4
   

Judges Object to Bad Sex Crime Laws

 
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 07:09 pm
Quote:
There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?hp

Pretty much the whole class of laws need either reform or to be eliminated, but this is a start in the right direction.
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 07:31 pm
I just want to say that while I have never had bad sex, it shouldn't be a crime.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Eliminated???? They should be put away and kept away! I will never understand those of you who condone and even advocate this type of nonsense.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 08:49 pm
@Intrepid,
You have a case re sexual predators, but they are a small minority of those who get tripped up with our sex laws. It is a slippery slope once you decide to try to law and order your way out of an alleged problem which is really nothing other than normal human sexuality.....now we are locking up folks who never touch a person in a negative way, never talk to them, and only look at them in pictures. Hell, sexual animation is now illegal if you depict a child, and there is a big push on to make sexual video games illegal. You take a 21 year old woman and have her play 15 in a xxx dvd and you are guilty of a crime.

It is fricken nuts. It is time to pull the plug on this bad idea.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You take a 21 year old woman and have her play 15 in a xxx dvd and you are guilty of a crime.


Is this true or an exaggeration for emphasis, Hawk?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:07 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Eliminated???? They should be put away and kept away! I will never understand those of you who condone and even advocate this type of nonsense.


A excellent example of why you don't want the average Joe sitting on the bench.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:27 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Is this true or an exaggeration for emphasis, Hawk?
I read a few years back that this is true, but would need to fact check to be sure....before I was ready to stand on it.

a fast google gets me this

Quote:
That is where Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, joined in.

Even though the production of the rape scene and the rest of the film may have stayed on the technically legal side of the fine line, "I can give other reasons for criticizing the film," she told WND.

"I do think that there at least are sound ethical considerations for [questioning] how far they went with this 12-year-old girl, and whether this kind of so-called artistic film-making further desensitizes the public to what child abuse and child rape are," she said.

"What you have here is a suggested scene. It's implied that it's happening. They've come close to a simulated sex scene, which means to give the appearance of the real thing."

What would be illegal is an actual sex scene, or something that would to all viewers appear to be a real scene, if it is simulated, she said.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39836

this is about an awesome move where Dakota Fanning as a 12 year old actress played a girl of about the same age getting raped. My understanding is that if you simulate a child sex scene by placing an older female in and she believably appears to be younger and claims to be younger, that a crime has been committed.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

You have a case re sexual predators, but they are a small minority of those who get tripped up with our sex laws. It is a slippery slope once you decide to try to law and order your way out of an alleged problem which is really nothing other than normal human sexuality


Hawkeye, do you really think that a desire to look at sexually provocative pictures of children is part of "normal human sexuality"?

Quote:
Demonstrating a Link between Child Pornography and Pedophilia

Justice statistics suggest that there is an increase in the child pornography investigations. Given this, clinicians may be asked more often to assess child pornography offenders. A particularly useful question during assessment is whether a child pornography offender is a pedophile. CAMH's Drs. Michael Seto, James Cantor and Ray Blanchard published a study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, entitled Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia, which investigated whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Using a sample of 685 male patients referred to CAMH between 1995 and 2004, the study showed that 61% of child pornography offenders, 35% of offenders with child victims, 13% of offenders with adult victims, and 22% of general sexology patients met diagnostic criteria for pedophilia by showing greater sexual arousal to stimuli depicting children than to stimuli depicting adults in the laboratory. In other words, child pornography offenders were almost twice as likely of being identified as a pedophile, compared to the participants identified as offenders against children (sexual offenses against children 14 or young)

The results indicate that child pornography offending is a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. This group was significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during testing compared to the other study groups. The results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. In fact, child pornography offenders - regardless of whether they had a history of sexual offenses against children - were more likely than child offenders to show a pattern of sexual arousal consistent with the pattern of identified pedophiles.

Currently, clinicians rely on three potential sources of information when considering a diagnosis of pedophilia: self-report, a history of sexual behaviour involving children, and psychological assessment. While useful, these methods do have limitations. These results from Dr. Seto and colleagues may be a particularly helpful diagnostic tool in circumstances in which a person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behaviour involving children.
http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publications/Newsletter/child_pornography_pedophilia.html


You can read Dr. Seto's study here
http://www.meldpunt-kinderporno.nl/files/Biblio/Child%20Pornography%20Offenses%20Are%20a%20Valid%20Diagnostic%20Indicator%20of%20Pedophilia.pdf
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Hawkeye, do you really think that a desire to look at sexually provocative pictures of children is part of "normal human sexuality"?


I think that 12-13 years old wanting to have sex, and people of all age wanting to have sex with them, is normal, and has been the norm through much of history. We mostly resist now because we believe in childhood, but the idea of childhood is a fairly modern construct. Allowing the looking at pictures is a good way to satisfy the urge so as to help to avoid actual sex taking place. We should understand that kids will be sexual, but it should be between themselves.

....our desire should never be criminal, only our actions. It is none of my business who wants to have sex with kids, it is only those who act upon that desire and have sex with kids that I have the right to "fix" and/or punish. Also, I dont have the right to pilfer people minds or reading materials trying to figure out who is a threat. Every living person is a threat to me, once we start down that road of invading privacy in the attempt to figure out threat levels we leave no privacy unshredded. We can not eliminate risk, we will destroy everything of value in our attempt to make this fantasy of safety real. It is time to stop this nonsense.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
It needs to be pointed out that the place where we made the mistake is that we forgot that individuals are not responsible for their desires/feelings, they arise outside of the ego, outside of our control. Our criminalizing desire is exactly the same thing as criminalizing skin color. But how many guys sit with electrodes on their dicks as they are shown pictures to see what they like, so we can decide who is a criminal?

My, aren't we so advanced!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't think that you've established that as something that is actually illegal.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 11:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The results indicate that child pornography offending is a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. This group was significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during testing compared to the other study groups. The results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child.


Viewing pornography is an action, it is a behavior, it is not just just "a feeling" or "a desire".

Those who view child pornograpy are more likely to be pedophiles.

Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder.

Quote:


DSM-IV-TR: Pedophilia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Paraphilia is characterized by sexual activity with a child, usually age 13 or younger, or in the case of an adolescent, a child 5 years younger than the pedophile.

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement)
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association



We have no idea of the number of pedophiles, but we do know that there is a large commercial market in child pornography.

Quote:

There is little information on the number of individuals
in the general population with pedophilia because
individuals with the disorder rarely seek help from a
psychiatrist or other mental health professional. However,
the large commercial market in pedophiliac pornography
suggests that the number of individuals at
large in the community with the disorder is likely to be
higher than the limited medical data indicate. Individuals
generally come to the attention of mental
health professionals when their child victims tell others
and when they are arrested. Pedophilia is almost always
seen in males and is seldom diagnosed in females.
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Pedophilia%20(American%20Psychiatric%20Association).pdf


Many pedophiles may engage in sexual activity with children which is never reported or brought to the attention of the legal system. That may well be true in cases of incest, where the pedophile abuses his own child or stepchild.

Sometimes the pedophile threatens the child to coerce them into keeping the matter secret. So these cases, too, may go unreported.

Just look at the international magnitude of the priest/child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Many of those cases went unreported.

You simply cannot assume that the viewing of child pornography is a harmless activity. It is more likely done by an individual with strong sexual urges toward children, and a fair percentage of those individuals probably act out on these urges, although the cases may go unreported.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 11:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Viewing pornography is an action, it is a behavior, it is not just just "a feeling" or "a desire".
reading The Anarchist Cookbook makes is much more likely that the person reading it will commit a crime...Is reading or owning that book illegal? Reading certain strains of fundamentalist Christian lit make a person much more likely as well, is that a crime? Should it be?

How far are you willing to go to in invading privacy and policing what people look at in order to stay safe? How much is enough?

Quote:
Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder:DSM-IV-TR: Pedophilia
That is more a political document than a scientific one. I am not interested in other peoples political ideas that I am expected to swallow without examination. I prefer to make up my own mind, tyvm..

Quote:
Many pedophiles may engage in sexual activity with children which is never reported or brought to the attention of the legal system
that does not give you the right to trash personal liberty...if you think that is a problem than work to convince people to report. Good luck, the reason a lot of people don't report is because society can not be trusted to act responsibly. A lot of people decide, with good cause, they they are better off not reporting. Maybe you should figure out why before you start off on your witch hunts.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:07 am
@hawkeye10,
The DSM IV is not a political document. It is the primary manual for diagnosing and classifying mental disorders in the United States, and virtually all psychiatric diagnoses are based on the guidelines in the DSM IV. Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder.

