Here Today... Gone To Hell!

200 years WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE for this? For looking at pictures?

Even the Supreme Court wont intervene - if that isnt a breach of basic human rights i dont know what is! Let the punishment fit the crime, and 200 years for looking at pictures is...well.....

Absolutely barmy

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by a high school teacher from Arizona sentenced to 200 years in jail for possessing child pornography.

Morton Berger had claimed the sentence was so disproportionate to his crime it breached the constitution.

If the 52-year-old had been tried in a federal court or lived elsewhere he would have received a lighter sentence.

But he was living in Arizona when he was caught with thousands of images of child abuse on his computer.

Stark differences

The state has the nation's toughest laws on child abuse and exploitation.

Indeed, the prosecutor had asked for a 340-year sentence but the trial judge imposed the minimum of 10 years for each of 20 images - to be served consecutively for a total of 200 years without the possibility of probation, early release or pardon.

Mr Berger's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

They argued the sentence was wildly disproportionate - much longer than that for rape or even second degree murder and claimed it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The state of Arizona argued each image of child abuse was a separate crime so the sentences had to run consecutively.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal and gave no reason but the case has highlighted stark differences in sentencing policy across the US.

i'm glad, let that sick fuck rot in jail.

Why not give every criminal life, or death?

Yea why not

only in America...

How contributing :P

Too bad he wasn't from Vermont. The judges in that state let child molestors run free a dozen a day. They'd be shocked that someone could be arrested for having images of child abuse on their computer.

He probably woud've been sentenced to three minutes standing in the corner than given lunch and ice cream and sent on his way.

The idea that rapists, actual abusers of children and murderers get less time in jail than this guy is what is absurd about this case.  I am not in anyway lessening his crime, it is sick, twisted and disgusting.  Believe me, I am a social worker and deal with stuff like this.

However, the punishment has to fit the crime and 200 years with no parole is what I would call.......very harsh.

Holy fuck! Ya get less for killing someone!

:o

Good thing though, child porn is SICK!!

He'll have a rotten time in jail he will! Don't drop the soap! :rofl:

Let the fucker rot.

well if he is the one buying it the deamand is there for someone to create it....they should cut off his dick before they throw away the key IMO :peace:

on second thought, the penalty is pretty excessive in comparison to the sentences of other sex crimes that are much worse.  he should do time, but 200 years, a life time, is a bit much.  i'd say 5 years.   the sick fucks who you see on dateline on those predators shows get less then 5 years i bet, and they were going to have sex with young kids.

the penalties for all these types of crimes should be big, but you shouldn't get more years for looking then you would touching, just doesn't make sense.

That's excessive...especially considering that this is the MINIMUM sentence of ten years/photo.

It is sick, though the guy probably needs some mental help, rather than 200 years in prison. 

200 years or 30 whats the diff...hes already 52

I feel very uneasy with someone going to jail for looking at something....

Sentencing must reflect the crime and benefit society - how does sending him to jail help society? Wouldnt a fine and community service do more? He wasnt attacking children in the street....

Prison should be for people posing a genuine danger to the public - filling jails with fraudsters and perverts is just a waste of money

i dunno was he distributing the porn too? childporn is the lowest....that people would exploit kids like that...its sad

and to get his hands on the stuff someone has to attack the kids in the street to create it


i agree 200 years is a bit much :hihi: but damn being a parent its a scary idea that some kids suffer this kind of thing :'(

Fair enough, though I'd rather see people with pedophilic urges in mental insitutions.  Prison isn't curing pedophilia as a mental condition or a compulsion.  Putting him in prison does little to prevent other children from being abused.  They should use these guys to get to the psychological/biological roots of these urges. 

Rehabilitation is like an investment, in that the short term payoffs may be little (i.e. we may not know enough to currently rehabilitate pedophiles), but the long term payoffs may be enormous (i.e. fewer children getting molested/raped/exploited).  Putting him in jail for 200 years satisfies our immediate punishment urge at the expense of learning what causes such behavior and, thus, being able to treat it.   

why dont they do this type of stuff in england. This countrys getting shitter everyday with scum...oh wait, they dont have the room i forgot.  :no:

I'd prefer a 200 yr sentence be given to those who create those films.

