• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pedophiles, problem or nuisance

Nolan Coppenger

Scholar
N
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
65
No doubt about it, adults doing children is unacceptable, but is attraction the crime or is action the crime? If an adult is attracted to children but do not act on their attraction, is it pedophile or not? Society naturally will not wait, society takes action once society knows a persons thoughts, so is the preemptive strike proper? Is it not making the person guilty before proven innocent, should the adult pay the penalty for their attraction if no action happens.
 
Do you have any evidence that people are being punished for nothing other than 'attraction'?

Or did you mean ostracized?

OTOH, If you are talking about child pornography, how is posing a child nude in sexually explicit poses, or producing pictures of a child being raped 'no action'?
And possessing those pictures is a specific violation of a specific law.
Much as being arrested for possessing stolen paintings is not the same as being punished for 'the love of art'.
 
While most people will find you sick, you are free to fantasize about kids, dogs, or anything you want. But your "love art" analogy is off. Child pornography is not art or the love of art, it's walking into a museum with a straight edge and slicing the Mona Lisa to shreads.

child pornography is not free speach or ART it's a picture/evidence of a crime.


Read Andrew Vachss!
http://www.vachss.com/
 
crimresearch said:
Do you have any evidence that people are being punished for nothing other than 'attraction'?

Click to expand...

Actually,.... I have, yes. In Canada, for example, a written text that counsels or advocates sex with a child is considered to be child pornography. The actual wording (as near as I can find) includes : "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means… that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual behaviour… or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years… or any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years…." It's not clear that this definition would not include Nabokov's Lolita, which is widely recognized to be fiction.

A lot of jurisdictions, including some in the US and UK (I believe) outlaw "simulated child pornography," pornography that appears to be kiddy porn but did not involve children in the production --- for example, using legal-age actors/actresses who can pass for underage. Technology has now improved to the point where such simulated kiddy porn can be produced entirely through CGI technology.

The relevant Canadian case is R. vs. Sharpe, where among the other evidence brought up at his trial were his private diaries describing his personal fantasies.
 
Producing written material, even privately is still an action, and would be prosecution for the action, not for *feelings* of attraction.

There was some sort of study done that wanted to hook up, for lack of a better term, penile 'erecto-o-meters', and make subjects watch various porn to see what they were attracted to...to my knowledge, no one has been jailed in the US due to becoming aroused at the wrong pictures, but I will admit it isn't an area I spend much time on.
 
Simple possession of an object can't justify retribution since there is no victim. No one has been deprived of life, liberty, or property simply by someone having a specimen of child pornography.
 
Plutarch said:
Simple possession of an object can't justify retribution since there is no victim. No one has been deprived of life, liberty, or property simply by someone having a specimen of child pornography.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that knowingly being in possession of stolen property cannot justify retribution?
 
Plutarch said:
Simple possession of an object can't justify retribution since there is no victim. No one has been deprived of life, liberty, or property simply by someone having a specimen of child pornography.
Click to expand...

Possession of child porn images on e.g. your hard drive is certainly an offence on it's own in the UK and I believe the position is the same in the US.

One of the arguments for this is that there is a victim i.e. the child induced or forced to pose for the original pictures.

As far as I am aware there is an argument that the availability of child porn makes it more likely that an individual will act out their fantasies.

Think of it as a little like US laws that criminalise possession of a firearm by a felon.
 
Plutarch said:
No, I'm saying it outright.
Click to expand...

So if someone steals from you, and I accept those items knowing they were stolen from you, that does not warrant retribution?

Interesting. Most would consider that accessory after-the-fact. I know I do. I'm glad the law does as well.
 
One of the arguments for this is that there is a victim i.e. the child induced or forced to pose for the original pictures.
Click to expand...

I would not be opposed to retribution for the inducer or the forcer.
 
What is it we call new posters who jump directly in and start discussing paedophily?

Mmm, I get a G ..........

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
What is it we call new posters who jump directly in and start discussing paedophily?

Mmm, I get a G ..........

Hans
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a two word name. Second word...P...yes, P.
 
crimresearch said:
Do you have any evidence that people are being punished for nothing other than 'attraction'?

Or did you mean ostracized?

OTOH, If you are talking about child pornography, how is posing a child nude in sexually explicit poses, or producing pictures of a child being raped 'no action'?
And possessing those pictures is a specific violation of a specific law.
Much as being arrested for possessing stolen paintings is not the same as being punished for 'the love of art'.
Click to expand...
LOL who said anything about kiddie porn? Did I ask about that? No, you brought it up, nobody's talking abou that. We're talking about attraction. If an adult has attraction toward a child but does nothing, is the adult guilty of a crime, should they be punished, if an adult admits to it are they a criminal? LOL at the knee-jerk reactions here!
 
So can anyone answer the question, if an adult admits to an attraction to children but never acts on it are they guilty of a crime, should they be punished or not, what should society do.
 
Nolan Coppenger said:
LOL who said anything about kiddie porn? Did I ask about that? No, you brought it up, nobody's talking abou that. We're talking about attraction. If an adult has attraction toward a child but does nothing, is the adult guilty of a crime, should they be punished, if an adult admits to it are they a criminal? LOL at the knee-jerk reactions here!
Click to expand...



To repeat, do you have any evidence that people are being criminally punished for nothing other than 'attraction'? If so, why won't you discuss it?

If not, what is your point in asking about a non-existent phenomenon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom