Compassion with pedophiles?

[BobCox]

I think the posession of child porn is almost as bad as engaging in sex with children yourself - but in this case, no real children have been harmed.

I would have no idea what is required in order to do research into this area. While I consider child porn to be very offensive, and completely support the idea of it being illegal, I do understand the possibility of a "wrong click". That said, I can't remember hearing of a person being prosecuted for having an instance of child porn on their computer, it is typically numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of images on their computer.

Don't think of it as a "looking crime". Think of it as a possession crime. There are plenty of things that are illegal to possess. One of them is child porn.

In fact the link I posted last shows what seems to be a pretty clear case where although he admitted to accessing "Looking" at it for as research into a paper to be written on the subject, (and it seems pretty clear this was in fact the case after just a little checking of the background) yet in spite of this and the FACT that no actual images were found (see below or the link in the first post made before the comments above were posted). Yet he still is arrested and ends up being listed as a registered sex offender! The fact of possession has nothing to do with intent and in this case they don't even show possession.

"Townshend was nabbed in January on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, though no such photos were found following a search of his home and computer. At the time of his arrest, Townshend admitted using his credit card to visit a web site offering child porn, but told cops he was just conducting research. Along with being placed on the sex offender registry, the performer had to submit a DNA sample to police and have his fingerprints and mug shot taken. As part of his "research project," Townshend drafted the below six-page treatise on the easy availability of child pornography on the Internet."

This is a Classic Catch22 type of case. Am I really the only one here bothered by this? "Who" are you people?

 

[LunarSolaris]

I think I could muster up some sympathy for pedophiles who work very hard to not act on their thoughts and impulses. At least, I can admire that they have not done so... even though I don't understand the desires they have.

Molesters and those that act on their thoughts is another story. I have no sympathy toward a person that would act on their thoughts and I would advocate for the harshest punishments.

Sadly, there is a very fine line between the two individuals.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Townshend's excuse is a bit shady. Four(?) years of research for a 6 page paper? You'd think he would have at least alerted the authorities beforehand or something.

If you're going to do something illegal for research purposes, you should own up to it when caught. Or get permission from law enforcement ahead of time. He still had the intent to possess child pornography. Possession of child pornography is a crime. Therefore, he had the intent to commit the crime.

Otherwise, you tell every offender to claim that the material is for "research" purposes and they won't have to worry about the law.

 

[BobCox]

Did the research and the only access shown both in 1999, did not publish the paper but had a draft written then, did not have any images or further access to the site. Then busted in 2002 and published the paper (1 of several he published). What am I missing?

 

[toader]

What am I missing?

AJ's last two paragraphs apparently.

 

[kobold]

In fact the link I posted last shows what seems to be a pretty clear case where although he admitted to accessing "Looking" at it for as research into a paper to be written on the subject, (and it seems pretty clear this was in fact the case after just a little checking of the background) yet in spite of this and the FACT that no actual images were found (see below or the link in the first post made before the comments above were posted). Yet he still is arrested and ends up being listed as a registered sex offender! The fact of possession has nothing to do with intent and in this case they don't even show possession.

Well, I do wonder if you have bothered to look any further into the case. This was an interesting read on it. Basically, my understanding of his defense is that he "stumbled" across child porn once, was horrified, then instead of talking to someone about it, chose to investigate it further on his own, "researching" how easy it is to access. Average joe blow. Pretty sure that were I to do the same thing, using such a defense, I'd be HAMC's girlfriend in prison by now.

As mentioned in the linked article,

"What he has done is incredible naivety at best."

He said there were many authorities trying to combat porn on the internet, so individuals did not have to do "something illegal" to do so.

"There are proper places to go, including the police. It is not something for people to undertake themselves,"

Am I really the only one here bothered by this? "Who" are you people?

I get the impression that you'd be amongst the minority here in the position that you've taken. "Stumbling" upon it may happen (I've never stumbled upon it), but using your credit card to buy it (illegal) under the guise of "research" is a very poor choice for an individual. Ignorance is not a defense.

