Printable View
Zero tolerance is bull shit! Everything isn't black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation.Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@20 April 2004 - 19:46
Nope.
Zero Tolerance is Zero Tolerance.
Most things I can be malleable on but fuck that.
I'd be intersted to know of her upbringing.
Zero tolerance is bull shit! Everything isn't black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by dwightfry+21 April 2004 - 17:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry @ 21 April 2004 - 17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@20 April 2004 - 19:46
Nope.
Zero Tolerance is Zero Tolerance.
Most things I can be malleable on but fuck that.
I'd be intersted to know of her upbringing.
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.
So paedophilia, in some cases, is acceptable? Physical abuse of children, in some cases, is acceptable?Wife-beating, in some cases, is acceptable?
Fuck that. I won't tolerate it. Good luck to you if you can.
Chalice-
You make a good point; all cases such as result in the "culprit" being apprehended should be adjudicated-the punishment/treatment can and should fit the circumstances, though, as I think Renfield is trying to get across.
This is obviously not a run-of-the-mill incident, but whatever the outcome, there ought to be a punitive as well as a therapeutic aspect to the ultimate disposition of this case. ;)
So as far as you're concerned there is no difference between someone who posts pictures of a 7 year old being raped and this 15 year old girl?Quote:
Originally posted by chalice
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.
Common sense dictates that the punishment should fit the crime. Treating this girl as if she is a hardcore paedophile is not common sense. Why? Because she's clearly not a hardcore paedophile, just a silly teenage girl.
Think about it for a moment.
In a few years time she's going to start looking for a job, and as far as a future employer is concerned she's a peadophile and a danger to children!
Considering the crime, that punishment is completely ridiculous.
Being charged as a peadophile/child pornographer could ruin her life and maybe even drive her into doing stuff like this again for money, okay she's done something wrong but she didn't do it to anybody else. I think she should be charged with something but not a child pornographer. :blink:
So as far as you're concerned there is no difference between someone who posts pictures of a 7 year old being raped and this 15 year old girl?Quote:
Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 18:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 April 2004 - 18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.
Common sense dictates that the punishment should fit the crime. Treating this girl as if she is a hardcore paedophile is not common sense. Why? Because she's clearly not a hardcore paedophile, just a silly teenage girl.
Think about it for a moment.
In a few years time she's going to start looking for a job, and as far as a future employer is concerned she's a peadophile and a danger to children!
Considering the crime, that punishment is completely ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
Leftism,
When has the punishment ever fitted the crime with regards to child abuse? She has been charged not convicted. I'm willing to bet she hasn't been remanded.
This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).
I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge. Laughable sentences are regularly handed down to child abusers anyway so I can't see her doing much porridge.
There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.
As for ruining her future, I 'm sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).
They can have sex and they can video tape it.Quote:
Originally posted by masta.z@21 April 2004 - 14:52
when she's 16 (in britain) she can have sex, she can videotape herself and her bf having sex and they can watch it all they want... but sending it to other people over the internet and it suddenly becomes illegal? somehow that doesn't make sense to me. If it's of herself then it's harming nobody atall, so why should she be punished?
Legally they cant watch it, as its porn, and you need to be 18 to watch porn.
I think there was actually a case of the 17 year old Star of an X Rated movie (shows how long ago it was) being refused permission to go to the Premier of her own movie by the courts, depite the fact it was X rated because of the Love scene she starred in.... (Off Thread: In my opinion it shouldnt even have been an X Rated, you didnt "see" anything, but things were stricter here then)
If im correct, then in many States this young lady can marry and have children. To give her a Criminal Record as a "Sex Offender" for this is ludicrous.
If someone else had taken the photographs, then the book should be thrown at them.
If there are adults that watched her cam, then the book should be thrown at them.
She just needs a clip around the ear by her parents and the PC taken off her.
Next post isnīt ment as controversial, to make it clear iīm totally against childpronography and sexual abuse in any way.
----------------------------On this topic-----------------------------------------------------
This is just stupid. It's a clear case to me where fear of... has become a bigger danger then the real aspect of a deed.
