dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2694
share rss forum feed


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

[Serious] On child porn...

I know that sometimes distribution of child pornography is seen as a lesser crime. Often in Canada the punishment is minimal. What I think gets forgotten is that there's a real child at the start of the process. And understanding that women can be just as brutal as men when it comes to mistreatment of children.

»yhoo.it/18XfBp7


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Lets see what bullshit sentence these two get...
--



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
Well simple possession is somewhere between (minimum) 45 days in BC. In the link below the crown wanted 6 months. As I say, I think sometimes people forget that the above story is how the porn is originally made.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c···.1294955

PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2013-03-10
Graustark
kudos:7
reply to A Lurker

Two Regina women have admitted to assaulting a little girl with a hammer, a frying pan, an extension cord and a high-heeled shoe.

Jesus.

I hope that the other inmates will repay them in kind. Seriously.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
said by PX Eliezer:

I hope that the other inmates will repay them in kind. Seriously.

I hope so too. Stories like this is why I sometimes tend to avoid the news. As a college student I worked as a temp typing up reports for the local children's aid. It was depressing what some people did to their kids. Abuse runs the gamut of all social groups as well.


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
reply to A Lurker
Sick.
It seems that they are related (based on the publication ban), that makes it even sicker.

jaberi

join:2010-08-13

1 edit
reply to A Lurker
you right......then there is this one, Lund's daddy is an OPP officer.

»www.edmontonsun.com/2013/10/25/m···-charges


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
Hey, at least give them credit for actually investigating and then arresting him.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
nm dupe


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

Hey, at least give them credit for actually investigating and then arresting him.

Getting someone into custody and laying charges is a mere fraction of the process. Let's wait and see what actually happens at the trial before we give anyone credit for anything.
Expand your moderator at work

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to jaberi

Re: [Serious] On child porn...

said by jaberi:

you right......then there is this one, Lund's daddy is an OPP officer.

»www.edmontonsun.com/2013/10/25/m···-charges

I read that one yesterday after my friend who lives in Orillia posted it to her facebook wall...

If convicted, prosecutors have already said they'll be looking for the dangerous offender status applied (like Bernardo).
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

jaberi

join:2010-08-13
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

Hey, at least give them credit for actually investigating and then arresting him.

i do give them credit where it is due, when it comes to kids they are fairly quick to put a surveillance...... the days of father john and silence from your local parish are gone....
they win some and loose some, even after doing through investigation the judge may not be on their side.....

where they seem to be lacking/dragging feet/trying to sweep under the rug is; sexual harassment, rape, and women who complain about their force...


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to A Lurker
IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children....

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

As I say, I think sometimes people forget that the above story is how the porn is originally made.

Nobody forgets it but people should not be responsible for crimes they have not committed.

Should a person found in possession of a small amount of drugs be charged for the production with intent to distribute?

That's why there's different charges for the production of child pornography, it's distribution and it's possession. If they're guilty of producing it the penalties are very different. If they're not they should be responsible for it.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children....

When I was called for jury selection recently (I was rejected), I dreaded that the case would involve children. I don't think I could have handled that. Luckily, it turned out to be a nice, clean murder case.

It's a bit interesting that I find a murder trial involving adults to be much less disturbing than a non-murder trial involving children.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Nobody forgets it but people should not be responsible for crimes they have not committed.

Should a person found in possession of a small amount of drugs be charged for the production with intent to distribute?

You're comparing two things that don't make sense. It's the head in the sand approach. Nobody collecting child porn can seriously tell themselves it's okay because they didn't hurt the child directly. Someone's child was harmed, quite different from say buying pot from your buddy growing it in his basement.

Yes, drugs do an amazing amount of harm to groups of people. However, there are potentially non-harmful production methods. Not so with child porn. Your example is more like buying clothing made in third-world countries. There's a pretty good chance that someone was exploited, but not a guarantee.


AppleGuy
Premium
join:2013-09-08
Canada
reply to PX Eliezer
People like this are put into "protective custody" unless a prison guard "accidentally on purpose" makes a mistake on the paper work. "PC??? I thought I read GP"

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

You're comparing two things that don't make sense. It's the head in the sand approach. Nobody collecting child porn can seriously tell themselves it's okay because they didn't hurt the child directly. Someone's child was harmed, quite different from say buying pot from your buddy growing it in his basement.

It doesn't make sense to you only because you choose to judge the situation through emotions rather than fact.

The FACT is that the person found in possession of child pornography did not produce it. They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography but the person found in possession of it did not commit that offense, someone else did.

Is possession bad? Yes, that's why it's a criminal offense. Is it AS BAD as production? No. That's why it's a different offense, with different sentencing guidelines.

You may wish to argue that sentencing for possession should be higher and I don't think many people will disagree with you. If you want to argue that people "forget" about the child or that sentencing for possession should be the same as production then most people will tune you out as nothing but an emotional nut job.


ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to A Lurker
»en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_C···nography

the sentences are a joke.

People who get busted for possession of pot get heavier sentences.......ludicrous.
--
Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupidity.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography

'cause there are nice child porn producers? It's not emotion, it's logic. Someone violated a child to make the porn. Collectors / buyers are just encouraging them to do it again.

Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

The FACT is that the person found in possession of child pornography did not produce it. They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography but the person found in possession of it did not commit that offense, someone else did.

But the fact that there are customers willing to pay for child porn is what drives the production of the vast majority of child porn. If the market for child porn were to disappear, there would be fewer children harmed because there would be less demand for the "product", and fewer "someone else's" would make the child porn.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
said by Walter Dnes:

But the fact that there are customers willing to pay for child porn is what drives the production of the vast majority of child porn. If the market for child porn were to disappear, there would be fewer children harmed because there would be less demand for the "product", and fewer "someone else's" would make the child porn.

...and yet, those people don't actually produce child pornography, so they can't be held responsibly for it being produced. Just like the dude with a few grams of pot can't be held responsible for every grow op out there.

Again, that's why it's mere possession is still a criminal offense, but it cannot be considered as "bad" or be subject to the same sentences.

Are car manufacturers responsible for dangerous drivers? If they didn't manufacture the car the dangerous driver couldn't drive dangerously. That kind of emotional, irrational "logic" is a progressive's wet dream. Put the blame on everybody but the person responsible for a bad action. That's also why we've got so many stupid, useless laws.

PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2013-03-10
Graustark
kudos:7
Reviews:
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·Callcentric

1 recommendation

said by IamGimli:

Are car manufacturers responsible for dangerous drivers? If they didn't manufacture the car the dangerous driver couldn't drive dangerously....

Now that's [really] a stretch.

Automobiles are legitimate products widely used.

Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever.


Spike
Premium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

1 edit

said by PX Eliezer See Profile
Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever.

The entertainment industry often uses it as a way to launder their censorship policies.
If the infrastructure is there to block child porn, it can be used to block anything else.

This is exactly what is going on in the U.K. right now.
The ISP's tried to argue that it was too cost prohibitive to maintain and continually update a blacklist,
but the IFPI/BPI called them out on "Project Cleanfeed" as a currently working example,
which forced them to use it to block anything else that wasn't child porn.

Theres a reason why child porn gets brought up by the entertainment industry as frequently as it does when crying about P2P filesharing.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:

Now that's [really] a stretch.

Automobiles are legitimate products widely used.

Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever.

Just as much of a stretch as the "possessors are responsible for the producers" argument.

I bet some of your family pictures qualify under the technical definition of child pornography. Do you think we should put you in jail? The only reason people don't get prosecuted for those is because of the power of reservation police officers and Crown prosecutors have.

Besides the "legitimate products widely used" argument is a logical fallacy anyway. Things that are morally wrong are wrong no matter the number of people doing it, or not. The victim of a dangerous driver is just as needlessly dead as the victim of a drive-by shooting, or the victim of a murder-suicide, or the victim of a negligent drowning.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
said by IamGimli:

said by PX Eliezer:

Now that's [really] a stretch.

Automobiles are legitimate products widely used.

Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever.

Just as much of a stretch as the "possessors are responsible for the producers" argument.

I bet some of your family pictures qualify under the technical definition of child pornography. Do you think we should put you in jail? The only reason people don't get prosecuted for those is because of the power of reservation police officers and Crown prosecutors have.

Besides the "legitimate products widely used" argument is a logical fallacy janyway. Things that are morally wrong are wrong no matter the number of people doing it, or not. The victim of a dangerous driver is just as needlessly dead as the victim of a drive-by shooting, or the victim of a murder-suicide, or the victim of a negligent drowning.

Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic....

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
said by vue666:

Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic....

Colour me un-surprised. Your "logic" is nothing but emotions, just like the poster I was responding to.

said by vue666:

IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children....



vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
said by IamGimli:

said by vue666:

Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic....

Colour me un-surprised. Your "logic" is nothing but emotions, just like the poster I was responding to.

said by vue666:

IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children....

And you are suggesting that it is a victimless crime, which it certainly is NOT!!!!

PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2013-03-10
Graustark
kudos:7
1+