Should a man go to jail if he's caught with child porn in his house?

[Richards]

Laws can change however. So do you think the man should go to jail just for having a gross picture?

This whole thread went to hell in a handbasket. You people are quick to convict someone with all of your rhetoric, how about all of the facts first.
I say that because I had one of the most horrible things that could happen to a dad, happened to me. I always expected to be able to protect my girls and when computers came out we made sure it was in the open so we could monitor all uses. We told them up front that we would monitor ther chat logs from time to time.
I was away for a couple of days and when I got home the wife said somethng was wrong our oldest at the time had not used the computer and wouldn't talk about it.
Now what I found on that pc made me jump backwards out of my chair and with the help of a Microsoft friend we got the bastard. A 20 yr old sibling of the young man my daughter had been talkng to was responsible. He was using his 14 yr old brothers computer.

The point is you people would most likely have convicted me had I not gotten home to deal with this myself. If you want to hurt or tarnish anyone today just yell terrost or child abuser they are guilty first.

 

[temperance]

the porn should have been gotten rid of ,if the porn downloaded i was innocent it should have been forthright ,told right out, not accessible on the computer reported to proper authorities ,then there would be nothing to hide ,its easy there are websites to report the crap too

your personal problem needs empathy but by telling someone it exists on the computer and you need help stopping it counts,just letting it sit on computer ,not doing anything is just as bad

remember the people convicted cause they didn't try to stop a crime when they could have

 

[Zzarchov]

Oh just shoot anyone who ever comes in contact with someone who's under 18.

And we change adulthood to be 20 like we keep edging towards, brand everyone in a legal relationship with 18 and 19 year olds now paedophiles and lock them up.

There are many valid points in this, but its been beaten to death. And lets face it, our laws are stupid.

You can sleep with your teenage girlfriend legally, but if you have a picture of you doing the naughty mambo your a paedophile with child porn. Wierd stuff like that, loopholes you can drive a train through.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Nice of you to bring up that point. Do bring us a full report when your done. Thanks:wave:

I was the one asking the question so.... no.

 

[eh1eh]

I was the one asking the question so.... no.

Hmmm. I like the response that came in my notification better. Think the board censored it. LOL

 

[marygaspe]

Oh just shoot anyone who ever comes in contact with someone who's under 18.

And we change adulthood to be 20 like we keep edging towards, brand everyone in a legal relationship with 18 and 19 year olds now paedophiles and lock them up.

There are many valid points in this, but its been beaten to death. And lets face it, our laws are stupid.

You can sleep with your teenage girlfriend legally, but if you have a picture of you doing the naughty mambo your a paedophile with child porn. Wierd stuff like that, loopholes you can drive a train through.

I wish they'd bring it back to 21 as it was when I was younger.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I wish they'd bring it back to 21 as it was when I was younger.

The age of consent was 21 when you were younger???

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Richards brings up a good point. Any one of us could easliy frame someone of having child porn. And temperance, I think the police would probably think the innocent guy is guilty and is just lying to fool everyone. And with the way you're all acting, the cops would be like, "you have child porn in your house? You're going to jail perv!" and they would ignore what he says because hey, he had child porn in his home. What's up with that?



"I wish they'd bring it back to 21 as it was when I was younger."



I think it should be 16 because anyone intelligent at that age, knows what they're doing, and understands the consequences of their actions.



"Perhaps some day, when your brain starts to function, you will understand what is wrong with possessing child pornography. Until then, enjoy."


And until you can actually debate with me, instead of insulting me, then go away.



"Okay, so it would be okay to assume, since you think viewing child porn is okay, that you think viewing 'crush videos' is alright? You know, where gorgeous women put kittens on the ground and walk all over them in highheels, crushing their heads with their stilettos, popping their eyeballs out and stomping them into the pavement. That would be totally fine to get off to and keep in a collection on your comp, because you didn't take part in the actual video, or the actual death of the kitten?"


Yes, as long as you did not take any part in it. But the people who do the crush videos should go to prison, because I don't take animal cruelty too lightly, nor should the law.



Ok, how bout this hypothetical situation. For some reason this cop brings down this guy he doesn't like for no reason. The guy didn't break any laws. The cop puts him on a lie detector test and asks him if he's sexually attracted to children. The test proves he is. The cop also asks him if he ever downloaded child porn or was involved with the making of it. he says no. The test proves he's telling the truth. The guy tells the cop that he hates himself for it and would never dream of abusing a child in any way. The test proves he's telling the truth. Now this lie detector is 100% accurate. No if"s an"s or but's. Should this guy go to prison?

 

[Zzarchov]

Then whats wrong with Eating Meat if you don't kill the animal?

If owning a crush video is ok because you didn't make it, isn't eating a burger ok because you didn't make it?

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"If owning a crush video is ok because you didn't make it, isn't eating a burger ok because you didn't make it?"


In my opinion, yes. But the reason I brought up the "if you eat meat, you're basically a murder" point, was because everyone else was like "If you have a sick picture of a child, then you're basically a child molester". I used their own logic on another subject.

 

[karrie]

The point is you people would most likely have convicted me had I not gotten home to deal with this myself. If you want to hurt or tarnish anyone today just yell terrost or child abuser they are guilty first.

