Consider that I also believe that a serial rapist or murderer warrants a harsher sentence than a one time offender. This isn't about the seriousness of the offence this is about the frequency of it. It's not me that's failing to distinguish between the seriousness of offences it is you by rejecting that a person who has downloaded numerous images warrants the same sentence as the person who has offended once.

Consider also that you are unable to distinguish between different scales of child pornography. The pedophile who gets off on naked images of children should probably be distinguished from the pedophile that gets off on acts involving child sexual abuse.You are ignoring both the seriousness and frequency of the offences to say that all pedophiles caught with images of children should be sentenced the same.

They can have some control over how that attraction manifest in their thoughts.

I'm also far from convinced we cant modify who we are attracted to to some extent. It certainly changes over time and it's hard to believe we can't influence that if we're accepting we have some control over our thoughts.

Right. I suppose it depends where you're from?
In my country, a murder conviction for example garners a mandatory life sentence, meaning that the law regards the seriousness of the offence as taking priority over the frequency. Murder one or a bunch and you'll get the same life sentence, although parole may be given to one over the other but if paroled, you're on parole for natural life and can be brought back in to serve your sentence if you violate your parole, even in a minor manner.
Therefore (and I'm not trying to evade your point to clarify), I can't really comment adequately on differing sentences for the same crime of actual murder, in the legal sense. (understand I'm not talking about "killing" here), as that's how it goes down over my way.

I don't agree with that re rapists as it's a predatory crime. You're differentiating re frequency, yet fail to recognise the gravitas and non-existence of mitigating circumstances of the offence though. As I said to you earlier, there are degrees of child abuse but child abuse or accessory to child abuse are serious crimes in themselves.
Ditto rape. Such offences are committed because of the inherent character or disorder of the offender, which to clarify may be shaped for all sorts of reasons, but doesn't make the offender any less dangerous or nullify the gravity of his crimes.
You rightly point out the degrees of such offenders, as yes looking at child porn and child torture porn may be more extreme degrees of depravity, but accessing child porn to begin with is a serious crime. And the crime is committed because of the offender's inherent disorder.
Now the law may recognise degrees, but my answer to that would be to punish the offender as harshly as said degrees allow for.
Let's say (and this is just hypothetically) the maximum sentence for accessing child porn is five years but say there's a clause where if the offender accesses child porn involving torture, then it's 10 years. I think each offender should be punished with the same severity that the law allows for such offences.
If otoh the sentence was five (or ten or whatever) years for accessing child porn, regardless of whether you did it once or 100 times and regardless of the severity of the abuse, then I wouldn't have a problem with that either, as again the nature of the offence is due to and fueled by the offender's inherent pathology.



See above and with respect, you're again ignoring that such offences, regardless of the degree are still due to a disorder and warped pathology, which makes the offender predisposed to commit such serious offences to begin with, again regardless of the actual specific degree.
It's where we differ mate, I'm afraid.
And to clarify to a degree I see where you're coming from, but disagree with you on this.

Uhhh...no? You'll have to show me a citation indicating pedos act on their attraction at the same rate heteros rape people.

Putting them on a sex offender list, as was suggested earlier (among other things)?

Are you kidding?

Basically ruin their life when they have done nothing wrong. Sure.

You can't put a non criminal paedophile on a sex offender list if he hasn't offended.

No worries I think we both got our wires crossed there.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/o...nces/79355714/

Here's an example of a kid surfing the internet, who wasn't even looking for kiddie porn, who had to defend himself against child porn charges. An example of a situation where we are unduly punishing those with images stored in a cache or visiting websites but not actively promoting it to others.

I'm not advocating to do so. Someone else mentioned doing so and I'm using it as an example of what types of responses would discourage pedos from seeking help.

There was up until like 1996. Every single argument you've used itt could have been used against homosexuals when that was illegal/immoral.

So the pedos are choosing to be attracted to kids, or at least, it's their fault that they are. Gotcha.

Your posts are coming up just one sentence short of suggesting that they could be cured by accepting their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

but incorrectly used. The illegality of homosexuality was a very bad thing based on bigotry while the illegality of paedophilia is a very good thing based on consent.


That's not what I said at all. Having discovered they are attracted to kids they bear some responsibility for how those thoughts manifest and develop. An expert can help them and they have some responsibility to make use of one if it's available.

No they're not. The arguments can be incorrectly used to support nonsense.

It's conflicting, but comparable to watching car crash videos online. Someone who sits around watching this is probably ****ed in the head, but it should be easy to separate them from those involved in the crashes, or who might be filming.

The problem is its not that easy to separate them, while the accused has to drain a lot of energy and resources trying to defend himself.

Is it similar to criminal charges brought against people who download music, in that an example is made as it deters a % of the population from engaging in it entirely?

Pedophilia isn't illegal, sex with kids is. It's also not immoral, sex with kids is.

Anyway, i reread your posts itt and you and i basically agree so i'm not sure how we ended up going at it. I think i was in a combative mood.

The point of gay conversion therapy was to move the gays from "unfortunate people with their innate sexual desires pointed in a socially inappropriate direction" to "people who didn't work hard enough to point their sexual desires in the proper direction". Now instead of being worthy of pity they're worthy of scorn.

All the talk of experts that are gonna fix the pedos feels like that.

Sorry but that seems to be a gussied up ad for something called "Gary's Bill".
I'm not trying to be dismissive but how do we even know this even happened, considering that it's a completely anecdotal account with no names, dates, not even the name of the site except it's in "New Zealand"? We don't even know if the site was raided as even the dude relating the anecdote only heard this from the dad who for all we know may not even exist? And he went to a site which as well as hosting legal porn, has a sideline in child porn, which is somehow hidden from those seeking regular legit porn? While looking for pics of "nude picture", when he could have simply gone into google images and typed in "nude pictures"?

I'm not buying that one, sorry. Maybe in the early days of the internet, there were child porn sites on the surface web, but again I very very much doubt they're on the regular web today.

There are no mitigating circumstances for accessing child porn, when it's on the dark net. Whether an offender does so outa curiosity or whether he watches child rape once or child rape and torture 1000 times, they're still engaging in actions of accessing abuse and engaging in very serious crimes.

And to clarify I think that serious reforms need to be brought to the current criteria of what constitutes a "sex offender", but again such things need to be viewed- and judged- proportionately.

Jesus I'm in severe "inferring wrongly" mode the past couple of days now, my bad. (Again)

but gay conversion therapy was other people imposing their bigotry on someone who didn't have any problem other than the one caused by the bigotry.

Experts aren't going to fix paedophiles, maybe one day though and wouldn't that be a very good choice for a paedophile who understands it would be wrong to act on those urges. Until then they can help them manage their situation and how it develops. Let's not ignore that people can be helped with real cognitive problems just because some bigots/idiots abuse and misapply the idea.

No worries, we all get those moods a lot. Hopefully we still basically agree.

everyone wears a modified go pro in the future- no discretions go unnoticed, and when the general public gets exposed to some real vile stuff there will be an unwavering force to lock these people up forever.

Did you overhear that while you were trolling the playground?

Yes

Of course there are. Dereds has been right all along and whatever you have been posting really doesn't seem to make any sense at all wrt that topic. Just like any crime this same crime has all kinds of different amounts of wrong. I'm not sure why you keep saying it hasn't.

Then maybe the next time you drink and even think about cars, we should require you to register with all bars and servers as a potential DUI.

Or the next time you're taken in by a beautiful girl, we should register you as a potential rapist and make you wear a sign that you're likely to rape.

Your logic is ridiculous. If you like the idea of thought crimes go live in Pakistan or N. Korea.