Child Porn Prison Sentences

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by kdm172+20 May 2003 - 22:50--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kdm172 @ 20 May 2003 - 22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Proper Bo@ I tell thee,20 May 2003 - 21:48
That wasn&#39;t what I was saying. I was wondering what people&#39;s opinions on this man getting a longer sentence than child murderer&#39;s and rapists.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.. i dont think he should since he didnt do anything phsyicaly to her [/b][/quote]
Didn&#39;t physically do anything to whom.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by namzuf9@20 May 2003 - 22:50
Whats the point in giving someone a 1000 year prison sentence?
Why not just say "I sentence you to spend your life in jail. You will die there. But not before being gang raped and tortured on a daily basis"

Depending on where one is in the world there may be statutory sentences for the crime in question.

Judges don&#39;t just make it up as they go along.

They must also follow the lead of a more senior judge who has sentenced on a case of similar fact / seriousness.

[Proper Bo]

It was lots of different sets of photo&#39;s. They showed one on the TV, it was horrible. A little girl was being raped on a bed and was forced to wear a spiked dog collar. She was crying her eyes out the poor kid.

[kdm172]

Originally posted by JPaul+20 May 2003 - 21:51--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 20 May 2003 - 21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -kdm172@20 May 2003 - 22:50
<!--QuoteBegin--Proper Bo

@ I tell thee,20 May 2003 - 21:48
That wasn&#39;t what I was saying. I was wondering what people&#39;s opinions on this man getting a longer sentence than child murderer&#39;s and rapists.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.. i dont think he should since he didnt do anything phsyicaly to her

Didn&#39;t physically do anything to whom.[/b][/quote]
sry i misread the first post

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Proper Bo@ I tell thee,20 May 2003 - 22:54
It was lots of different sets of photo&#39;s. They showed one on the TV, it was horrible. A little girl was being raped on a bed and was forced to wear a spiked dog collar. She was crying her eyes out the poor thing.

They showed this on television.

Where exactly do you live.

I find it difficult to believe that any UK broadcaster would show such an image.

They would be prosecuted for doing so.

[The Knife Thrower]

Originally posted by namzuf9@20 May 2003 - 21:50
Whats the point in giving someone a 1000 year prison sentence?
Why not just say "I sentence you to spend your life in jail. You will die there. But not before being gang raped and tortured on a daily basis"

If you say to someone that they will never get out of jail then you are violating their human rights (you would be violating their right to life). So if you tell someone that they can be in for only 1000 years then you are not violating their human rights (cause you are letting them walk free after 100 years).

[Proper Bo]

It was just on BBC2 before, it was blanked over her face and the other area.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by The Knife Thrower+20 May 2003 - 22:57--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Knife Thrower @ 20 May 2003 - 22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--namzuf9@20 May 2003 - 21:50
Whats the point in giving someone a 1000 year prison sentence?
Why not just say "I sentence you to spend your life in jail. You will die there. But not before being gang raped and tortured on a daily basis"

If you say to someone that they will never get out of jail then you are violating their human rights (you would be violating their right to life). So if you tell someone that they can be in for only 1000 years then you are not violating their human rights (cause you are letting them walk free after 100 years). [/b][/quote]
Pish

The right in question would be the right to liberty.

The Courts are perfectly entitled to take that away.

Mr Blunkett is proposing life (for certain crimes) meaning just that. Currently a Judge will recommend a minimum term when sentencing to life.

If the Home Sec has his way then Life will mean just that (for the named crimes).

[Bass]

Any one involved with child pornography should get life.....how the f@#k can you re-habilitate sick bastards like that.......and for those that actually commit these repugnant attrocities, they should get fried on the fuckin chair&#33;&#33;&#33;


cheers,
Bass

[namzuf9]

Originally posted by The Knife Thrower@20 May 2003 - 21:57
If you say to someone that they will never get out of jail then you are violating their human rights (you would be violating their right to life). So if you tell someone that they can be in for only 1000 years then you are not violating their human rights (cause you are letting them walk free after 100 years).

Thats just stupid. Some of these human rights laws that are springing up everywhere are a load of crap. In cases like these; screw human rights&#33;

If the law does not allow a rastafarian to comsume and sell cannabis on religious grounds then why should it protect the rights of murders, rapists and nonces.

Edit: Sorry about the very vaugue reference but a case like this did come up in the UK a few years back.