pedo gets a slap on the wrist

MagicMarker

enfant terrible wrote: »

I don't think people here are hypocrite's.

I would think most people see funding the child sex industry as a very serious crime and fell there should be minimum prison sentences for such offenses.

Obviously child abusers should get as long as possible in prison like in the states where there is a minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders under Jessica's Law.

So what prison sentence would you impose on those who fund the illegal drugs trade, or child labour?

SV

MagicMarker wrote: »

Define severely punished.

He should be closely monitored and go through intensive therapy etc. I'm not sure what prison would achieve tbh.

It's a form of punishment.
After prison he should go through intensive therapy.

MagicMarker

SV wrote: »

It's a form of punishment.
After prison he should go through intensive therapy.

Grand so, I assume you also agree on prison sentences for others who fund illegal activities such as the ones I've brought up?

BlueLepreachaun

MagicMarker wrote: »

And people can choose not to buy illegal drugs, download torrents, or purchase products that are not free range or fair trade.

Newsflash, the world sucks.

I wasn't comparing the offences, I was comparing the defence and mindsets.


I'm not suggesting he should receive a punishment the same as if he had abused the children himself, I agree punishments shoudl be proportionate to the crime.
I'm suggesting that if they can in fact treat this, and everything I've read indicates such treatment can not eliminate these urges, only control behaviour acting on them, then he should be confined until such treatment is complete, then when relased, severe restrictions should be placed on him such as:

• Barring him from any job where he has direct contact with children
• Barring him from owning a computer or ever again accessing the internet
• Requiring him to continue such theraphy for the rest of his natural life.

The problem with the Irish justice system is much broader than this particular offence, every serious crime gets a suspended sentence and every petty crime such as minor drug possession or tv licence non-payment gets you locked up.
The inconsistency seems to lie in the fact that the district courts, who would deal with minor offences, are far tougher than the central court or circut courts, whereas it should be the other way around.

Lets face it guys, we live in a country where the people in charge are complete incompetents.
These are the people who decide our laws:

• When the age of consent law was (rightly) struck down a few years ago because it didn't allow for the defence of genuinely not knowing someone was underage, instead of swiftly replacing it with a law that let the jury decide if they beleived the defendet genuinely didn't know, they ditherd around for weeks while existing pedophile prisoners launched appeals! They spent I think it was two weeks arguing between FF and FG if the age of consent should be 16 or 17...who cares??? just pick one and get the dam law in quick then we can always argue about that later.
  
• We have a justice minister more interested in banning legal handguns (despite not a single legal one ever bein used in a crime, ever), and prohibiting blashpemy than dealing with real crime, then when he does occasionally try to deal with real crime he turns into the opposate extreme, a total fascist, allowing any 3 or more people to be declared a gang on the police say so.
  
• We live in a country where the people writing our drink drive laws include a TD who was once caught driving drunk, against traffic, on the wrong side of the road, another who was so drunk he literally ran over a nurse, and a collection of publicans who double as TDs and, with a straght face, tell us because they're from "da country" they should be allowed drink and drive.

Grand so, I assume you also agree on prison sentences for others who fund illegal activities such as the ones I've brought up?

Slave labour in Asia that produces our runners is unfortunatly not a crime, child abuse is.
The mere illegality of drugs is what creates the violence and smuggling, not the fact that people buy them.
Downloading torrents your not actually casuing any physical harm, in fact your probably not causing any financial harm either, a recent study showd that ironically the people who download them spend more on music than those who don't.

In general though, I don't beleive in prison sentences for most non-violent crimes, there are plenty of alternate punishments that can be used.

MagicMarker

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

I wasn't comparing the offences, I was comparing the defence and mindsets.


I'm not suggesting he should receive a punishment the same as if he had abused the children himself, I agree punishments shoudl be proportionate to the crime.
I'm suggesting that if they can in fact treat this, and everything I've read indicates such treatment can not eliminate these urges, only control behaviour acting on them, then he should be confined until such treatment is complete, then when relased, severe restrictions should be placed on him such as:

• Barring him from any job where he has direct contact with children
• Barring him from owning a computer or ever again accessing the internet
• Requiring him to continue such theraphy for the rest of his natural life.

The problem with the Irish justice system is much broader than this particular offence, every serious crime gets a suspended sentence and every petty crime such as minor drug possession or tv licence non-payment gets you locked up.
The inconsistency seems to lie in the fact that the district courts, who would deal with minor offences, are far tougher than the central court or circut courts, whereas it should be the other way around.

Lets face it guys, we live in a country where the people in charge are complete incompetents.
These are the people who decide our laws:

• When the age of consent law was (rightly) struck down a few years ago because it didn't allow for the defence of genuinely not knowing someone was underage, instead of swiftly replacing it with a law that let the jury decide if they beleived the defendet genuinely didn't know, they ditherd around for weeks while existing pedophile prisoners launched appeals! They spent I think it was two weeks arguing between FF and FG if the age of consent should be 16 or 17...who cares??? just pick one and get the dam law in quick then we can always argue about that later.
  