Nobody said that men should be put in jail with no trial for it. Nobody. Spambots, assholes sending it through e-mail, etc., create instances where you may have pics like this on your comp through actions that are not your own. That's what police are for, judicial systems are for.

 

[karrie]

I wish they'd bring it back to 21 as it was when I was younger.

By 21 I'd been married for 2 years and had my daughter. I can't imagine if suddenly it was illegal for my kids to find love young.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

And besides, teens are gonna do it anyway. Why make it illegal? It's only going to hurt them and waste the courts time. It's not even that big of a deal. Who cares? 60% of the students at my high school were doing it and they were completely normal. They weren't warped. And there was like only 2 pregnant teens during my 4 years there.

 

[groovy]

And besides, teens are gonna do it anyway. Why make it illegal? It's only going to hurt them and waste the courts time. It's not even that big of a deal. Who cares? 60% of the students at my high school were doing it and they were completely normal. They weren't warped. And there was like only 2 pregnant teens during my 4 years there.

Dude, teens are gonna do lots of things they shouldn't be doing. They're young. You don't make laws based on the behaviour of teenagers, it's silly.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Yeah, because two loving people having sex is so wrong.

 

[groovy]

Yeah, because two loving people having sex is so wrong.

Depends on their maturity level and age ,dude. Teenagers are not in love usually. Lust yes, love no. And being in love has nothing to do with law. You got kids?

 

[hermanntrude]

Yeah, because two loving people having sex is so wrong.

raw, do you believe that two 7 year old's having sex is right?

it's very rare but it is physically possible in some cases. personally I believe this is wrong. Firstly they're are usually incapable of dealing with the emotions it brings with it. sex releases hormones of various kinds, some of which provide pleasure, some actually seem to create a feeling of attachment to the other participant. others are less well understood. Secondly it has been shown that women (girls) who engage in unprotected (which, let's face it, is most likely at this age), underage sex, are much more likely to get cervical cancer and various other problems. Thirdly at certain ages (probably not at 7, but it has been recorded at 9), it is possible for pregnancy to result. I don't beleive that at the age of 9, or 13, or 14, MOST girls or boys, are ready to become parents.

Any of the above reasons, on their own, are debatable as to whether they should mean illegality, or wrong-ness, but the three together, to me, show total and utter wrongness.

 

[sanctus]

raw, do you believe that two 7 year old's having sex is right?

it's very rare but it is physically possible in some cases. personally I believe this is wrong. Firstly they're are usually incapable of dealing with the emotions it brings with it. sex releases hormones of various kinds, some of which provide pleasure, some actually seem to create a feeling of attachment to the other participant. others are less well understood. Secondly it has been shown that women (girls) who engage in unprotected (which, let's face it, is most likely at this age), underage sex, are much more likely to get cervical cancer and various other problems. Thirdly at certain ages (probably not at 7, but it has been recorded at 9), it is possible for pregnancy to result. I don't beleive that at the age of 9, or 13, or 14, MOST girls or boys, are ready to become parents.

Any of the above reasons, on their own, are debatable as to whether they should mean illegality, or wrong-ness, but the three together, to me, show total and utter wrongness.

BRAVO Hermann. Excellent post!

 

[DurkaDurka]

Richards brings up a good point. Any one of us could easliy frame someone of having child porn. And temperance, I think the police would probably think the innocent guy is guilty and is just lying to fool everyone. And with the way you're all acting, the cops would be like, "you have child porn in your house? You're going to jail perv!" and they would ignore what he says because hey, he had child porn in his home. What's up with that?

You do understand besides whatever physical evidence they pull of your PC, the police can also subpena your ISP so they can have a look at the log files which indicate everywhere you have gone on the internet? The log files don't lie, if you have visited child porn sites it will show in the logs.

 

[earth_as_one]

Its illegal to possess child porn because someone had to abuse a child to make it. If child porn became a commercial product and people could make money off it, then people will abuse children for money. No doubt everyone except the demented agrees with protecting children from abuse.

By downloading the child porn you are in effect supporting child abuse.

But to play devils advocate.... technology today can make images which appear real but aren't. Its illegal to possess images which even depict child abuse even if its a completely fabricated image.

A talented animator could start with several images, put them together in such a way that it looks like child abuse, when in fact no child was abused or was even involved in the process. It would involve attaching this head to that body, altering dimensions, stretching legs, removing body hair, reshaping the face, replacing adult teeth with baby teeth.... resulting in a realistic child porn image which didn't actually involve a child in its manufacture.

I have a harder time justifying why 100% fabricated child porn images should be illegal rather than controlled. I know I wouldn't want someone who downloads synthetic child porn babysitting children, but technnically no one is being abused, yet this is still illegal. why?

Personally I could care less what people think. I also don't care what people do sexually as long as it involves only consenting adults and doesn't result in physical/mental harm.

If the idea of someone viewing synthetic images of child porn makes you ill then how about someone imagining sex with children? Does that make you ill too? So how would you control what people think or fantasize... should we even try?

How about writing a story about child abuse? Should that be illegal or is that art?