I agree with you, there.  The worst criminal is rarely the junkie, but the dealer.  My God, there are countries where the child-sex industry thrives, and local law enforcement can do little to truly combat it.  Of course I don't want someone to be looking at kiddie porn, but it pales in comparison to the worst offenders in the larger child exploitation "industry."

when you see people busted up here in Canada for this kind of thing its usually for possessing and distributing it...maybe this was the case here too...even though the story says he just had it on his comp "thousands of images" is alot of fucking porn :hihi:

Perhaps, but that apparently wasn't the charge. Jailing a person for possession of images is ludicris in principle. The reasonable doubt is enourmos.

Say I downloaded a bunch of stuff and put it on the neighbours computer, then called the police. That's how easy it is.

This man is probably guilty, but he should recieve treatment instead of jail time. It's not like you decide to start liking these things.

I think you guys might find this case of interest:

R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2: "A leading Canadian civil rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code as a valid limitation of the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It began in 1995 when Sharpe was returning from a trip to Amsterdam where he had travelled to meet Dutch jurist and open advocate of boylove Edward Brongersma. Upon return, Canada Customs found a collection of computer discs containing a text entitled "Boyabuse". A later search of his Vancouver apartment revealed a concollection of photographs of nude teenage boys, some of them engaged in sexual acts with one another. Sharpe was arrested and charged with illegal possession under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, and for possession for the purposes of distribution or sale under s. 163.1(3) of the Code.

Acting in his own defence, Sharpe challeged the criminal provisions as violation of freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. Sharpe argued before a court that laws regarding the possession of child pornography violated his freedom of thought and expression. He presented a fairly controversial argument that since he was interested in teenage boys, he should be entitled to pornographic material relating to his sexual interests. Nonetheless, the law he was charged under was eventually upheld with some exceptions regarding written pornography.

During his trial, the prosecutor argued for the harmfulness of child pornography possession and why it should remain illegal. Sharpe attempted to refute the prosecution's claims that child porn and child sexual abuse are a related paradigm by claiming that the legal attitudes towards pornographic representations of children 'creates a victim' instead of starting with one. The line between production, distribution, and possession was also espoused by Sharpe. He further argued that in many instances possession of child pornography could act as a catharsis in preventing child sexual abuse. In regard to provisions on written pornography, Sharpe argued that the law in question targeted the political advocacy of pederasty and served little purpose in protecting children from sexual abuse. The charges in respect to Sharpe's writings were eventually dismissed when he argued artistic merit with the assistance of an English professor who compared his written works to 'transgressive expression' parallel to Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom.

McLachlin, writing for the majority, held that the provision in the Code violated the freedom of expression but was justified under section one as the government objective of protecting children from exploitation was proportional to the violation.

The Court, however, finds that the provisions were too broad for including two types of material that should not constitute child pornography as they do not pose a direct potential harm to children. First, where the written or visual representations were created and possessed by the accused for exclusive personal use, and second, where "visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe

So there you have it.

Homemade porn is alright, but professional stuff is a big No-No :hihi:

That sentence ain't shit. Try getting three 99 year sentences.

Under the old British system, he'd be doing 200 years of hard labour instead of 200 years of sitting in a cell :hihi:

If I am not  mistaken, the US executes  more  people each year than every other country in  the world  except China. And Texas leads the US.
More than Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Singapore, etc  etc (all authoritarian states).

So  what  does that  say about US democracy? Or US society? Was Michael Moore  right?

A fair point, though there are some problems.  First, the US has a much higher population than any of the states you mentioned (again, except China).  While I don't have per capita figures (and doubt that many authoritarian states would give completely accurate figures), I'm confident that it is lower than those countries' death penalty rates. 

Second, it says NOTHING about US democracy.  The death penalty has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a form of government.  If anything, because a majority of Americans (last time I saw figures) support it, it indicates that democracy is carrying out the will of the people.

Now, that said, I do NOT support the death penalty.  But, I can see why it is so fixed in American justice.  I truly think it's all part of the old Wild West mentality, when you could be hung for many more crimes than are seen as worthy of capital punishment, today.  But, it's slowly eroding.  Major states like Illinois and Florida have recently put moratoriums on capital punishment, and eventually it will cease to be.  Whether it ceases due to a national moratorium/Supreme Court ruling or on a state by state basis, I do not know.

umm he was looking at CHILD PORNOGRAPHY....he should have his dick ripped off and shoved down his throat...then he should be executed...hes lucky he only got life in prison.....not to mention he is a TEACHER with access to kids......