Quote:
A lot of people decide, with good cause, they they are better off not reporting. Maybe you should figure out why before you start off on your witch hunts.


I know why, and the answer should be obvious to you as well. We are talking about children--children who may well be terrified to tell someone about it because of the type of threats they have received from the pedophile. Children who may feel deep shame about what has been done to them (and that is particularly true with incest). Children who have been traumatized by contact with a pedophile.

Grown women have enough difficulty reporting a rape, and you expect children to be able to deal with such things? That's what makes children easy targets and victims--they often tell no one about what happened to them. And, even when children have the courage to report incest to their mother, the mother often denies it because she can't deal with it.

Pedophilia is quite widespread, more-so than one would like to think. Most of the adult women I have known encountered a pedophile at some time during their childhood--a man who touched them, or tried to touch them, or exposed himself to them in a public place, or who tried to entice them to go with him, etc.--even though no further contact may have taken place. And most of these women never told anyone about these incidents when they were still children. They were frightened, they were confused, they felt shame, and they never told anyone.

Child pornography would appeal only to those who are sexually aroused by children and who have sexual fantasies and urges toward children. In other words, it would mainly be pedophiles who view such material. By allowing this material to be viewed, you may also increase the strength of such sexual urges, rather than decrease them, and thereby increase the probability that the pedophile will act on those urges. Furthermore, by allowing child pornography to be freely viewed you are condoning this activity as "normal" or acceptable, and it is not normal or acceptable, it is a form of sexual deviancy, and one that exploits children in the process. Curbing child pornography, and making its possession illegal, is a reasonable attempt at indirectly controlling pedophilia--and a way to expose possible pedophiles--and a reasonable attempt to stop the sexual exploitation of children.

I think it is very important to safeguard the welfare of children. We invade the privacy of the home in order to do that--we do not allow parents to abuse their children in the "sanctity" of the home, and we mandate people to report such abuse if it is suspected. There is no good reason to allow the sexual exploitation of children, through the viewing of child pornography, in the privacy of the home either, simply to satisfy the sexual desires of pedophiles. By allowing this to flourish unfettered you would be increasing the probability that actual harm would eventually come to actual children.

I can think of many good causes to champion when it comes to personal liberties. The rights of pedophiles are not among them.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:15 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I think that 12-13 years old wanting to have sex, and people of all age wanting to have sex with them, is normal, and has been the norm through much of history.


I think that you are once again leaping to conclusions for which you have no evidence.

Quote:
We mostly resist now because we believe in childhood, but the idea of childhood is a fairly modern construct.


I think that there other more significant reasons that this behavior is now prohibited.

Quote:

Allowing the looking at pictures is a good way to satisfy the urge so as to help to avoid actual sex taking place. We should understand that kids will be sexual, but it should be between themselves.


How do you propose that that can be done without exploiting the very children that are to be protected?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:32 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder


at the moment, for how long IDK

Quote:
The Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 to discuss whether pedophilia should remain a mental disorder.
Opening the debate was Richard Green, M.D., J.D. a widely known writer specializing in homosexuality and gender-identity issues. Green argued in favor of removing pedophilia from the diagnostic manual (DSM).

Green was one of the clinicians who, in the 1973, took the side of gay activists to argue for removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual.

In a second article in the Archives, "The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile," Gunter Schmidt, D. Phil., makes a sympathetic case for the pedophile who, Schmidt says, must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.
http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html

Quote:
The DSM IV is not a political document.
As far as I am concerned it is partly a political document, I understand that you have a different opinion.

Quote:
Pedophilia is quite widespread, more-so than one would like to think
considering that my wife was sexually tortured by her brother and his friends for several years (9-13) and that all three of my kids were sexually abused by a 17 YO....I think I get it.

