Man sentenced to 20 years for pictures on phone and inappropriately touching child

if this was a 16 year old sharing a nude picture with his\her 16 year old boyfriend is one thing, this is not that, 20 years is actually a light sentence

 

Yes, he was a threat, and now he serves as a living example of what can happen if you take that path.

Having said that, the US sentencing guidelines can be pretty weird, like a Florida woman getting 15 years for firing a warning shot when she was being harassed/attacked.

 

Seems to me the guy established a pattern of behavior. It seems He committed a felony with the girl he assaulted Yes, it was a sexual assault- he touched her sexually after being asked to stop, then removed the pool ladder when she tried to escape his unwanted advances.

If he were trading kiddie porn for other kiddie porn he would be one of the victimizers. People rarely do illegal stuff for strangers with absolutely no incentive. The idea that there was no money changing hands does not extinguish the idea of a quid pro quo in this case.

In the case of your hypothetical friend and his wife, unless she were willing to show you her body personally, then you are indeed violating her right to privacy even if she never finds out. Nor would you ever be sure that she would never find out.

I have no problem with this guy's sentence. In fact, I think we should put him in a hole then throw away the hole. He is beneath contempt. He is a menace to society, especially to kids.

 

I think you are mischaracterizing what happened a little bit.

It's not entirely clear whether when he was told to "stop", that meant setting her down and not throwing her into the pool, or not using his hand to hold her that way.

I also think it is somewhat of mischaracterization to describe this as an obvious sexual assault. Inappropriate, yes, but also something that could have been seen (at least at the time it happened) as an innocent mistake (holding the child the wrong way before throwing her into the pool).

It seems like this probably may not have been a blatant overt sexual act. The fact that there were other witnesses at this pool party, and none of those people and the parents decided to take the matter to police suggests that they did not see the act as being obviously sexual.

 

In other words your argument here is that having child porn should be seen as evidence of him victimizing children because he might have been making child porn to trade for the other child porn he got?

It really seems like you are just desperately looking for excuses to justify the opinion you already have.

The argument you have brought up there, while it might not be completely invalid, does seem like a bit of a stretch.

 

He was in the pool with her. She objected to his behavior. He removed the pool ladder so she couldn't escape. Are you seriously advancing the theory that it was a simple assault as opposed to a sexual assault? Especially in light of later information that came to light?

Wait, you're the guy who thinks that rape isn't rape unless it's forcible http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-in-prison-for-sex-with-a-13-year-old.590776
Especially if the kid is Black because they're oversexed anyway. Now you seem to want to claim it wasn't sexual if there was no penetration. All I can do is shake my head.

 

Did she object to his behavior while he was in the pool with her? Because that would be a completely different thing. I did not read that in the article.

 

Not necessarily making it. Trading what he has in order to get more, regardless of who made it. Either at the time of the transaction or at some later unspecified time. No matter how it was obtained, he still would be making victims of all the children involved.

Do I need to explain why kiddie porn is bad? Because that is the main thrust of my opinion.

 

Wait, so your argument is he is incentivizing the victimization of children because you think people will make child porn just to be able to trade it and get different child porn??

I suppose your argument there might theoretically be valid, but it seems really difficult to imagine anyone would make child porn just to get different child porn from someone else, and that they would otherwise have not done it if not for that reason.

Your logic does seem kind of contrived.

 

This is indeed the case. I reference paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the article.

Further, why would he remove the ladder to the pool unless she were trying to escape his unwanted attentions? This implies he touched her not once, but many times.

 

Why look at just your own small collection of porn, when if you show yours to someone else, they'll show what they have to you? It gives you both a larger collection. How is it contrived to think that the incentive is there for both sides or that the incentive was not necessarily monetary? Nor did I mean to imply that no one is making any money anywhere from kiddie porn.

Your idea that the only possible way he harmed those kids was if he paid money for the stuff seems the more contrived position to me.

 

I hate to go down this path because it is absurd, but your argument is there might be an individual who is making child porn who would not have made that child porn if they knew they could not trade it to get more child porn?? I'm pretty sure anyone who is going to make child porn is going to still do it regardless of whether they think they can trade it for more.

 

I also want to say I think there's a strong tendency in society for no one to want to openly defend these guys when there is something wrong or unjust, because no one wants to be seen as a pervert or associated with this type of thing. But I believe that is also the reason circumcision was allowed to go on for so long, because no one wanted to be associated with defending a child's genital integrity and be seen as a sexual pervert for even trying to publicly bring up the issue. And so the problem just went on.
Let me clarify that you can still very much be against child pornography, and even pornography in general, and yet still speak out against the absurd and illogical way society and the justice system deals with it.
I believe this is a moral issue, this is about right and wrong. If we were talking about people who rape other people, that would certainly be one thing, but that is not exactly what we are talking about here. If we are going to put people in prison for a long time, close to a lifetime, there had better be a just and logical reason for it. Saying "that person is a sick pervert and is a danger to society" is not an adequate reason.

This might be a novel concept to some, but maybe, just maybe, we should punish people only for the actual wrongs they do and the damage they cause. Because a lot of this sounds like "artificial wrongs" and very theoretical sorts of harm and damage.

And when you do that, YOU are worse than these sick perverts you think should be locked away.