• We have a justice minister more interested in banning legal handguns (despite not a single legal one ever bein used in a crime, ever), and prohibiting blashpemy than dealing with real crime, then when he does occasionally try to deal with real crime he turns into the opposate extreme, a total fascist, allowing any 3 or more people to be declared a gang on the police say so.
  
• We live in a country where the people writing our drink drive laws include a TD who was once caught driving drunk, against traffic, on the wrong side of the road, another who was so drunk he literally ran over a nurse, and a collection of publicans who double as TDs and, with a straght face, tell us because they're from "da country" they should be allowed drink and drive.

I've only glanced over this but I agree on pretty much all of it.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Slave labour in Asia that produces our runners is unfortunatly not a crime, child abuse is.

This doesn't make it right though, but people don't think twice about it.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

The mere illegality of drugs is what creates the violence and smuggling, not the fact that people buy them.

Sorry man, that's a major cop out. I don't disagree that some drugs should be legal, but the fact is they're not, and it's the people who buy them who creates the smuggling/violence etc.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Downloading torrents your not actually casuing any physical harm, in fact your probably not causing any financial harm either, a recent study showd that ironically the people who download them spend more on music than those who don't.

There's plenty of stealing that doesn't physically harm anyone, we still put people in prison for it.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

In general though, I don't beleive in prison sentences for most non-violent crimes, there are plenty of alternate punishments that can be used.

I agree.

enfant terrible

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what prison sentence would you impose on those who fund the illegal drugs trade, or child labour?

So what your basically saying is you see no difference between someone who download's images of children being raped and someone who purchases good made by child labour because there both funding an illegal industry?

You feel they should be punished equally?

MagicMarker

enfant terrible wrote: »

So what your basically saying is you see no difference between someone who download's images of children being raped and someone who purchases good made by child labour because there both funding an illegal industry?

You feel they should be punished equally?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

BlueLepreachaun

Sorry man, that's a major cop out. I don't disagree that some drugs should be legal, but the fact is they're not, and it's the people who buy them who creates the smuggling/violence etc.

The smulggling and violence would not be nessicary if they were not illegal, drug laws cause a problem and then pretend to be in place to solve it.

There's plenty of stealing that doesn't physically harm anyone, we still put people in prison for it.

...and we shoudn't.
There are always other options, like making them work in the place they robbed free for a month, making them pay a fine a few times the cost of what they robbed etc. Thats real restorative justice, sticking them in prison just feeds the cycle of crime and makes them tougher.

SV

MagicMarker wrote: »

Grand so, I assume you also agree on prison sentences for others who fund illegal activities such as the ones I've brought up?

I don't view any of them as quite as bad as child abuse tbh.

enfant terrible

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

Yes those who repeatedly fund the drug industry should face prison time.

No those who purchase goods made from child labour should not be imprisoned because they broke no law.

However if it was illegal then I would support imprisonment for repeatably breaking this law.

BlueLepreachaun

So Jimmy who buys a few grams of hash gets to share a cell with Paddy who downloaded 40 ,000 images of child sexual abuse?
Thats....insane...

SV

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

So Jimmy who buys a few grams of hash gets to share a cell with Paddy who downloaded 40 ,000 images of child sexual abuse?
Thats....insane...

No no..Paddy doesn't go to jail for downloading child pornography.
Jimmy gets to share the cell with people who didn't pay their tv license!
You know..the SERIOUS CRIMES. :rolleyes:

hellboy99

So much for a justice system here in this country, judge says it's the worse case he's seen yet he doesn't send him to prison, what a disgrace :mad:

Dudess

old boy wrote: »

how do one get the message across to kids say under six.

I'd have thought it best that children under the age of six aren't made familiar with the concept of sexual abuse.

Moomoo1

interesting. There was a thread in PI forums not so long ago started by a user (whose name I won't disclose), who said that his/her brother was up for trial for something similar (trading child porn). Could this be it?

but now I've searched for it and it's vanished... presumably deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

enfant terrible wrote: »

So what your basically saying is you see no difference between someone who download's images of children being raped and someone who purchases good made by child labour because there both funding an illegal industry?

You feel they should be punished equally?

Both are the products of child abuse. Or, to put another slant on it, are you condoning the use of child labour?

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Addiction..interesting defence....

"erm..your honor...I'm addicted to robbing cash in transit vans, I cant resist the thrill of it, it's a lure that controls me...so if you think about it...I'm the real victim here...of my urges that is...so suspended sentence yeh?"

I think at this point we should draw a distinction between a reason (the urge) and an exuse.
Even if they can be treated, and I'm skeptical, very skeptical, why not hold them in custody until they are treated and therapists are 1000% satisfied they will not reoffend? rather than give them a suspended sentence?

