|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Here's another example. If you know there will be a murder or you know of a murder and have not reported it, its accessory before or after the fact. Should that be legal? You personally did not help plan or perform it but knew of it. Should it be legal to be privy to such information and not report it? |
1) This presupposes that the pornographer has not all ready been caught. Unless you're saying you'd suddenly support the legality of possession in cases where the pornographer had been apprehended (and thus the case had been resolved), this can't possibly be the reason for your position.
2) Even if we ignore the above, criminalization of possession of child pornography actively discourages possessors to report the abuse in question. If you really want to encourage the original crime being reported (and you should want that), legalizing possession is the best way to achieve that, and criminalization is the surest way to fail to achieve it.
Watching people in this thread squirm around trying to come up with a justification to incarcerate sick people who have done nothing more than look at a picture is sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
They are witnessing a child being abused.
They are viewing a crime and reporting it to no one, if you believe that child abuse should be a crime then surely people who watch it happen without doing anything to stop/report it are accessories.
Though I would go further and say if they are enjoying the fruits of the crime then they are doubly guilty, just as someone who has received stolen goods didn�t do the crime but enjoys the fruits..
Whatever their supposed sickness they need to be removed from society. Although if a qualified professional deems it necessary putting them in a prison psych ward would of course be the best course.
As for drug legalization a good first step is to stop criminalizing addicts and instead support them. The NHS has (or at least did have) certain programmes that treated them with counselling and prescribed medication. It worked well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@Fox
They are witnessing a child being abused.
They are viewing a crime and reporting it to no one ... |
I literally just responded to this concern. If you want these people to report what they're observing, the absolute stupidest thing you can do is criminalize possession. This is just another example of the stupid, panicky, irrational masses shooting themselves in the foot.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Whatever their supposed sickness they need to be removed from society. |
Look at the wrong pictures? Incarceration! Wheeeee, witch hunts at great societal expense that benefit no one! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Here's another example. If you know there will be a murder or you know of a murder and have not reported it, its accessory before or after the fact. Should that be legal? You personally did not help plan or perform it but knew of it. Should it be legal to be privy to such information and not report it? |
1) This presupposes that the pornographer has not all ready been caught. Unless you're saying you'd suddenly support the legality of possession in cases where the pornographer had been apprehended (and thus the case had been resolved), this can't possibly be the reason for your position.
2) Even if we ignore the above, criminalization of possession of child pornography actively discourages possessors to report the abuse in question. If you really want to encourage the original crime being reported (and you should want that), legalizing possession is the best way to achieve that, and criminalization is the surest way to fail to achieve it.
Watching people in this thread squirm around trying to come up with a justification to incarcerate sick people who have done nothing more than look at a picture is sad. |
I said I see the point you're making. I'm not squirming away from anything. I understand it but diaagree. Viewing pics of someone who was already convicted is another issue.
I am simply raising the point that yours is the same premise as accessory to murder before and after the fact. Which is a crime and not sure if you agree it should be.
If someone does NOT report it, is that a crime. If I am sent child porn unbeknownst to myself, view it, get off on it, and immediately notify the authorities after I'm done have I committed a crime?
If I actively search out child porn and view it on the net but have not participated in the act is that a crime?
I'm simply saying that if we say viewing its not a crime, then knowing about a murder or knowing a murder will happen is also not a crime.
If I know a kmown child molester is posting child porn and I know he will post it again because his blog says he will or any reasonable person or jury or judge will conclude that he will likely do it again based on his postings already, its the same as if I know a serial killer, hit man, mobster, whatever and I don't report that him to the authorities. Its not squirming or wiggling to the majority of people (obviously to you it is). Its a reasonable question to everyone else.
As I said, I do understand your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
Sorry but these people did not accidentally view one random image. Even if possession was legal do you think these people after using the materials for their sexual gratification are going to then report the site or distributor? If you think they will then you are a trusting soul.
"Wrong pictures"
Do not talk euphemistically about this, these are not merely wrong pictures. They are pictures of children being sexually assaulted by adults. This is a heinous crime.