Quote:
Curbing child pornography, and making its possession illegal, is a reasonable attempt at indirectly controlling pedophilia--and a way to expose possible pedophiles--and a reasonable attempt to stop the sexual exploitation of children
Likewise there are people who argue that it is responsible prevention of threat for the American government to spy on Americans and to invade other countries because they might do something bad some day...I simply disagree. You either believe in personal freedom and practice it, you either believe that it is actions that count and not a particular combination of synapses firing in the brain......or you don't

Quote:
I can think of many good causes to champion when it comes to personal liberties. The rights of pedophiles are not among them.
I am only as free as the most despised American is, pedophiles are exactly the people who's rights I should be watching out for.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:37 am
@firefly,
I think that Hawkeye was referring to adults with the urge when he said,

"A lot of people decide, with good cause, they they are better off not reporting. Maybe you should figure out why before you start off on your witch hunts."

I don't know what the current laws are for all countries but I think it would be an excellent idea if pedophiles were encouraged to report to medical authorities without fear that they would be ridiculed or turned over to the police.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:51 am
@JTT,
Quote:
How do you propose that that can be done without exploiting the very children that are to be protected?


there is no exploitation, because there is nothing exploitative about taking nude pictures of kids, and once they are old enough to make up their own minds kids who are willing to have their nude pictures taken. I do not believe in the theory of informed consent, because in real life consent is rarely cut and dried. This idea humans can not consent because they have not reached a magic age has no basis for being taken seriously. It is a made up rule that has very little correlation to reality.

We have this made up rationalization for what we want to do, which is to forbid humans under the age of 17 from having sex. We could just as well have the law without the made up part. We could also change the law if it made sense. Which it does. Humans should have sexual freedom at around the age of 15, and they should have the freedom to have their picture taken or not taken always. There is nothing to be ashamed about the naked human body, and yet we teach shame about the human body. As we contradict ourselves with allowing 12YO's to dress like sluts, dance to Britney Spears, and watch porno's on the internet. we already put our kids through the double talk mind-****, I think they would rather we just be ok with the human body and human sexuality.

So, we have pictures of naked kids where no harm was done, and we have guys looking at those pictures and having fantasies....again where no harm is done. What exactly is the problem that needs all of this Gestapo treatment?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:54 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I think that Hawkeye was referring to adults with the urge when he said,

"A lot of people decide, with good cause, they they are better off not reporting. Maybe you should figure out why before you start off on your witch hunts."
Kids too, kids are smarter than we usually give them credit for....they are good at computing where their best interests lie.

Quote:
I don't know what the current laws are for all countries but I think it would be an excellent idea if pedophiles were encouraged to report to medical authorities without fear that they would be ridiculed or turned over to the police.
If only we were a civilization that was advanced enough to do that, but no, we are living through a dark age.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 02:49 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
there is no exploitation, because there is nothing exploitative about taking nude pictures of kids


There is nothing exploitive about taking nude pictures of kids? When these photos can be digitally altered to be sexually provocative and are posted on the internet or distributed in publications--for the purpose of sexually arousing adults?

You don't consider that a violation of the child's privacy? You can't see how such photos might damage the child emotionally, or cause significant emotional distress at some later time?

Why is the pedophile's right to privacy greater than the child's right to privacy?

Quote:
This idea humans can not consent because they have not reached a magic age has no basis for being taken seriously. It is a made up rule that has very little correlation to reality.


Then we should allow children to sign contracts? How about allowing them to legally buy alcohol and guns? Are you willing to make any distinctions between children and adults?

Quote:
So, we have pictures of naked kids where no harm was done, and we have guys looking at those pictures and having fantasies....again where no harm is done.


How do you know no harm was done? I think harm is done to the children in the photos. And a good deal of anti-child pornography law is also based on the assumption that harm is done. And how do you know that viewing child pornography does not result in a higher instance of actual contact crimes against children? At least one study in the U.K. found a higher incidence of sexual contact crimes against children when child pornography was more available on the internet.

It is one thing to review the issue of whether the sentences have become disproportionately long for those who possess child pornography, and quite another to argue in favor of unrestricted child pornography as a right to privacy matter.

Protecting the welfare of children is considerably more important than aiding a pedophile in his masturbatory fantasies. And international law on this matter, as well as prevailing societal values, is clearly on the side of child welfare. Hawkeye seems relatively alone in viewing child pornography as essentially harmless.





0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Judges Object to Bad Sex Crime Laws
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 07:02:07