Child Sex dolls

Mondo from Dublin · 18-10-2018 09:29AM #1

There was a bit of sensational in the media about child sex dolls recently but I wonder what crime a person caught with such an object would actually be charged with?

Mr. Incognito · 18-10-2018 09:49AM

I have no idea.

But I'd rather a pervert go home and fiddle with latex rather than actual kids.

If I was the guards I would have a chat with the manufacturer and see who is ordering them so they can be kept an eye on.

Peregrinus · 18-10-2018 09:53AM

Possession of child pornography contrary to Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 s.6 (as amended by Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017)

"Child pornography" is defined to include a "visual representation . . . that shows, for a sexual purpose, the genital or anal region of a child or of a person depicted as being a child." A doll is obviously a visual representation of a person, so a child sex doll would tick all the boxes in that definition.

Max penalty on summary conviction is 12 months; on conviction on indictment is five years. However as no actual children are directly harmed in the production of this particular form of child pornography, you might argue for a sentence of less than the maximum possible.

Producing or distributing child sex dolls would be an offence under s. 5; max penalty on conviction on indictment is 14 years.

GM228 · 18-10-2018 01:11PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possession of child pornography contrary to Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 s.6 (as amended by Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017)

"Child pornography" is defined to include a "visual representation . . . that shows, for a sexual purpose, the genital or anal region of a child or of a person depicted as being a child." A doll is obviously a visual representation of a person, so a child sex doll would tick all the boxes in that definition.

Max penalty on summary conviction is 12 months; on conviction on indictment is five years. However as no actual children are directly harmed in the production of this particular form of child pornography, you might argue for a sentence of less than the maximum possible.

Producing or distributing child sex dolls would be an offence under s. 5; max penalty on conviction on indictment is 14 years.

Hum, I'm not sure I agree with that, the definition requires the visual representation to show a person though (or a document representing a person), a doll whilst being a visual representation in a sense is however not an actual person, child or document which is an essential ingredient of the definition.

child pornography:

(a) any visual representation—

(i) that shows , or in the case of a document relates to, a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit activity,

(ii) that shows, or in the case of a document relates to, a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

(iii) that shows, for a sexual purpose, the genital or anal region of a child or of a person depicted as being a child

I think any prosecution for such could be unsound as I don't think that was the purpose of the legislation and certainly is up for a challenge. There would also possibly be issues for the prosecution proving the purpose of the doll too perhaps.

A visual representation for the purposes of the Act must show a person, rather than be a representation of a person, there's a difference, there is of course an exception to this for computer generated images which for example would cover an animation.

There were recent seizures of the dolls here and Gardaí admitted they actually are not sure if they are covered under the Act and accepted it was very much open to being challenged in court.

Peregrinus · 19-10-2018 01:40AM

The provision about computer-generated images isn't an exception; it's an inclusion. And it's not confined to computer generated images; it includes:

"without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing . . . any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means"

I think the real issue here is whether a visual representation of a "person" has to be a representation of a particular actual person; is a representation of a generic person, or a fictional person, or a mythical person,or a person whose historicity is disputed, a representation of a "person"?

In most contexts the answer would be pretty clear; the answer is yes, paintings of e.g. the Madonna or the Infant Samuel at Prayer or Androcles and the Lion do indeed depict persons, albeit that the persons concerned are mythical or of disputed historicity. But in the context of a criminal statute the courts are going to interpret the language restrictively, so they might tend to take the view that the representation needs to be of an actual person. On the other hand the express inclusion of computer-generated, mechanically-produced, etc images is telling, since images produced this way will typically not be of actual people, and this suggests a parliamentary intention not to limit the definition to representations of actual persons.

Or, of course, you could just argue that dolls are produced by mechanical means, so they are covered by the inclusion.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-10-2018 07:24AM

There was a guy arrested only a few weeks ago in dublin (I think), for selling child sex dolls and for having child porn. I don't know the details of the charges brought and whether they related to the other items, or the dolls, or both. Be interesting to see.

GM228 · 20-10-2018 03:03PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The provision about computer-generated images isn't an exception; it's an inclusion. And it's not confined to computer generated images; it includes:

"without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing . . . any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means"

Yes agreed it is an inclusion, my point however was that it was an exception to the point I was making.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the real issue here is whether a visual representation of a "person" has to be a representation of a particular actual person; is a representation of a generic person, or a fictional person, or a mythical person,or a person whose historicity is disputed, a representation of a "person"?