It is very simple, whilst the viewer may not have committed the crime they are deriving pleasure and enjoyment from the crime. It is already an established fact in law that if you profit or benefit from crime you can be held accountable.
Not to mention that it stimulates demand, thus creating more crimes and more victims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@Fox
Sorry but these people did not accidentally view one random image. |
Who said anything about random, and who said anything about one? Locking people up for looking at pictures is locking people up for looking at pictures. I don't care if its one or one million so long as they never harm anyone.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Even if possession was legal do you think these people after using the materials for their sexual gratification are going to then report the site or distributor? If you think they will then you are a trusting soul. |
I think there are ways we can incentivize them to serve as assets in legal investigations, and ways we can disincentivize them from being such. Currently we disincentivize them about as severely as we possibly can. By supporting the legal status quo, you do your small part to obstruct real justice (i.e. justice against the actual abusers), and all for what? So some people you find distasteful can be locked away at great taxpayer expense.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
It is very simple, whilst the viewer may not have committed the crime they are deriving pleasure and enjoyment from the crime. |
You see? Even you recognize these people aren't the real criminals. You want these people locked up not because they've harmed another person or because they're a genuine danger to society, but because you find them distasteful. It's a sad thing.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| It is already an established fact in law that if you profit or benefit from crime you can be held accountable. |
1) Can you show me a law on the books that says, "If you derive pleasure from another person committing crime X, you are guilty as well?" Because there's a huge difference between financially benefiting from a crime, and simply feeling pleasure as a result of it.
2) Even if you can do the above, I'm actively arguing against the legal status quo in this thread. Citing the current law in opposition to my case against the current law is not an effective tactic.
Either way, no go.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Not to mention that it stimulates demand, thus creating more crimes and more victims. |
Prove it. Because bacasper has argued not unconvincingly in the past that the criminalization of possession actually increases demand (and thus, by your logic, creates more crimes). Who is one to believe? Evidence is required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
The point numbers was that this is not just a wrong picture nor are these people simply tripping over these images. They are accumulating countless images of countless victims, funding the practice of adults raping children.
Funding is an important word here; these people are knowingly funding criminal activities. Are you going to try to tell me that�s a-ok as well.
How can you say they are not harming anyone, they are viewing images of adults raping children. They are witnessing a crime and profiting from it, yes that includes sexual gratification, this is something that is recognised in law by every country on the planet. Do I really need to cite a source?
Also it is a perfectly valid argument as you are saying they are not hurting anyone, yet by benefiting from the crime they certainly are contributing to the abuse.
Just because the specific crime was not committed by the viewer their knowledge of the crime, funding of the act and benefit from the crime harms the abused child thus making them culpable.
Also I hope we both find their activities distasteful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Funding is an important word here; these people are knowingly funding criminal activities. Are you going to try to tell me that�s a-ok as well. |
You can possess child pornography without having funded it. If you were limiting your position to the assertion that people who fund child pornography are guilty, this could be a much more nuanced conversation and perhaps we could find some common ground. So long as you take a hard line on the criminality of possession, however, you're supporting the possibility of innocent people being incarcerated to no one's benefit at great expense to society, and that's unacceptable.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| How can you say they are not harming anyone, they are viewing images of adults raping children. |
Look at the word I just bolded. That's why they aren't harming anyone.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| They are witnessing a crime and profiting from it, yes that includes sexual gratification, this is something that is recognised in law by every country on the planet. Do I really need to cite a source? |
Yes, cite a source. A source which shows that, if crime X gives non-participating person Y sexual pleasure, person Y is also guilty.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
Also I hope we both find their activities distasteful. |
We do. Something being distasteful is insufficient for me to demand its criminalization, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
They are not merely viewing they actively involved in the conspiracy by benefiting from the crime and colluding with the perpetrator by not informing the authorities. As I explained earlier they do not tell the police because they do not want their source of child rape images to end, how is this not collusion? If you view you collude, if you collude you harm.
The point about funding is key, every purchase is giving the abusers money. If they are not buying it then they will have to a) use some sort file share, which would make them a supplier and not merely a viewer or b) they know someone, which would intensify the collusion and again make them more than a viewer.
