I'm not saying it isn't immoral. I'm not such an unconventional person to have a unique moral code permitting anyone to watch kiddy porn whenever they like. It is immoral.
But does a single instance of immorality in which a passive voyeur has witnessed the far greater immorality enacted by a child molester warrant police intervention? Does a guy who claims to have received no gratification from it and to have stumbled upon it, once, deserve rumours and gossip and the arm of the law extending to his doorstep?
No.
That's my point. As I explained below,
"The most important thing is to go after those creating the imagery (abusing the children). Then those circulating and/or collecting the imagery. A passive voyeur falls into neither category, and sits at the bottom of the pack in terms of priority. You take the first two categories away, the third no longer exists anyway!"
I think this guy deserves a second chance. Whilst you might be quick to join the lynch mob, I aint.
You described it earlier as a "victimless crime", and therefore presumably not immoral. It clearly isn't victimless though, as I hope I've convinced you of.
The point you make as you explain it below is just evading the issue. Priority is only worth even considering if the value for time/money of the police is compromised by pursuing the "low priority" targets. If low priority targets are reported directly to the police without detective work, it's hardly a huge waste of police resources to address those people. So as well as going after bigger immoralities, police have to be opportunistic and deal with any size of immorality if simply it falls into their arms.
I'm hardly keen to see anyone get locked up, I'm just saying that it doesn't look to me like your logic stands up to scrutiny, and rather than mindlessly thumbing you down I'd rather reply properly.
In my opinion, his being a passive voyeur is victimless.
The individual in possession of the pornography choosing to distribute it is the one breaking the law, and in this instance I agree with the argument that the victim is the child who, having already been a victim of a sexual crime in the process of the offensive material's creation, is again abused when this offensive material is shared without their consent.
I don't agree that viewing in and of itself causes harm, except potentially to the viewer.
An act can be victimless but still be immoral.
Priority IS worth considering exactly because the time/money of the police IS compromised by pursuing "low priority targets." If this girl called the police on her boyfriend, there are several possible outcomes. This varies from country to country, but let's take the UK as an example, since we're both from there:
The police could come around, caution him, seize his computer to establish whether or not he possesses any illegal pornography and add his name to ViSOR even if he is found to not possess any illegal pornography. He would not be prosecuted if he does not possess any illegal pornography. It's not actually a crime to view it, only to possess it - viewing another person's possession does not constitute possession in itself. If they found the images stored in his browser cache, however, it may constitute possession, which means he could be sentenced to possession of child pornography. He would then have a criminal conviction, definitely be placed on ViSOR and probably have his life ruined.
In my opinion, since no vulnerable person would be made safer, no societal difference would really be made at all, it would be a waste of police time, and unnecessary stress for the guy.
This is based on the assumption that the man is telling the truth, of course.
I think I've sufficiently explained my points. None of them were evasive; they all dealt specifically with my assertion that the police should not be alerted. My arguments might not convince you, but we have to agree to disagree since I'm content with my opinion and its rational basis. I appreciate the discussion though - it is preferable to clandestine thumbing down.
Is it normal that my boyfriend was looking at pictures of child porn?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I think you've missed my point.
I'm not saying it isn't immoral. I'm not such an unconventional person to have a unique moral code permitting anyone to watch kiddy porn whenever they like. It is immoral.
But does a single instance of immorality in which a passive voyeur has witnessed the far greater immorality enacted by a child molester warrant police intervention? Does a guy who claims to have received no gratification from it and to have stumbled upon it, once, deserve rumours and gossip and the arm of the law extending to his doorstep?
No.
That's my point. As I explained below,
"The most important thing is to go after those creating the imagery (abusing the children). Then those circulating and/or collecting the imagery. A passive voyeur falls into neither category, and sits at the bottom of the pack in terms of priority. You take the first two categories away, the third no longer exists anyway!"
I think this guy deserves a second chance. Whilst you might be quick to join the lynch mob, I aint.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You described it earlier as a "victimless crime", and therefore presumably not immoral. It clearly isn't victimless though, as I hope I've convinced you of.
The point you make as you explain it below is just evading the issue. Priority is only worth even considering if the value for time/money of the police is compromised by pursuing the "low priority" targets. If low priority targets are reported directly to the police without detective work, it's hardly a huge waste of police resources to address those people. So as well as going after bigger immoralities, police have to be opportunistic and deal with any size of immorality if simply it falls into their arms.
I'm hardly keen to see anyone get locked up, I'm just saying that it doesn't look to me like your logic stands up to scrutiny, and rather than mindlessly thumbing you down I'd rather reply properly.
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In my opinion, his being a passive voyeur is victimless.
The individual in possession of the pornography choosing to distribute it is the one breaking the law, and in this instance I agree with the argument that the victim is the child who, having already been a victim of a sexual crime in the process of the offensive material's creation, is again abused when this offensive material is shared without their consent.
I don't agree that viewing in and of itself causes harm, except potentially to the viewer.
An act can be victimless but still be immoral.
Priority IS worth considering exactly because the time/money of the police IS compromised by pursuing "low priority targets." If this girl called the police on her boyfriend, there are several possible outcomes. This varies from country to country, but let's take the UK as an example, since we're both from there:
The police could come around, caution him, seize his computer to establish whether or not he possesses any illegal pornography and add his name to ViSOR even if he is found to not possess any illegal pornography. He would not be prosecuted if he does not possess any illegal pornography. It's not actually a crime to view it, only to possess it - viewing another person's possession does not constitute possession in itself. If they found the images stored in his browser cache, however, it may constitute possession, which means he could be sentenced to possession of child pornography. He would then have a criminal conviction, definitely be placed on ViSOR and probably have his life ruined.
In my opinion, since no vulnerable person would be made safer, no societal difference would really be made at all, it would be a waste of police time, and unnecessary stress for the guy.
This is based on the assumption that the man is telling the truth, of course.
I think I've sufficiently explained my points. None of them were evasive; they all dealt specifically with my assertion that the police should not be alerted. My arguments might not convince you, but we have to agree to disagree since I'm content with my opinion and its rational basis. I appreciate the discussion though - it is preferable to clandestine thumbing down.
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
*sentenced for not to...