 

[BobCox]

OK - I really don't think He was doing anything but research - you can find pro and con articles out there on that (heres a list with some of both types http://www.petetownshendisinnocent.com/) but Thats my take.
It's a good case to look as his Fame made it get a lot of attention.
I think that worked against him but you can argue it both ways.
My point is that I feel a "You cannot look at this subject" laws are stupid in the extreme, Right from God doing it with Adam and Eve on so to speak.
Even worse when its right there to look at a few clicks away, and If I'm Not turned on by it how is my viewing it a Crime? (in a moral sense, as a response that its because "The Majority" passed a law does not cut it with me)
Why not go for the place the harm is done - the producers of acts that are shown in the images and those that sell and share them?

 

[kobold]

My point is that I feel a "You cannot look at this subject" laws are stupid in the extreme, Right from God doing it with Adam and Eve on so to speak.

I'm not going to take away your right to think that way. :wink3: Feel free to lobby to change such laws if you feel that way. Good luck though.

Even worse when its right there to look at a few clicks away, and If I'm Not turned on by it how is my viewing it a Crime?

Do you agree that there is harm caused by the creation of these images? If so, doesn't it then follow that the removal of the consumer will reduce/eliminate the production, thereby (hopefully) reducing the harm these people cause?

Why not go for the place the harm is done - the producers of acts that are shown in the images and those that sell and share them?

How can it be known that Mr. Townshend himself didn't share the images he paid for? There was no trace of the images on his computer, two or three years after the fact. Only indication that he purchased them. No telling what happened to them in the interim.

I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a lot of effort in going after the producers of such material. I like to believe that there is. That said, I think a program that includes targeting users has the highest likelihood of having a positive impact.

 

[BobCox]

Well it's worked so well for taking care of Prostitution and Potheads It can't help but work here as well.

 

[kobold]

Well it's worked so well for taking care of Prostitution and Potheads It can't help but work here as well.

What a rational and well-thought out retort. I concede.


______________________________

I've made an honest effort to debate this and hold my revulsion in check. I'm done.

 

[BobCox]

What a rational and well-thought out retort. I concede.
______________________________

I've made an honest effort to debate this and hold my revulsion in check. I'm done.

Thanks - It was fun, FYI I sometimes like to take a Devils Advocate position (like Toader) and my hope was to provoke thought on the subject.
I Think that if you review my posts in this thread my position is pretty clear on the general subject and in agreement with yours.

To get off of that horse now that we have both ridden it to death and onto another in the topic here.

I do think that as with most things cultural Bias plays a big role that people ignore, in many cultures in the past and even in the present sex at young ages (ones that would qualify as child molestation now) was the norm not the exception and accepted if done in accordance with the society's mores.
On the other Hand true Child Molestation was a crime in most as well.

How do we draw the lines now?
What factors/rules define it where each of you lives?
Age alone or Physical maturity factors, Does the Age of both involved count? A 15 and a 17 year old for example? And What about the Gender if the 17 year old is the female vs the male?

Or pictures where the model isn't a minor but dresses/behaves like one.

The area is so grey in places, there are areas that are CLEARLY child porn and others that only allude to it. Where a line is to be drawn is something that needs sensible discussion.

 

[Dondrei]

I don't think child porn really is that easy to access, I've never seen any and I must've been to every shonky pornsite on the planet.

Then again, maybe it's just that other kinds of porn distance themselves from it.

Townshend's excuse is a bit shady. Four(?) years of research for a 6 page paper?

I thought that myself.

On the other hand maybe he does his research with the same amount of commitment I do.

 

[snowieken]

I don't think child porn really is that easy to access, I've never seen any and I must've been to every shonky pornsite on the planet.

