Working with a sex offender, could you do it?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

The second group is the majority nowadays and thats (at least the major reason) why owning, downloading, exchanging of those pictures is made completely illegal.

This is true, although as far as I know, the law was only changed in the UK relatively recently (there was an old Sunday8pm thread where this was discussed, here). In fact,it was 1988 where possession of child porn illegal.

Admittedly that's a different thing than what's being discussed here, but it'd be interesting if that led to a dramatic drop in crimes against children since then (seems unlikely).

[coffee-]

Just realized I had not responded to the OP.

Depending whether they were forced into, or were voluntarily in the program. Also would depend on the "level" of the crime.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sup context. I am not redefining the term I am merely only considering a subset of rapes. I can write "rape, but when I say rape I of course don't mean statutory rape or indeed rapes of a relatively non-violent nature" each time, but that's a bit tiresome.

I need to know what people are saying when they post.

It is not helpful to me, nor dare I suggest to other readers, if you abuse the English laguage.

How helpful would it be for me to start saying 'theft' and then say "oh of course I meant the 19th century larceny laws but it was a bit tiresome to type that out"

I don't see how it can be nit picking to point this out.

One of the biggest problems which I have (and to be fair to Hyfe he seems to share it as well) is that the crime of rape is no longer in sync with what we would ordinarily consider to be rape. I think that this is an incredibly important point and it needs addressing. It certainly doesn't need you to ignore it and then to dismiss my correction in a glib manner.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Similarly, in a completely different context if other criminals uploaded video tapes of themselves (say) robbing a bank I don't think there would be any point prosecuting people who download these files. The people who commit the original crime should obviously be punished.

What if there were such a high demand for robbery videos that people start robbing banks just to make the videos?

A camera can be a passive recorder of something that was going to happen anyway or it can be the instigator (in the sense that whatever gets filmed wouldn't happen if the camera weren't there). In the latter case, I don't think we can be ambivalent about the demand for these videos.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Correct, although it *is* a crime presently to download child porn, I just don't think it *should* be. Bit of a big difference.
This doesn't make sense. It's quite clear. I don't think child porn should be made. However, once it has been made, it's pointless prosecuting people for downloading it. It's not a case of whether I'm "for" or "against" it, obviously I'm against it - but that's not the issue. The issue is whether it should be a crime to download it. This really isn't complicated.

Similarly, in a completely different context if other criminals uploaded video tapes of themselves (say) robbing a bank I don't think there would be any point prosecuting people who download these files. The people who commit the original crime should obviously be punished.

You are right it isnt complicated... Simple supply and demand. Go hard on punishing those who download, it discourages folk from downloading it, which has this wonderful effect of REDUCING THE DEMAND for it.
Hence REDUCING THE DEMAND TO MAKE CHILD PORN.

No matter how"trivial" it may seem to trackle downloading child porn.
It is clear cut as that no additional bullshit is required about how innocent it is on downloading child porn.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Paisley

You are right it isnt complicated... Simple supply and demand. Go hard on punishing those who download, it discourages folk from downloading it, which has this wonderful effect of REDUCING THE DEMAND for it.
Hence REDUCING THE DEMAND TO MAKE CHILD PORN.

Like most internet porn, I doubt the majority of downloaders are actually paying for it so this argument is probably invalid.

Let's take your economic model to its logical conclusion. Suppose the government approves a large childporn site which operates legally and allows free access to all the childporn that was made prior to 2006 (and updates every month with new free content). This would pretty much eliminate the demand for buying childporn over night, and would presumably eliminate most of the demand since there's no longer any real profit to be made. Would this be a good idea?



edit: I think purchasing child-porn is essentially the same as knowingly buying stolen goods - although you arent directly involved in the theft, you are implicitly supporting it and should be legally culpable for your actions.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Like most internet porn, I doubt the majority of downloaders are actually paying for it so this argument is probably invalid.

Let's take your economic model to its logical conclusion. Suppose the government approves a large childporn site which operates legally and allows free access to all the childporn that was made prior to 2006 (and updates every month with new free content). This would pretty much eliminate the demand for buying childporn over night, and would presumably eliminate most of the demand since there's no longer any real profit to be made. Would this be a good idea?



edit: I think purchasing child-porn is essentially the same as knowingly buying stolen goods - although you arent directly involved in the theft, you are implicitly supporting it and should be legally culpable for your actions.

Websites do earn revenue from advertising and jeso dare I say it donations if there isnt subscriptions. Just a little hole in that arguement.
"A www.paedo.gov.uk website"... State Sanctioned abuse, I think the Rspcc and barnardos would love that idea not to mention most of the decent population aswell.... Aye right get yourself to **** buddy. Some MPs would call that political suicide.
I dont know if you are suggesting this for shits and giggles or you are being serious. **** all funny about child abuse if it is the former.
No Decent human would say its OK to child abuse not even some of our more "dishonourable" MPs.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Paisley

"A www.paedo.gov.uk website"..

Sure. As you said, it would reduce demand for paid child porn and hence reduce supply since theres no longer any money to be made. I suppose the site could have advertising banners and the money it raised could go to support victims of abuse. What is your problem with this?

Or are you going to admit that your supply/demand argument was just an ad hoc rationalisation of your gut emotional reaction?

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Sure. As you said, it would reduce demand for paid child porn and hence reduce supply since theres no longer any money to be made. I suppose the site could have advertising banners and the money it raised could go to support victims of abuse. What is your problem with this?

Or are you going to admit that your supply/demand argument was just an ad hoc rationalisation of your gut emotional reaction?

So are you saying "An approved site" is an better alternative to going on an all out ban and punish those harshly who use and circulate child porn?

Also did you consider that there are DEMANDS that dont envolve your wallet? as in a demand for the material to satisfy their sick needs?

[Phang]

If There Is No Money To Be Made In The Highly Illegal Production Of Child Pornography, Who Is Going To Make It?

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Phang

If There Is No Money To Be Made In The Highly Illegal Production Of Child Pornography, Who Is Going To Make It?

sick bast.... sorry "amateurs" and "enthusiasts"

[Phang]

so in other words, people who are essentially producing for their own consumption. who'd get hammered for it anyway.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Phang

so in other words, people who are essentially producing for their own consumption. who'd get hammered for it anyway.

And the Downside is....