|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Nov 9, 2011 3:18:39 GMT -5
I'm echoing LHM's question here... are there laws prohibiting FAKE child porn? Like fiction stories, artwork, or CGI? I read in American Psychology a few weeks back about (more) evidence suggesting that such material does considerably reduce the tendency of those with "aberant" sexual behaviour from engaging in sex crimes. That was across a range of behaviours, but included paedophiles. I.e. If a paedophile can safely and discreetly access material that simulates child pornography, he or she is less likely to engage in paedophilic acts with an actual child. I do recall that in many jurisdictions, such synthesised child pornography is as illegal as the real thing, and I just wanted to comment that I think this is, effectively, a thought crime type legislation, and quite counter productive if one's aim is to reduce the incideence of harm to actual children. Well, it does make sense to a certain extent. I know I kept myself a virgin as long as I did because I masturbated, and so didn't feel the need to go out and find actual humans to have sex with. Same idea. I'm echoing LHM's question here... are there laws prohibiting FAKE child porn? Like fiction stories, artwork, or CGI? Yes. It's called the 2003 Protect Act. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 9, 2011 4:11:11 GMT -5
It is in fact THE reason FA had to ban cub art. Yes, that's right, art of fictional children of fictional creatures.
Hell, I'm a hater and even I think it's absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 9, 2011 4:13:10 GMT -5
Because Tough On Crime!
Imagine if they treated fraudsters like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 9, 2011 5:27:57 GMT -5
Because Tough On Crime! Imagine if they treated fraudsters like that. Quite so. You'll never go out of power appealing to the simple minded who want to brutalise criminals and make sure no one ever gets a crumb more in assistance or benefits than themselve. Never mind the fact that both of these have been shown to cause far more harm than good. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 9, 2011 5:45:17 GMT -5
This sentence had nothing to do with effectively fighting crime and everything to do with public relations! Child molesters are universally despised and people assume that pedophiles are by default molesters regardless of the facts. So there are going to be more members of the public who'll go "hell yeah" than those who'll say "hang on-this is just daft!"
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 9, 2011 7:57:44 GMT -5
If you molest a child, then you're sent to prison for six months to a year, and that's only if the sentence isn't reduced to something like community service. Sexual battery by someone over 18 on someone younger than 12 is a capital felony, which would lead to life without parole. (Technically, it is death eligible, but that sentence is only used in murder cases.) Using a deadly weapon while committing sexual battery on someone 12 or older is a life felony, meaning not less than 30 years. Sexual battery on someone 12 or older without a deadly weapon, but using coersion, mind-altering drugs, or when the victim is helpless to resist, is a first degree felony, meaning up to 30 years. Under FL sentencing guidelines, the minimum is 48 months. Sexual battery on someone 12 or older without the above additions is a second degree felony, meaning not more than 15 years. Under FL sentencing guidelines, minimum time is 34 months. (Sentencing guidelines also take into account things such as other charges, prior convictions, victim injury, and other circumstances, like use of a firearm or domestic violence in the presence of a child. The numbers I gave above are for the charge alone, without adding other circumstances. Actual minimum sentence would likely be longer.) |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 9, 2011 8:06:37 GMT -5
This type of ruling is outrageous. =/ He didn't even fondle a kid, he just looked at some porn. My God, have we really come to this?
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 9, 2011 9:03:23 GMT -5
Just to point out a few things to everyone who thinks this is too harsh.
1) That sentence is based on the number of counts - 454. That means he had 454 individual images of child porn on his computer. This is not a guy who had a few pics; this was a serious collector.
2) He would not have been sentenced to "life without parole."
Possession of child pornography has a minimum sentence (under the guidelines) of 6 months / count. (Maximum 5 years). With 454 counts, that comes up to a minimum sentence of 227 years. Florida statute says inmates serving sentence of 15 years or more will have a parole review 18 months prior to the end of the mandatory minimum of the sentence. Since that would be after 226 years, he will not reach the minimum sentence to be eligible for parole.
Effectively life without parole, yes, but that would not be his sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Nov 9, 2011 18:29:34 GMT -5
That's fucking ridiculous. This is where baseless moral panic always leads.
I wish the courts worked half as hard to bring actual child rapists to justice as they do to people jerking off by themselves in their own homes.
Getting charged separately for each single image is blatantly unethical. This is not justice, it's blind vengeance.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 9, 2011 18:50:32 GMT -5
Getting charged separately for each single image is blatantly unethical. This is not justice, it's blind vengeance. How is it different than charging a serial rapist with each rape? Edit: FL law actually says each specific piece is its own count. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 10, 2011 7:44:04 GMT -5
Just to point out a few things to everyone who thinks this is too harsh. 1) That sentence is based on the number of counts - 454. That means he had 454 individual images of child porn on his computer. This is not a guy who had a few pics; this was a serious collector. I have some doubts about "serious collector". Most peoples casual porn directories (look up your own directories if you want) easily reach into the tens of thousands of separate images. I am pretty sure I can find 500 odd pictures of child pornography on the internet in a weekend. While I must agree with the minimum sentence of 6 months, for the crime, and that all charges follow concurrently, I cant help but feel that a minimum sentience of 227 years is too extreme, specifically for someone who was not responsible for the harm of any specific victims (you could argue that he crates a market for the abuse, but that's spiting hairs at this point. Without the porn they will probably find kids instead.) From my experiences with porn, images often come in sets, multiple different angle / time shots of the same sexual act / couple. I would rather they did an analysis of the images and determine how many individual children were victimized and base the minimum sentence on that instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 10, 2011 17:55:55 GMT -5
Also, how many of those pictures were drawn or rendered, rather than taken as a photo?
And if that's the case, how many of them were even of humans?
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 10, 2011 18:11:51 GMT -5
Also, how many of those pictures were drawn or rendered, rather than taken as a photo? Moot point, as FL law defines child pornography as "any image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct." Huh?  |
|
|
|
Post by Patches on Nov 10, 2011 20:38:31 GMT -5
Question: Is it legal to possess media of a woman being raped, tortured, and murdered as long as the woman is over 18? If it is, then this case is stupid.
Humans are capable of some sick and twisted desires. But as a civilized society, we don't like to acknowledge that aberrant behavior exists. And giving perversions a safe outlet requires acknowledging them, so we'd rather just suppress and punish them, to our own detriment.
Actually, given my experience with anime geeks, animated child pornography could actually go a long way towards cutting down attacks on actual children. Virtual media sets a standard that is unattainable in real life. Pretty soon only the perfection that a fictional character can achieve can satisfy you, and potential real-life objects of your desire lose their appeal due to the magnification of their flaws in comparison to art.
Unfortunately, we still have that "abstinence-only" mentality about it, that providing a safe outlet for something is the same as encouraging it, so the best course of action is to just not talk about it, and punish it whenever it does happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 10, 2011 21:42:59 GMT -5
Also, how many of those pictures were drawn or rendered, rather than taken as a photo? Moot point, as FL law defines child pornography as "any image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct." /facepalm You seem to speak as if I was talking about the legality of the situation and not about the morality of the situation. So, no, not a moot point. You can't dismiss it that easily. |
|
