I am curious as to why possession of child porn is such a serious crime

[Staples]

I started to watch the local news recently and I watch it every weekday. Every few days it seems like someone gets arrested for possesion of child porn. I am always amazed at the "if convicted" penalties are. Below is a report about a priest who was arrested. His sentence if convicted could range up to 20 years in prison. They always set the bail at half a million too as if these guys had killed somebody.

Has anyone ever wondered why this is such a crime for someone who was not involved in capturing the offensive pictures? These guys may be sick in the head but is that such a huge crime? If so, they should send them to rehab, not prison. Anyway, the below story like most of them was a victimless crime.

Text

 

[Ntar]

because they are underage, do not know what they are doing, people take advatage of them

 

[ChooChooChooseMe]

because if you dont, the terrorists win? I dont really no...

 

[DaWhim]

japanese thinks child porn = ok

culture thing

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Staples
I started to watch the local news recently and I watch it every weekday. Every few days it seems like someone gets arrested for possesion of child porn. I am always amazed at the "if convicted" penalties are. Below is a report about a priest who was arrested. His sentence if convicted could range up to 20 years in prison. They always set the bail at half a million too as if these guys had killed somebody.

Has anyone ever wondered why this is such a crime for someone who was not involved in capturing the offensive pictures? These guys may be sick in the head but is that such a huge crime? If so, they should send them to rehab, not prison. Anyway, the below story like most of them was a victimless crime.

Text

Why dont you *think* about what the kids are going through.

Some fates are indeed worse than death.

 

[CRXican]

for many of those children, their lives will never be the same, they are scarred for life

they can't function normally and will fear intimate relationships either that or they will become sexually promiscuous in order to make up for something

they might be better off dead

 

[Landroval]

Originally posted by: CRXican
for many of those children, their lives will never be the same, they are scarred for life

they can't function normally and will fear intimate relationships either that or they will become sexually promiscuous in order to make up for something

they might be better off dead

exactly.

 

[DaveSimmons]

People who buy, trade, possess the pictures are supporting the sick scum that took the pictures. It's not a "victimless crime" to directly or indirectly support a child molester.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: Staples
I started to watch the local news recently and I watch it every weekday. Every few days it seems like someone gets arrested for possesion of child porn. I am always amazed at the "if convicted" penalties are. Below is a report about a priest who was arrested. His sentence if convicted could range up to 20 years in prison. They always set the bail at half a million too as if these guys had killed somebody.

Has anyone ever wondered why this is such a crime for someone who was not involved in capturing the offensive pictures? These guys may be sick in the head but is that such a huge crime? If so, they should send them to rehab, not prison. Anyway, the below story like most of them was a victimless crime.

Text

Why dont you *think* about what the kids are going through.

Some fates are indeed worse than death.

But most of the times the people who are only guilty of possession get as big of a sentence as child molesters or the ones exploiting the children. Something doesn't add up.

 

[ElFenix]

collecting child porn may have a strong correlation with being a child molester. either way, you're a pedophile.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
People who buy, trade, possess the pictures are supporting the sick scum that took the pictures. It's not a "victimless crime" to directly or indirectly support a child molester.

Most would consider porn as the act of sex however in that report it says there were four offensive pictures and at least one was just a nude photograph of little boys. So the law sees porn not only as sexual and potentially painful acts.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
collecting child porn may have a strong correlation with being a child molester. either way, you're a pedophile.

I agree with that but I can't get over the fact that the sentencing is just as harsh for the possesse (sp) as the creator. But I guess this isn't the only time where the law does not make a whole lot of sense. It is hardly fair to charge someone for child molestation when the crime has not even been commited.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: ElFenix
collecting child porn may have a strong correlation with being a child molester. either way, you're a pedophile.

I agree with that but I can't get over the fact that the sentencing is just as harsh for the possesse (sp) as the creator. But I guess this isn't the only time where the law does not make a whole lot of sense.

relatively lesser chance of getting caught as a possessee means that you have to have a relatively greater punishment in order to deter.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
People who buy, trade, possess the pictures are supporting the sick scum that took the pictures. It's not a "victimless crime" to directly or indirectly support a child molester.

Are people who download child porn from the internet, without paying for it, supporting the sick scum who took the pictures?

Are people who download MP3s from the internet (without paying for them) supporting the artists who made the music?