It's quite simple society changes and techniques are there for everyone to make photo's and print that, or publish it on the net. This child used the easy acces of these techniques to do something that probably isn't wise and for sure wasn't thought over well... someone should have a good nice decent educating talk with her and then let it all go... why? Cause it's a child that just did something daring she's probably discovering herself and all the exciting of sex.. That's called puberty... Everyone that grows up is in a discovering fase and probably sometimes does things that are not really wise and even later may regret.
Let me make it clear that everyone that abuses people for sex are wrong, especially when itīs kids. If they get caught they should get trialled.
But if simple nude pictures of a child are chilpornography i know a lot of mums that could be arrested for having that. There are millions of moms all over the world that have pics of their nude babys and their children taking a bath or playing in a pool in the garden... ;) including my own dear mom...
Also wondering if a tape or webcamsex of a fifteen your old intended to be seen by another 15 year old is childpornograpghy... Or when two fifteen year olds undress themselves in front of eachother and have sex, do they have sex with a minor then...
btw, iīm guilty as charged for the last part... luckily for me itīs been more then 25 years ago so the moralty knights canīt prosecute me anymore...
What worries me is the obsession of some when it comes to childpornography, iīm online a lot, i surf the net for the past few years, iīm participate filesharing for a few years now. And i never have encountered childpornography, why, cause i ainīt searching for that. I wonīt deny itīs probably out there but you also can find plans for making bombs. I also know that there are some peope that get of on childpornography, with wich i totally disagree... but reading a topic like this iīm asking myself who would be watching if they had a webadres of a beautifull 16 year old playing with herself on a webcam... alot that complain would be thrilled to see it... They probably donīt realise theyīre watching childpornography.
Btw i wouldnīt, in the first place probably cause i ainīt lookin for that sort of webentertainment so i only would know itīs there if i read about a innocent stupid girl that getīs prosecuted in a post on a forum like this ;)
I guess that all the media attention on these issues have done wrong, more people are getting curious in finding this stuff and watch it before they report it....
as i started my post: This is just stupid. It's a clear case to me where fear of... has become a bigger danger then the real aspect of a deed.
Quote:
Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).
I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge.[/b]
Of course it should be investigated., but the charges she is facing are ridiculous. I don't understand how any rational person can believe they are appropriate in this case.
Is she really a child pornographer? (In the moral sense not the technical sense) Is she really a child abuser? Of course not.
At most she should be charged with indecency.
I thought you said there was no grey area?Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@
There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.
If you add up the minimum sentence for each charge, she's looking at a loong time in jail. The judge isn't going to have much leeway. If she is found guilty she's not going to get a sentence that will reflect the crime.
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
As for ruining her future, I 'm sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).[/quote]
A ruined life for a mistake you made when you were 15 and didn't even hurt anybody?
That's not justice.
Quote:
Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 20:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 April 2004 - 20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).
I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge.[/b]
Of course it should be investigated., but the charges she is facing are ridiculous. I don't understand how any rational person can believe they are appropriate in this case.
Is she really a child pornographer? (In the moral sense not the technical sense) Is she really a child abuser? Of course not.
At most she should be charged with indecency.
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice@
There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.
I thought you said there was no grey area?
If you add up the minimum sentence for each charge, she's looking at a loong time in jail. The judge isn't going to have much leeway. If she is found guilty she's not going to get a sentence that will reflect the crime.
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
As for ruining her future, I 'm sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).[/quote]
A ruined life for a mistake you made when you were 15 and didn't even hurt anybody?
That's not justice. [/b][/quote]
I can't agree. Reportedly, there were dozens of images. If it was a silly mistake by a fifteen year old, it was an ongoing one.
Should children then have free rein? Does her immaturity absolve her even if she is a conscious, sexual being?
I think the charges should stick. I do not, however, think she should be tried as an adult. What other option do the police have? She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word. She is clearly not a paedophile. However, who did she distribute these images to? Was it other children? If so she is abusing children. Was it to adults? If so, they are also abusing children and she is assisting them. She is also clearly not an adult. So she should be tried according to legislation provided for minors.
If she doesn't reoffend with in five years (with a juvenile record, I believe) her record will be scrubbed.