In my early internet days I was surfing through all kinds of porn as well (hey, I was about 17-18, it's natural) and this one time I stumbled upon a website featuring pics of naked 6-8 year olds in all kinds of challenging positions. I was absolutely horrified, I reported that website immediately and a few days later it was nowhere to be found anymore.

I don't think I looked for porn again for the next few months. The image of these kids with their legs spread are still burned on my mind somehow, I was pretty lucky I didn't see pictures of fat hairy guys actually molesting them...

 

[Dondrei]

From what I've heard child porn is quickly removed from the internet for the most part, mostly it's circulated in porn rings so you have to be in the in crowd or whatever. Also I think it's a lot easier to find pictures of naked or scantily-clad kids (some of which are just taken by neighbourhood pervs and the children haven't actually been abducted or anything) than actual porn, I mean apart from the risk of being caught there's the fact that that stuff isn't easy to come by so surely they don't go around distributing it for nothing.

 

[mince pies]

In my early internet days I was surfing through all kinds of porn as well (hey, I was about 17-18, it's natural) and this one time I stumbled upon a website featuring pics of naked 6-8 year olds in all kinds of challenging positions. I was absolutely horrified, I reported that website immediately and a few days later it was nowhere to be found anymore.

I don't think I looked for porn again for the next few months. The image of these kids with their legs spread are still burned on my mind somehow, I was pretty lucky I didn't see pictures of fat hairy guys actually molesting them...

And what if, horror of horrors, someone were to go onto your computer and discover that illicit website in your history? :shocked:

 

[Dondrei]

He could say he was doing research for a book.

 

[BobCox]

He could say he was doing research for a book.

Thread goes Round and round - kind of like a certain guitar players style

 

[Elvinlord]

Long read ahead.

This thread will probably open up a huge can of worms. Also, the following quote might be a bit inappropriate - I'll just try to keep it civilized. And, this thread being controversial, I trust you guys to do the same.

I recently listened to a piece of a Dutch stand up comedian. He is known to shock people with his theater and is often adressing hot issues, and adressing them in a way no one else would do publically - satire at its best. I heard a piece called "Pedo" and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. I think it is very much worth taking the effort to translate, so here is a transcript of the piece, roughly translated from Dutch (and note, he is only acting, playing a certain part... he is not really thinking this way):

Of course this transcript can't really bring over the feeling you get when you actually hear him performing. While people were laughing at certain fragments, after this monologue was over, the audience was entirely silent. After a few seconds of total silence, a huge ovation broke loose.

In my opinion, pedophilia, however despicable, is something people can be a victim of. It's like a disease: you can't help getting it. More like a mental disease even, one can't help feeling this way. It's when a pedophile acts upon his "dark wishes", that's when it turns into the despicable crime of child molesting, in my opinion. But this piece by this stand up comedian has made me realize it is a very tragic thing to bear. People who feel this way definately need professional help, no question about that, but they do not belong in jail.

What do you think? Should we somehow feel compassionate, or is pedophilia in itself - without actually molesting children - a horrendous crime?

Also quite curious to hear what you think of this piece...

I suppose the only reason you would say that you think these people should be commended is that they are 'stopping themselves' from doing something like that? I think that is the gist of what you are saying...am i right?

Well ask the same thing from a parent and you would get a different response. If one day you have kids (Inshallah!), your opinion on this matter would take a 180 change in direction. I assure you my friend.

Response to your point made : I dont think I should be given a medal at the end of the day just because, I got home and managed to avoid killing all the pedestrians on the road.

 

[Johnny]

I dont think I should be given a medal at the end of the day just because, I got home and managed to avoid killing all the pedestrians on the road.

Thats very different. For alot of pedophiles thier whole body is screaming for them to do it with kids and every day can be a struggle so they get a few points for fighting off the urges because they know that it's wrong.


Im surprised they didnt just move to a muslim country and bang children like it's 570 AD again.

 

[WildBerry]

Im surprised they didnt just move to a muslim country and bang children like it's 570 AD again.

No country was Moslem back in the 570s. :shocked: