Child pornography investigation

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What if someone has CG images of child porn?
Should they also go to jail?
How about sex stories about having sex with kids?

Stories are borderline illegal.

CG is borderline legal. Sometimes. Depends on where it's made, and if there's any out-and-out indication of age.

Still creepy.

I seem to recall cases on both. A guy was busted because he was writing FICTION of him having sex with underage girls. He was arrested for child molestation and child porno. He was found guilty but i think it was later overturned.

There was also a case that went to the SC about the CG images or maybe it was pictures where people took the heads of young girls and put it on womens bodies. Anyway the court found that it was NOT against the law to have such stuff.

On a related note to the CG issue...

There are numerous photobooks of nudists and nudist camps depicting children below the age of consent out there in the popular literature, probably sitting on the bookshelves of your local bookstore. It should be noted that these do not fall under the branch of pornography but rather something loosely equivocated to "erotica" because in themselves they are not pornographic in the sense they do not feature minors in sexual acts. I remember hearing about them a while back in the news - some B&N got protested or something.

Edit: Artistic nudity is more like it.

Remember a while back some ass at a film developing shop called the cops because they devloped some film that had pictures of kids in the bath tub? No sex, no toy, no simulated sex acts, just kids in a bathtub doing what kids do. The cops were called and the mother was arrested and i do belive charged with child porn. Its been a while and the exact details are foggy.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Didn't someone's family photos get hotlinked to a child porn site?

I roughly remember hearing a mother get prosecuted for taking pictures of her children playing in the pool naked, etc. during family functions. The case was absolutely ridiculous and should have been thrown out. I don't recall what happened to it.

Edit: Citrix, you got it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

That may be true, but in my experience the American justice system is so totally corrupted that I simply don't have that faith. It's morally reprehensible that I should be required to pay a man to keep myself out of prison for something I didn't do.

Furthermore, no one is FORCED to do something that's wrong. If a case is wrong, if a law unjust, a judge or attorney can simply choose not to take part in it. Yes, they'll likely lose their jobs over such actions, but a job is not more important than what's right or wrong. I have lost MANY jobs because I was told to do something I didn't believe in and refused. In my opinion, that is the only course of action for a good person to take. Should a lawyer/judge prosecute a case they don't believe in, they are in essence intentionally comitting the crime of wrongful prosecution. Wrongful not based on law, but on the justice and morality that law is supposed to represent. The system should never be allowed to become more than the intentions which created it.

It's really pretty fundamental.

I think your take on our justice system is completely inaccurate, and you're giving prosecutors too much credit if you think they're systematically and willfully taking unwarranted prosecutions to trial. I've been actively involved in the criminal justice system for the last 8 years, working in 3 states, 4 federal districts, and the military, and have never seen a prosecutor bring a case he or she didn't think was justified (with the minor but notable exception of one rape case, in which I believed the alleged victim was raped, but knew the accused would likely be acquitted for evidentiary reasons -we gave her her day in court, and he walked away a free man). I certainly think some prosecutors cut corners they shouldn't, and even occasionally engage in misconduct to strengthen cases against what they believe are guilty parties, but this is EXTREMELY rare, if reprehensible.

You also don't appear to understand the role of judges - it would hardly behoove the defendant if a judge refused to hear a weak case - again, my mother acquitted a man just last week for alleged computer porn offenses. The American judicial system (unlike some others) does not put the judge in a prosecutorial posture.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

That may be true, but in my experience the American justice system is so totally corrupted that I simply don't have that faith. It's morally reprehensible that I should be required to pay a man to keep myself out of prison for something I didn't do.

Furthermore, no one is FORCED to do something that's wrong. If a case is wrong, if a law unjust, a judge or attorney can simply choose not to take part in it. Yes, they'll likely lose their jobs over such actions, but a job is not more important than what's right or wrong. I have lost MANY jobs because I was told to do something I didn't believe in and refused. In my opinion, that is the only course of action for a good person to take. Should a lawyer/judge prosecute a case they don't believe in, they are in essence intentionally comitting the crime of wrongful prosecution. Wrongful not based on law, but on the justice and morality that law is supposed to represent. The system should never be allowed to become more than the intentions which created it.

It's really pretty fundamental.

I think your take on our justice system is completely inaccurate, and you're giving prosecutors too much credit if you think they're systematically and willfully taking unwarranted prosecutions to trial. I've been actively involved in the criminal justice system for the last 8 years, working in 3 states, 4 federal districts, and the military, and have never seen a prosecutor bring a case he or she didn't think was justified (with the minor but notable exception of one rape case, in which I believed the alleged victim was raped, but knew the accused would likely be acquitted for evidentiary reasons -we gave her her day in court, and he walked away a free man).

You also don't appear to understand the role of judges - it would hardly behoove the defendant if a judge refused to hear a weak case - again, my mother acquitted a man just last week for alleged computer porn offenses. The American judicial system (unlike some others) does not put the judge in a prosecutorial posture.

I'm happy you've had happy-joy-joy experiences with our system. Mine has been completely the opposite. Time and again I've watched criminals go free or nearly so, and innocent people get utterly and totally screwed. I watch the results of patterned economic inequality and want to puke. I've been a part of probably 20-30 court cases in one way or another, and have seen 2 good outcomes. 2. 2. 2. Our views on anything in life are largely representative of our experiences in life, so it's obvious to see where our problem lies. Had I seen the courts do good I would likely have faith and be willing to place myself in their hands. I haven't. I'm not.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What if someone has CG images of child porn?
Should they also go to jail?
How about sex stories about having sex with kids?

Stories are borderline illegal.

CG is borderline legal. Sometimes. Depends on where it's made, and if there's any out-and-out indication of age.

Still creepy.

I seem to recall cases on both. A guy was busted because he was writing FICTION of him having sex with underage girls. He was arrested for child molestation and child porno. He was found guilty but i think it was later overturned.

There was also a case that went to the SC about the CG images or maybe it was pictures where people took the heads of young girls and put it on womens bodies. Anyway the court found that it was NOT against the law to have such stuff.

On a related note to the CG issue...

There are numerous photobooks of nudists and nudist camps depicting children below the age of consent out there in the popular literature, probably sitting on the bookshelves of your local bookstore. It should be noted that these do not fall under the branch of pornography but rather something loosely equivocated to "erotica" because in themselves they are not pornographic in the sense they do not feature minors in sexual acts. I remember hearing about them a while back in the news - some B&N got protested or something.

Edit: Artistic nudity is more like it.

yeah. I remember about 2 years ago groups of people were buying a book by a guy named David hamilton. he realeased a book called "age of innocence" (or something like that) that contained very artistic pictures of kids 6+ nude. NOT disgusting pictures like in beaver shot (donno if thats a real mag but you get the idea) but artistic pictures.

Some groups tried to get it banned but the courts said it was ok.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

*shrug* I will not go to prison for a crime I didn't commit. That's the absolute in this equation. I have a feeling that the authorities wouldn't want me to just walk away after the trial, that would result in a fight. My only option at that point is to kill or die. I'm willing to do either for what is right. If they managed to subdue me without killing me, I'd make it clear to them that for the rest of my life I would always be willing to kill anyone that stood between me and my freedom, so their only option is to kill me. I know 99.999999999999999% of the world would disagree with me, but that's how I feel about it. Unless I actually do something wrong, no one has the right to infringe on my freedoms. See, I have this issue with unjust confinement.

Ahem - this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read this week. You're being awfully melodramatic, but even if you're sincere about being unwilling to be subdued, killing a judge or DA would do you no good at all, except to the extent it would all but ensure you'd never be a free man again. All that would happen in this situation is you'd be forcefully (probably violently) subdued by bailiffs, and stand trial again for your acts of violence against the court. This is sheer silliness.

Yes. But so is being punished for something you didn't do. I can understand where he is coming from. Just serving the sentence quietly would just feel like an admission of guilt. However, I'm not sure killing people would really get the desired result here...

FWIW, it's not easy proving someone knowingly acquired or possessed computer pornography, and acquittals are not uncommon. Just last week, I watched my mother (a senior state district-court judge) acquit a man accused of manufacturing and distributing obscene material over a website. I find it almost wildly unlikely that anyone would be wrongfully convicted of possessing pornography by acquiring it through a virus, as long as his attorney was awake during the trial.

Well, poor people with poor attornies aside...there is more damage to be done to an individual than just being put into prison or fined. Regardless of the outcome of a trial, being accused of this would destroy one's character. Let us not forget the "So and So found innocent of CP pocession" news story hardly ever gets on the front page like the "So and So on trial for CP pocession" story is. While our legal system has a innocent until proven guilty system, society in general operates more under a "guilty after accusation" system.

 

[yhelothar]

Just serving the sentence quietly would just feel like an admission of guilt.

Tell that to Gandhi. :disgust:

 

[Beau]

I've had to assist in providing evidence for an employee where I used to work (I was the net admin). Not fun. The guy was 17 when he was busted, just got out of prison about a year ago after spending 5 years hopefully getting his ass raped. He was actually in my wifes college english class after he got out -- I wasn't too happy about that.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Rogue
I have never been so filled with hatred in my life until I had to view the evidence for a child pornography case today. The attorney needed assistance in locating information on some of the information contained in the pictures, so unfortunately, I had to view the evidence. I could literally kill someone right now because of what I just had to see. Rage is the only word that can begin to explain what I feel at this moment. Has anyone else had the misfortune of assisting in such a thing? I need some moral support right now.

