are you people really that stupid to think that it takes a pedophile to molest a kid? i mean why should i be surprised, 2p2 is the world champion of linnear thinking; brav-****ing-o to all of you who participate.

A person who sexually molests children is a paedophile by definition. A person who hasn't done it yet, but wants to, is also a paedophile by definition.

my comment was in regards to the implicit definition; 'someone who is sexually attracted to children'.

this isn't the place to broach Abnormal Psychology, whether or not i'm an untrained expert in the field.

One of these is wrong.

I didn't say it hasn't, hence my comment on no mitigating circumstances. I said that one offender's depravity doesn't nullify the seriousness or gravity of another offender's slightly less extreme sex crime. Please list the mitigating circumstances that one has for accessing child porn on the darknet, thanks.

Rapist A opportunistically rapes a passed out woman at a party. Rapist B stalks and beats his victim as well as raping. Rapist C is a serial rapist who doesn't use violence but spikes drinks.
All have the commonality that they are committing the very serious crime of rape and all three have shown that they're predatory offenders.
The same principal applies to paedophiles accessing child porn, whether they access material showing kids being raped or material showing them being raped and tortured, both are still committing a very serious crime.
If you can't see this then... well, you can't see this.

Pre-existing mental health conditions. Age of the offender and history of sexual abuse as a victim. Remorse, victim empathy, and whether the offender has previously sought help. Assessment of likelihood of reoffence - closely related to whether it was an isolated incident or repeated offence. Absence of related prior charges or a completely clean record. How prison is likely to affect the physical and mental health of the offender.

Any of those things could be considered in sentencing.

In the UK at least these three rapists would likely be sentenced quite differently and those differences taken into account.

What do we do with people dumb enough to be fully open about their thoughts as they may pertain to the human condition?

Is what you should have named this thread. Because levying punishment for still being partially animalistic in nature, in-thought, has to be as backwards as beating a child for getting a question wrong, or an animal for peeing in the house.

(There must be budding policy makers ITT, as it reached two pages long without striving for one scientific or mathematical idea.)

Mentally ill people usually don't have the savvy to download tor or whatever is used now.
Prior sexual abuse, remorse, victim empathy. ( as in the offender empathised with the victim being raped after going to the trouble of getting everything set up to watch them being raped), completely clean record- none of these things are mitigating circumstances for predatory crimes and none of these things nullify the gravity of such offences. Premeditated murder will get you a mandatory life sentence in many countries, or even the death penalty. None of the things you mentioned will be considered mitigating circumstances once convicted and sentencing is about to be passed.
I've already made very clear that non criminal paedophiles who seek help should be given any available treatment and that I don't think those who access animation should even be charged. Seeking help and it not being given is a fault of the state. Accessing real child pornography due to this though, instead of seeking other mediums without victims is not a mitigating circumstance to access real child porn.

Even so, all three will still get a severe enough sentence for rape, which reflects the nature of their crime, as society recognises that rape is a serious offence and a danger to public safety. As I said earlier, I think each offender should be punished as harshly as the law allows for the respective degrees of their crime.

Of course people with mental health issues can use computers but they can certainly have diminished responsibility. Wtf?

It's nice of you to dismiss the rest out of hand but I'm pretty sure they can be considered by judges in a lot of jurisdictions. Age of the offender can matter hugely. A 17 year old who intentionally downloaded and saved a nude pic his 17 year old girlfriend e-mailed him is going to be treated very differently to some 60 year old with a string of sexual offences in his history who went searching for extreme child porn.

Not sure where premeditated murder comes into it but, again, there are factors in murder cases that can mitigate it such as a history of abuse against the one accused of murder. Search battered spouse syndrome for details. If Fritzl's daughter had made and carried out a plan to kill him she'd no doubt have got a much lesser sentence than the average for murder.

Ok, but we weren't talking about whether a sentence should be severe "enough". You were talking about mitigating circumstances. Certainly in the UK it's not the case that all rape is punished to the maximum the law allows. The maximum sentence for rape is life but that's not given to a one time "non-violent" date rapist. It's given (rarely, iirc) in cases where the crime may have been repeated against an indvidual, shown extreme violence/sadism, and particularly when a victim is very young.

