ACLU ex-president charged in child-porn case

[Helevitia]

The problem I see is that if you have relaxed sentences for possesing child pornography, then you have more people stepping over the line to posess such things. You know, let's keep the honest people honest. My view is that if you start looking at images or whatever, then you move on to the next thing because the first thing is no longer good enough. Just like the way people start doing harder drugs.

[Gurm]

Some have recently passed death penalties for raping a small child while others passed sentences of a 25 year minimum to life with lifetime electronic monitoring if released.

See? You're doing it again! He has not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, EVER touched a child inappropriately. So this fact is COMPLETELY irrelevant. I think we all agree that the people who MADE the kiddie porn need to be dragged out back and shot in the nuts.

And I suppose the argument can be made that he BOUGHT it. He wasn't just casually looking, or stumbling across it on the net, or even kind of searching for it. He BOUGHT it with a major credit card, right? *sigh* Yeah, he's probably guilty as sin, and deserves a few years.

[Dr Mordrid]

I didn't say he had!!

All I was doing was relating recent changes in the law re: pedophiles.

Sheeeshhhhhh...go take your meds

[Gurm]

The problem I see is that if you have relaxed sentences for possesing child pornography, then you have more people stepping over the line to posess such things. You know, let's keep the honest people honest. My view is that if you start looking at images or whatever, then you move on to the next thing because the first thing is no longer good enough. Just like the way people start doing harder drugs.

Ok, this is - and I hate to disagree with you, Helevitia - a completely specious argument in many ways. Not only do you embrace the myth that people "start doing harder drugs" when the old ones aren't good enough... but you assume that looking at naked kids leads to looking at kiddie porn leads to touching kids leads to making kiddie porn and gangraping little girls. AND you assume that relaxing sentences for things leads people to try them. Earlier this century homosexuality was illegal. Still is in a few states. Let's toughen up those sentences, it'll make people stop trying it!

It's completely fallacious. I've looked at a LOT of things in my life, and I've never TRIED them. It's the sort of conclusion one reaches because one finds the subject matter reprehensible. It IS reprehensible, but you'll find that any time research is done on the matter it's tainted. Nobody has ever conclusively shown that viewing a particular type of material predisposes an individual to mimic the behavior contained therein.

As for the drug thing - we've been over this before. You have your drug classes, right? I'd say snorting coke and shooting heroin are pretty much on par, yes? So which drug is it that you can't get high enough from that pushes you into snorting coke and shooting up? Wait, you're going to say Pot, yeah? That's complete bunk, and everyone knows it - even the people who supposedly "prove" it.

The problem here is that the lines between what is legal and illegal are artificial, imposed by society. I'm in no way arguing that smoking crack is good, nor raping little kids. But at the other extreme is an artificial line placed there by a series of prudes.

You can't argue that pot is a "gateway drug", because it's NOT the low end of the scale. There are LEGAL over-the-counter drugs that could be argued to be the "gateway", or maybe SHOULD be argued to be. Alcohol, nicotine... but they aren't, are they? We had an entire society of smokers 50 years ago, and yet very few - as few as now - turned to "hard drugs". EVERYONE drinks, but it doesn't coerce us all into trying the next step up, does it?

Same thing with kiddie porn. Does looking at the "girls of college" spread in Playboy turn you on? You bet it does. How about the hot waitresses at Hooters, you KNOW most of them are only 18. And you get pretty turned on. So is it TERRIBLY WRONG to look at 16 year olds at the beach? Do you see the sliding scale? If looking at kiddie porn makes you abuse children, what's the next step UP the scale? Watching mainstream "barely legal" porn (all actresses over 18, proof of age on file!)? Then what, "normal porn"? Then softcore, right? Skinemax, watch out! You're airing GATEWAY PORN, which puts people on the slippery slope towards raping 8 year olds!

Of course I'm being silly here, but it's a VALID POINT. Looking at "Butt Sluts 11" doesn't make any of us treat our wives/girlfriends like that (unless it's done in good fun and she consents... *ahem*). So the only way you can assume that looking at kiddie porn makes people rape children is if you make up some artificial "that's deviant and this isn't" scale, and NOTHING is black and white. We can tell when something is WAY over the line, or when something is TOTALLY on this side of the line, but in between is a HUGE gray area.

I'm rambling a bit, but I hope I made my point here. *sigh*

[Helevitia]

Well dude, I had this long speech typed out but decided I didn't have the energy to argue So I'll say this, I agree with you to some extent

[Gurm]

Well dude, I had this long speech typed out but decided I didn't have the energy to argue So I'll say this, I agree with you to some extent

And I agree with my own argument only to some extent. I do play devil's advocate and in this case this guy probably needs to go to jail. But think about it - let's say that you or someone you know downloaded some of the wrong kind of porn. Jail for 5-25? Pretty harsh, huh?

[az]

That was a great post, Gurm (#19).

[cjolley]

The problem with kiddie porn is that to produce it a child must have been raped.
He surely knows this.

That would make me think that a cp possessor might really have a higher probability of physically acting out his fantasy than a normal porn viewer might.

It also makes the him a party to a child rape.
I mean, if someone has knowledge of a child being raped, don't they have a responsibility to report it?

Otherwise they are an accomplice.

[Gurm]

The problem with kiddie porn is that to produce it a child must have been raped.
He surely knows this.

That would make me think that a cp possessor might really have a higher probability of physically acting out his fantasy than a normal porn viewer might.

It also makes the him a party to a child rape.
I mean, if someone has knowledge of a child being raped, don't they have a responsibility to report it?

Otherwise they are an accomplice.

What are you going to do to "report" it? Telling someone you found kiddie porn means admitting to possession of kiddie porn, which as Doc pointed out gets you 5-25 in a supermax where if you're LUCKY you'll get solitary and if you're unlucky a big guy will shiv you in the lunch line and you'll bleed out while waiting for the guards to call the doctor... 'cuz they HATE child molesters and kiddie porn lovers in prison. Admitting to have even seen it is like asking to be killed. Who would ever do that?

Now again, I think in this case, since he BOUGHT the kiddie porn, there's a strong case that he was intentionally funding the group that makes it. That means aiding and abetting the rape of children. Definitely a bad thing.

But I COMPLETELY disagree that it means he's going to rape a kid himself. There's no proof of that, and his conduct over the years where the children he interacts with are concerned has been exemplary.

And again, I'm usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he stumbled on some of this stuff on the internet and realized that it turned him on. Then he exercised RIDICULOUSLY BAD judgement in seeking out more of it. Does that make him a kiddie rapist? No, it does not.

[Gurm]

That was a great post, Gurm (#19).

Err, thanks. I think. It was midnight and I was tired. I wasn't sure if I had made any sense, and I hope I didn't offend Helevitia since that was NOT my intention at all.

[cjolley]

...Does that make him a kiddie rapist? No, it does not.

You don't think paying someone to rape a child makes you a party to the crime?
Standing back too far from a subject can make it so you can't see the trees for the forest I guess.

Does that mean he for sure did or will do it personally?
Of course not.
But if he is guilty of possessing (as opposed to stumbling over) kp then he IS a party to the actual deed.

[Gurm]

You don't think paying someone to rape a child makes you a party to the crime?
Standing back too far from a subject can make it so you can't see the trees for the forest I guess.

Does that mean he for sure did or will do it personally?
Of course not.
But if he is guilty of possessing (as opposed to stumbling over) kp then he IS a party to the actual deed.

Well see that's true. I'm simply saying that LOOKING doesn't mean you WILL DO IT. But yes, you're a party to the crime.

[Nowhere]

...and you can bet every kid he's been in contact with will be interviewed.

...

Hopefully by now people who do this know how easy it is even to implant false memories in small kids...

[Dr Mordrid]

He was involved with older kids than that; IIRC 8-14 year olds.

[Nowhere]

Well, can still happen at that age...