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

All while the wailing class is going on about "those poor poor kids, it is so good for them that we saved them from their father!"

An all that without any indication that he directly harm one child less alone his own children.

That's a ridiculous argument, the suffering his children might experience is a direct result of his own behavior. He risked their well being when he chose to pursue his course of action.
You can't blame that on society, a good father doesn't risk his children's well being for his own gratification.

It is just as likely that child porn took the edge off enough that he did not find that need to molest his own kids than it is that his use of porn indicates that he did molest his kids.

Keep in mind however that the "SAFETY! of the children!" mob claims that kids are injured when prevs look at pictures of them even if the kids are not aware that their picture has been taken, even if they enjoyed the photo shot, so according to them kids are always hurt by child porn....thus your claim that we dont know if he hurts kids or not is blasphemy.

So according to you once we decide to have kids we are always bound to be subservient to mitigating their risks....

NOT. All of life is about trade offs and risks, and there is more to life than the service of the little prices and princesses that we give birth to. Kids are going to sometimes get hurt, and sometimes it will be because of us. Hopefully they live, because that which does not kill us makes us stronger.

Which does not let us off the hook for the hardships that our hyper punitive criminal "justice" system causes to kids who have never done anything wrong, which we do when we imprison the family wage earners and thus dump the family into instant poverty. Europeans are much more humane, as there is extensive government support of such families, as well as a much lower rate of imprisonment.

When you have children you, at the very least, need to face the responsibility of seeing them to adulthood. We're not talking about a simple mistake here, we're talking about self-centered behavior which lead to his children paying a price. The difference between a man and a total dickhead is whether he admits his self-centeredness affects his family, or simple blows it off by saying **** happens. Or blames the government for the consequences of his trnsgressions.

I agree with you, but we Americans need to face the fact that our harsh punitive measures carry a huge cost to innocent kids. Perhaps this is an organized effort of coercion, a message to all that we better stay in the good graces of the state or else we will stand helplessly by as our kids get fucked.

We are just uncivilized enough of a country to pull that.

That's because you are so downright dumb you cannot understand that child pornography directly harms the children depicted in the images.

Whether the man is also a child molester remains to be seen. But one reason he must now be supervised when he is with minors, including his own children, is a recognition of the fact that he apparently finds children sexually arousing, and also a recognition of the fact that a significant percentage of those who view and possess child pornography do sexually molest and directly abuse children.

You seem to think that the viewing and possession of child pornography is as innocuous as shopping online for a pair of shoes.

Like true sociopaths, both you and Hawkeye really don't think this man did anything wrong, except get caught. You feel he should have encrypted his computer, so the child porn couldn't be accessed, he shouldn't have turned it over to the police, and he shouldn't have given them any info. Hawkeye is only amazed the man was brazen enough to view the child porn in a public place. But neither of you displays any recognition of why the possession and viewing of child pornography is wrong, who is being harmed by it, and why it is illegal.

College professor or not, Smith is just another sexual deviate who is turned on and aroused by sexually suggestive and sexually explicit images of prepubescent children. He's no more worthy of attention than any of the other deviates arrested every day for engaging in the same sort of criminal activity that he did.

Unfortunately, his children will have to live with the shame of their father's acts, and, if he is convicted, with the fact that he will be a registered sex offender who is regarded as a potential danger to children. That's not because the laws are wrong, it's because their father chose to possess material he knew was illegal--just as if he had chosen to possess a quantity of illegal drugs.

No one controls people's fantasies, or the content of what they think, as Hawkeye foolishly asserts. But controlling the production, distribution, and possession of certain types of pornographic material is quite different than being the "thought police"--it is controlling a commercial product which does have harmful effects, on those who are exploited in the production of these materials, and possibly on a certain percentage of consumers as well. Both distribution and possession of child pornography are criminal offenses in almost all countries in the Western world--and there is a wide movement to criminalize child pornography around the globe, although it is already illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.

So, to listen to you two sociopaths bemoaning this poor man's fate because he just blew his successful career makes it abundantly clear just how deviant the two of you are. The man knowingly engaged in illegal activity--and an activity which has been made illegal in virtually all parts of the world because of the harm done to the children depicted in the illegal images this man chose to possess. That the two of you try to skate around that issue, and turn the discussion into some sort of freedom fight against government repression, simply reflects the thin ice you both skate on in terms of your own sense of compromised morality.

