OT: You Might Be An Idiot If

[Baron Munchausen]

You know, when you check out the people who get involved in 'kiddie porn' you usually find that they were abused themselves. Maybe a lot of people need help rather than more abuse? The revenge model of 'justice' has never solved any problems. Back when everything from picking pockets to stealing a loaf of bread was punishable by hanging it didn't affect the crime rate. People committed those crimes out of necessity. Changing the conditions of society is what reduced the crime rate. Similarly, I think it would be far more productive to get people treatment for their sick sexual behaviors than to torture and mutilate them. Not only for the actual 'perps' but for society as a whole.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
we should do something with the pedophiles other than just letting them rot in prison - either get them into government-funded psychotherapy, or mercifully euthanize them!

They are grown-ups. They are responsible for their actions. And statistics have clearly indicated, for some years now, that they don't take to treatment.

To be fair, it would be more exact to say that our current approach for treatment has no long term effect on a pedophile. This isn't like an alcoholic, where they will always be an alcoholic but can stop drinking. These people statistically will continue to act on their pedophiliac urges.

Perhaps we will come up with better forms of treatment in the future.

Euthanasia does not fit into how we would like to view ourselves. But don't feel down, these guys don't tend to Last long in prison. When it's time to hurt someone on general purposes, 'Chester' is the first punk-**s b***h on almost everyone's list. He's a great target to use to prove to everyone else how mean you are, and isn't as dangerous as the snitch. Or so I've been told.

[Saber Cherry]

Did I ever say kiddie porn was victimless? It's not. The illegal drug industry is also not victimless. In either case, there are lots of evil people that have revoked their right to be considered human.

But also, in each case, there are end-user addicts who are not hurting anyone, don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and pose no danger to society. Crack is filthy, and child porn is filthy... in my opinion. But I don't see how society is helped by tossing people in jail for being addicted to one or the other. If everyone with an abnormal tendancy was tossed in jail, there wouldn't be anyone left to work.

Of course, crack can be dangerous to other people, so people in important places (military, police, medical, pilot/driver, and so forth) should be thrown in jail for using it - because they ARE a threat to society. But jail is a place for reform, and if someone likes kiddie porn, tossing him into jail isn't going to change that. Unless there is some reason to believe that they actually PRODUCE said porn, or have a realistic chance of attempting to abuse an actual child, there's no justification for jailing them. You just get into a Big Brother situation, saying, "Ok, Bob has a collection of naked cupids that look like naked children, but have wings. He's OK. Joe cut the wings off his collection of naked cupids, so they are no longer cute and Christian, so he's a disgusting pedophile and goes to jail for 125 years. Dan read a book that contains explicit child abuse, but it's a national bestseller, so that's OK. Pete is writing a book that contains explicit child abuse, and we find that it is not of national-bestseller quality, so into the slammer with him." And so forth. See what I'm getting at? Just because there are crimes and victims, doesn't mean that everyone associated with a concept should go to jail.

-Cherry

Edit:

Ok, I changed my mind a little. I guess anyone who collects and enjoys looking at child porn is a danger to society. I certainly would not want to live near somebody like that. But I like the idea of a thought police even less. People's thoughts, interests, and activites should be private until they start hurting others. It would be nice to live in a society where future sex criminals could be identified at birth and destroyed, but that's not possible. So we have to choose one of 3 things.

1) Jail people who commit real crimes.
2) Have the thought police jail people who do suspicious things like collect child porn, which indicate that they might commit a real crime in the future, just because they MIGHT commit a real crime.
3) Label activites like collecting child porn as crimes, just because you find them disgusting, even though the act of collecting and viewing child porn does not actually hurt anyone.

I vote for option 1, because I like a free society, even though we'd all be safer from child molesters with options 2 or 3. Heck, we could execute XYY males at birth because they're 10X as likely as XY males to commit felonies, but I don't see any of you cheering for that.

