Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

KingBingo

Child Porn

Recommended Posts

Following on from the Madness thread and peoples blinkered , one size fits all approach to any sex 'crime' I thought I would run this scenario by you, see what you think.

An individual sends child porn to a person they know, who then forwards it on to another person. After a bit of this back and forth the information is passed to the police.

The police investigate the source and confirm that there are explicit child porn images on the computer of this individual.

Do you have enough information to judge this person?, or are there circumstances in which you might decide that no punishment is fitting?

Do you take the view that child porn offences are always wrong and must be dealt with harshly, or do you prefer to judge each case on its merits?

I will post a few more details after people have responded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Following on from the Madness thread and peoples blinkered , one size fits all approach to any sex 'crime' I thought I would run this scenario by you, see what you think.

An individual sends child porn to a person they know, who then forwards it on to another person. After a bit of this back and forth the information is passed to the police.

The police investigate the source and confirm that there are explicit child porn images on the computer of this individual.

Do you have enough information to judge this person?, or are there circumstances in which you might decide that no punishment is fitting?

Do you take the view that child porn offences are always wrong and must be dealt with harshly, or do you prefer to judge each case on its merits?

I will post a few more details after people have responded.

I would say that knowingly distributing child porn is wrong for purposes not comparable to reporting the crime. The child is not in any position to give consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding the guidelines are pretty sensible. Nobody should be charged for, example, browsing the internet and winding up viewing material they hadn't intended to find. Presumably if someone was forwarding this stuff about there some sort of ambiguity which again would be taken into consideration.

That said, whether the cops (and more importantly it seems, The Daily Mail) and the legal system follow these regulations in that way is a different matter.

Edit: Presumably this will turn out to be like one of those stories where the hooded chav chasing the old woman turned out to be merely wanting to return her purse which dropped out of her handbag, but then again, it doesn't sound very different to Gary Glitter's defense argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An individual sends child porn to a person they know, who then forwards it on to another person. After a bit of this back and forth the information is passed to the police.

The police investigate the source and confirm that there are explicit child porn images on the computer of this individual.

Do you have enough information to judge this person?, or are there circumstances in which you might decide that no punishment is fitting?

Do you take the view that child porn offences are always wrong and must be dealt with harshly, or do you prefer to judge each case on its merits?

Depends if the people you are discussing were expert witnesses/prosecutors/detectives in the court case of someone else or not, for a start.

Bit of a strawman not to give all relevant information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Following on from the Madness thread and peoples blinkered , one size fits all approach to any sex 'crime' I thought I would run this scenario by you, see what you think.

An individual sends child porn to a person they know, who then forwards it on to another person. After a bit of this back and forth the information is passed to the police.

The police investigate the source and confirm that there are explicit child porn images on the computer of this individual.

Do you have enough information to judge this person?, or are there circumstances in which you might decide that no punishment is fitting?

Do you take the view that child porn offences are always wrong and must be dealt with harshly, or do you prefer to judge each case on its merits?

I will post a few more details after people have responded.

Don't worry I'm sure your family will visit you eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone sent me explicit child porn, the only people seeing it would be my local PLOD!!! complete with full details of the noncer that sent it to me.

We need the full story Kingbingo..... I can`t see anyway it being acceptable to forward on to friends explicit child porn.

All cases should be judged on individual merit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends if the people you are discussing were expert witnesses/prosecutors/detectives in the court case of someone else or not, for a start.

Bit of a strawman not to give all relevant information.

The point is do you need details. Or is it simple enough to say that in 100% of cases anyone found and proved to have and distribute child porn is guilty of a serious offence and should be punished?

Like I say, this follows on from the madness thread where several people wanted to convict the woman on principle, but not on the merits of her individual case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sort of right really KB.

What about a lady who dresses as a schoolgirl and shaves her muff, is she making indecent images? And why would many men go mad for such a thing?

More than one of mates shagged their (female) teachers at school before they were 16. How many more of us wish we'd been abused in such a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indecent photographs of children (sections 45 and 46)

Section 45 amends the definition of a 'child' for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (which makes provision about indecent photographs) and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photographs) by raising the age of the child from under 16 to under 18.