Lets look at another group, the mentally ill, a guy kills his family, and is judged mentally incapable of knowing the diffrence between right and wrong, do they give him a suspended sentence? no, they put him in a secure mental facility for the rest of his natural life, because, though he is mentally defecent, he remains a threat to others.

Completely different motives. Poeple don't download child porn in order to meet their material needs. One way or the other, it's a beahaveioural thing, which can not be said of thieves. Also, I never said there is or could be a cure - I honestly have no idea - like everyone else here, I've done no research.

The mentally ill is NOT another group. I fail to see what point your hypothesis makes?

Finally, I only put forward my experience. I prefer to go by that then the ****wits who read the Sunday World and go knee-jerking.

BlueLepreachaun

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Exactly.

And none of us really know how sexy those kids were. Maybe he just couldn't help himself.

Onion News Network:
Ex-Pedophile Shares Tips On How To Make Your Kids Less Attractive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0nnU71ggro

Dudess wrote: »

I'd have thought it best that children under the age of six aren't made familiar with the concept of sexual abuse.

You don't have to tell them about sex, the basic technique is to tell them that if anyone touches them in a way that makes them uncomfortable they should tell Mommy/Daddy/Teacher etc

m@cc@

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you really think this then you must also think that anyone who downloads a song, a movie, anyone who buys any kind of illegal drug, anyone who buys anything that's not free range should also be put in jail, because if you don't, you're a hypocrite.

Are you seriously comparing child porn to downloading music?!! It doesn't make me a hypocrite at all because it's like comparing stealing a chocolate bar with stealing a car.

Moomoo1

m@cc@ wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing child porn to downloading music?!! It doesn't make me a hypocrite at all because it's like comparing stealing a chocolate bar with stealing a car.

it reminds me of a scene from Rabelais. A poor man is standing next to a cooking roast and holding his piece of bread above it so it soaks up the smell. The owner of the tavern demans money because the man has used the smell of his roast. However, the adjudicator demands that the poor man pays only with the jingling of his coppers.

the moral being that watching and doing are totally different things

MagicMarker

m@cc@ wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing child porn to downloading music?!! It doesn't make me a hypocrite at all because it's like comparing stealing a chocolate bar with stealing a car.

What about drugs? You conveniently ignored that part of my post.

I'm sure the companies who lose millions will agree with your comparison of downloading music and stealing a chocolate bar.

m@cc@

MagicMarker wrote: »

What about drugs? You conveniently ignored that part of my post.

I'm sure the companies who lose millions will agree with your comparison of downloading music and stealing a chocolate bar.

ffs, in comparison to a child being abused, the balance sheet of a multi-national really is not that important.

MagicMarker

m@cc@ wrote: »

ffs, in comparison to a child being abused, the balance sheet of a multi-national really is not that important.

Again you've ignored part of my post.

m@cc@

MagicMarker wrote: »

Again you've ignored part of my post.

You've just ignored all of mine.

MagicMarker

m@cc@ wrote: »

You've just ignored all of mine.

lol, whatever you say.

That's fine, you ignore the question. It's quite clear why you won't answer it, because the answer you have makes you a hypocrite.

m@cc@

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, whatever you say.

That's fine, you ignore the question. It's quite clear why you won't answer it, because the answer you have makes you a hypocrite.

As far as drugs go, I'll agree with that you say.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't disagree that some drugs should be legal, but the fact is they're not, and it's the people who buy them who creates the smuggling/violence etc.

MagicMarker

m@cc@ wrote: »

As far as drugs go, I'll agree with that you say.

So do you think someone who buys illegal drugs should be given a prison sentence then?

m@cc@

MagicMarker wrote: »

So do you think someone who buys illegal drugs should be given a prison sentence then?

Not necessarily. The act of using drugs isn't necessarily wrong since it only harms the individual involved. How the drugs are got about is another story. But then, downloading child pornography and using it is much more serious than using drugs.

MagicMarker

m@cc@ wrote: »

Not necessarily. The act of using drugs isn't necessarily wrong since it only harms the individual involved. How the drugs are got about is another story. But then, downloading child pornography and using it is much more serious than using drugs.

The act of using drugs isn't necessarily wrong? Really? Funding organized crime and murder isn't wrong?

That's strange, considering what you said earlier in the thread...

m@cc@ wrote: »

Anyone who pays for child pornography is paying for a child to be abused and as such is as guilty as the molester. The same way that a person paying for a murder is as guilty as the murderer.

WindSock

MagicMarker wrote: »

The act of using drugs isn't necessarily wrong? Really? Funding organized crime and murder isn't wrong?

It's not our fault drugs are illegal and the only way to aquire them is by funding organised crime. If they were legal, it would be victimless.
Child porn makes the child a victim, legal or illegal. Hardly the same thing.

WindSock

pickarooney wrote: »

Did someone have to go through each and every picture on his PC and rate and count the offensive ones? Imagine having that job.

Yeah. They probably hired back (or where they fired?) Those Gards and Superintendants that were caught by Operation Amythest a few years ago to peruse the images.