A Life Sentence for Possessing Child Pornography?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
OK, but in gaining this, is he not complicit in the creation of the material?

Not personally, but if one is to gain this material, they support the abuse somewhere down the line.
He may not be the one doing abuse, but is he not supporting the one who is in creating the market for these materials?

Actually…unless he was the creator of the material, then he did traffic.
Where did it come from? How did he get it if not traffic?
Click to expand...
No, I have previously explained how he could have come by material without the creators of the material even being aware of it, let alone being motivated or rewarded by him.
TheTrueCentrist said:
So anyone that looks at the pictures after that is culpable? I don’t think so. Take, for example, anonymous image boards. If someone were to post child porn there, and the other viewers inadvertently saw the pictures before they were removed by the moderators, would those who were accidentally exposed be culpable? What about someone who, upon seeing the images, downloaded them before they were removed? On anonymous imageboards, the person who posted the illegal material would have no way of knowing how many people viewed or downloaded the material, his motivations would therefore not fit a “supply and demand” model.
Click to expand...
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Its funny, this age we live in; people are skeptical of all functions of government except for those functions that take lives.
Click to expand...
If you truly wish that level of doubt, then you cannot trust anything the court finds at all.
No criminal can be justly tried or convicted of anything.
 
vz71 said:
If you truly wish that level of doubt, then you cannot trust anything the court finds at all.
No criminal can be justly tried or convicted of anything.
Click to expand...
After reading Dorothy Rabinowitz’ book “No Crueller Tyrannies,” I will never quite be able to fully trust a prosecutor or jury to reach the truth, especially in cases involving sex crimes against children. This book recounts numerous cases in which innocent persons were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of horrific crimes against children–crimes which they were not only innocent of, but crimes which never happened. Innocent persons served long prison sentences for crimes which never occurred.

In child abuse cases particularly, it seems that the work of child protective service agencies, and “expert” witnesses, can work to convict innocent persons amid public hysteria.
 
JimG said:
After reading Dorothy Rabinowitz’ book “No Crueller Tyrannies,” I will never quite be able to fully trust a prosecutor or jury to reach the truth, especially in cases involving sex crimes against children. This book recounts numerous cases in which innocent persons were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of horrific crimes against children–crimes which they were not only innocent of, but crimes which never happened. Innocent persons served long prison sentences for crimes which never occurred.

In child abuse cases particularly, it seems that the work of child protective service agencies, and “expert” witnesses, can work to convict innocent persons amid public hysteria.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the book, but what are your alternatives to the system we have now?

The testimony of witnesses, including expert witnesses, and being judged by a jury of your peers or a judge (your choice) may not be foolproof, but do you have a better system in mind, Jim?

It’s rather like Winston Churchill’s comment that democracy is the worst system imaginable, except for all the others.

The focus of the Rabinowitz book seems (from the reviews on Amazon) to be based on an alleged child molestation case from 1984, which is ancient history in terms of how crimes against children are investigated and prosecuted today. Leading questions CANNOT be asked of a child victim, and a court-certified Child Forensic Interviewer conducts the interview of the victim using only non-leading questions, which require that the child tell a story the minimum number of times, always documented by video and audio recording for review by the prosecutor, judge, defending attorney, and jury, and with the absolute minimum level of interjection by the interviewer. You won’t hear “He touched you, didn’t he?”, but you will hear, “and then what happened?”. The protocol used is very exacting, establishes the child’s ability to recognize truth and fantasy, and the child’a age-related ability to remember and time-bind. The interviewers are very highly trained, and any deviation from the established protocol will probably cause the case to be tossed out.

I’d also note that this discussion revolves around child pornography possession, where there is concrete documentary evidence that the crime occurred, and a chain of custody and forensic evidence that shows how the images of child rape came to be in the offender’s possession. The case Rabinowitz described isn’t really relevant.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Leading questions CANNOT be asked of a child victim, and a court-certified Child Forensic Interviewer conducts the interview of the victim using only non-leading questions, which require that the child tell a story the minimum number of times, always documented by video and audio recording for review by the prosecutor, judge, defending attorney, and jury, and with the absolute minimum level of interjection by the interviewer. You won’t hear “He touched you, didn’t he?”, but you will hear, “and then what happened?”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Arizona_Mike said:
I haven’t read the book, but what are your alternatives to the system we have now?
Click to expand...
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.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just a little matter, but it’s interesting.

In Anglo-American (and indeed, most if not all Roman based systems) corroboration of sexual crimes is not required. Long ago, the law recognized that perpetrators of such crimes tend to take steps to keep the crime a secret.

Historically, sex crimes were “crimes of opportunity.” The assailant had to apprehend the female when she was outside the protection of members of her family or the public, who would protect her from the outrage.

These are hard cases. The jury has to listen to both sides, and try to determine who is telling the truth.
 
Child porn is no different then child molestation. A child is still being victimized. Life Sentance? It’s a lot better then what he’ll get in the after life.
 
schaubj57 said:
Child porn is no different then child molestation. A child is still being victimized. Life Sentance? It’s a lot better then what he’ll get in the after life.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Debora123 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

I don’t like “defending” adult porn so do not take it as such. :o
 
schaubj57 said:
It’s a lot better then what he’ll get in the after life.
Click to expand...
Rascalking said:
There is a huge difference between people who have looked at adult porn and those who have looked at child.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So anyone that looks at the pictures after that is culpable? I don’t think so. Take, for example, anonymous image boards. If someone were to post child porn there, and the other viewers inadvertently saw the pictures before they were removed by the moderators, would those who were accidentally exposed be culpable? What about someone who, upon seeing the images, downloaded them before they were removed? On anonymous imageboards, the person who posted the illegal material would have no way of knowing how many people viewed or downloaded the material, his motivations would therefore not fit a “supply and demand” model.
Click to expand...
That’s not the point.
If the man downloaded the pictures unto his computer than he should be in jail.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
I never said adultery was a good thing! I even said I’m really not comfortable “defending” adult porn. I just see a huge difference between the two, for goodness sakes I’m NOT saying either is a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top