My older step-cousin just got sentenced

[korny]

You're awfully submissive to a highly counter-productive system that tends to create more harm than good. That's some serious conditioning man.

[L.B.D.D]

dont worry arkuski is a troll

but its kinda hard to tell, cos before he became a troll he acted the same

ie) being a lil bitch

[L.B.D.D]

i mean look at his videos

he grew cacti for fucks sake

[devonin]

Originally Posted by korny

Your thought process falls somewhere along the lines that "they should have thought about that before buying heroin, meth, dmt, marijuana plants, anything else that doesn't directly harm anyone except themselves potentially because the law is the law!"

Child porn doesn't directly harm anyone?

You have a very strange definition of what 'harm' means.

Or is your defence here seriously "Well, the child was -already- harmed in the making of child porn, so it's not like someone buying/downloading/watching it is creating any MORE harm" because man, I don't even know what to tell you if that's how you think of this.

[korny]

Originally Posted by devonin

Child porn doesn't directly harm anyone?

You have a very strange definition of what 'harm' means.

Or is your defence here seriously "Well, the child was -already- harmed in the making of child porn, so it's not like someone buying/downloading/watching it is creating any MORE harm" because man, I don't even know what to tell you if that's how you think of this.

Of course it isn't devonin. I would have thought we could have inferred what I meant by direct harm. The obvious, I sort of figured, was implied.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by devonin

"Well, the child was -already- harmed in the making of child porn, so it's not like someone buying/downloading/watching it is creating any MORE harm" because man, I don't even know what to tell you if that's how you think of this.

I don't see how that is incorrect. Watching someone who was murdered won't make them any more dead either. Although that is kind of the point of saying "directly" as opposed to "indirectly".

[Arkuski]

I don't understand how it's such an outrageous position to hold that the possession of CP should be a severely punishable offense.

[Dynam0]

Originally Posted by korny

Your thought process falls somewhere along the lines that "they should have thought about that before buying heroin, meth, dmt, marijuana plants, anything else that doesn't directly harm anyone except themselves potentially because the law is the law!" Gtfoutta here judge dredd. People go to prison for these crimes as well which fall under the same severity (class 3 felony) and are prone to the same fate, except that the perpetrators of the crime we're talking about are specifically targeted. My argument is basically that prison time for most any crime is not acceptable and that our means of punishing those disobeying the law is extremely outdated and needs to be looked at from a therapeutic perspective. Drug addicts don't need prison, a scary potentially brutal reality, they need treatment. I feel the same applies to possessors of said material.

What about crazies that go shooting movie theaters up? They're mentally ill, do they deserve treatment too? Prison is rough generally speaking, but minimum security facilities are heaven compared to some places. Inmates get fed better than elementary school kids who rely on meal programs...and to some extent I agree with Arkuski here. A pedophile is certainly intelligent enough to understand that possession of child pornography is illegal, as do people who abuse drugs. They are willingly breaking the law knowing full well the consequences if they are caught...unlike a child who gets their hands on daddy's gun and shoots a family member; the child cannot grasp cause and effect.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't see how that is incorrect. Watching someone who was murdered won't make them any more dead either. Although that is kind of the point of saying "directly" as opposed to "indirectly".

yes because abusing a child over and over for the sole purpose of pleasure and entertainment can be compared to ending someone's life

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't see how that is incorrect. Watching someone who was murdered won't make them any more dead either. Although that is kind of the point of saying "directly" as opposed to "indirectly".

The child isn't dead though..

Originally Posted by Dynam0

What about crazies that go shooting movie theaters up? They're mentally ill, do they deserve treatment too? Prison is rough generally speaking, but minimum security facilities are heaven compared to some places. Inmates get fed better than elementary school kids who rely on meal programs...and to some extent I agree with Arkuski here. A pedophile is certainly intelligent enough to understand that possession of child pornography is illegal, as do people who abuse drugs. They are willingly breaking the law knowing full well the consequences if they are caught...it's not a matter of a child who shoots his grandmother' unlike these criminals, the child cannot grasp cause and effect.

It should be handled on a case by case basis with different resolutions for different scenarios. Generalizing it like that is oversimplifying the issue and there are plenty of psychological phenomena that makes a person incapable of behaving properly.

[JohnRedWolf87]

On the subject of prison life in general, I don't think anyone deserves what happens in prisons. Prison is about rehabilitation and containment, not torture. I hate it when people are like "lol hope they have fun with Bubba in jail!", because they're basically saying "Rape/violence/possible death at the hands of fellow inmates as part of the punishment for the crime is a-ok!"

tl;dr: Prisons need serious reform.
/thread hijack

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Arkuski

I don't understand how it's such an outrageous position to hold that the possession of CP should be a severely punishable offense.

Nobody is saying they should be rewarded, but they should be helped instead of left to rot in a jail where their psychological problems will only intensify to later on be released and let back out again into society.

[Dynam0]

Maybe you all should do some research on crime and punishment in other countries...America has it tough boy *phew*

I agree though that law is subject to over-generalization a lot of the time and a lot of circumstantial details including mitigating and aggravating factors are taken out of the picture. It seems unfair to convict two very different people of the same offense and give them the same punishment...but it's the system we live in.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by choof

yes because abusing a child over and over for the sole purpose of pleasure and entertainment can be compared to ending someone's life

Is that even relevant? The point is that viewing something doesn't directly cause what you are viewing and shouldn't be considered as serious. It's an exaggeration to point out the issue in that logic.

[choof]

also it's funny that people are paying attention to arkuski

[choof]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Is that even relevant? The point is that viewing something doesn't directly cause what you are viewing and shouldn't be considered as serious. It's an exaggeration to point out the issue in that logic.

"oh hey I enjoy pictures of dead people I can google this all day"

"oh hey I enjoy pictures of sexualized children, I can't google this so let's get more people to make these pictures so I don't have to look as hard"

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Is that even relevant? The point is that viewing something doesn't directly cause what you are viewing and shouldn't be considered as serious. It's an exaggeration to point out the issue in that logic.

By that logic, nudes of anyone taken or spread against their will would be a-ok since the harm is already done. The harm doesn't simply stop there, photos like that can haunt someone forever in their life. I'm also against the idea that murder videos are legal to watch, as the same shit happens for the family of the deceased, and the deceased him/herself can't even consent anymore.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't see how that is incorrect. Watching someone who was murdered won't make them any more dead either. Although that is kind of the point of saying "directly" as opposed to "indirectly".

So yes, if someone has made a child porn video, that harm has been done, and it doesn't matter if 0 or 1000 people pay for that video, that particular child doesn't get any MORE harmed by that.

Except that if 1000 people pay for that video it demonstrates a market which is profitable, which will encourage those people to -continue- to abuse children to make -more- child porn. So yes, I would go so far as to say that acquiring and watching child porn causes direct harm.

If nobody bought it, nobody would make it.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by devonin

Except that if 1000 people pay for that video

You are adding in a whole new variable here. I only mentioned viewing something, not paying for something.

[Arkuski]

Originally Posted by choof

also it's funny that people are paying attention to arkuski

Please quote what you think are objectionable posts that I have made