I think we could point to the Interpretation Act and assume person simply means an individual (note - obviously a company has no place here in the definition), is a doll then considered an individual, I think not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In most contexts the answer would be pretty clear; the answer is yes, paintings of e.g. the Madonna or the Infant Samuel at Prayer or Androcles and the Lion do indeed depict persons, albeit that the persons concerned are mythical or of disputed historicity. But in the context of a criminal statute the courts are going to interpret the language restrictively, so they might tend to take the view that the representation needs to be of an actual person. On the other hand the express inclusion of computer-generated, mechanically-produced, etc images is telling, since images produced this way will typically not be of actual people, and this suggests a parliamentary intention not to limit the definition to representations of actual persons.

Or, of course, you could just argue that dolls are produced by mechanical means, so they are covered by the inclusion.

I think this is important, the inclusion of mechanical is for any representation, description or information" as opposed to a person, don't forget the point you made above in italics expands upon visual or audio representations as opposed to a person itself. Person itself is then expanded upon like the visual representation, but does not included mechanical means:-

(2) The reference in paragraph (a) of the definition of child pornography to a person shall be construed as including a reference to a figure resembling a person that has been generated or modified by computer-graphics or otherwise, and in such a case the fact, if it is a fact, that some of the principal characteristics shown are those of an adult shall be disregarded if the predominant impression conveyed is that the figure shown is a child.

The point you made seems to be in relation to the actual medium used (audio, visual etc), whilst the above is in relation to the person and does not include mechanical means, that said "or otherwise" could be important there.

What I do know is that the Gardaí have recently sought advice on the matter from their legal advisors and the Attorney General and no clear answer has been forthcoming.

Discodog · 20-10-2018 04:09PM

Cartoons depicting underage sex have been ruled illegal in the UK.

splinter65 · 20-10-2018 06:59PM

Anyone who feels that they are thinking about sex with children in any way shape or form, buying a sex doll, looking at pictures, photos or cartoons, or just imagining, should accept that, for whatever reasons, maybe untreated stress depression or anxiety, they are suffering from a mental illness and they should go and speak to their GP for their own welfare as well as from a child safety point of view.

Esel · 20-10-2018 08:03PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone who feels that they are thinking about sex with children in any way shape or form, buying a sex doll, looking at pictures, photos or cartoons, or just imagining, should accept that, for whatever reasons, maybe untreated stress depression or anxiety, they are suffering from a mental illness and they should go and speak to their GP for their own welfare as well as from a child safety point of view.

WTF?

splinter65 · 20-10-2018 08:55PM

Esel wrote: »

WTF?

You don’t agree that being sexually attracted to children is unnatural and a mental illness that requires treatment? Or are you just stuck for something to be outraged at tonight?

Esel · 20-10-2018 09:00PM

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t agree that being sexually attracted to children is unnatural and a mental illness that requires treatment? Or are you just stuck for something to be outraged at tonight?

My WTF was at the bit I bolded in your post. I'll try again:

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone who feels that they are thinking about sex with children in any way shape or form, buying a sex doll, looking at pictures, photos or cartoons, or just imagining, should accept that, for whatever reasons, maybe untreated stress depression or anxiety, they are suffering from a mental illness and they should go and speak to their GP for their own welfare as well as from a child safety point of view.

See it now?

splinter65 · 20-10-2018 09:12PM

Esel wrote: »

My WTF was at the bit I bolded in your post. I'll try again:

See it now?

Yeah I see it now. What about it?
Forgot to post this, from the most basic description of mental disorders most commonly associated with paedophilia:

Studies of pedophilia in child sex offenders often report that it co-occurs with other psychopathologies, such as low self-esteem,[31] depression, anxiety, and personality problems.

gozunda · 21-10-2018 11:21AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

There was a guy arrested only a few weeks ago in dublin (I think), for selling child sex dolls and for having child porn. I don't know the details of the charges brought and whether they related to the other items, or the dolls, or both. Be interesting to see.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/arrest-over-child-sex-dolls-as-part-of-operation-targeting-child-pornography-37376504.html

Zero tolerance for this type of **** ....

Day Lewin · 21-10-2018 11:31AM

Point of information: a doll actually is "A document" in the sense of an article that conveys or carries information.

It could be catalogued in a museum or library, as part of an exhibition...it could be displayed during a lecture (or in a courtroom) to illustrate a point...it is certainly a "document" even though it doesn't look like the printed word.

Eric Cartman · 21-10-2018 04:26PM

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t agree that being sexually attracted to children is unnatural and a mental illness that requires treatment? Or are you just stuck for something to be outraged at tonight?

I think its a mental illness that so far the only cure is a violent death. let me know when theres a better one than that.

Regardless of what somebody wants to do with child sex dolls or whatnot, these people need to be locked away (I would go further but sadly vigilante justice or the death penalty aren't popular here)

If you've gone to the point of buying a child sex doll or looking at child porn on the internet then you've gone too far already in my book.