As for the legal side if you profit/benefit from crime you can get prosecuted because as I said you are a part of the conspiracy. This is true of many sorts of crimes, this is one of the reasons why people get arrested for viewing child rape. They are not locking up people for the crack of it. Anyway as I understand it your position is that it should not be a crime, not that it is not currently a crime.
�Something being distasteful is insufficient for me to demand its criminalization.�
This is not an issue of arresting people for viewing hard core adult porn or some other weird stuff, this is about people viewing (and thereby colluding) child rape. I think we can both agree that this is too heinous an act to allow people to benefit from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@Fox
They are not merely viewing they actively involved in the conspiracy by benefiting from the crime and colluding with the perpetrator by not informing the authorities. |
Hypothetical situation:
Pornographer A kidnaps, abuses, photographs, and kills a child, and then puts the pictures up on the internet. The police apprehend him. Years later, the photographs are still in circulation. Person C -- a sick individual who never purchases child pornography and has never harmed anyone -- downloads the pictures for free off of some torrent. The authorities all ready have the pornographer, and he's aware of that fact having read it in the news, meaning there is nothing to inform them of. He isn't incentivizing the pornographer to produce more porn, given the pornographer is in jail, and Person C has never paid him and will never pay him. He is a remote actor with no bearing on the situation at all; had he not existed at all, 100% of the atrocities that occurred would still have occurred.
When you can convince me that our society benefits from incarcerating this man at not inconsiderable expense (both economic and social), you'll have convinced me that possession in itself should be criminalized. Until then, what more is there to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
I would say that if that man has only one image of that one crime and has never ever had any other images then yes I would still incacerate but only as a 'scared straight' type warning say 3 months.
The problem is though in the real world those specific set of circumstances are not likely to be the norm. Not even close, I mean one image, highly unlikely.
Also who cares about expense the money we'd save from not locking up addicts and some decent European tax rates, say at least 50% for top earners, would easily pay for their time inside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@Fox
I would say that if that man has only one image of that one crime and has never ever had any other images then yes I would still incacerate but only as a 'scared straight' type warning say 3 months. |
I didn't ask you what you think should be done with him; I all ready knew the answer to that. I offered you the opportunity to lay out a convincing argument and perhaps demonstrate the validity of your case. Evidently said convincing argument is not forth coming. Instead you've simply arbitrarily insisted that this hypothetical man who has never harmed anyone and will never harm anyone should still be incarcerated, just because (and suggested that the expense of doing so is no big deal because hey, we'll have plenty of money to waste when Americans decide to raise the top bracket to 50%).
That will be all I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In addition to my post, I would also add that I would assume its reasonable to a judge that viewing child pornography is enough for a search warrant.
So, if we regard viewing a child being abused as not being punishable if not reported then witnessing a murder and not reporting it all the way to wintessing or having knowledge of a terrorist planning to blow up a packed building as well and not reporting it is not a crime either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
So, if we regard viewing a child being abused as not being punishable if not reported ... |
Well since aq8kynus' case has fallen apart, I'll turn back to this. Since you keep going on about the importance of it being reported and using that as your basis for its criminalization, I assume you would support a registry which would allow anyone who downloaded child pornography to report it, inform the police where and how they acquired it, and then enjoy it as they pleased? After all, they've reported it at that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Fox
"Case fallen apart" If you are so desperate to assign a winner to this debate then I think the person who has the support of every law maker and government on the planet has a better claim.
Even when you stacked your completely unrealistic hypothetical in your favour you still had a man who benefited from a crime. Not a major offence in itself but still an offence. Serious question, how many situations does your incredibly unlikely set of events cover in real life?
As I stated viewing is harming because you are colluding with the perpetrator. Secondly the only way to get said materials is either by purchase, file sharing or knowing someone. All would make the viewer more than just a viewer (which in itself is bad enough).
Also what is this obsession with expense, child abuse is one the most heinous crimes there is and anyone caught up in the criminal conspiracy has a hand in this horrific crime (including viewers). If you are not going to jail people for that then what are you going to jail people for.
Also I know we are never going to agree but please do not flippantly dismiss the arguments of myself and others, it�s very arrogant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