[ October 16, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You know, when you check out the people who get involved in 'kiddie porn' you usually find that they were abused themselves. Maybe a lot of people need help rather than more abuse? The revenge model of 'justice' has never solved any problems. Back when everything from picking pockets to stealing a loaf of bread was punishable by hanging it didn't affect the crime rate. People committed those crimes out of necessity. Changing the conditions of society is what reduced the crime rate. Similarly, I think it would be far more productive to get people treatment for their sick sexual behaviors than to torture and mutilate them. Not only for the actual 'perps' but for society as a whole.

Dead set spot on.

Todays victims are tommorrows perpetrators.

Violence begets violence.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Plus lots of other true cliche's

Just because someone does something awful, this does not excuse us for sinking to a similar level, or justify inhumane acts on our part as an act of revenge.

The point is to act in such a way as makes things better.

Violence, retribution, revenge, lack of understanding - none of these achieve this aim. They only make things worse. We throw criminals into a brutal jail system where they become more violent and more criminal. Then we let them out, and give them very limited opportunities outside of crime. In what world does that make sense?

It does not come naturally to treat someone who has done something awful with compassion, but often this is the only way to make things better. Contrary to popular belief, then, compassion takes far more courage than revenge.

To quote the Song 'Where is the love?'

[edit:grammar]

[ October 16, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Erax]

I have to agree with Cherry, the problem is where to draw the line, how to decide what is tolerable (I won't say acceptable) and what is not. And what degree of punishment to apply in each case.

Edit / quote :

Compassion takes far more courage than revenge.

"The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

[ October 16, 2003, 17:52: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Saber Cherry]

Here's another one. The gem trade in Africa is the source of funding for many of Africa's bloody, seemingly permanent wars. The gems are bought by big companies and sold in jewelry in civilized countries where we don't have gem wars.

So, should people that buy emerald rings or diamond bracelets be jailed, because they are funding wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year? Or is that activity OK, because we all buy - or know someone who has bought - jewelry?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
But also, in each case, there are end-user addicts who are not hurting anyone, don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and pose no danger to society.

But they are, and though they might not want to, they do pose this danger.

For one thing, as I said, allowing this to circulate only encourages it's production. The new circulation possibilities that opened up with the internet caused a huge surge in the world of kiddie-porn. To stop it's circulation, you have to do everything you can not only to attack production, but also to attack the consumer base.

Secondly, the more this stuff goes unpunished, the more these addicts are allow to congregate (in reality or virtually), the more then feel that their urges and acts are acceptable. This occurs with any behavior. No matter how wrong something is, if you are around people who do it long enough, it won't seem as wrong. 'Long enough' is not that long if it's something you do to.

Finally, these people are not addicted to looking at pictures or movies of terrible acts, they are addicted to the 'kick', the rush they get off these things. They never get the same kick off something that they did when they saw it for the first time, so they are constantly searching for new materiel. Eventually, this leads a lot of them into new behaviors in the 'real world' to get their kicks. You show someone who molests other people's children but who does not have child pornography, and I'll show you a blind or luddite child molester.

Now, about the drugs. The same "acceptance and demand" agreement fits, only more so. Unlike pornography, which can be reproduced endlessly, these things are consumables, so the more demand, the more will be produced, the more extra will be produced, the more will end up in new places hurting new people, and the more money and power the drug lords will get.

Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

Typically, someone gets hit with some moving violation, domestic disturbance, or some such and the cop figures that they're on something. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's not. But unless they're driving a car or on probation for something else stupid they did the cop can't demand a blood test. If they're in public, they get off with public intoxication, which is dumb enough on it's own. If it's in their house, nothing happens.

Now, the same thing can happen for possession. The cop has to have a reason to hassle them in the first place. If you don't want anyone to know you have drugs, don't act like a drug user. Don't dress like one. Don't talk like one. It's easy for the serious user. Don't do stupid things like getting in fights, shoplifting, or selling in public while your have your drugs on you.

The catch is, meth-, coke- and even pot-heads do the stupid stuff all the time. There is a connection between drug use and disorderly, uncivilized, law-breaking behavior. Of course, that same connection extends to alcohol, but again, you don't get busted for being drunk. You get busted for being drunk and doing something stupid.