A computer administrator has been jailed

[Diver]

Just out of interest, why does it matter that he is a computer administrator?

Who's not posting lately?

[Lockhouse]

Until you have children you cannot possibly understand just how vulnerable they are. No one will deny you the right to have an opinion, but not having children diminishes any objectivity that your opinions may hold.

I don't agree I'm afraid. I know fish die out of water but I've never given birth to one. In fact I would say there's a possible devil's advocate position that says you can't be objective BECAUSE you have children.

As for me, I believe any well balanced individual can empathise with people that have been wronged and hence work out for themselves what they believe appropriate punishment to be. In fact isn't that what judges do?

[Chugnut]

I don't agree I'm afraid. I know fish die out of water but I've never given birth to one. In fact I would say there's a possible devil's advocate position that says you can't be objective BECAUSE you have children.

As for me, I believe any well balanced individual can empathise with people that have been wronged and hence work out for themselves what they believe appropriate punishment to be. In fact isn't that what judges do?

I know where Dodgy is coming from on this. I'm astonished how much I've changed as a person since the birth of my son, and frankly wouldn't have believed anyone if they'd told me just how much I would do. I think most parents would agree, certainly my friends who are also parents do when we've talked about it.

Any story about a child's death or this sort of case is just so much more affecting and upsetting to read now. That's how I feel anyway, and agreed with Diver's post earlier for exactly the same reason.

Your devil's advocate analogy is a very valid point though and illustrates why a good cross section of opinion is so important.

[voodooflux]

I'm astonished how much I've changed as a person since the birth of my son, and frankly wouldn't have believed anyone if they'd told me just how much I would do. I think most parents would agree, certainly my friends who are also parents do when we've talked about it.

Any story about a child's death or this sort of case is just so much more affecting and upsetting to read now.

Totally agree - having kids has certainly made me more sensitive to such things.

[badger7579]

I know this is the one topic you're not meant to say anything on, other than "burn the witch", but...

I've always thought that being imprisoned for having images on your PC seemed a bit...harsh?

I appreciate the "it's people like that who perpetuate the child p*rn market" argument, and I guess anything we can do to stop that is good....but isn't it good that these people are sorting out their sick "urges" by using photos already out there, than doing it to real kids?
And let the police concentrate on the people making the photos?

or have studies shown that this kind of thing actually leads to them doing it to real kids?

Fortunately I dont know a lot on this subject.

Obviously in this case, half a million photos, the guy has clearly gone way past any point of no return and all that...but that result about the cartoon image....I just genuinely wasn't sure about that.

Can you hear yourself here?

but isn't it good that these people are sorting out their sick "urges" by using photos already out there, than doing it to real kids?

You seem to have fogotton that "the photos already out there" involve some poor child who has had their childhood taken away from them.!!!

[stackpole]

So have I got this right. Viewing porny pictures of buxom 16 and 17-year-olds is against the law, but shagging them is not?

[ASB]

So have I got this right. Viewing porny pictures of buxom 16 and 17-year-olds is against the law, but shagging them is not?

Yep, that about sums it up.

Slightly more bizarrely I think that if said 16 or 17 year old happens to be your wife then you can take said pictures yourself and be in the clear. (I think we probably used the Canadian rules on marital buggery as a model for this particular quirk).

[SallyAnne]

Can you hear yourself here?

but isn't it good that these people are sorting out their sick "urges" by using photos already out there, than doing it to real kids?

You seem to have fogotton that "the photos already out there" involve some poor child who has had their childhood taken away from them.!!!

Maybe it'd be easier to use a different example, cause people get emotionally hysterical when you talk about kids....

Is watching snuff films illegal? This isn't a trick question -I genuinely dont know.

If it isn't illegal to watch them, then it shouldn't be illegal to view anything else which involves a victim.

If it IS illegal to watch them, then I'd argue how much of a crime it actually is?
Should you go to prison?
How long for?

Do you think if someone had an "urge" to kill, would watching a snuff film repulse them, or make them more keen? again, not a trick question - I dont know the answer.

If someone said they got 18 months for watching a snuff film I'd think that was ridiculous. Much like I'd think 18 months was ridicolous for a small amount of child porn found on your pc. (The actual example given in this thread though seems to go much WAY further than that).

However, If someone had a subsciption to child porn weekly, or snuffs 'r' us....then that's a different matter.

Once again, so many grey areas.

All I'm talking about are the grey areas.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't agree I'm afraid. I know fish die out of water but I've never given birth to one. In fact I would say there's a possible devil's advocate position that says you can't be objective BECAUSE you have children.

As for me, I believe any well balanced individual can empathise with people that have been wronged and hence work out for themselves what they believe appropriate punishment to be. In fact isn't that what judges do?

Fair enough. Non parents have a point of view that parents probably do not try and understand because their own views are entrenched and subjective BECAUSE they have children. It may indeed be an advantage for a judge (most of who have children anyway) to make a judgement without having first hand experience of bringing up children.

I do however think, and this is an aside to the central point, that having children is very good for the average human being in that it teaches us to love and understand beings that are weak and vulnerable.

I will also say that people who do not want children, who are not suitable to be parents should also stand their ground and not succumb to pressure from the "must have children" brigade.

[DodgyAgent]

Maybe it'd be easier to use a different example, cause people get emotionally hysterical when you talk about kids....

Is watching snuff films illegal? This isn't a trick question -I genuinely dont know.

If it isn't illegal to watch them, then it shouldn't be illegal to view anything else which involves a victim.

If it IS illegal to watch them, then I'd argue how much of a crime it actually is?
Should you go to prison?
How long for?

Do you think if someone had an "urge" to kill, would watching a snuff film repulse them, or make them more keen? again, not a trick question - I dont know the answer.

If someone said they got 18 months for watching a snuff film I'd think that was ridiculous. Much like I'd think 18 months was ridicolous for a small amount of child porn found on your pc. (The actual example given in this thread though seems to go much WAY further than that).

However, If someone had a subsciption to child porn weekly, or snuffs 'r' us....then that's a different matter.

Once again, so many grey areas.

All I'm talking about are the grey areas.

Snuff ???

If you are saying drugs then watching a film about it is not necessarily promoting the use of it. Likewise watching a film about paedophilia does not necessarily promote the activity itself. There is a difference between learning and gratification. Pornographic pictures of children are gratification until they get used as say evidence.