17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 02:47 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry but that is not true concerning federal law as written there is no repeat no difference in a 17 year old what to be porn star video and an infant being rape video in the law.

Differences in the content of child pornography are most definitely incorporated into the federal sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2--there are sentencing enhancements for number of images, images of children under the age of 12, images that contain violent or sadistic content, etc.
That's why two people sentenced for possession of child pornography in federal court might receive quite different sentences in terms of length. Each of them might have quite different sentencing enhancements attached to their charges, depending on the content possessed.

So, you are simply wrong when you say there are no differences, based on image content factors, that affect the way child pornography cases are adjudicated and sentenced. A person who posseesses sexually explicit images of 17 year olds will not receive the same sort of sentence as someone who possesses images of infants, or images of a child of any age that contains violent or sadistic content.

And, no matter how many times you are told you are wrong, you continue to repeat the same inaccurate drivel. Either you have no regard for the truth, or you are too impaired to understand the complexity of these laws.

In the hearings held by the U.S. Sentencing Commission within the past week, additional sentencing enhancements have been proposed, including some for image content, such as images of infants and toddlers, or images that include bestiality.
Quote:
The Commission should consider whether § 2G2.2’s existing specific offense characteristics should be revised and consolidated to
bring them in line with today’s reality, and whether new specific offense characteristics should be added to better differentiate among offenders based on their offense severity and risk to children.

There are several characteristics that could be taken into account in a revised guideline.

The Commission could add a provision that addresses the harm caused by distribution such as that by P2P technologies.

The Commission could also consider adding specific offense characteristics for image severity that address images of bestiality as well as images of infants and toddlers. As for the enhancement for the quantity of images, the image table might be revised to reflect the plain reality that offenders today can amass collections, not of hundreds of images, but tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of images.

The Commission could consider adding new specific offense characteristics to better differentiate among offenders, such as by accounting for offenders who communicate with one another and in so doing, facilitate and encourage the sexual abuse of children and production of more child pornography, as well as for offenders who create and administer the forums where such communication is taking place.

The Commission could also consider a specific offense characteristic that addresses the length of time the offender has committed the offense to distinguish those offenders who have gotten away with their crime for years from those who may have just begun committing these crimes.

The Commission could also consider recognizing variations in the sophistication of the criminal conduct to appropriately address the more technologically sophisticated offenders who might use multiple internet technologies to collect child pornography, or who might use sophisticated measures to avoid being detected by law enforcement, or who are members of a group dedicated to child sexual exploitation.

By considering these types of changes, the Commission could improve § 2G2.2’s ability to meaningfully differentiate among offenders based on the severity of their offense conduct and the risk they pose to children.
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_Hakes_DeBrota_Fottrell.pdf

So there is definitely already an effort to differentiate between offenders, and they are clearly attempting to refine that differentation even more.

You should read the entire statement which can be found at the above link, it is both interesting and informative in terms of DOJ thinking on this issue and what they are trying to combat.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 02:58 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry but higher courts had been starting to rejected large as in millions of dollars paydays for victims against viewers of such material and kicking such judgments back to the lower courts.

They are not invalidating the victim's claims, but rather different circuit courts are differing on the amounts to be awarded. And, thus far, the Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on this matter.
The court decisions have not ruled that these victims have not been harmed, the difficulty has been in establishing a precise monetary amount from particular defendants.
The Supreme Court, long ago, acknowledged the harm done to the child pornography victim by the circulation and possession of his or her images.

So, your statement is rather pointless.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 03:27 pm
@izzythepush,
As usual, dumb BillRM is ignorant regarding the laws...Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
Quote:
Supreme Court Upholds Virtual Child Porn Law
James Joyner
May 19, 2008
The Supreme Court today upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn’t actually child pornography. Or involve actual children.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_upholds_virtual_child_porn_law/

Quote:
If someone is aroused by watching fake child pornography, sooner or later they're going to want to move on.

Your 'solution,' just makes matters worse.

You are right. Virtual child pornography still promotes the inappropriate sexualization of children by presenting them as appropriate sex objects for adults. And, by allowing this material, you increase the possibility that it heightens the desire to sexually interact with real children.

There is no evidence to suggest that virtual child pornography might act to decrease actual sexual acting out with children, and, particularly since 80% of those incarcerated on child pornography charges admit to also sexually abusing/molesting an actual child (even if they were never caught for that), child pornography, whether real or virtual, would seem to be associated with actual sexual violations of children.


izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 03:32 pm
@firefly,
I can't get over how simplistic his response is to everything. Is there any evidence that viewing child prnography affects your ability to construct a basic sentence?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 09:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
There is no evidence to suggest that virtual child pornography might act to decrease actual sexual acting out with children,


Is there any evidence that the existence of virtual child porn increases the victimization of children?? Or real child porn for that matter?

The answer is no...it is a nice sounding theory that pulls all the right emotional cords, without a lick of proof that it is valid.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 12:23 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Is there any evidence that the existence of virtual child porn increases the victimization of children?? Or real child porn for that matter?

Are you brain dead?

Real children are victimized in the creation of child porn...

The consumers and traders of child porn create the demand for more of it, and that leads to the victimization of more children.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 12:44 am
Quote:
Clovis Man Pleads Guilty to Receiving Child Porn
By KSEE News
February 21, 2012

United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced that 44-year-old Aaron Gregory Guzman of Clovis, plead guilty to receipt or distribution of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

According to the plea agreement, Guzman received more than 600 images and videos depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The images and videos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct also involved the portrayal of sadistic, masochistic, and other depictions of violence. Guzman received the child pornography on his computer, and many of the minors depicted were prepubescent minors.

Guzman is scheduled to be sentenced on April 30, 2012 by Chief United States District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and up to 20 years of in prison, a $250,000 fine, and a lifetime term of supervised release.

This case is the result of Operation Direct Connect, an extensive series of investigations by the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, specifically the Fresno U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy R. Jehangiri is prosecuting the case.
http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Clovis-Man-Pleads-Guilty-to-Receiving-Child-Porn-139900433.html
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 01:56 am
@firefly,
Quote:

Are you brain dead?


No, but I am still waiting for evidence to support your assertion.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:03 am
@hawkeye10,
I was reading a page before, where "emotions" came into play.

I wonder, in a Court of Law, how many "people" that are representing a "State" get clouded with emotions. I would say that as we are "human" some would put law aside to win their own agenda, cause, thoughts and emotions.

Just a thought.

Having said that... You know that with me, children should be able to be children full stop... This crap about man making money off of them, or fullfilling their own desires, fantasies makes me sick...

And, I know there are in "reality", private child pornography videos, that can only be viewed by "members" which is explicit and can involve even murder and it's those with money that are part of that "membership".

Here in Adelaide, it was teenagers, boys... What they did to those kids, I don't even want to remember. Off Topic but there is emotions for you.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:08 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:

Having said that... You know that with me, children should be able to be children full stop... This crap about man making money off of them, or fullfilling their own desires, fantasies makes me sick...


as humans we use each other all the time, get a grip. Long ago someone here at A2K said something to the effect that if a perv got a hard on watching her kid that is no concern of hers so long as the perv does not touch her kid, or any kid. That is a damn civilized and reasonable outlook.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
as humans we use each other all the time, get a grip. Long ago someone here at A2K said something to the effect that if a perv got a hard on watching her kid that is no concern of hers so long as the perv does not touch her kid, or any kid. That is a damn civilized and reasonable outlook
.

Firstly with all due respect, I appreciate your thoughts. Don't tell me to get a grip, rather I will answer your thoughts or comments.. You'd be suprised on how much of a grip I have on things, I choose to pose questions alternatively that may bring on a good discussion.

Now, as to your comment. That's common sense.. She is saying, " I can't change a person, but as long as that person does not touch her child or any child, she will not judge"..

That is what you are alluding to... 'Judging' and that's a fair call.

However, you do miss the point. In my context. Getting a hard on is one thing, whatever those children go through in order for him to get that hard on is another thing.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:20 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
whatever those children go through in order for him to get that hard on is another thing.

THen charge for THAT, there are already laws on the books for sexual abuse.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:26 am
@hawkeye10,
Yelling Smile

Yes, I know it's all about law, but my comment still stands and you bought it up.

Emotions.

What if emotions makes someone in power in "law" win... when the person was innocent? For instance.

And, in addition... How can they charge him for getting a hard on, by watching those poor kids, being exploited, unless they catch him.. How many are missed so why let it be there to start with.

Man will always protect children within or out of the sphere of law as we are humans and most people "have" children.

THAT Hawkeye is a given, one you can not change the law about... It will be as they want it to be....
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:36 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Man will always protect children


THAT is not what we do, we lash out at those whom we fear might on day harm children.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:39 am
@hawkeye10,
Well that is law.

Human? Would would you honestly do if it was your child?

I know you hate law and I don't dispute that sometimes like I am trying to state, emotions come into it, power definately and in that, a new law is made or the law is wrong.. I get you.

But, as a human, we are that, there is nothing you or I or anyone can do about that and in that, we will protect.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:42 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Hostility based upon fear is not protecting, it is barbarity. Yes it is part of humanity, but yes also this should be resisted and condemned when we find it.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 02:56 am
@hawkeye10,
I see your point...

So you are saying we "pre-empt" is that not what I am saying ? Emotions in the Court room by people that have the power can use their emotions?

But sometimes it's overwhelming and evident.

And, then try putting yourself in this.. Seriously, forget law just for once. You child is in those vidoes/photos what would Hawkeye really do which way would he really go if he had the power?

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 03:02 am
@FOUND SOUL,
So your argument is that justice satisfies the vengeance of the aggrieved? Is it that justice does not matter? America is a people who are over 300 million strong, our justice system is not suppose to work to get a couple of these people what they want, it is supposed to work for all of us....to include the accused.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 03:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Feel Hawkeye it's okay to ditch what ever resentment you have over the "law" and FEEL.

And no.. My arguement is not 'everyone' in this World is honest, you agree right? Hell no, if they are after self what ever that is.

Therefore, justice is based much like the Bible, changed rules/words.

Look any law, America, Australia is mean't to be the same. It is supposed to work for us, protect and instigate. It's not humanly possible okay.

People will always, go around boundries, go around law, go around the facts and use emotions or, want to win.

You can't change it Hawkeye.. You can only get pissed as you do over what is occuring.

Someone innocent in so many cases, is sentenced by " emotions" .

Humans are humans and need to respect and clearly see but they don't.

Again, I will stress. Children have the RIGHT yeah i did bold, to be children.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 03:15 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:

Again, I will stress. Children have the RIGHT yeah i did bold, to be children.


Which means what....that those under 18 yo have a right to live in blissful ignorance of the evilness of man? I not only claim that there is no such right, but that such a sheltered childhood is a disservice to the individual
 

Related Topics

The Internet and The Porn Industry - Question by Sglass
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/20/2014 at 05:32:06