 

[Toki]

what kind of sentence would you give someone who supports terrorists. they didnt harm anybody directly, they just funded the person doing the crime.
that, and the corelation with child molestation.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

it's unduly harsh. downloading child porn is in some way, supporting the people who did it, and promoting pediophilic acts, but come the fvck on, having a few pictures in with your gigabytes of porn of a girl a few years younger than the rest makes you as bad as a murderer? is it really that much worse than the rest of your porn? what makes someone more likely to act violently against the subject of the picture if she is underage.

 

[yoda291]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
People who buy, trade, possess the pictures are supporting the sick scum that took the pictures. It's not a "victimless crime" to directly or indirectly support a child molester.

Are people who download child porn from the internet, without paying for it, supporting the sick scum who took the pictures?

Are people who download MP3s from the internet (without paying for them) supporting the artists who made the music?

well, I think the issue is that it creates a market for more kiddie porn. even if you're just distributing it freely over the internet, it had to originate somewhere and expands interest. Kind of like if I gave you a beach boys mp3, you said "This rocks" and went out and bought a boxset or starting supporting garage bands with similar sounds. It's kind of like killing the wolves by hunting the rabbits. If you defer everyone harshly enough, they are considerably more likely to avoid it. A lesser sentence would probably be horribly ineffective.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: ElFenix
collecting child porn may have a strong correlation with being a child molester. either way, you're a pedophile.

I agree with that but I can't get over the fact that the sentencing is just as harsh for the possesse (sp) as the creator. But I guess this isn't the only time where the law does not make a whole lot of sense.

relatively lesser chance of getting caught as a possessee means that you have to have a relatively greater punishment in order to deter.

Not that I agree with the OP, but why do we punish drug dealers much more harshly than drug possessors? I disagree with the current format of the drug war, but I won't ever say drug usage and abuse is a victimless crime. Why the disparity there?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: ChooChooChooseMe
because if you dont, the terrorists win? I dont really no...

Terrorists don't win when I play CT... oh wait, doh! Too much Counterstrike!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
it's unduly harsh. downloading child porn is in some way, supporting the people who did it, and promoting pediophilic acts, but come the fvck on, having a few pictures in with your gigabytes of porn of a girl a few years younger than the rest makes you as bad as a murderer? is it really that much worse than the rest of your porn? what makes someone more likely to act violently against the subject of the picture if she is underage.

Buying drugs is also supporting those that run child prostitution rings in other countries, funds rebels and terrorists, kidnapping rings, etc. So if we wanted to deter people from "supporting" those things, shouldn't we make drug possession the same as drug dealing?

 

[Thegonagle]

You?re right, IMO, something doesn?t add up: namely, the fact that they?re focusing on the wrong side of the problem. Producers of this stuff need to be convicted and left in prison to die. Some weirdo who hasn't directly harmed a child, only "discovered" and downloaded some file(s)? Well, even though I don't think their crimes should be ignored (evaluation, probation, and the sex-offender registry should be involved), I think law enforcement and prosecutors are wasting their limited resources going after and making examples of these guys. I don't see the benefit to giving them hard time for possession of a few files that anybody with a net connection has access to. They need to focus their resources on those who produce and distribute this despicable garbage.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
People who buy, trade, possess the pictures are supporting the sick scum that took the pictures. It's not a "victimless crime" to directly or indirectly support a child molester.

Are people who download child porn from the internet, without paying for it, supporting the sick scum who took the pictures?

Are people who download MP3s from the internet (without paying for them) supporting the artists who made the music?

GREAT ANALOGY 😀

download mp3's, and you're a sexual predator of children!

 

[jEct2]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
it's unduly harsh. downloading child porn is in some way, supporting the people who did it, and promoting pediophilic acts, but come the fvck on, having a few pictures in with your gigabytes of porn of a girl a few years younger than the rest makes you as bad as a murderer? is it really that much worse than the rest of your porn? what makes someone more likely to act violently against the subject of the picture if she is underage.

not because of posession itself but the fact that you have it = like little kids in real life = :shocked:

 

[shortylickens]

In reference to the topic summary:
I think the punishment for child pornographers is dead on. I think the punishment for most killers is a little light.
True, the molestors and smut peddlers need therapy, but couldnt the same be said for killers?
The "Correctional Facilities" need to start "Correcting" people. Not shoving them in with herds of their own kind and letting them learn to be better criminals.

 

[shoRunner]

who here can say they've sent someone to jail for child porn....i can...ok so i had to brag, i mean the terrorist would win if i didn't