100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Deba | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I really have no stand on how 'harsh' the penalty should be for being in possession. Sure you do because you called us blood thirsty. But, it's okay to have that opinion. I don't know why you would change your stance now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, IF I Will get the same treatment for watching a porn as I will for creating it, why shouldnt I just go snatch up a child and make my own? Because that takes a lot of effort. If it were easy enough, most pedophiles would. no way to know that,,, many people tend to their fantasies through porn, instead of acting upon them It was you who suggested that they would if the penalty was the same. they would. Much like people when they smoke cigarettes and then give it up, they REPLACE it with some other action (often eating). or when people who normally like women, go to jail, where there are only men, ,,,their access to their source of fulfillment changes, and they just find another source,,, it is similar with many who call adult lines or use adult porn, it fulfills in them some hidden fantasy,,, if you say to them that they will suffer the same consequence by fulfilling the fantasy for real,,,, plenty of them would have no 'boundary' at all to keep them from doing so,,, as it stands , watching it is NOT treated the same as doing it,,, I think it should stay that way I'm sorry, but I'm not going to say it's okay for someone to watch child porn (where a real child was abused) to keep them from abusing children. Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really have no stand on how 'harsh' the penalty should be for being in possession. Sure you do because you called us blood thirsty. But, it's okay to have that opinion. I don't know why you would change your stance now. true. let me rephrase then with the exception of TAKING SOMEONES LIFE I have no stand on how 'harsh' a penalty should be for possession type crimes,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. Well, there is where we disagree. I'm just wondering...what if it is a "live" show? Meaning I pay to see a child abused, but not on videotape...it's live. Is that the same or worse as the video? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the porn is supposed to come with a label stating all actors are over 18. So, that should make it pretty easy for the puchaser to decide what to buy and what not to buy. professional studios who wish to keep their license adhere to such laws,, not all porn is made or distributed by a professional studio,,, Right! So, if you buy porn like that, you run the risk of being in possession of child porn and you deserve the punishment. Which I believe should be harsher than you think it should be. I really have no stand on how 'harsh' the penalty should be for being in possession. I just believe that it should fall under 'possession' penalties, instead of 'production' penalties and those two types should never be strictly identical, in my opinion,,, the courts could mash that out, when I use the term duress I am speaking fairly strictly about fear of immediate physical harm or death,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really have no stand on how 'harsh' the penalty should be for being in possession. Sure you do because you called us blood thirsty. But, it's okay to have that opinion. I don't know why you would change your stance now. true. let me rephrase then with the exception of TAKING SOMEONES LIFE I have no stand on how 'harsh' a penalty should be for possession type crimes,, Okay, then I'll compromise, too, and we will just lock them up for life. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. Well, there is where we disagree. I'm just wondering...what if it is a "live" show? Meaning I pay to see a child abused, but not on videotape...it's live. Is that the same or worse as the video? no, that would be more of an 'accessory' crime than a mere possession IMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. Well, there is where we disagree. I'm just wondering...what if it is a "live" show? Meaning I pay to see a child abused, but not on videotape...it's live. Is that the same or worse as the video? no, that would be more of an 'accessory' crime than a mere possession IMHO But, all I'm doing is paying to watch. Whether it's recorded or live...I'm just paying to watch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really have no stand on how 'harsh' the penalty should be for being in possession. Sure you do because you called us blood thirsty. But, it's okay to have that opinion. I don't know why you would change your stance now. true. let me rephrase then with the exception of TAKING SOMEONES LIFE I have no stand on how 'harsh' a penalty should be for possession type crimes,, Okay, then I'll compromise, too, and we will just lock them up for life. , that would be for the courts too,,, I think cases should be handled on individual details as opposed to a blanket rule,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. Well, there is where we disagree. I'm just wondering...what if it is a "live" show? Meaning I pay to see a child abused, but not on videotape...it's live. Is that the same or worse as the video? no, that would be more of an 'accessory' crime than a mere possession IMHO But, all I'm doing is paying to watch. Whether it's recorded or live...I'm just paying to watch. I disagree. If you are paying for something live, you are in essence financing its production. if you pay after its already produced, you merely possess a product. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder? A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=863301&single=1&f=21 Producer, not user is the real criminal and you cannot sentence a person for something you think they are capable of doing, but have yet to do....He will appeal and he will get a reduced sentence....Another supreme waste of taxpayer dollars.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 11/07/11 04:24 AM
|
|
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder? A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=863301&single=1&f=21 Producer, not user is the real criminal and you cannot sentence a person for something you think they are capable of doing, but have yet to do....He will appeal and he will get a reduced sentence....Another supreme waste of taxpayer dollars.... A Judge ought to implement the Law,not being subject to moralistic Kneejerks! Equaling possession of Childporn to Murder is definitely not Objective application of the Law! It ought to definitely carry a hefty Penalty,but that Judge's decision is ridiculous! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder? A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=863301&single=1&f=21 Producer, not user is the real criminal and you cannot sentence a person for something you think they are capable of doing, but have yet to do....He will appeal and he will get a reduced sentence....Another supreme waste of taxpayer dollars.... A Judge ought to implement the Law,not being subject to moralistic Kneejerks! Equaling possession of Childporn to Murder is definitely not Objective application of the Law! It ought to definitely carry a hefty Penalty,but that Judge's decision is ridiculous! Yep, and the peeps making the big bucks just keep on churning...Gotta wonder.