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

[earth_as_one]

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.

Wrong like lying, stealing or murder?

I would describe young people (both under 15 and within 2-3 years age) engaged in sexual activity as risky/dangerous behaviour like crossing a busy street with your eyes closed. I don't think young people engaged in sexually activity should go through the courts. They should receive councilling, but not arrested and put into juvenile detention. The objective should be to correct behavior, not punish. In the long wrong, punishing children who are innocently exploring their sexuality inappropriately could be even more damaging than the act itself.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

Got that right.
I thought decades ago (and still do) that the Criminal Code is in dire need of a complete overhaul.

 

[L Gilbert]

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

Or two teens that are insane and whose hormones drve s most of their activities?? Yeah, let's write laws catering to their whims. :roll:

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

Quite right.

 

[L Gilbert]

Wrong like lying, stealing or murder?

I would describe young people (both under 15 and within 2-3 years age) engaged in sexual activity as risky/dangerous behaviour like crossing a busy street with your eyes closed. I don't think young people engaged in sexually activity should go through the courts. They should receive councilling, but not arrested and put into juvenile detention. The objective should be to correct behavior, not punish. In the long wrong, punishing children who are innocently exploring their sexuality inappropriately could be even more damaging than the act itself.

They aren't jailed anyway. We have that "Young Offenders Act" remember. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowTd...l=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

 

[hermanntrude]

Wrong like lying, stealing or murder?

I would describe young people (both under 15 and within 2-3 years age) engaged in sexual activity as risky/dangerous behaviour like crossing a busy street with your eyes closed. I don't think young people engaged in sexually activity should go through the courts. They should receive councilling, but not arrested and put into juvenile detention. The objective should be to correct behavior, not punish. In the long wrong, punishing children who are innocently exploring their sexuality inappropriately could be even more damaging than the act itself.

you may be right. depending on circumstances, the courts may not be the appropriate thing. One would hope the parents would provide enough "counselling" that it didnt happen in the first place, or at least to help them sort their heads out if it did. But as we all know, we can't rely on parents all the time

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"The log files don't lie, if you have visited child porn sites it will show in the logs."


Um, the person framing the guy could easily hack in to his logs.



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


no


"I don't beleive that at the age of 9, or 13, or 14, MOST girls or boys, are ready to become parents."



I like your scare tactic method. I'm sure 16 year olds are too stupid to use protection.And I think it's funny how no one has answered my hypothetical question. What's wrong? Afraid of what you might actually say?

 

[hermanntrude]

I like your scare tactic method. I'm sure 16 year olds are too stupid to use protection.And I think it's funny how no one has answered my hypothetical question. What's wrong? Afraid of what you might actually say?

really wasnt trying to scare anyone. Just telling the truth. And i didnt suggest 16 year olds are too stupid to use protection. I just know that when i was that age, and hormones took hold, and a situation developed, usually i wouldnt even have HAD protection, and i sure as hell wouldn't want to stop anything from happening, just because of that. I imagine that's a pretty common scenario.

please reiterate your hypothetical question, i'm not sure which one you're referring to. Is it the one about whether it should be legal for younguns to have sex? and why would i be afraid?

 

[Rawisbetter!]

I repeat


"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 or consider going after one. 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?"

 

[DurkaDurka]

"The log files don't lie, if you have visited child porn sites it will show in the logs."


Um, the person framing the guy could easily hack in to his logs.

How can someone easily hack into as ISP's logs? I am refering to the Internet Service Providers logs, not the logs on your crappy linksys router. You really are dense.

 

[hermanntrude]

I repeat


"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 or consider going after one. 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?"

that's easy. No he shouldn't. We all have urges to break the law, harm others, do things which are morally incorrect. Part of growing up is to learn that it's not nice to bite jenny's arm/stab andy in the ear with a fork/punch ruffles the dog etc etc etc. crimes should only be punished when they're commited, not when they're imagined. Numerous scifi books have pointed out how nasty a society would be if this were the case, so much so that it's a cliche notion.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Alright then.

 

[earth_as_one]

ISP logs can be hacked but that's a lot of trouble.

Far easier is to access someone's wireless internet router. The ISP logs packets which came to/from your house, but they have no proof of the final destination or original source. It could be you, your neighbor (who discovered he can use your unsecure connection for free) or the guy parked in front of your house with snoopy software which can hack into your "secure" network.

Like I said, I've never heard of anyone being arrested for child porn based on ISP logs alone. I doubt that would hold up in court, especially if the police found no supporting evidence on your PC. ISP logs would be sufficient to get a warrant to check your computer. Your computer has logs too and other evidence which can be retrieved with forensic software even after the files have been deleted. You pretty much have to destroy your hard drive to destroy the evidence.

I doubt anyone can be arrested for what they think. Yes people can be arrested for what they do or say. But no one can read minds and lie dectectors are fallible. Few people can control their thoughts.

Try not imagining pink elephants and suddenly pink elephants appear. Good thing imagining pink elephants is legal.

What about synthetic child porn? Since no children are involved, the child abuse argument doesn't apply. Are accurate depictions of child abuse illegal because we don't like what people are thinking when the create or view it? Is this a form of thought control?

Is the movie "Lolita" child porn or art?

 

[hermanntrude]

What about synthetic child porn? Since no children are involved, the child abuse argument doesn't apply. Are accurate depictions of child abuse illegal because we don't like what people are thinking when the create or view it? Is this a form of thought control?

Is the movie "Lolita" child porn or art?

I think synthetic child porn should be discouraged. I doubt there's a sensible way to make it illegal, since the synthesised beings could be said to represent older people who just happen to LOOK young, or have had some fantasy operation, a whole-body transplant or something. I dont mind what people think, but it would be unwise to suggest that that kind of thing is OK when it isnt. presenting it in a sexual manner, as if it was good to be turned on by such things, should be discouraged.

I've never seen that movie. what's your opinion on it?

 

[eh1eh]

I think synthetic child porn should be discouraged. I doubt there's a sensible way to make it illegal, since the synthesised beings could be said to represent older people who just happen to LOOK young, or have had some fantasy operation, a whole-body transplant or something. I dont mind what people think, but it would be unwise to suggest that that kind of thing is OK when it isnt. presenting it in a sexual manner, as if it was good to be turned on by such things, should be discouraged.

I've never seen that movie. what's your opinion on it?

Lolita is or should be child porn but it is now mainstream. Synthetic child porn? Isn't that animation?

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"But no one can read minds and lie dectectors are fallible."



What part of no if's an's or but's don't you understand?

 

[earth_as_one]

Lolita was pretty boring so it must be art. It wasn't entertainment.

Under the Criminal Code provisions in Canada, material that shows someone who is or is "depicted as being" under 18, and is engaged or "depicted as engaged" in explicit sexual activity, is classified as "child pornography".

Photographs of the genitals or anal region of someone under 18, "for a sexual purpose", are illegal, as are written texts that advocate sex with a child.
The penalty for making or distributing child pornography is up to 10 years in prison. Possession or "accessing" carries a potential sentence of up to 5 years.

There is a defense for works that have artistic merit, or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. The Supreme Court in Sharpe gave the defence of artistic merit a broad interpretation "Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution."

In addition, the Supreme Court "read in" exceptions for personal writings and visual depictions intended for private use, including diaries, self-photography and drawings. There was a concern that private expression and the depiction of lawful activity (consensual sex between married 17 year olds, for example) would be criminalized.

Parliament has responded with a proposed bill to narrow the exceptions. In particular, there is a concern that the "artistic merit" defence is open to abuse and, at the same time a worry that broad provisions may criminalize artistic works like Lolita or fail a subsequent court challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Canada

So who judges what is art and what is a depiction of child engaged in sexual activity?

If someone uses photoshop to put a child's head on an adult's body which is engaged in sexual activity... is that child porn or art?

Get a little more sophisticated and the images could be very realistic. It could get so good that it would require an expert to determine if the imagine was real or created.

I can understand why the law criminalizes child porn which actaully involves children. That part of the law fights against child exploitation and abuse and those who support child abuse and child exploitation. But I am less clear on the reasoning behind classifying depictions of children engaged in sexual activity as child porn. Who or what are we trying to protect or defend against that isn't already covered by other laws?

Most people are able to differentiate between fantasy and reality. I watched a lot of Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons when I was a kid, yet I never tried dropping a rock on anyone.

In my opinion, actual images of violent crimes like rape and murder should be as illegal to possess as actual images of child abuse. Depictions of rape and murder are legal and common themes on TV and movies. Yet depictions of child sexual activity are illegal. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning behind this.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I
Like I said, I've never heard of anyone being arrested for child porn based on ISP logs alone.

Physical evidence found on the PC + the ISP's log's indicating he visited child porn sites = conviction.

 

[hermanntrude]

this kind of depiction is rather more likely to cause different behaviour, as we all know sexual images alter our brains. I am also reasonably confident that if a man finds his sexual thrills from certain images, the positive conditioning (what could be a more positive stimulus than an orgasm?) could lead to seeking the real thing. whether it's true or not it's safest to avoid such things. even in simulation.

 

[earth_as_one]

D, yes but ISP logs alone are circumstancial. Even child porn on a computer could be circumstancial. The police still have to prove how it got there. People have all kinds of software on their computer which mysteriously got there without their knowledge such as spyware and viruses, so its within the realm of possiblity that people might not have put childporn images, just like they never put spyware and viruses on their computer. Mind you if the person has thousands of files, burned CDs... then its pretty much case closed.

H, I understand your argument. If simulated child porn becomes legal than it might result in more child abuse, because it will warp people's minds into thinking abnormal behavior is normal. That's possible, and I have heard that argument before.

But the counter argument to that is people with a sexual orientation toward children (pedophiles) might find child porn meets their need without that person actually harming a child.

You might find this court case interesting:

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/globe.16jan99.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Sharpe

By the way I partially disagree with the BC judge and agree with the Supreme Court. If child porn involves real children then the right of children to be children must trump any potential cathartic effect child porn might have on a pedophile. The BC judge should have recognized that. When the case went to the supreme court, the man's diaries and works of fiction were deemed private, but he was still convicted of possessing child porn.

This case upheld the law regarding child porn involving children and a person's right to have private thoughts, diaries and journals. Bit it still doesn't address the issue of synthetic child porn.

If we are talking just about synthetic child porn, then the right of children to be children isn't factor. So the next question is, does synthetic child porn have a cathartic effect on pedophiles? In other words if pedophile's desire to abuse children can be met through synthetic child porn, then are they less likely to abuse children than a pedophile with a frustrated or repressed desire to abuse children? Or will synthetic child porn re-inforce a pedophile's urge to act upon their fantasies?

I've read arguments for both sides and have to admit I really don't know the answer. It could be that our current laws actually result in more abuse of children. I think the behavior of pedophiles needs more study/research. What do you think?