How about paintings of child abuse? Should that be illegal?

November 30, 2006


Art world backs 'child porn' curator

Colleagues leap to director's defence
He could face three years in jail


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article654708.ece

What about audio recordings? Should the sounds of children being abused also be illegal? I have no idea whether it is or isn't and how would you judge that? Maybe that's not a child making those sounds but an adult pretending to be a child or a cat...

Another area... Is child erotica child porn. Nude pictures of children skirt the edges of legality, yet are technically legal.

The photograph captures two boys, about 6 or 7 years old, cavorting naked on a beach. One of the boys looks coyly over his shoulder. The other has an erection.
Child pornography or art?
Definitely art, according to a growing number of websites charging up to $40 a month for subscribers to gain access to images of naked children as young as 4 years old.
"Only the youngest and sweetest virgin boys!" reads the introduction to Nude Boys World (See editor's note below), which contains photos and movies of boys in the buff posing in shower stalls and unmade beds.
Likewise, Sunny Lolitas, which shows naked pre-pubescent girls playing with stuffed animals or stretched out pin-up style against hot red backgrounds, advertises its models as "only cutest and (sic) the youngest!"
Experts say the sites -- which are easily found using Internet search engines -- fall into a murky category known as "child erotica," which includes images of naked children that don't meet the strict legal definitions of child pornography. U.S. law defines kiddie porn as depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as intercourse and masturbation, or that show "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area."
"These sites thinly skirt the line between legal and illegal," said Ruben Rodriguez, the director of the Exploited Child Unit of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which works with the FBI to investigate Internet child porn. "It's very frustrating for us. They're making money exploiting children and there's nothing we can do to shut them down."
Most of the child erotica sites link to the same legal boilerplate, which characterizes the sites' content as art and manifests a "vehement" opposition to child pornography.

The disclaimers published by Little-Boyz -- which boasts of being "the biggest nude boys site" with 20,000 photos and hundreds of movies -- is typical of other child erotica pages:

"Every photo honors the purity and innocence of youth and contains no sexually explicit conduct in accordance with United States Law!" asserts the site. "In the time honored tradition and within the laws of the United States of America and most states and municipalities, the visual depiction and appreciation of the male form, including the pubescent male form, has been and is legal. Little Boyz supports the laws of the United States of America and gladly and willingly conforms to these laws ... Little Boyz, in accordance with the Constitution, believes that the right to view and appreciate nude images of minors in an artistic and aesthetic manner is guaranteed."

For good measure, many of the sites provide a direct link to the U.S. code defining child pornography.

But even if the sites don't show minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, they could be charged for lascivious intent, said Ken Lanning, a retired FBI agent who spent 30 years researching crimes against children and now serves as an expert witness in court cases.

However, proving lascivious intent in court is extremely difficult....

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,52345,00.html

How do you prove lascivious intent????

Here's another wrinkle. In Canada the legal age of consent is 14.

Bill C-15 created new offences called "sexual interference" and "invitation to sexual touching" that now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent. Introduced at the same time, the offence of "sexual exploitation" also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm

So an adult can legally have sex with a 14 year old as long as they aren't in a position of trust or authority. So if you 65 years old, you can seduce the 14 year old next door legally. Just don't take pictures. Taking pictures of that legal sex act would be child porn. A picture of an 17 year old which even has a hint of sexuality is child porn. But one day later, pictures of the same person, now 18 engaged on a gangbang is legal.

I understand you have to draw a line somewhere. But what if one person is 19 and the other is 16 and they take pictures of themselves having legal sex. Technically that's also child porn.

The law is pretty bizarre in this area and doesn't reflect societal norms.

My opinion?

If the people involved are within 2-3 years of age, then the people involved are intellectual equals and its not rape. After 18 you are an adult just like a 65 year old is an adult and what consenting adults do is their own business. Under 16 years old is too young to consent to sex with an adult. Very few 15 year olds are equal to an adult, (but I've met a few who I would say are the intellectual equal of most 18 and 19 year olds and many adults... btw most were female). From 16-18, an adult (over 19) might still be charged with rape if the relationship is judged exploitive by a judge in family court. If its not about love, then its exploitive. (I've also met people in their 20's who aren't mature enough to be involved in a sexual relationship and most of them were guys) At some point, people have to fend for themselves and 18/19 seems to be an international norm. Nude pictures unrelated to sexual activity should be legal regardless of the age, however they can't be made public until the model is 18 and gives their consent in writing. Legal sexual acts involving young people (under 18) should be legal as long as they aren't exploitive and the people involved give their consent in writing after they turn 18. (in other words, no one can profit from it, but it can be offered freely). An erection is related to sexual activity. So is genital contact in any form. Breasts aren't genitals.

But even with above, lots of grey areas still exist. That's the problem with legislating morality and ethics. I'm also pretty sure people can point to specific examples which fit into the descriptions above but are obviously morally and ethically wrong.

By the way, I've never heard of anyone being charged for possessing child porn unless they were saving the images. I doubt anyone will be arrested for accidentally clicking on a link which leads to child porn. However you should report it:

http://www.reportchildporn.com/

How can you report it if you didn't see it????