Key points

There are a number of exceptions:

* Under section 1 (1)(a) of the 1978 Act taking, permitting etc, section 1(1)( b ) distribute or show and section 1(1)(c ) possession with a view to distribution, it is for the defendant to prove that the photo was of the child aged 16 or 17 and at the time of the offence charged he was married or lived as partners in an enduring family relationship;

* It is a defence under section 1(1)(b ) or (c ) where the defendant proves that the photo was of the child aged 16 or 17 and at the time (s)he obtained the photo (s)he was married to the child or lived as partners in an enduring family relationship;

* The above only apply where the photo shows the child alone or with the defendant.

* Once the defendant has proved the marriage or other relationship, there is an evidential burden on the defendant to raise an issue in relation to the child's consent to the taking or making of the picture, and a reasonable belief in that consent.

* In relation to the showing or distribution offence, it is a defence, unless the prosecution proves that the photo was shown to anyone other than the child.

* In relation to possession of the photo with a view to distribution, the defendant has an evidential burden to show that the child consented or reasonably believed the child consented to his or her possession of the photo.

* The same exceptions apply to possession of photographs under section 160 of the 1988 Act.

* Where the indecent photograph is made for the purposes of prevention, detection or investigating crime or for criminal proceedings in any part of the world (section 46).

* Prosecutors should be aware that the consent of the DPP is still required.

* In relation to the showing or distribution offence, it is a defence, unless the prosecution proves that the photo was shown to anyone other than the child.

* In relation to possession of the photo with a view to distribution, the defendant has an evidential burden to show that the child consented or reasonably believed the child consented to his or her possession of the photo.

* The same exceptions apply to possession of photographs under section 160 of the 1988 Act.

* Where the indecent photograph is made for the purposes of prevention, detection or investigating crime or for criminal proceedings in any part of the world (section 46).

* Prosecutors should be aware that the consent of the DPP is still required.

This should help its taken from the CPS guidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This should help its taken from the CPS guidence

In this case a number of the photos where both sexually explicit, contained a female under the age of 16 and where distributed on line.

Edit:

Well, it looks like everybody smells a trap and doesn't want to comment. So I might as well just share the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...LF-MySpace.html

Nobody went for it here, but the amount of times I have heard people say things like 'anyone' guilty of child porn offences must be locked up and the key thrown away regardless of circumstances. I wonder how quickly they would change their mind when confronted by the above case.

My point being is we need to stop being so dogmatic.

Btw, the girl in the above case is currently looking at 17 years jail, unless the prosecuting authorities decide to break their own strict rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

My guess is that in KB's scenario the sender sent what he believed to be an innocent document which it later transpires has something dodgy embedded in it. I don't know for sure that this is possible, but I imagine it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is do you need details. Or is it simple enough to say that in 100% of cases anyone found and proved to have and distribute child porn is guilty of a serious offence and should be punished?

Like I say, this follows on from the madness thread where several people wanted to convict the woman on principle, but not on the merits of her individual case.

The woman in the Madness thread was convicted because she admitted her guilty when brought to trial. The principle at stake here is that it is wrong for 26-year-old adults to have sexual relationships with 15-year-old children. I have no problem in saying that, yes, in 100% of cases it is wrong for a 26-year-old to enter such a relationship. There are NO circumstances in British society where this would be acceptable. If there are any mitigating circumstances then they will be taken into consideration at the sentencing stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is do you need details. Or is it simple enough to say that in 100% of cases anyone found and proved to have and distribute child porn is guilty of a serious offence and should be punished?

Like I say, this follows on from the madness thread where several people wanted to convict the woman on principle, but not on the merits of her individual case.

Has it even occurred to you that the "merits" of her case are entirely subjective? The judge will hopefully follow the letter of the law, neither more harsh nor more lenient than is appropriate.