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not saying its ok either. Im saying its not as terrible as actually abusing a child. Well, there is where we disagree. I'm just wondering...what if it is a "live" show? Meaning I pay to see a child abused, but not on videotape...it's live. Is that the same or worse as the video? no, that would be more of an 'accessory' crime than a mere possession IMHO But, all I'm doing is paying to watch. Whether it's recorded or live...I'm just paying to watch. I disagree. If you are paying for something live, you are in essence financing its production. if you pay after its already produced, you merely possess a product. You're also financing production if you're buying porn. You're paying for what they've already done, as well as financing future productions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder? A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=863301&single=1&f=21 Producer, not user is the real criminal and you cannot sentence a person for something you think they are capable of doing, but have yet to do....He will appeal and he will get a reduced sentence....Another supreme waste of taxpayer dollars.... He has actually created a market to harm children. I have not touched on what I think he is capable of, I already have evidence that he has indeed aided in creating a market. Posession of illegal materials is a crime and he is indeed a real criminal. I have also said that I personally do not beleive he should have the same consequence as the criminal who physically did the actual rape of the child. He is clearly not innocent of posession however. That is what I have issue with. We cannot protect our children by allowing a market for this to exist, and he is guilty of that. I fully support possession laws. They are justly a crime. What was Vilca doing with the child porn? Was he selling it, did he have a web page set up for profit? Was he using it for personal wanking purposes?...It's not really clear in your OP...But, even if he was selling it, life W/O parole is probably not going to fly and is a waste of time and money....If a judge wants to send a message, I don't think he should do it at the expense of the public....Do you think Vilca will appeal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder? A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=863301&single=1&f=21 Producer, not user is the real criminal and you cannot sentence a person for something you think they are capable of doing, but have yet to do....He will appeal and he will get a reduced sentence....Another supreme waste of taxpayer dollars.... He has actually created a market to harm children. I have not touched on what I think he is capable of, I already have evidence that he has indeed aided in creating a market. Posession of illegal materials is a crime and he is indeed a real criminal. I have also said that I personally do not beleive he should have the same consequence as the criminal who physically did the actual rape of the child. He is clearly not innocent of posession however. That is what I have issue with. We cannot protect our children by allowing a market for this to exist, and he is guilty of that. I fully support possession laws. They are justly a crime. What was Vilca doing with the child porn? Was he selling it, did he have a web page set up for profit? Was he using it for personal wanking purposes?...It's not really clear in your OP...But, even if he was selling it, life W/O parole is probably not going to fly and is a waste of time and money....If a judge wants to send a message, I don't think he should do it at the expense of the public....Do you think Vilca will appeal? I didnt write the OP. He purchased or traded for it creating a market. He is guilty of possession. I dont care if he appeals, I care if people abide by the law. OK, that's fine with me, I do too.....I also care about things like frivolous lawsuits (not saying this one is/was) and inappropriate sentences that leave room for valid appeal, because ultimately it costs the taxpayer...These are exactly the type of things that feck up the system and lend themselves to the domino effect which leads to other things, like insurance premiums, healthcare services, and attorney fees, becoming cost prohibitive for the average joe... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's some thought for the discussion:
Under strict interpretation of the law, anyone that has pictures of their own children in a bath tub or on a changing table is in possession of child pornography. Which means techically, my mother and grandmother would have been considered "photographers" of pornographic material involving children. How many folks here want to see the law strictly enforced? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the judge will have some idea of the difference between the gramma's bath pic and the latter. One would think so, however, this scenario has happened. Common sense is sorely lacking in people in general.  As for the problem with equating this to drugs....I was wondering the same thing. "Possession" is a common term used there as well. If I were Empress of America I'd release all the drug possessors and lock up the child porn possessors excluding those in possession of their own family members baby bath pics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen friends post pics of their own kids to facebook, it really makes me scared for them. All it takes is one prosecutor wanting to make a name for him/herself and then you get a distributors rap for posting them on the net!
I can see the headline: "Pornographer uses own children as subjects!" I can hear the summation: "This sick individual used the trust of the parent child relationship to make and distribute pornography." The sad fact is, most would just hear those headlines, in modern America, that would be good enough for a conviction. The innocence of the situation rarely has any baring on a legal matter. We are a zero tolerance society now, and most folks are happy to have it that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen friends post pics of their own kids to facebook, it really makes me scared for them. All it takes is one prosecutor wanting to make a name for him/herself and then you get a distributors rap for posting them on the net! I can see the headline: "Pornographer uses own children as subjects!" I can hear the summation: "This sick individual used the trust of the parent child relationship to make and distribute pornography." The sad fact is, most would just hear those headlines, in modern America, that would be good enough for a conviction. The innocence of the situation rarely has any baring on a legal matter. We are a zero tolerance society now, and most folks are happy to have it that way. You touched a nerve with this post RO...My sis put pics of her grandbabies on facebook and I had a hissy fit. Ultimately, she took them down...Maybe I am being paranoid, but they are precious cargo..... 
|
|
|
|
|