 

My argument is if I bought porn from Al and you bought some from Bob and we traded those pics we would both have more porn. Or possibly you would front me some in the expectation I'd trade with someone else later, in which case I'd have porn and be out no money and you and the guy I traded with would both have more porn. Why wouldn't someone trade for more when it doesn't cost him a thing? He even get to keep what he has! The idea that there was a transaction of some type is not far-fetched. As far as I can recall, nobody has knocked on my door and offered me free illegal goods or services of any kind. It would have stuck in my memory, too. People just don't take that kind of risk without some kind of benefit.

This guy hay tens of thousands of pictures and thousands of videos. You think he paid for all that? Or do you think he made it? Maybe just kind of found it?

 

So your argument is an indirect argument.
You are saying that, if I trade porn with you, then I am incentivizing you buying that porn, because you are basically getting a "two for one deal", buy one piece of porn, get two, and so by me trading with you, I am indirectly helping to incentive you buying porn, and thus ultimately (in a very indirect sort of way) incentivizing that porn to be made, because you are paying money for it.

Do I understand your argument correctly?

Well, let's be completely fair here. Do you think it's fair to automatically assume he traded or spent money to get that porn?

It's also very possible these people were just giving it away for free.
There is evidence in fact that this man was, if you read the article.

 

People produce and trade child porn for different reasons. It can be for money or for trade or to promote and validate their belief in the rightness of pedophilia.

So regardless of the motive, when a person collects it, they are contributing to the demand for it. And by creating the demand for it, they are responsible for the victimization of those children.

The fact that there are severe punishments for these kinds of crimes is no secret. And yet he did it anyway. His choice, his consequence.

Experience teaches us that we can’t fix these people. But we can try to protect our children. Whenever we take one of these people out of circulation, we are protecting children.

 

Keeping people safe from criminals is indeed one of the reasons prisons exist. Punishment is another. This man is a menace. He has harmed society's weakest members. That harm need not be physical to be real. The wrongs he did are real. The dangers he presents are real.

I'm not advocating punishing him for crimes he may later commit. He is being punished for things he did in fact admit to. He has shown that he is a risk to the public. He has demonstrated that he is willing to harm society's most vulnerable members to gratify himself. That is inexcusable and unforgivable. He has made himself our enemy.

For civilization to exist there need to be rules. Those rules need to be enforced. He broke them and hurt kids in that breaking. Now he should face the enforcement end of the rules.

When you advocate allowing someone to molest children or possess kiddie porn because "it didn't do them any physical harm, and besides, they liked it," you are enabling child molestation and exploitation. YOU are a part of the problem.

 

It seems like you still haven't really strongly proved that.

Now you seem to be arguing for Legalism and utilitarianism over morality and justice.

Nowhere in my argument did I advocate for allowing someone to molest children.

I am just afraid you are drawing what is called an equivocation fallacy, characterizing something as "molestation" that is not exactly what the obvious insinuated meaning of "molestation" usually is.

This man should be punished for whatever he did wrong, but it should be proportionate to what he actually did do wrong, including the harm that we know for sure was actually caused.

 

We'll say for the sake of argument you do. For the moment.

Yes.

Direct my attention to those paragraphs. I've read the article twice, once for myself and once to refer you to specific parts of it, and didn't see that anywhere.

This entire line of argument is in fact without any real weight. This perv had the stuff. He hurt kids by having it, invading their privacy at the very least, incentivizing their abuse at worst. He knew it was wrong and admitted as much when he apologized. He knew it when he got it. He knew it as he kept it. He should be punished for it. It doesn't really matter how it was obtained, or whether there was profit of any kind involved.

If that idea offends you, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but not sorry for my attitude. I have daughters.

 

And do you also believe people should be put in prison if they are found to have a video of a woman having sex that was taken without her permission?

(Even if there's no evidence they were the one who is responsible for originally making the video, or stealing the video)

 

Saying that he should be punished for it is not the same as saying he should be punished with 20 years for it.

This seems like more the type of sentence that should be handed out to a rapist. (In fact many rapists have been punished with much less prison time)

 

Your argument seems a little inconsistent there.
First you say "He hurt kids by having it... incentivizing their abuse at worst."
Then you say it doesn't matter how it was obtained or whether there was any kind of profit involved.

Seems like it would matter, if you wanted to make that argument.

Then you resort to the ridiculous argument that "he knew it was wrong", therefore we should accept it as wrong also.

 

You deny that sexual abuse is real harm?

Morality and justice have as many meanings as there are people. We can agree on minimum standards of behavior, the reasons for those standards, and the consequences for not meeting those standards.

No, you just argue that they shouldn't be punished for the harm they do.

Bringing children together for one's own sexual gratification and the gratification of others is molestation in my book. So is causing it to happen. Incentivizing it is one way of causing it.

I say it is proportionate to the harm we know he did.

 

So let me understand this. If some sick pervert A did bad stuff to your daughters and took a picture of it, and made free pictures of that available, and then some other random stranger on the other side of the world (person B) downloaded those pictures, you would want that person B to spend years and years in prison?

 

It doesn't seem you have any specific evidence that his actions promoted or incentivized other people to commit abuse.

If we had some evidence to show that he paid or commissioned someone else to make children engage in sexual acts as part of a video, that would be different.