Most serious

[toptec]

What is the more heinious offence - downloading pictures of children or intending to explode a nail bomb causing death and injury to many - probably including children.

He was sentenced on that basis. That makes sense to me.

 

[Space cat]

So what is a good case scenario in images of indecency.And how do you assume it tobe unreal.

I never said there was a "good case scenario". How could it be unreal?

I watched Hollow Man recently. I lost count of the number of murders but you won't be surprized to learn that nobody died at all - not even the invisible dog! It was all done with special effects and some very clever computer graphics.

So how does the world of Hollywood translate into illegal child pawn?

1) It is said that customers won't pay if they don't believe it's real.

2) Criminals are not known for their honesty.

3) Still images are a lot easier to fake than movies.

4) Reality is even cheaper.

5) If you get caught you'll be in quite enough trouble without adding kidnap, rape and/or murder to the list.

Real or not? All in all I'd say the debate is wide open. The way to find out is to track the perpetrators down and nail them.

 

[sooey]

Real or not? All in all I'd say the debate is wide open. The way to find out is to track the perpetrators down and nail them.

Yep, to an outside wall.

 

[Space cat]

Yep, to an outside wall.

You can borrow my hammer.

 

[oompah]

[. (Let's take the worst case scenario here and assume that it's real.)

(I never said there was a "good case scenario". How could it be unreal? )
When you assume something you think it is put on,pretend ie: not real so it becomes unreal.
If there is a worst case scenario then there has to be a good scenario,where in images of indecency do you find this?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's why the law no longer distinguishes between real images and "photoshopped" ones.

I assume that Space Cat meant "worst case" from the POV of the child. Worst case is that it's real and the child really was really abused.

Less-than-worse-case is that the child wasn't harmed, and all the unpleasantness was faked on afterwards.

 

[Space cat]

If there is a worst case scenario then there has to be a good scenario

Sorry but that's flawed logic. "Worst" only implies the existence of something not quite so bad.

Less-than-worse-case is that the child wasn't harmed, and all the unpleasantness was faked on afterwards.

Thanks BAS. That's a good example.

 

[oompah]

So if you can't see physical harm thats alright then.What about mental harm.

 

[Space cat]

So if you can't see physical harm thats alright then.What about mental harm.

That's why faked images are also illegal. There is no 'good' scenario here.

Quite apart from the pawn side of it, you can't use somebody else's image for commercial gain without their permission. What would you think if you saw yourself in a giant poster promoting some product you'd never even heard of.

 

[oompah]

How do you know the images i referred to in the original post are fake or are you back on the assumption?The question I posed was is the downloading of more than 39,000 image of child pawn for some personal gratification or the possession of 4 home made nail bombs with maybe the intention of using them in an alledged terroist plot where no specific targets were indentified the more serious?By sentencing of 10 yrs for terroism and 5 for pawn the judiciary clearly think the terroism charge is the more serious, so suffer the little children.

 

[Space cat]

How do you know the images i referred to in the original post are fake or are you back on the assumption?

I don't know whether they're fake or not so I'm assuming that they're real.

The question I posed was is the downloading of more than 39,000 image of child pawn for some personal gratification or the possession of 4 home made nail bombs with maybe the intention of using them in an alledged terroist plot where no specific targets were indentified the more serious?

Actually, I've never attempted to answer that one at all but, since you ask ---

1) He made four bombs but had no plans to use them - or so he says!

2) He bought 39,000 images depicting somebody else's crimes and thus encouraged them to abuse more children in future.

If he'd actually detonated one of his bombs - or even had a clear intention of doing so - then it's no contest. If he'd committed 39,000 offences of child abuse himself then it's also no contest. And if he'd done both the question is irrelevant anyway because he'd be looking at a life sentence!

So how do you compare the two offences he actually committed. To do this you would need to answer at least two more questions:

1) What is the probability that he, or someone else, would eventually use the bombs?

2) How significant was his contribution to the profits of those who uploaded the images?

Since I can't answer either of them I'll accept the judge's decision. That's what judges are for.

 

[oompah]

That's why faked images are also illegal
I don't know whether they're fake or not so I'm assuming that they're real.

2) He bought 39,000 images depicting somebody else's crimes and thus encouraged them to abuse more children in future.

If he'd committed 39,000 offences of child abuse himself then it's also no contest. :

He has commited 39,000 offences by downloading the images.

 

[Space cat]

He has commited 39,000 offences by downloading the images.

From this and your previous posts, I'm forced to the inevitable conclusion that you see no difference between the actual abuse and the possession of evidence of abuse. Well you're entitled to your opinion and you're not alone. I once heard somebody say, without really thinking first, "but it's the people who look at them (the images) who are the dangerous ones". I wonder ---

"Honest guv, I'm not a paedophile. I don't even like children. (Obviously a paedophobe then. ) I only did it for the money. "

 

[oompah]

He has commited 39,000 offences by downloading the images.

From this and your previous posts, I'm forced to the inevitable conclusion that you see no difference between the actual abuse and the possession of evidence of abuse. Well you're entitled to your opinion and you're not alone. I once heard somebody say, without really thinking first, "but it's the people who look at them (the images) who are the dangerous ones". I wonder ---

"Honest guv, I'm not a paedophile. I don't even like children. (Obviously a paedophobe then. ) I only did it for the money. "

Nobody is forcing you in to any conclusion,and there is no difference between the abuser or one in possession of abusive images,for if there was nobody caught in possession of indecent images how would the authorities know that the filth is being posted on the web.

 

[Sylvan Tieger]

oh yeah... liberalism rules.... if i may !
If it were a pic of one of my kids, i'd kill them myself... why even consider ANY tolerence when it comes to sex and children?

One thing I must say If if they (governments) dished out more death sentences there would be much less repeat offenders.

I remember the anti gun folks saying "we are civilized and have no need for weapons" then when Katrina struck and some of the police were caught doing the looting citizens started buying guns at record numbers to protect their businesses and homes.

Child sexual abuse should be a zero tolerance and if the liberals think differently then let them take one of these predators into their own home and let them baby sit their children.