Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

How can we prove that she took the pictures herself?

Well, if you want to prosecute her for this, you better find a way.
In the absense of any other evidence, looks like all you can do is take her word.

With absence of proof that she took them, she shouldn't be prosecuted for producing child pornography. For distributing it and possessing it, yes.

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The law states that pictures of people under age 18 engaged in sexual activity is child pornography. The girl, according to what I've heard, is guilty of production and distribution of child pornography.

Then the law, as I have said in this case, is ridiculous, and demonstrates we aren't concerned with the protection of our citizens, but that we are more concerned with throwing them in jail. :wink:

Pictures of an under-aged girl committing sexual acts is child pornography. It doesn't matter who took the picture. The law in this case may not be perfect, but I can see the potentials for abuse if an exception for child porn produced by children were made. Think about the implications if child porn produced by a child were legal.

The Grandmaster wrote: By the way, the next time we see a parent taking a pictures of their baby with no clothes on, like we see all the time...
We need to prosecute them.

Nude pictures of children are not necessarily child pornography. To be pornography it has to be pictures with the intent to arouse sexual desire. A picture of a baby in a bathtub is not necessarily child pornography. Pictures of a 15 yr old girl engaged in sexual activity is child pornography, as the intent is sexual.

The Grandmaster wrote: Helena` wrote:
You say it, I say it, others say it, and still, some just do not understand common sense.

I know Helena....I know... :(

"Some things are so obviously correct….
Yet people still resist."

--Daniel Smith – Mathematician

No offense, but I don't think I've ever read anything that is common-sense written by Helena.

[micfranklin]

But I still find it suspicious that it isn't mentioned how the police found out about her....

[perdidochas]

micfranklin wrote: But I still find it suspicious that it isn't mentioned how the police found out about her....

It doesnt' matter.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: micfranklin wrote: But I still find it suspicious that it isn't mentioned how the police found out about her....

It doesnt' matter.

Oh, I think it does. We do not want to live in a 1984 like world where the police are omnipotent and rights to privacy do not exist. Even those who aways support the law and say it can not be wrong do not want that. If you want to say that if a person breaks the law, then that is not a right whatsoever, and they were justified in finding out by any means nessesary, then I might point out, the evidence will be thrown out if optained without proper protocal, and the case could not be tried anyway. See, sometimes technicalities work both ways. It most certainly does matter.

And I have not forgotten your rebuttle above. I shall address it today. We aren't finished. Oh we aren't finished by a long shot here... :twisted:

<<Likes to argue.

[micfranklin]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: micfranklin wrote: But I still find it suspicious that it isn't mentioned how the police found out about her....

It doesnt' matter.

Oh, I think it does. We do not want to live in a 1984 like world where the police are omnipotent and rights to privacy do not exist. Even those who aways support the law and say it can not be wrong do not want that. If you want to say that if a person breaks the law, then that is not a right whatsoever, and they were justified in finding out by any means nessesary, then I might point out, the evidence will be thrown out if optained without proper protocal, and the case could not be tried anyway. See, sometimes technicalities work both ways. It most certainly does matter.

And I have not forgotten your rebuttle above. I shall address it today. We aren't finished. Oh we aren't finished by a long shot here... :twisted:

<<Likes to argue.

Either they're not allowed to tell us how they found out about it or they're not going to tell us because they got the info in a not-so-good way.

[perdidochas]

micfranklin wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: micfranklin wrote: But I still find it suspicious that it isn't mentioned how the police found out about her....

It doesnt' matter.

Oh, I think it does. We do not want to live in a 1984 like world where the police are omnipotent and rights to privacy do not exist. Even those who aways support the law and say it can not be wrong do not want that. If you want to say that if a person breaks the law, then that is not a right whatsoever, and they were justified in finding out by any means nessesary, then I might point out, the evidence will be thrown out if optained without proper protocal, and the case could not be tried anyway. See, sometimes technicalities work both ways. It most certainly does matter.

And I have not forgotten your rebuttle above. I shall address it today. We aren't finished. Oh we aren't finished by a long shot here... :twisted:

<<Likes to argue.

Either they're not allowed to tell us how they found out about it or they're not going to tell us because they got the info in a not-so-good way.

Most likely it is because inept reporters didnt' care to report it. Also, it's a 2 yr old case. I wish the OP would find the "rest of the story."

Mic, will you do that?

[slitedeviance]

In terms of finding the pictures and the girl I'd say there were a couple of possibilities...

1) They were notified by someone who came across the pictures.

or

2) They were online searching for these images. There are thousands of police in the UK whose daily job is to troll round chat rooms searching for activity such as paedophilia and illegal dissemination of pornography.

It's a tad weird to think that the people arresting and building the cases are on exactly the same sites and seeing the same images as the guilty parties.

[ieatfood]

The Grandmaster wrote: ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

well whether this child is tried as an adult is a different question and that should go under the debate of whether the juvenile justice system should be abolished, reformed, or extended. I don't think a 13 should goto jail for any reason (except for perhaps murder).

but if it is a crime for an adult to distribute pictures of underage children, then it should also be a crime for a 13 year old. Masturbation is not a crime for anyone.

Anti-pornography laws are meant to protect kids in general, not necessarily protecting only the kids in the pictures themselves.

So I think you're mixing up a few different issues here.

[Saint Jimmy]

She's in s**t coz she's 15 years old, probally scared **** of the cops and embarressed loads enough to just go with whatever they say without putting up a fight, so long as it's all over quickly..... the police need an easy job to do after all.

If you don't like my opinion go f**k yourself and put it on the internet.