Discodog · 21-10-2018 05:22PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think its a mental illness that so far the only cure is a violent death. let me know when theres a better one than that.

Regardless of what somebody wants to do with child sex dolls or whatnot, these people need to be locked away (I would go further but sadly vigilante justice or the death penalty aren't popular here)

If you've gone to the point of buying a child sex doll or looking at child porn on the internet then you've gone too far already in my book.

The UK estimate that there are between 50 to 60 thousand people accessing child pornography images - 25,000 have been caught. The number of websites has increased 258% in just one year (2015/2016)

Eric Cartman · 21-10-2018 05:25PM

Discodog wrote: »

The UK estimate that there are between 50 to 60 thousand people accessing child pornography images - 25,000 have been caught. The number of websites has increased 258% in just one year (2015/2016)

Disgusting. There will never be a time where thats alright with me. I see theres some movement by some sectors to 'normalise' it or celebrate 'virtuous paedophiles' who don't do anything to kids, but it will never be alright for me.
The desire for sexual activity with children and the right to life are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned.

21-10-2018 06:00PM

Here's my difficulty. Only a generation ago, homosexuality was criminalised and seen as a mental illness. Now, we rightly realise that sexuality is fluid and to each their own. The obvious difference is that consent is impossible between an adult and a child, and will always be a crime, and more importantly - a hugely traumatic event for the child.

We do need to separate the desire from the act, and help the person with the desire so they never come close to acting on it. It's very easy to see someone with paedophilic desires as worthy of punishment, torture, death. Society tells them its unacceptable, which it is. From what I am reading, most of them seem to surpress it or channel it. They're probably all looking at porn, real or digitally generated. Some even seem profess to revert to "normai" desires. But then, we had straight camps.

Does a sex doll act as a gateway to an offense? I don't know, I don't think so. There are those who have some desire to exploit a child, and suppress it, because they know that their acts would destroy the child. Then there are the child rapists, who don't care, or convince themselves that the child is a willing participant. I would burn the latter, but give the former leeway because I don't think they want to be attracted to kids - they would rather be normal, they don't want to hurt, they don't want to commit acts that will hurt them.

I fully expect to be roasted for this, but anyway. We can demonise it or try to deal with it.

gozunda · 21-10-2018 06:06PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here's my difficulty. Only a generation ago, homosexuality was criminalised and seen as a mental illness. Now, we rightly realise that sexuality is fluid and to each their own. The obvious difference is that consent is impossible between an adult and a child, and will always be a crime, and more importantly - a hugely traumatic event for the child.We do need to separate the desire from the act, and help the person with the desire so they never come close to acting on it. It's very easy to see someone with paedophilic desires as worthy of punishment, torture, death. Society tells them its unacceptable, which it is. From what I am reading, most of them seem to surpress it or channel it. They're probably all looking at porn, real or digitally generated. Some even seem profess to revert to "normai" desires. But then, we had straight camps.Does a sex doll act as a gateway to an offense? I don't know, I don't think so. There are those who have some desire to exploit a child, and suppress it, because they know that their acts would destroy the child. Then there are the child rapists, who don't care, or convince themselves that the child is a willing participant. I would burn the latter, but give the former leeway because I don't think they want to be attracted to kids - they would rather be normal, they don't want to hurt, they don't want to commit acts that will hurt them. I fully expect to be roasted for this, but anyway. We can demonise it or try to deal with it].

Paedophillia is NOT a sexual orientation and cannot be likened to homosexuality. End of story. It's this type of stuff that panders to normalising such behaviour imo.

Eric Cartman · 21-10-2018 06:10PM

gozunda wrote: »

Paedophillia is NOT a sexual orientation and cannot be likened to homosexuality. End of story. It's this type of stuff that panders to normalising such behaviour imo.

I always hate that argument, be it from paedophile apologists trying to say 'hey, you guys thought this other thing was wrong, give our thing time' or from the other side of 'gays are just as bad as paedos'

no link, no crossover, it will never be ok, its never going to be accepted, the level of violence child sex offenders receive in prison is appropriate, theres no excuse be it mental, physical or your desires for ever touching a child sexually, nobody is going to look back in 100 years and think we were all backward for looking at it this way, its just wrong in every single sense of the word. Thinking sexual thoughts about children is a mentally defective way of thinking, similar to how serial killers think , these people need to be removed from our streets for everyones safety.

gozunda · 21-10-2018 06:21PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I always hate that argument, be it from paedophile apologists trying to say 'hey, you guys thought this other thing was wrong, give our thing time' or from the other side of 'gays are just as bad as paedos'

no link, no crossover, it will never be ok, its never going to be accepted, the level of violence child sex offenders receive in prison is appropriate, theres no excuse be it mental, physical or your desires for ever touching a child sexually, nobody is going to look back in 100 years and think we were all backward for looking at it this way, its just wrong in every single sense of the word. Thinking sexual thoughts about children is a mentally defective way of thinking, similar to how serial killers think , these people need to be removed from our streets for everyones safety.