In your example rapists B and C would get a much harsher sentence than A because of the circumstances of the case. That's not saying that A's crime isn't a despicable one or anything like that.

At this point I'm not really sure what you think a mitigating circumstance is because I'm sure for almost any crime there is the punishments vary. Even parking tickets here have mitigating circumstances.

How is this different from what should we do with people who think about committing murder, rape, robbery, drug trafficking, and fraud but don't act on it?

Apart from kleptomania none of those are recognised as mental illnesses

Grunch: what should we do with the vast majority of men who see a hot woman, instantly want to **** her, but don't because they're not into raping people?

(That's not a contradiction, because one can have two competing desires, e.g. the desire for sex and the desire not to hurt people. If the latter desire is stronger, one will resist the urge to rape.)

I don't think your analogies are valid. They are different in a crucial way than the pedo dynamic. For example, if I were drunk after having drove to a bar and there was no way I could get home other than to drive drunk, then, if that information was somehow known, I would definitely be at a high risk to DUI.

Whenever a crime is at a high risk of occurring, some counter measures should be applied if practical. The problem with your analogies is that there are other ways to gratify those desires which don't, by definition, involve me in a crime. I might see a beautiful single woman. I might take my buddy Chez's advice and tell her about matrix multiplication in my pickup line. She walks away while telling me to leave her alone, thinking I must be from SMP. So what? There are possibly women in the world who might be into major dorks.

Same thing with the driving drunk. I might be drunk and not legal to drive, but I can ride with a friend or call a cab. However, there are not realistic alternatives to molesting kids if your body is telling that is what you desire. So over a long period of time there is going to be a chance that the pedophile's desire overcomes their better intentions. It might not be practical to approach all crime prevention by intervening based on that logic, but given the vulnerable nature of the victims and what is at risk, I don't see any reasonable alternative.

Masturbation?

How high a chance do you think would justify locking up every non-acting pedo?

And while we're at it, what about men who can't get laid by any woman on the planet? Should we lock them up because there's a chance their desire to rape will increase with time?

This thread I always thought was crazy, but if you have a self-confessed paedophiles, maybe they would agree to self punishment like getting castrated, or moving to a sheetheole like San Francisco or something.

What does SF have to do with paedophilia steelhouse?

The desire for sex is not the desire to rape. Most (I hope) people want reciprocation not just not to hurt while having their way.

Counter to the general thrust of your argument, rapists are not generally people who have trouble getting laid. Wanting to have sex with someone is very different to wanting to rape them while paedophilia is always abuse.

I'm aware there is a growing male isolation movement or something like that, but for most people that's not going to cut it. If it ever does, like if virtual sex can be better than real sex, then the species will pretty much die out (or reduce to those who can't get internet or 3D drug enhanced sexual experience or whatever).

I never advocated locking them up, just putting them on some kind of list, like the sex offender list, with all that includes. I might extend that (or change it) to not letting them near schools or other concentrations of children. The point is not to punish people who come forward with concerns about their own behavior. The point is to protect a vulnerable population from a known risk.

Did you know ikestoys is married? There is a woman for every dude. But ok say you have a giant horn growing out of your forehead and there is just no hope for you (even then there would be some chick into that but let's just say for sake of argument there isn't). There are places where one can pay for it legally and, where illegal, isn't any great immorality or risk to ruin a life in one act.

Plus, grown women are less vulnerable and the damage done is, arguably, not as great as that done to a child. The greater the damage, the higher the risk, and the greater responsibility to deal with the risk.

Say Monsanto introduced some chemical that wound up in our bodies and caused the sex ratio to move to 10% women and 90% men. I think we can agree that, in that scenario, women would be at a much greater risk of being raped. In fact they would probably need special protection everywhere they went and the only sensible thing to do would be to provide it. In that scenario a defensive measure would be implemented to deal with the known but not yet actuated risk. Giving people some tools to defend their children against the risk of pedophiles is essentially the same thing.