I'm 44, my stepdaughters 15yo friend fancies the pants off me, she must have some kind of father complex problem. She's fully developed physically, but she's a child, emotionally undeveloped. Are you suggesting it would be appropriate for me to sh*g her because she would consent?

The law is in place to prevent older adults from taking advantage of impressionable young people, the responsibility rests with the older person. The law is correct IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight
Well, it looks like everybody smells a trap and doesn't want to comment. So I might as well just share the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...LF-MySpace.html

Interesting.

I think that Nuts magazine got into trouble in a similar way, they posted a photo of a 14 year old's breasts which she had submitted herself.

Probably a good talking to and forget about it is the right course of action in the OP's example. NOT some kind of sex offence conviction.

eight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is that in KB's scenario the sender sent what he believed to be an innocent document which it later transpires has something dodgy embedded in it. I don't know for sure that this is possible, but I imagine it is.

Entirely possible.

Steganography would be one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting.

I think that Nuts magazine got into trouble in a similar way, they posted a photo of a 14 year old's breasts which she had submitted herself.

Probably a good talking to and forget about it is the right course of action in the OP's example. NOT some kind of sex offence conviction.

eight

Do you know what happened to Nuts, presumably according to the law all WH Smith staff must now be arrested etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I think my last suggestion must be close to the mark as KB's not responded...either that or he has me on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my last suggestion must be close to the mark as KB's not responded...either that or he has me on ignore.

Certainly not sir, occasionally you come up with some good stuff. You just want to re-read my last comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my last suggestion must be close to the mark as KB's not responded...either that or he has me on ignore.

It was a 14 year old who put pictured of herself on line, or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barebear
It was a 14 year old who put pictured of herself on line, or am I missing something?

Quite funny really so every child is potentially in possesion of child pornography , themselves.

Bit like saying life is the biggest killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're sort of right really KB.

What about a lady who dresses as a schoolgirl and shaves her muff, is she making indecent images? And why would many men go mad for such a thing?

More than one of mates shagged their (female) teachers at school before they were 16. How many more of us wish we'd been abused in such a way.

Your example isn't a good one.I can see the attraction but I wouldn't be remotely interested in under age girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight
Do you know what happened to Nuts, presumably according to the law all WH Smith staff must now be arrested etc etc.

Not sure. I think they dropped the feature, changed procedures, the usual kind of stuff. The thing is, if you're looking at a fully developed but disembodied set of knorks, blissfully unaware that in reality they belong to a 14 year old, does that make you a pervert or not? Well obviously yes, but you know what I mean....

I find it interesting how paedophilia is the one remaining crime that we're allowed - in fact encouraged - to feel revulsed by. Well personally I find lots of crime revolting, I wouldn't put looking at child porn in my top ten. I feel particulalry ambivalent about those types caught with houses full of discs, videos and hard drives stuffed full; to me, they're suffering from some kind of OCD type complaint way over and above their other predelictions. And this is me speaking as the father of a one year old girl.

eight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure. I think they dropped the feature, changed procedures, the usual kind of stuff. The thing is, if you're looking at a fully developed but disembodied set of knorks, blissfully unaware that in reality they belong to a 14 year old, does that make you a pervert or not? Well obviously yes, but you know what I mean....

I find it interesting how paedophilia is the one remaining crime that we're allowed - in fact encouraged - to feel revulsed by. Well personally I find lots of crime revolting, I wouldn't put looking at child porn in my top ten. I feel particulalry ambivalent about those types caught with houses full of discs, videos and hard drives stuffed full; to me, they're suffering from some kind of OCD type complaint way over and above their other predelictions. And this is me speaking as the father of a one year old girl.

eight

I see what you mean, but what I was talking about mainly was the tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hysteria seems to have taken over to the point where pediatricians are getting beaten up and their houses vandalised by barely literate panicked mobs.

The state must only intervene in cases where there is a crime and a victim. I get the sense that if the case involves a child and sex in any way panic takes over. Although personally I see the world of difference between girls of 13 and under, and some teenager who has gone through puberty and is sexual aware and capable of making his or her own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.