I agree. If anyone is ambiguous about the difference - It's quite simple. A sexual orientation defines sexual type behaviour between two (or more!) consenting adults. Paedophillia / child abuse deliberatly targets children who cannot give consent. Forget the overdone and ridiculous plaudits and maudlin appeals to consider the view of the abuser as promoted by some - imo it is little more than a smokescreen for populist promoters of this type of sick and criminal abuse of those who are the most vulnerable.

21-10-2018 06:40PM

gozunda wrote: »

Paedophillia is NOT a sexual orientation and cannot be likened to homosexuality. End of story. It's this type of stuff that panders to normalising such behaviour imo.

Not End Of Story. It's only your opinion, until you back it with facts.

Thinking sexual thoughts about children is a mentally defective way of thinking, similar to how serial killers think , these people need to be removed from our streets for everyones safety.

Fiddling with kids is utterly unacceptable. Serial murder is unacceptable. In most cases, the compulsions are unwelcome, I would have thought? We are successfully reforming people with homicidal tendencies and and returning them to society. You would write off people with thoughts of kiddy fiddling that had never acted on it? The idea that a person is a write-off, deserving of whatever punishment meted out, is intolerable to me, especially if they are prosecuted based on a desire to offend rather than a crime. Few crimes outrage like an assault on a child, but we shouldn't focus the rage on those who have successfully fought those unwelcome desires.

I would rather sell someone a distasteful sex doll that read about an assault in the papers,

Eric Cartman · 21-10-2018 06:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not End Of Story. It's only your opinion, until you back it with facts.

Giving paedophelia any more let up than the current derision in our society will result in more children being sexually violated, therefore keep as is - fact.

gozunda · 21-10-2018 06:48PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not End Of Story. It's only your opinion, until you back it with facts.

If you are ambiguous about the difference look it up for yourself.

Hannibal_Smith · 21-10-2018 07:11PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We do need to separate the desire from the act, and help the person with the desire so they never come close to acting on it.

Do we? Do people need educating and help in realising that having sex with a child is not acceptable?

21-10-2018 07:16PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do we? Do people need educating and help in realising that having sex with a child is not acceptable?

They already know it, IMO. I mean most of us have had the call of the void - the weird desire to steer into traffic or jump off a cliff. I know I've seriously contemplated the murder of awkward business clients. I'm just saying that some people probably have desires that are unwelcome and that they don't want to act on. We can ignore them, revile them, or help ensure they never act.

Hannibal_Smith · 21-10-2018 07:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They already know it, IMO. I mean most of us have had the call of the void - the weird desire to steer into traffic or jump off a cliff. I know I've seriously contemplated the murder of awkward business clients. I'm just saying that some people probably have desires that are unwelcome and that they don't want to act on. We can ignore them, revile them, or help ensure they never act.

Why do they need help? Don't have sex with a child. Do you get help for your murderous tendencies, or do you just know they shouldn't be acted on?

McCrack · 21-10-2018 07:25PM

I very much detest the description "child pornography"

There's nothing pornographic of pictures or videos of children being abused

Pornography is explicit sexual recordings between consenting adults which I think most people do not take issue with

I appreciate the legislation describes it as "pornography" however and I wish the legislature would change that

Eric Cartman · 21-10-2018 07:31PM

McCrack wrote: »

I very much detest the description "child pornography"

There's nothing pornographic of pictures or videos of children being abused

Pornography is explicit sexual recordings between consenting adults which I think most people do not take issue with

I appreciate the legislation describes it as "pornography" however and I wish the legislature would change that

id agree with this, more in common with torture videos than anything.

21-10-2018 07:39PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why do they need help? Don't have sex with a child. Do you get help for your murderous tendencies, or do you just know they shouldn't be acted on?

Me? I kick the sh*t out of a cardboard box,

They may get through the day by looking at vids of "schoolgirls" old enough to have kids of their own. You can demonise them and drive them underground, or engage with them,

Over the years I've seen the demonisation of old people for bigotry that they were raised into, I put this to you as a fact - if you were born 50 years ago, statistically you would be homophobic. So your dad/mom/grandad/grandma likely hated and feared gay people. Similarly my father and most of his generation drove pissed - it was accepted. If anybody were to queerbash today or defend drunk driving, they would be ostracised. All I'm saying is anybody who hasn't committed a crime deserves tolerance, even if their ideas/desires are completely unacceptable in society.

I realise my point of view is at odds with the herd. Bring it.

Child Sex dolls

Comments