructive to the discussion.

Agreed. Like I said, let’s have a grown up discussion about this… shall we? Is this possible??