Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

  1. #11
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?
    There are certainly overpunishments involved and the automatic sentencing and listings can catch people up who are innocent as well. In general automatic punishments are a bad idea, there is a judge for a reason.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #12
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are certainly overpunishments involved and the automatic sentencing and listings can catch people up who are innocent as well. In general automatic punishments are a bad idea, there is a judge for a reason.
    Ah, but at the same time, if punishments are too different, people claim that's a result of discrimination, etc.

  3. #13
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,417

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?
    I would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.
    That entire thing disgusts me. I remember a few stories of ~19 year old guys with ~16 year girlfriends and the 19 year old was either beaten or killed by idiots who saw them on the sex offender registry. Other cases were less severe with such people being ostracized by their community. I don't believe public sex offender registries should exist period, but if they have to, people with crimes like public urination or having a hardly underage girlfriend should not be on the list.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I would categorize lumping the 19 yr old boy with a 16 yr old girlfriend, or the drunken 21 yr old college student who urinated in public, in with actual child molesters who actually molest children and categorizing them as such on public lists as excessive punishment, yes. And it's all due to unnecessary and wrongheaded emotionalism instead of a logical and reasonable thought process.
    Ill give you that. 19 with a 16 year old is wrong, but i dont think that is molestation. I think that is statutory rape. Difference I believe.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  6. #16
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,837

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Do you think it's only creating it that should be a crime? How about possessing it or selling it.
    Also crimes. Purchasing also, it furthers the "trade."

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    Ill give you that. 19 with a 16 year old is wrong, but i dont think that is molestation. I think that is statutory rape. Difference I believe.
    It's not even statutory rape in every state, but it will permanently land you on the sex offenders list. Forty years later, that guy has to inform his new neighbors that he's a sex offender, as far as I understand it. Or employers. Might as well tattoo a scarlet A on their foreheads. Yeah, that I'd say is excessive.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?
    They are sentenced and then have their rights restricted after their release. Yeah, I would call that excessive.

  8. #18
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    I like to surf image boards like 4chan. Sometimes there are douche bag, pedophiles who post child porn on them. The moderators delete it and report it to the police but the images could be stored in my cache without me ever even seeing them and then I could go to prison for 5 years for simply browsing the internet. The same could be said of Google image searches. This has always been a concern of mine and I am happy to see it finally be addressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    you think child molesters receive excessive punishments?
    Considering the law sees an 18yo with a 15yo girlfriend and a 50yo with a 15yo girl as exactly the same, yes I do think in some instances they get excessive punishments. I also think that excessive punishments are handed down in child porn cases.

    When someone possessing (not producing, not distributing, not selling) a few images of child porn can spend more time in prison than someone convicted of 1st degree murder that made their first parole date, yes, I have a problem with that. If you want to know exactly how that can and does happen, I'd be more than happy to get into more detail.

    Not to mention when a murderer is released they are allowed to live anywhere they want to and not notify neighbors, not have their names and faces in the local paper, not have their faces addresses and all personal information on sex offender websites, etc etc. But the 18yo having sex with his high school sweetheart a couple of years his junior, he is labeled for life and will never be able to go to his childrens school functions, etc. 20 years from now his website will say "Victim age 15" making him look like a 50yo man who was messing with a little girl. Most people don't give a rats ass how long ago the conviction was.

    If you dont think that is excessive, then YOU my friend, might just be hopeless.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 05-09-12 at 09:45 PM.

  10. #20
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Viewing child pornography not a crime according to New York court ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I remember a few stories of ~19 year old guys with ~16 year girlfriends and the 19 year old was either beaten or killed by idiots who saw them on the sex offender registry. Other cases were less severe with such people being ostracized by their community. I don't believe public sex offender registries should exist period, but if they have to, people with crimes like public urination or having a hardly underage girlfriend should not be on the list.

    I agree with everything you said, with the exception of what I highlighted.


    I think sex offender registries are in need of a major overhaul, but shouldn't be eliminated. In my opinion, those registries should be strictly for sexual predators, not for indiscretions or matters of the heart. What I mean by "predator", as it pertains to sexual contact with a minor, is men who are sexually attracted to, and actively seek out, under aged girls for the purpose of fostering intimate relationships with them. That is wrong and anyone who knowingly seeks out such relationships, is a danger to any community they reside in.


    What I object to are men being put on a sex offenders list in cases where they were charged with a crime that stemmed from a consensual relationship, that was not the product of predatory behavior, where no abuse took place (sexual or otherwise), and had the blessing of the families involved. I don't care if the man is say 32 and the girl is 16, as long as all of the above is true, your dealing with a 2 people who have (or had) intimate feelings for one another, trying to make a go of it. I would say that such relationships are ill advised and rarely stand the test of time, but that doesn't make him a predator that deserves to be branded a sexual deviant and a threat to society.
    Last edited by Grim17; 05-10-12 at 02:00 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •