Father executes his teenage son for sexually abusing his 3 year old sister

[Nitefly]

'Idle curiosity' as some may use as an excuse for such things may stoke further expressions of deviancy rather than sate any desires.

You are really just shifting the goalposts - the crime is imposed because of something the accused might subsequently do. It's harder to justify this with such images as opposed to handguns since a handgun is a weapon that can kill with immediate consequence, a image file is not. So if you find the criminalisation of handguns difficult to justify, it's arguably even tougher to justify this. Furthermore, can you get an illegal handgun for free?

Allowing the collecting and availability of such materials could be said to vindicate the production of the materials produced by an act of abuse.

I'm not really following this - if somebody isn't paying for these materials, they are not creating a 'supply and demand' situation.

Naturally, I'm not advocating for the legality of such behaviour since I find it morally repugnant, but it is very hard to justify the illegality for anything other than moral reasoning.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

I'm not really following this - if somebody isn't paying for these materials, they are not creating a 'supply and demand' situation.

The production of the matrial is a crime so posession must remain a crime as viewing the material can be viewed as exploitation after the fact, invasion of the childs privacy.

Consider you are browsing the net and stumble upon an image of your child, even yourself as a child, how would you feel?, it must remain criminal to protect children no matter if paid for or free. If free images were allowed but not production a loophole would be created and taken adavantage of by people who would just say 'its ok I got it for free and had no hand in its production'.

 

[Amp34]

'Idle curiosity' as some may use as an excuse for such things may stoke further expressions of deviancy rather than sate any desires.

Allowing the collecting and availability of such materials could be said to vindicate the production of the materials produced by an act of abuse.

child pornography must remain criminal to discourage all consumption and production.

The exact same thing could be said about smoking weed. You start with trying one at a party, then start smoking regularly, then decide to try something harder, cocaine, heroin, then decide to pay for your fix by selling to others...

The production of the matrial is a crime so posession must remain a crime as viewing the material can be viewed as exploitation after the fact, invasion of the childs privacy.

Consider you are browsing the net and stumble upon an image of your child, even yourself as a child, how would you feel?, it must remain criminal to protect children no matter if paid for or free. If free images were allowed but not production a loophole would be created and taken adavantage of by people who would just say 'its ok I got it for free and had no hand in its production'.

There is a big difference between downloading and looking at an image like Nitefly mentioned and hosting and sharing an image...

What I don't get is how people that hate "paedos" think breaking other laws is perfectly fine. These other laws have the potential to be much worse and have far more reprocussions and victims but apparently they are fine. Ahh I love hypocracy and emotions clouding things.

 

[lcg]

I cannot believe a father would do this to his son no matter how atrocious his crime.

Yeah, same here. This is so screwed up

 

[muon]

Got kids ? How about we let them go and sleep over with a 'rehabilitated child sex offender'. I'm sure they'll be fine

I agree. Burglars are just gonna re-offend as well. Why put them out into the world when there is so much stuff to steal.

May as well just pre-empt it.

As for people using the logic "repeat child sex offenders exist, therefore there is no such thing as a rehabilitated child sex offender" are idiots.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

TAhh I love hypocracy and emotions clouding things.

Emotions or hypocracy, no.

Child pornography is wrong, its existence is testement to a child suffering abuse no matter how far removed from the production the person who obtained the image is.

 

[Amp34]

Emotions or hypocracy, no.

Child pornography is wrong, its existence is testement to a child suffering abuse no matter how far removed from the production the person who obtained the image is.

Theft, illegal drugs and violence is also wrong but for some reason doesn't have the same stigma. All have victims and are illegal yet somehow are different.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Theft, illegal drugs and violence is also wrong but for some reason doesn't have the same stigma. All have victims and are illegal yet somehow are different.

One word, children.

 

[Glaucus]

Emotions or hypocracy, no.

Child pornography is wrong, its existence is testement to a child suffering abuse no matter how far removed from the production the person who obtained the image is.

But the two are very far removed from each other and certainly should not be charged the same way.
You are assuming these images are paid for. I bet they aren't.
Just because some one looks at it, does not mean they would ever abuse a child, even if they could not get their hands on it.
CGI images also count as child porn, which makes no sense at all.
Simply having a picture on your computer makes you a producer as the file is copied and saved. Something most people do not realise. So when a newspaper says they where charged with creating an image. It is hardly ever the case.