What this man did was wrong. Not because he did it in public, or because he let the police examine his laptop--the act of possessing and viewing the child pornography was wrong. And people like him feed the production and distribution of more child pornography. And the only way to try to contain and stop it is to continue to arrest and imprison the people involved in this industry--and that includes the consumers, like this college professor. They deserve the jail cells that are waiting for them. Let them sit in those cells and reflect on the damaged lives of the children that fed their masturbatory fantasies through their exploited images.

I'll agree that this is a tragedy, but the responsibility lies upon the individual who commits the anti-social and self-centered acts. The solution also lies with the individual, they are the ones who choose their actions, not the state.
If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime.
It's pretty plain and simple, this guy wasn't thinking about the well-being of his children, he was thinking about self-gratification. Too bad the lion ate the guy while he was jackin off and not payin attention to reality, now his kids are fatherless.

It not only huge cost to his children it is a huge cost to society when our over the top punishment is such that we turn a very useful and highly train individual into a person who is a burden on the tax payers for years and then a person who can never use his knowledge and skills for anything beyond a minimum wage job.

From my readings in the UK he would be had been likely to get probation or a very short sentence and if the label of sex offense were apply it would not be for life but for a set numbers of years.

Mental health treatment and monitoring for a time seems far more sane then locking the man up for many years.

.


The crime and the punishment for the crime should have some sane connection however.

Not just for the welfare of the individual but for the welfare of the society as a whole.

Locking up pot smokers for years as was done not that long ago in the US is not a sane level of punishment for potheads for example.

So anyone label a sexual deviate should be lock up when ever possible Firefly?

If someone is known to be sexually attracted to children but had taken no actions that is against the law he still should be lock up in your ideal world Firefly?

To me we should punish people for their deeds and do so in a sane manner not a longer prison term on average for looking at sexual pictures of minors then having sex with minors for example.

To me the society and justice would both be better serve by long term monitoring and force mental health treatment then a long prison term.

There's not much comparison between smoking pot and viewing child pornography. We can't afford any tolerance when it comes to defenseless children.
We've used the same policies for other problems, such as the Ivory trade.
The fact is, there just isn't any way around the damage crime does to society, the responsibility for the consequences falls on the person committing the crime.
If you can't see the reasoning or the need for punishing the beneficiaries of an enterprise such as child pornography, then I don't see much hope for you.
This is a serious issue, far more serious than the extinction of elephants, but I haven't seen you and hawk ferreting out stories about the ivory trade in order to tout your position. It's always something involving sexual exploitation, what's up with that?

Oh locking up potheads was at one point sold as a means of protecting children from turning into potheads themselves by removing their peers who was already potheads.

It was done for the children................

Downloading and viewing past sexual crimes against children is sicking however the act itself does not directly harm one child.

The punishment should be far less then given to someone who had harm a child directly and surely not the other way around.

If it were the harm to kids that was being policed thus would be the variation in penalty, however as I have mentioned before it is the thoughts and feelings which are being policed......."SAFETY! OF THE KIDS!" is the deceptive sales pitch used to get the masses to go along with the state/feminist effort to hammer men.

I don't know where you got that idea, supporting a criminal enterprise, such as the distribution of illegal drugs, is considered a crime. It's never been about removing peers. It's about holding people responsible for supporting a criminal enterprise.



That's ridiculous, it's like saying poisoning the well doesn't directly kill anyone.
When you create a demand for an enterprise which exploits and damages children, you are directly contributing to the harm of those children.
The seriousness of the issue, ie the involvement of defenseless children, demands serious gloves off treatment of supporters and producers alike.

Oh brother LOL

The state feminist effort? Shouldn't protecting children be everyone's effort?

It does not get me going because I never intend to have ivory, but I do intent to be sexual...But ya, our idiotic laws re ivory and rare woods leave me plenty disgusted with my country. The animals that have the ivory tusks will be extinct soon no matter what we do, the rare woods will be chopped down and the species made extinct no matter what we do, bashing on people in the mean time for having anything made out of this stuff seems like inflicting pain for the thrill of inflicting pain.

Did you hear about the giant tuna caught last week? Turns out the government decided that the guy who caught it did not gave the right license so not only did they take it away from him but the decided that the ******* thing needed to be shipped out of the country because Americans are not allowed to eat it!! That is ******* nuts, all that extra expense and lowered quality because of arguing and transportation time of a perfectly fine tuna thanks to byzantine American government rule making.

Like capitalism government no longer works towards the best interests of humans....in the case of government it sucks up a lot of resources and produces far less benefit than the investment should.

Did you not hear me proclaim that this is NOT an effort to protect kids, that it is an effort to police thoughts and feelings??

Kindly attempt to make some minimum effort to pay attention.