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

[L Gilbert]

You fit into the 5% of windows users who know how to manage a pc.

....... even if most of it is a mystery to me; like partitions for instance). I don't really care if someone wants to snoop around in my pc but I dislike the idea of someone using my speed, resources and whatnot for their ends.
5%? Holy crap. That's not very good.
I'm like Dex, I run all my cache cleaners, spyware, etc. once a week and defrag the drives once a month.

 

[L Gilbert]

what the heck does all this techno computer stuff have to do with child porn? why do people do that so much on this forum? im on other forms where you have to keep on topic or some mod comes along and makes you do so. on here, things just get all strange

Heh heh. Good point, hun.
I was a bit puzzled as to what child porn had to do with US politics in the first place.

 

[hermanntrude]

what the heck does all this techno computer stuff have to do with child porn? why do people do that so much on this forum? im on other forms where you have to keep on topic or some mod comes along and makes you do so. on here, things just get all strange

the diversion came from a discussion on how easy it is for child porn or porn in general to get onto your hard drive without your knowledge. It's a common thing in conversation for the topic to deviate, and i personally see no reason that it shouldn't happen when there's something interesting to talk about, and it's not getting in the way of another discussion, both of which are true here, since the rest of the members seem to be finished with the OP. Maybe you have something to say on the subject?

 

[awomenpissed]

hey i accidently found this thread !! i was with someone for 6 years an just recently our life hasnt been so well , i thought maybe he was cheating on me by way on chatting and finding someone that way , so i installed a keylogger on my coumpter and i found over 50 pictures of child porngraphy and videos he hade them in secreat email accounts , he was clearing the history on our coumpter everday , i also found him sending what pictures he hade to other men and telling them he hade sex with young children, i have 3 children and he sent pictures of them and other pictures of my nieces out to other people , he hade this pictures for over a year in his account, i was scared to death that he hade done something to my kids it was 11pm and i ran to the police station with my kids in there p.js while he was sleeping and gave the police acess to the accounts he was arrteted and addmitted that they were all his and that he was interested in chil porn and that he pleasured him self while looking at the photos and videos , he said he like young girls and that he found this all over the internet he said his whole adult life he was interrested in young girls. my children were not touched because they were boys !!! and he only like girls i havent seen hoim since they arrested him the cause is still going on he is faceing 575 years in prision , he admitted he jerked off while watching these poor little babies being abused , i saw these pic and videos , i have nightmares !!!!! yes HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL !!!! I loved this man with all my heart he was a great father to my children i hade no clue !!! we hade 6 years of a realonship and i turned him in . he needs help but hes not getting it hes telling people in our town that it was a setup when i told his mom he was in jail her excate words were i knew he was sick but i didnt know he was this sick . his whole family turned against me and my children , my life hads been turned upside down with people news etc...... well so i guess my answer is clear take it from someone whos lived this and still is yes he should be in jail he said hed rather be with a young child than a adult , he signed a confession admitting to it all , and he still goes to work everday and lives with mommy and daddy in his little bubble . he has court this friday to enter a plea i heard from the district atty that hes going for not guilty !!!!

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Here's what Stonemage had to say about me.



"He spent a week or so telling what Stonemage said and did. He was VERY creative in his recall. Not very accurate, but VERY creative.


Pretty much like he was when he didn't show for our parking lot meeting. I was there in about 30 mins or so and stayed for an hour. He was posting both before and after someone posted that I was there and waiting. His version of the event is quite funny."


Oh really old man? Let's review what happened. At 5:50PM you challenged me to a fight at Catfish Country. I accepted. You were at your home when you said that. Your home is within 10 miles of the fight location.We Both left at 5:55. I got there in like 10 to 15 minutes. So that means I got there around 6:10. I waited for an hour and you didn't show up. So you were there in 30 minutes huh? That means you should've been there at 6:30. But wait! That picture of you was taken when it was pitch black outside. It didn't get that dark until around 7:20. Right around the time when I left. Strange. It's almost like I'm telling the truth. Strange. And as for the person who said I was posting before and after you got there. The guy was a buddy of yours and I didn't chicken out, I showed up on time. So Either he was lying or you're bending the truth. Let me explain. It took me about 10 to 15 minutes to get home after you didn't show up for an hour. I started posting right away so that could mean that I posted before you got there, LATE. And obviously I was posting after you got there because you showed up late.


And I found another flaw about your story. You said you drove on I4 to get to the fight location and you were held up, due to traffic. I4 is 30 miles OUT of the way of your home and Catfish Country. Not to mention, you just said on Gametalk that you got to the fight location in 30 minutes. So you drove 30 miles out of the way, then all the way back and then the other 10 miles, in half an hour? Who's making up crap now.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Here's what Stonemage just said





"First of all, the restaurant is NOT 10 miles from my house. I went to MapQuest (sisnce I did not know the restaurant) and followed the directions that MapQuest provided.


You did NOT stay for an hour. I was there by 6:20, took the picture around 6:30 or 6:40 and waited until 7:30 to leave.



The friend I called posted when I called. You had posts just a few minutes before and after my friend posted the message that I was there.



But it boils down to a pest being banished from a good place to post online. rawisbetter can claim whatever he wants. He and I know the facts of the matter. I consider the matter to be "old news". Tell rawisbetter to stay where he is. Its a much better GameTalk without him."



Are you kidding? If the restaurant isn't 10 miles from your house, then why did you say it's a 10 minute drive from your house to George Jenkins High School, a place that's about 3 miles from Catfish? And at 6:30 the sun was clearly still out. It was around half way through the sunset, so what's up? And you just said you got there at 6:20. The challenge was made at 5:50. With all the traffic and street lights near the area by Catfish and the time of day, it seems like 10 miles outta be about right on the money where you live.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Stonemage is a liar!

 

[DurkaDurka]

Raw, you are a drama queen.

 

[eh1eh]

Stonemage is a liar!

:wave:

 

[s243a]

“(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
Defence

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
Question of law”

Sections 5 and 6 are the most interesting. How can you get an idea of what material is appropriate to begin with, without first looking. Is there someone I am suppose to ask if a link is safe or not before I click on it and if so is that really the kind of big brother control over our lives that we really want. Section 6 seems in my opinion to almost invalidate the whole law altogether. How on earth do you prove that a person who is viewing the material but not distributing it poses an undew risk or harm to children. The only way you can is preconceived biased views of human behave which may or may not be true but are established on an emotional and political basis rather then a scientific basis.