Back when I used to run my BBS I had to help on a few cases for (of all groups) U.S. Customs, while disturbing, I was happy to do it since I knew the folks would definately get busted (the stuff being traded online far surpassed any amount of reasonableness, these weren't hey she's 17 claming to be 18....)

Bill

 

[thomsbrain]

nasty! i'm really glad i've never seen anything like that. goatse is bad enough.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
The sentence for kiddie porn shoudl be castration - it's detestable. As Nik stated, it seems like you're already in the right.

Castration? That's absurd. How is having kiddie porn on a computer worse than actually abusing a kid?

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rbloedow
The sentence for kiddie porn shoudl be castration - it's detestable. As Nik stated, it seems like you're already in the right.

Castration? That's absurd. How is having kiddie porn on a computer worse than actually abusing a kid?

Maybe because it's condoning abuse of a child in the worst way by simply trafficking in their smut. That's like saying that drug sellers are less culpable than drug producers. It's a matter of degrees, but it's all reprehensible.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: godmare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Child Porn != Child Molestation.
I'd rather pedophiles get their kicks from porn than getting out there molesting kids.

What, do you think the pictures are cg? If nothing else the victims of child molestation are physically depicted in child pornography.

What if the child porn WAS cg? OK?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I will say that chemical or physical castration doesn't prevent child molestation, just as men who are no longer physically capable of erection due to old age sometimes molest. There are many factors at work, including a learned sexual predisposition toward children. Many true pedophiles are still dangerous to children when they're 90 years old.

I'll also say that not all offenders are created equal, and not every person who shows an interest in child porn is an irredeemable pervert. By way of illustration, recidivism is actually lower among child molesters than among men who rape adult women. None of these are my favorite kinds of people, however . . .

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Rogue

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rbloedow
The sentence for kiddie porn shoudl be castration - it's detestable. As Nik stated, it seems like you're already in the right.

Castration? That's absurd. How is having kiddie porn on a computer worse than actually abusing a kid?

Maybe because it's condoning abuse of a child in the worst way by simply trafficking in their smut. That's like saying that drug sellers are less culpable than drug producers. It's a matter of degrees, but it's all reprehensible.

I do not believe that down-loading child porn from the internet is as serious an offense as actually abusing a child.

Your analogy is flawed imo. I would say a better (although not perfect) analogy would be "producers of drugs are committing a more serious offence than users of drugs". Most people would judge the producers of drugs to be guilty of a more serious offence than the users, I would guess, although of course using drugs contributes to the flourishing of the drug industry (just as selling kiddie porn for profit contributes to the continued flourishing of that scene and is possibly contributing to the continued abuse of children).





Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

What you wrote just makes NO sense.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

What you wrote just makes NO sense.

Exactly. Chemical castration = castration

In any sense, if you kill the chicken, there are no eggs. I support some type of extinction of the species as far as this is concerned. Could just be my current anger talking though.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: godmare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Child Porn != Child Molestation.
I'd rather pedophiles get their kicks from porn than getting out there molesting kids.

What, do you think the pictures are cg? If nothing else the victims of child molestation are physically depicted in child pornography.

What if the child porn WAS cg? OK?

read the thread?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

What you wrote just makes NO sense.

That's because you are an idiot.

punishment != treatment

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rmrf

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: godmare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Child Porn != Child Molestation.
I'd rather pedophiles get their kicks from porn than getting out there molesting kids.

What, do you think the pictures are cg? If nothing else the victims of child molestation are physically depicted in child pornography.

What if the child porn WAS cg? OK?

read the thread?

Not in it's entirely. I'm working my way through it now. Why do you ask?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Ugh, sucks for you... hopefully the guy gets castrated.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

What you wrote just makes NO sense.

That's because you are an idiot.

punishment != treatment

I wasn't aware that castrating someone was a "treatment." :laugh:

You're a laugh riot.

Edit: a whole lot of hate in this thread.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Child Porn != Child Molestation.
I'd rather pedophiles get their kicks from porn than getting out there molesting kids.

Wow.... just..... wow.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is the main reason this thread is so long.

 

[cosine17]

ive unfortunetly had a few files misnamed (along with those lovely random irc links) to link to stuff like that.

its not vial in the sense that its disgusting or hideous, but it is more than just wrong.

(no im not defending it, just making a distinction that in my eyes its not as revolting (but equally as wrong) as say, a snuff film.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Castration is not an appropriate punishment for anyone or any crime.

Conceivably some form of chemical castration might be a useful treatment for some sex offenders.

What you wrote just makes NO sense.

That's because you are an idiot.

punishment != treatment

I wasn't aware that castrating someone was a "treatment." :laugh:

You're a laugh riot.

Yes, chemical castration is used as one form of treatment for serial recidivist sex offenders.

edit: for example, these men will be given injections of depo-provera or other anti-androgens which reduce their sex drive.