Wait just a second here. I hate pedophiles as much as the next guy, but to start throwin motherfuckers in jail for whats in their cache is NOT the right answer. I agree...this guy was obviously lookin at child porn. Who the fuck are we to throw a man in jail for looking at pictures of ANYTHING. I have seen people turn pictures of aborted fetus's into meme's. Where do we draw the line??? Seams like a huge can of worms to me.
[quote name='"Vicious"'] First off, 4chan isn't a hivemind. Just because /b/ is a shithole doesn't mean all the other boards are terrible. It is a great place to go for niche interest like /m/ (mechs), /co/ (comics), /tg/ (traditional games), etc. It's anonymous, there's no reason you can't post as a female. If you're told "tits or gtfo" it's because you're went out of your way to distinguish you're female despite being anon regardless of your opinion. You don't see guys post "I'm a guy btw". If someone really posted tits they deserve to be called an attention whore or anything else. You have nothing to prove to people on the internet and the fact an anonymous post drove them to do that when it could have easily been ignored projects their insecurities.[/quote] I was referring to /b/ specifically when I said it should be closed. even though I know they'd just move somewhere else and continue. I use 4chan for its /x/ board and its art boards. that's how I even know of /b/. and the posts that say "tits or gtfo" are usually stemming from an image with a hand time stamp or an "imo" comment that refers to their sex. and I agree that if they do show off tits, they are a whore. I didn't realize I had, and didn't mean to group the whole site in my post. my bad.
yep...quite the opposite I do believe...most were pretty pissed when they clicked I think... it really is all about a 'proper paper trail' of evidence to show intent...new environment parameters requiring some definition that the whee brained lawyers/judges can understand the scumbag won't be getting out anytime soon....
So should people be put in jail for watching murder video's?? I mean...where do we draw the moral line on this?? This is just a taboo subject, so rather than discuss it people say "fuck that perv throw his ass in jail". I think thats a bad idea. I dont think this guy should go to jail for having child porn in his cache.
Since when is watching a crime illegal??? If someone WATCHES a rape video they should go to jail? If someone WATCHES a man get his head cut off they should go to jail? If a man watches a boy get molested its worse than watching a grown woman get raped or a grown man get his head chopped off?? I dont see how watchign these crimes makes u responsible for them. By the way, I cant even watch Tosh.o or Ridiculousness because they are too graphic for my liking. So its not like I watch this twisted shit. I just dont see how u can charge a person with a crime for WATCHING a crime take place.
I almost don't want to agree with Stigma...but he has a point. It's a little fucked up to make a sort of measuring stick for that sort of shit. Besides, even if he was actively viewing the pics (which is bad enough), shouldn't the focus be finding the source of the pictures? A person might look at pics and fantasize about something, but also know that it's JUST a fantasy and NOT something that is acceptable in real life. It may actually disgust them in real life. People with rape fantasies rarely want to be literally abducted and raped by a stranger. It's a fantasy they want to act out with someone they trust. But the person taking the pics/vids...that's where the abuse is already happening and a child is already being harmed. That's where the next hammer needs to fall and fall hard.
[quote name='"Stigma"']Since when is watching a crime illegal??? If someone WATCHES a rape video they should go to jail? If someone WATCHES a man get his head cut off they should go to jail? If a man watches a boy get molested its worse than watching a grown woman get raped or a grown man get his head chopped off?? I dont see how watchign these crimes makes u responsible for them. By the way, I cant even watch Tosh.o or Ridiculousness because they are too graphic for my liking. So its not like I watch this twisted shit. I just dont see how u can charge a person with a crime for WATCHING a crime take place.[/quote] I wont say watching a child being molested is worse than other malicious acts videotaped. but, that child is being exploited in the worst way. he is still alive and still suffers from that event, and people are using his tragic childhood experience for pleasure. would you be okey with somebody pleasuring themselves to a video of you or your family as a children being raped? no. in my opinion its more about taking pleasure in acts of violence, sexual or otherwise, that are demeaning not just to that person, but humans in general. watching it willingly is the same as condoning the acts. and I don't mean watching that sort of video once out of curiosity. I mean repeatedly searching for and watching the videos.
