Man sentenced to 20 years for pictures on phone and inappropriately touching child

Harm that he did not do.

Look, for the sake of argument, I will totally agree with you that rape constitutes severe harm.

 

Your argument is that it is wrong because it is illegal?
Or your argument is that we should have absolutely no sympathy for anyone whatsoever, even if they get sentenced to 100 years, as long as what they did was illegal?

I am not sure what your point is.

It sounds a lot like the stupid arguments I read in the Abortion section of this forum, where people try to argue that "it's not wrong because it's not illegal".

 

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography

 

Does not matter - it is revictimising the child and “normalising” this sort of sexual behaviour

 

Please explain exactly how it is "revictimising" the child.

They got sexually victimised once. If someone else watches a video of that a hundred times, how is that going to change what happened to the child?

 

I have as much sympathy for rock spiders as right wing anti abortionists have for women choosing what to do with their own bodies

 

Up to him to prove it. Once convicted, the onus is on him to try and prove there was no money involved. Criminals do not commit crimes for free.

Not at all. In becoming part of the market he became just as responsible for it as those he bought from. Ultimately as responsible as the producers themselves. I really don't want to go over this argument again. You lost some time ago. Unless you have something new, I'm done with it.

 

I am pretty sure being a peeping Tom is still a crime

 

I would not say that watching films where people get murdered "normalises" murder.
I know some people want to use that as an argument for censorship.

 

Yes, but actually peeping on someone in real life or taking video footage of them is not quite exactly the same thing as someone else copying that video footage who was not actually there, is it?

 

If he did actually become part of the market.

Sounds like a burden of proof argument.

"You have a big pile of money under your mattress. Prove you didn't steal it."

 

Tell that to the little girl. Tell that to all the kids in his pictures. Instead of empathizing with a monster, try it with his victims.

He was not her father. Even if he were, fondling her would be a felony.

The facts are that he is not her father. The pictures threw new light on an old case.

What you're saying is pretty much that the guys at Abu Ghraib would not have been caught had they not put the pictures up on social media. Dude, they did crimes. How they got caught is trivia after the fact.

 

That's not true. If you read through the story, this man in question committed his crimes for free.

 

But are the children in those videos really his victims?

Yes, the people who set those children up in those videos may have been monsters. (Depending on what exactly was in those videos which I probably do not want to know)

 

Except it wasn't really exactly "fondling". That has been covered multiple times in this thread so far.

 

Up to him to prove otherwise.

More like "You have illegal material here. Criminals don't produce this stuff for free. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Good luck with that."

 

This man chose what to do with his own body. Why don't you support it?

Show us any evidence that this person violated the bodies of anyone else.

 

Actually it is

and if you don’t believe me - try getting caught doing it

 

Yes they can.

Copying something a thousand times does not cost money.

Not only that, but many of these small producers would probably continue to do those awful things whether they got paid money for it or not.

 

Because it hurt someone else. He victimised those children he downloaded and he victimised that poor child

 

We've already covered this exhaustively in this thread. You lost that part of the debate. Reread the thread if you don't think so. I won't go down this road again. I was hoping for a new idea, not more of the same.

 

Being able to and actually doing so is not the same thing. If I face a risk by merely possessing something you want, you're going to pay me for taking that risk if you want the product. Simple economics.

 

Is it? So we have a justice system that imposes arbitrary laws, and then it is up to that individual (who broke a law) to have to prove that they did not do something wrong, rather than the justice system having the burden of evidence to prove that person did something wrong?

 

Then you're not actually that great at economics, because if you were you would see that what the buyer is actually paying for is for the seller to take on risk, not for the seller to victimise the victims.

In that case, you kind of argue against your earlier argument, don't you?

Paying creators of illegal pornography will not necessarily create an incentive to produce that pornography, will it?

 

Only if they themselves are committing the crime

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32413508

Think they were “innocent”?
This has been illegal for many years now
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/149214NCJRS.pdf

Thing is - you have to be very very careful or you will find yourself tarred with the same brush

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...ompleted_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c03