How about lighter sentences for child porn offenders?

[Greenday]

But, you're still advocating having them sentenced on what they might have done, not what they are actually charged and found guilty of. It just goes against pretty much all of your other stances....

I think BK is pointing out that by viewing child porn, you are enabling more people to do it because you are creating a bigger market for it, so theirs a greater demand creating a bigger profit. So as a result, more kids are raped in order to produce these films.

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps... but that doesn't actually justify charging and sentencing 1 person to take the rap for all the others who might have been involved. Which is what is being suggested, and which goes against BK's other posts relating to justice threads.

IF you started taking that approach, GD, then we can all sue any petty thief for the high rates of insurance and prices we pay because we have to cover the costs of their actions elsewhere - insurance premiums, higher costs of goods, higher prices for surveillance, etc...

[Rapscallion]

I read an interesting piece on The Misanthropic Bitch. A shame the website went down a while back. As you might imagine from the name of the site, she was rather outspoken about her own views, but also dealt with feedback.

On the child porn thing, I can't remember what her original arguments were, but I know she did another article responding to input from readers. One of the main things that stood out for me was when she didn't defend people who have viewed child porn, but argued that it was a different level of offence to actually creating the images or physically molesting a child.

Feedback: Child porn is wrong, it's degrading, it's vile etc etc etc.

TMB: agreed, so arrest and punish offenders against that law for that, not for something they haven't done.

I really wish that site was still there. Brought an interesting view to many topics. I have to agree with her on this, though. There's a difference in level between different sorts of crime - shoplifting versus holding up a fuel station with a gun, for example. The law treats the two offenders differently. Why not in this case?

Child sex abuse is the current hold grail of public outrage, that's why. Sure, it's vile, shouldn't happen, etc, but it's currently the ideal that sparks society right now.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

Sometimes, the law is written in such a way that it is only black and white (were there photos or not??), but the circumstances are not.<snip>so, if there was a mandatory sentencing then said Jane Doe gets done for the photo of herself naked in the mirror when she was 14... does she deserve to spend 5 years behind bars because, legally she did something wrong?

you do not understand US federal law-most people here don't either so I'll cut lots of slack.


Original article:
"Police and prosecutors want to maintain them intact to serve as deterrents to crime, and to use possible sentence reductions as incentives to win defendants' cooperation in investigations."

wiki:

Guidelines are now considered advisory only, on both the federal and the state levels. Judges must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence but are not required to issue sentences within the guidelines.

The Guidelines determine sentences based primarily on two factors:

1. the conduct associated with the offense (the offense conduct, which produces the offense level)
2. the defendant's criminal history (the criminal history category)

So they have what they're "asking for"-there is no reason for this, and those creating child abuse images are at a much higher offense level than people merely in possession so they are not "being charged with what someone else did."

[Slytovhand]

Gee, thanks for the slack...

But it still doesn't explain your apparent stance on how child-sex offenders are views in the eyes of the law. For every other crime, a person is only charged, convicted and sentenced on the actual crime that they individually committed. But for these crimes, it appears (from my reading of above posts) that they should be charged, convicted and sentenced for a lot more than just that 1 crime... and, for that matter, for what they may have also done, or may do in the future...


As for the legal stance... I don't know. I would possibly side with the judges on this. After all, they are the ones who see these things in a professional capacity all the time. Granted, they may not see the effects that such things deliver...

But, it does pose a question - should the level of social moral outrage dictate laws? (hmmm - new thread!)

[BlaqueKatt]

But it still doesn't explain your apparent stance on how child-sex offenders are views in the eyes of the law. For every other crime, a person is only charged, convicted and sentenced on the actual crime that they individually committed.

using the same table judges are given as an advisory only(can't stress that enough they are in no way required or obligated to mete out a sentence based on them, they use their own discretion), someone convicted as a first offense of possession of child abuse images minimum sentence is 5 years. First offense of trafficking narcotics is 10 years. Which is the same as murder oddly enough.....

As for the legal stance... I don't know. I would possibly side with the judges on this. After all, they are the ones who see these things in a professional capacity all the time.

Again they are in no manner required to hand down a sentence from the guidelines-they could give someone 6 months if they wanted to based on the facts of the case.

[Slytovhand]

using the same table judges are given as an advisory only(can't stress that enough they are in no way required or obligated to mete out a sentence based on them, they use their own discretion), someone convicted as a first offense of possession of child abuse images minimum sentence is 5 years. First offense of trafficking narcotics is 10 years. Which is the same as murder oddly enough.....

Again they are in no manner required to hand down a sentence from the guidelines-they could give someone 6 months if they wanted to based on the facts of the case.[/QUOTE]


Which makes this whole debate sort of pointless.. why would these judges be saying "we need more leeway", when they've already got it?

Anyway, which is the worse crime? Child abuse, or drug trafficking? Or murder??

[jackfaire]

Anyway, which is the worse crime? Child abuse, or drug trafficking? Or murder??

Between child abuse and drug trafficking. Child Abuse.

but yes Murder is worse.

[Rapscallion]

Between child abuse and drug trafficking. Child Abuse.

but yes Murder is worse.

What's your reasoning?

Child abuse affects one or a small number of people. Drug trafficking affects the lives of many people. Child abuse is generally the result of a mental illness, as I understand it, and drug trafficking is a matter of greed, a matter of choice.

How do you reason your decision above?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

Child abuse affects one or a small number of people.

tell that to the taxpayers that had to fund my therapy for 4 years(private insurance for 6 more) including numerous hospitalizations due to suicide attempts, an eating disorder, and several AODA sessions(yes all of these stemmed from child abuse)-I spent around 6 months total inpatient in that 4 years, a year in intensive 4 hour a day therapy(day hospital with 20 other abused kids that place was almost a grand per day, per kid) and pay to raise me through foster care.

4 years x2 sessions a week at $100/hour=$41,600 in outpatient therapy alone just for me, now figure out how many children-the cost to society as a whole is astronomical.

[Gerrinson]

tell that to the taxpayers that had to fund my therapy for 4 years(private insurance for 6 more) including numerous hospitalizations due to suicide attempts, an eating disorder, and several AODA sessions(yes all of these stemmed from child abuse)-I spent around 6 months total inpatient in that 4 years, a year in intensive 4 hour a day therapy(day hospital with 20 other abused kids that place was almost a grand per day, per kid) and pay to raise me through foster care.

4 years x2 sessions a week at $100/hour=$41,600 in outpatient therapy alone just for me, now figure out how many children-the cost to society as a whole is astronomical.

As someone who was also abused as a child, I'm sorry you went through all that. Not everyone, however, had such a hard time getting over it.

The cost to the state for my abuse: 1/2 of 6 sessions at $84.00 an hour, for a total of $252.00. I paid the other $42.00 each session out of my own pocket.

The rest of my therapy was all just me thinking in my own head and learning to just say 'Yes, this happened.' While I'll probably never be completely 'over it' I can and have moved on with my life. The rest of my therapy constituted many hours of talking it over with trusted friends and loved ones. That came at no monetary cost.

As a survivor of sexual child abuse, I actually feel that the current laws are ridiculous. There is no way a 13 year old should be punished for taking pictures of themselves. Nor should you punish another 13 year old for receiving those pictures. Sorry, but neither end of that transaction constitutes 'child porn' in a way that victimizes anyone involved.

We have a morass of rather draconian laws that plague the US judiciary system today and is unduly influenced by the public outcry for ever harsher laws. Which is great until you're on the receiving end of those laws while doing something as innocent as opening an email from a teenager who thought it would be funny/amusing/tantalizing to send you a naked picture of themself. And now you're a child pornographer.

As for the adults who actually have molested/raped children? They are a blight that needs to be vehemently opposed at every turn. For punishment, however, I personally feel that an $0.85 bullet applied to the frontal lobe at close range is both adequate and cheap. And it quite handily prevents recidivism. I realize that's not a popular opinion despite the effectiveness.

My harsh view is certainly biased by my past, but I've moved beyond it and I can see the legal quandries we have created for ourselves today which do nothing to help the situation nor make it better. I don't have all the answers, but taking each situation and each individual as a unique circumstance makes far more sense in my mind.

[BlaqueKatt]

As a survivor of sexual child abuse, I actually feel that the current laws are ridiculous. There is no way a 13 year old should be punished for taking pictures of themselves. Nor should you punish another 13 year old for receiving those pictures. Sorry, but neither end of that transaction constitutes 'child porn' in a way that victimizes anyone involved.

Usually these aren't prosecuted*, as it's up to the DA to do so and most DAs know they won't be re-elected if they do so.

*unless the pics get sent beyond their intended recipients

[Nyoibo]

What's your reasoning?

Child abuse affects one or a small number of people. Drug trafficking affects the lives of many people. Child abuse is generally the result of a mental illness, as I understand it, and drug trafficking is a matter of greed, a matter of choice.

How do you reason your decision above?

Rapscallion

Drug trafficking is supplying people who consented to drug use, child abuse and murder are not.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

What's your reasoning?

Child abuse affects one or a small number of people.

Rapscallion

I think you may be wrong on this one Raps. The number of people I know who were abused as kids is truly sobering and most of these instances were never reported to authorities.

[Greenday]

I think you may be wrong on this one Raps. The number of people I know who were abused as kids is truly sobering and most of these instances were never reported to authorities.

That or the cops did nothing...