OP misrepresented the intentions of the decision. The reason they have to differentiate between intentional and unintentional viewing is because we have a very high legal standard in the US to establish guilt. In order for someone to be convicted of a crime, several elements must be established including mens rea, not just actus reus. A guilty act, actus reus, can be present, such as viewing child porn, but mens rea, which is a guilty mind, must also be present. Both of these are necessary elements of a crime and must both be present and proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish criminality. This judgement seeks to better establish these standards and easier differentiation in the sentencing of those involved in child pornography. Crap that sounded booky. lol
All of that is only true of you can afford a lawyer. Not gonna go into detail, but I can speak from experience that if all you can afford is a public defender, you may as well take the plea deal because 9 times outta 10 the PD doesn't give any more of a shit about you than any of the other of his 87 cases... Not to mention if you hire a lawyer and can't pay all at once or in their tiny allotted time frame...get ready for them to just quit coming to court.
Or you can just be smart and learn about what needs to be established yourself and not rely on a lawyer. lol Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas... It's a simple and binding concept in the American legal system. You need only establish a single shred of reasonable doubt that you didn't intend to view the porn and the judge will realize he can't convict you. If he does anyway, you have a great shot at an appeal because you have a legitimate legal standard that's been breached. If you're charged with something criminal and get sentences because you relied on some cheap lawyer, then it's more your fault you were sentenced than anyone else's. You're just as responsible for defending yourself, IMHO.
The thing is, I agree that watching that shit is downright disturbing and the people watching it are total pieces of shit. I just dont agree with taking a mans freedom when he hasnt harmed anyone. Now if this guy was caught actually attempting to rape a child then I believe they should actually have stricter penalties than what they do.
In a perfect world, everyone reads law books and informs themselves before it's too late. In a perfect world, people can study this information while they're sitting in a holding cell trying to think of who they can call to bail them out of jail. Or how they're going to get the money to bail themselves in the first place. Information can only do you so much good when you're being booked. I'm just being realistic. And I wasn't necessarily talking about porn, which means I'm getting off topic, so prolly best to let it slide...
You can't do much participating once you've already been arrested. BTW, as I'm sure you know since you're such a legal expert, they arrest you first and THEN you go to court and speak your piece in a few weeks and see what the judge decides and this and that... And you only come out during the waiting period if you have the bail money or a good friend willing to lend it to you and vouch their money and good name on your showing up in court. Oh, you might get work release, but who says you can afford that? I don't know about you, but I'm not sure how I would explain to my job that I was absent for three weeks because I was handling false allegations against myself from the county jailhouse...
Good luck explaining to your job that you've been convicted because you didn't know how to assert your rights in the system... Also, I'm not a legal expert.
My point is that I wouldn't have a job, because I would have been in jail for three weeks. So it wouldn't matter if I had been convicted or not. Spread information, not condescension, please. Not everyone here can keep up with Latin legal phrases, so if your goal was to educate, I think you overshot the mark. It's great that you're prepared for any legal circumstance you find yourself in, but no need to put down those who aren't as informed. We're ALL here to learn.
I wasn't being condescending. You misinterpreted my point if that's what you think. You don't have to memorize Latin phrases, you merely need the capacity to understand the concepts they represent, which just requires the application of rudimentary logic. The law is much less memorization and a lot more research than a lot of people think.
Actually, the law says that within 24 hours you have to see a judge, it's called First Appearance. If he determines that there is a factual basis that a crime has been committed, then he will set a trial date, and even then it's possible he could release you RoR. So if the allegations against you were blatantly false, the Judge will throw it out right away. Yeah, it sucks being in jail AT ALL, but that's the way the broken system limps along.