I never said anything about mental "health issues" as such a broad generalisation can cover a whole range of disorders that wouldn't be considered mitigating circumstances for accessing child porn. I said mentally ill. If you have a valid example of a paedophile who just happens to be an actual psychotic, acquiring deep web software and accessing child porn due to his psychosis, as opposed to his paedophilia, then please cite it, as mental psychosis is a mitigating circumstance. Otherwise no, I very much stand by my comments.

My point on premeditated murder is that even for a first time offender, such a crime will warrant a very harsh sentence, as the gravity of the offence is recognised.
Yes but all three rapists will probably have to sign up on the sex offender list after their sentence is served, as society will recognise the gravity of the offence just as they'll also recognise the degrees of severity of each rapist. My position is that each offender should be sentenced as severe as each degree will warrant. Due to the crime being as you said despicable but more pertinently, dangerous to society.

But we're not talking about mitigating circumstances for what is currently considered a sex offender or whether reforms need to be made on the whole issue. We're talking about there being no mitigating circumstances for a paedophile accessing child porn on the dark net and please read what I wrote, so yes, I'm dismissing your moving of the goalposts by changing paedophiles accessing actual child pornography on the darknet to a 17 year old fooling around with his gf, as irrelevant to what's actually being discussed and what I actually said.
Not sure what's so controversial about my OP, unless you start misconstruing what I say, like you've been doing.

Your mentally ill comment was in response to my saying "mental health conditions". Not me narrowing the scope there, not that "mentally ill" is actually some clearly defined term. But yeah, many of the mentally ill (whatever you mean by that) can use computers. It's ****ing lol that you think otherwise. On the level of dumbest things I've ever read.

You keep repeating this point that they'll still get harsh sentences. Of course they will. Mitigating circumstances don't exonerate people, they simply get considered in sentencing. Like when a spouse who's been abused for years snaps and kills a partner that's considered a mitigating circumstance even though it can still be murder.

That people should get things they warrant is tautological. The discussion how we determine what's warranted. And, as said, the maximum extent of the law isn't always applied in rape cases. Because cases are different.

I'm not shifting any goalposts. You're obsessed with this dark web idea, and I offered an example of someone accessing what would be considered child pornography (and there are cases of this actually happening) and how there would be mitigating circumstances. Sure, if you want to construct some hypothetical criminal and crime in which there aren't any mitigating circumstances, good game, but that says nothing about whether there can be circumstances for that general crime.

So yeah, for some otherwise sound of mind person who goes out of their way to acquire such material there may be none. For others there may be. The nature of the material acquired, the age of the offender, clean record, showing remorse or victim empathy, having previously attempted to seek help, these can all be considered.

Again, if you want to just reject all those out of hand then I don't know what you mean by mitigating circumstances. Because all of those things can be and are considered by judges.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...s_of_children/

So there's a few listed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Yeah maybe I should move the goalposts like you whenever convenient, then I might appear somewhat smarter in your eyes? I can dream. Don't respond to my posts if you think they're dumb. Problem solved.

Define a "mental health condition". Do you mean OCD? Psychopathy? Malignant narcissism? None of these things will diminish an offender's responsibility or capacity and all are considered mental "health conditions". So I meant mentally ill as in suffering from psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia and I'm not even sure if a schizophrenic would be of diminished responsibility if they refused to take their medication.
Actual mental illness is about the only mitigating circumstance I could think of and again, considering my comment was on paedophiles accessing CP, show me a valid example of an actual loopy paedo accessing CP on the darknet, due to him believing the aliens from planet Psychosia will steal his blood/thoughts/soul if he doesn't, instead of it being due to his paedophilia. Show me a non paedophile psychotic doing that.
Otherwise you've no valid point.
I never said they weren't physically capable of using the internet, I said they wouldn't have the savvy to access deep web software to access child porn. An actual psychotic won't even think of such things, they'll be far more likely to wander about, accosting anyone who'll listen as to why they need to view child porn, while caught in the grip of a psychotic delusion.

I never said it did exonerate people. I said that certain offences will get you a harsher punishment than others and the sentence - even for first time offenders- will still reflect the gravity of the crime and a first time offender will be punished more severely than a first time petty thief for example.



I'm aware of that. My point in my OP is that the law should be and I've already given examples in earlier posts.

Oh yeah, you are, definitely, hence your going off on some irrelevant tangent about 17-year-olds and their 17-year-pld gf's.
No I'm speaking within context. Again, show me a valid example (not an anecdote) where child porn is available on the surface web, for people to simply "stumble" across. You'll only find actual child porn on the deep web. When one is accessing the deep web, whether one's intentions are benign or criminal, there's a degree of planning and calculation involved to access such a medium. You're telling me that some psychotic is prepared to go through all that due to his psychosis and I'm dismissing that as highly implausible.



I've yet to see you give any valid examples of mitigating circumstances for accessing child pornography, as in in the actual places where you'll find it. Hence my mention of the deep web. In fact, I'm the only one who offered one with my link to the paedophile accessing animated CP as he didn't wish for real children to be harmed. That is a mitigating circumstance and the "offender" (if one wishes to even classify him as that) should be given all available help, treatment or therapy that's there. Otherwise no, there isn't.
Again, we're not talking about "that general crime", read the actual thread's heading.


Again... read the thread's heading. Thanks.

Child porn. Kids getting abused.
Adult.
Like the opportunistic rapist who never raped before.

After accessing the software to access the medium of watching kids being raped. He's sorry they were raped after watching it, gotcha.

Jaysus, I coulda sworn we already covered this and indeed your other points earlier... Oh wait, we did. Meaning we no longer have to rehash your repetition.

They were, hence our previous convo where I addressed them.

I know they're considered by judges and yet again have already addressed this wrt to maximum sentencing allowed for the degrees of each offender.
I already said my thoughts on "pseudo photographs".
There may be degrees, such as posing etc, but the victim is still being made to do these things against their will. The actual offence in itself is considered serious enough to warrant a more serious response. It's recognised as a predatory offence, hence the reason a first time predatory sexual offender will get a harsher sentence than a first time petty thief. That's it. Again, not so sure why my comment has caused such controversy.

Not shifting anything. You've argued that there can be no mitigating circumstances for certain crimes, and I've stated that there can be.

Sure, OCD could be considered with some relevant history. As could something like PTSD. These affect the mindset of a person and lead them to do things that they otherwise may not. Real world examples of such arguments could be Gary McKinnon who argued that his autism led to serious obsessions and this was a factor in his actions in hacking the Pentagon. Remember that we aren't using these factors to say that somebody is innocent or even not responsible for their actions - only that it was a factor in their actions that may result in a judge giving a lesser sentence (that's what mitigating circumstances are). It only needs to be relevant to the point that a judge might deem community intervention or mental health treatment more apt than custodial sentencing.

And seriously, you obviously know nothing of mental health problems. People with psychosis can absolutely be high functioning.


Yep, nobody's arguing that some offences get harsher sentences that others. I'm not arguing that minor weed possession should get the same as murder. I'm arguing that all crimes can have mitigating circumstances - something you've repeatedly denied.


My initial response was to this:

I listed some, and you've dismissed them either out of hand or for lol reasons like mentally unstable people can't use computers or aren't intelligent enough or whatever stupid thing you think about that.

It's not an irrelevant tangent. It's an example of someone knowingly and intentionally accessing child pornography with mitigating circumstances. Like, it's "actual child porn". And there are actual cases of it being prosecuted.

Another example would be 4chan which was famous in the past for its low levels of moderation and trolling including people posting indecent images of children. In the UK there has to be intent but that's a place where you could stumble across it. At least there were past incidents, I don't have any intention of going there or know what it's like now.


I've even linked you to the Crown Prosecution Service's page where they specifically list the sentencing guidelines, including a section noting some of the more common mitigating circumstances. Pretty dishonest of you to say that's not an example. Or maybe stupid. I'm undecided.


The nature of the material, as outlined in the CPS link I gave you, varies greatly. The CPS lists things from simple child nudity or 16/17 year olds (where consent can be demonstrated) up to sadism or bestiality. I'd argue that they could all be kids getting abused, but the nature of the material still differs.

An 18yo looking for pictures of 16yo's will be viewed differently to a 50yo looking for pictures of 6yo's. But both are adults.

Exactly. Google Ched Evans. An opportunistic crime for which he received a minimum sentence for rape.

Not all child porn is rape, as the CPS link told you. And yes, remorse actually matters in sentencing. That's really common in all crimes.

Yeah, when you say I've offered no examples, I kind of have to repeat all the examples you ignored. Someone who has clearly understood they have a problem, sought help for that problem, and for some reason not been able to access it, is likely to be looked upon more favourably in sentencing.


THIS IS WHAT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE MEANS.

Yeah, other than the mitigating circumstances there are none. You got me.

I haven't said anything about pseudo photographs. But yeah, this is you saying again "Other than the mitigating circumstances where are the mitigating circumstances?".

I've given you a link to a UK government website that explicitly lists some mitigating circumstances for all of the crimes you've mentioned. I'm not going to bother coming up with stronger proof than that. There really can't be any.

Yeah you are, which I've already helpfully pointed out as to how and I'm not really interested if you disagree that you're going off on other tangents as you are.
Yeah and I'm disagreeing with you that there can be mitigating circumstances for a paedophile accessing child porn on the darknet.



Something bad happened to me once, so I'll do bad things, eh?My OCD made me access child porn? Okay.

Yes and yet again, I've already said that I think that offenders should be punished by the maximum sentence that is allowed for each degree, not sure why this still isn't registering with you.

Great, then provide these examples of psychotic paedophiles accessing CP on the darknet due to their psychosis, so, as it'll back up your position with validity. Whenever you're ready, thanks.




Yeah cuz you haven't provided any. I'm not accepting your 17-year-old scenario for reasons that should be clearly obvious.




My initial response was to this:



I didn't say they couldn't use computers, stop trolling and deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or it's gonna be futile continuing with youj, as trolls bore me and have for years.



Yes it is

It's an irrelevant example. Again... read the thread's heading. I've even emboldened it for you this time around.

Please cite examples and links of people being prosecuted for stumbling across child porn and for the last time, we aren't talking about people in general, we're talking aboiut what should be done with self confessed paedophiles who don't act on their desires, hence my original comment. I'm sorry you evidently can't read.




[quoteI've even linked you to the Crown Prosecution Service's page where they specifically list the sentencing guidelines, including a section noting some of the more common mitigating circumstances. Pretty dishonest of you to say that's not an example. Or maybe stupid. I'm undecided.[/quote]
You're projecting with your dishonesty remarks and clearly can't read, so your opinion is of no interest to me. Yeah and one of the "mitigating circumstances" is if the person is 16 or 17 and "consenting". That is not paedophilia. Paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. The AOC is 16 in the Uk and several American states and 17 min my country, ergo it isn't child pornography. That is not what this thread is actually about.




See above.



... Look up the definition of "paedophilia".
You're welcome.


Evans is a scumbag, and a victim basher. There was no mitigating circumstances for what he did any more than the opportunistic rapist at the party, with the passed out victim, remember?


So?

This guy is serving life over my way for murder. He expressed remorse and even turned himself in. Still got a life sentence for murder. Remorse was not considered a mitigating factor in sentencing.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime...bill-1.1740404
As I said, some crimes get mandatory sentencing. That's not to say he wouldn't get parole as I reckon he would. He's still gonna have to serve a considerable amount of time before that happens though, due to the recognition of the gravity of his offence. Same principal applies here.



Yeah because you haven't and repeating the same invalid examples doesn't suddenly attach weight to them any more than it did the first time you said them.


Yeah maybe you should actually read the links you provide? Just throwing it out there.
I said there was no mitigating circumstances for accessing actual child pornography with actual victims. Read what I said. That's twice you've deliberately misrepresented what I've said now and again, give your trolling a rest, it's eye glazingly boring.

Which you haven't bothered reading, hence yourself righteous indignation that you never mentioned pseudo photographs. I had already said that those who access such things shouldn't even be charged imo.

So no, you haven't given any valid examples. Get back to me when you do, as opposed to merely repeating yourself, thanks.

Oh and btw, your comment on "THIS IS WHAT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MEANS" is merely you conflating the specific degrees of extremity of certain predatory offences with actual mitigating circumstances for certain less extreme predatory offences themselves. Which is not my problem.