 

[Amp34]

One word, children.

so what happens if the theft involves a child? Mugging them for example?

But the two are very far removed from each other and certainly should not be charged the same way.
You are assuming these images are paid for. I bet they aren't.
Just because some one looks at it, does not mean they would ever abuse a child, even if they could not get their hands on it.
CGI images also count as child porn, which makes no sense at all.
Simply having a picture on your computer makes you a producer as the file is copied and saved. Something most people do not realise. So when a newspaper says they where charged with creating an image. It is hardly ever the case.

From what I understand it's a bit more specific than that, if it's in your temp files it's "fine" however if you save/move the file to a specific folder then it becomes "creating". I guess it's to stop the issue of charging innocent people for creating a file by accidently stumbling across an image.

 

[Caseh]

so what happens if the theft involves a child? Mugging them for example?

You really think that mugging a child is just as bad as "sexually abusing" them? Wow. :/

 

[Hitman_Leon]

You are assuming these images are paid for. I bet they aren't.
Just because some one looks at it, does not mean they would ever abuse a child, even if they could not get their hands on it.
CGI images also count as child porn, which makes no sense at all.
Simply having a picture on your computer makes you a producer as the file is copied and saved. Something most people do not realise. So when a newspaper says they where charged with creating an image. It is hardly ever the case.

I don't presume anything, paid or not the images should not be collected on purpose in any way shape or form.

CGI should have a differing classification eg: creating an offensive image with a view to promote exploitation or abuse of children, you could say it is akin to producing hate materials against any person.

Creating a copy can be interpreted as promotion of a banned material.

so what happens if the theft involves a child? Mugging them for example?

Is not the same, cannot have any parallel.

You really think that mugging a child is just as bad as "sexually abusing" them? Wow. :/

He did not say that, I think he was searching for comparisons, there are no comparisons.

 

[semi-pro waster]

You really think that mugging a child is just as bad as "sexually abusing" them? Wow. :/

I may be wrong but I don't think that was the point being made. If a child is mugged is the moral outrage relatively large compared to the mugging of an adult?

As for the instant case I don't think there is any way that this chap shooting his son can be considered a proportionate or appropriate response. I do wonder if it was motivated as much by a desire to protect his daughter as a desire not to have to deal properly with his sons behaviour or possible sexual predilections. From the rather limited information available it seems as if the son recognised his behaviour was inappropriate and wished to get help in stopping it, I guess we'll never know now whether that would have been successful.

 

[CrimsonAvenger]

Complete opposite to this country where you would get a slap on the hand.

Yes the world is nuts!

 

[Vonhelmet]

if somebody isn't paying for these materials, they are not creating a 'supply and demand' situation.

I think the laws of economics can operate outside of purely monetary transactions.

 

[Nitefly]

I think the laws of economics can operate outside of purely monetary transactions.

Please expand

 

[semi-pro waster]

Please expand

Bartering would be one way e.g. in this unsavoury question a paedophile might trade images in return for somewhere to create the images or similar. It is also possible that even without trading items of intrinsic worth that the images would be passed around - not least because of the feelings of justification or 'normality' that may ensue from a paedophile knowing that there others who share their predilections.

 

[mushroomsoup]

what a strange family...

 

[Amp34]

You really think that mugging a child is just as bad as "sexually abusing" them? Wow. :/

Not in the slightest. I was pointing out that Hitman_Leon's single word ("Children") was rubbish. His argument seems to be that child porn is considered so bad because it affects children apparently unlike the other things I mentioned that also had victims. I was just pointing out that these can and do affect children as well, yet there is no uproar about it and arguably has less affect on the child. Looking at and downloading an image (for free) of a child is not the same as mugging a child in the slightest, yet mugging the child is seen as the lesser of two evils!?

(This is not the same argument as that for a person who created the images (or the OP where sexual abuse of a child actually took place) in the first place, unless they are CGI, this is following the argument about those that just download the images)

 

[The Running Man]

source says - "statistics show that 60 per cent of sex offenders are normally likely to re-offend"

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/5636,...itics,039paedo-pals039-cut-re-offending-rates

and that was the first link i got back when i searched this. i dont know how anyone can argue with the notion that paedo's like all sex offenders are likely to re-offend because - to the best of my knowledge sexual preference/perversion cannot be altered through simple 'rehab' processes..