That's right, he was looking. How that constitutes death or life in prison is beyond me. Despicable yeah, but not in a million years worse than rape, murder or actual child molestation.

atleast he gets real punishments..over here a man had abused 4 children for several years and only got 2 years in prison of wich 6months probation...maybe not too bad cause the demand was 3years and 1 year probation ::)

I saw on Discovery once they had to stop that, because they had the prisoner's workin underground and interestingly enough, most were working on tunneling out as opposed to whatever they were supposed to be doing.

This is entirely true, but at least it got them doing something instead of enjoying 3 square meals a day, washed down with the occasional game of Basketball :hihi:

The guy should insist on being kept in his cell, fed and medicated, for the full 200 years. Then, when the sentence has run its course, we can add up the total financial cost and try to decide whether the money was better spent on putting the schmuck in prison or using it to track down the people who produced the child-porn he had on his computer. Seems to me that no-one would be able to look at child-porn if there was no child-porn to look at. But I'm just a crazy, wide-eyed idealist.

That is extremely fucked up  :no:

Like someone said earlier....Only in America!






.....Just kiddin', I love America really  :peace:

Still ridiculous though

I would say, give them a neckshot so peoples taxes wont have to go to lowlifes like them.

I see no problem with it. he should have his balls and pecker amputated also. :hihi:

better yet just kill him so my tax dollars do not go to supporting more low life trash.

And as far as murderer having lesser penalties, that is wrong they should be executed if it is murder 1.


 :peace:

are you kidding...he is a TEACHER who looks a CHILD PORN....are you telling me he is NEVER going to act on that?? wake up..

I'm telling you a person should be convicted for what he has done, not what he might do. That's a very important principle.

Jail him, treat him, fire him. All reasonable punishments. 200 years or death on the other hand is beyond absurd for a crime that hasn't really hurt anyone, and it's an insult to the families and loved ones of murder and rape victims.

seriously dude!! would you want him teaching your kid?  :-\

If he was caught actually molesting a child, they should hang the bastard, but only for posessing pictures....Jesus !


  Pedophilia is a disease, and, assuming that he didn't abuse any child, he used the pictures to stop his cravings

I see nothing absurd about this sentence.  I think it's sad he's not doing harder time. 

Seriously...to call pedophilia a disease is laughable.  Yeah, sometimes I buck the scientific community (in this case the psychologist/psychiatrist wing) because in cases like this they have little evidence.

Part of me wants to shoot this scumbag...but my better side wins out.  Life in prison.  Those who know my posts know what kind of s-e-r-i-o-u-s hard time I'm talking about.  ;)

Polluxlm, you're serious?  You think there's no victim?  Polluxlm said, "That's right, he was looking. How that constitutes death or life in prison is beyond me. Despicable yeah, but not in a million years worse than rape, murder or actual child molestation."  Nobody said it was worse.  Our penalties for crimes like those are slaps on the wrist. 

I believe in justice, and this scumbag should rot in prison!

Pedophilia, however sick and disgusting and horrific it is, IS in fact a disease. A psychological disease that someone is born with. At the moment it is incurable, but hopefully in the future there will be a way to combat it and to prevent it ever occurring. I think there has to be more research done in the field of genetics to prevent this and a whole bunch of other horrific diseases existing.

I thought i read the supreme court decided that pornographic images help child molesters from acting out, so their punishment wouldnt be severe if they had no previous abuse charges. Makes sense that way.

I remember back in 99-2000 there were lots of teen photo sites with nonude amatuer teens and the supreme court ruled photos cant be distrubuted without their parents consent so most of the websites good photos were removed. And replaced with boring proffesional teen model websites that have parents consent. Sucked at the time cuz i was 19, 20 years old.

it has already been proven that child molestors are UNTREATABLE....they never change.........its nice to see you stand up for the "rights" of a person who looks at child porn....but in this country just looking at child porn is against the law....unfortunately other countries are not up to our standards on that issue....is 200 years excessive? sure ...but he should be locked away for life....why risk him walking the streets? seriously?  why even give him the chance. to rape a kid....he is obviously sick in the head and has no business in our society....

JohnSDMF is absolutely right.  Lock him up and throw away the key.

A disease Skynyrdgirl?  Are you kidding me??  You honestly think they are born with this?  That's ridiculous. 

People like this should rot in jail.  Sorry.   :peace:

I'll make this blunt...

I watch porn with twenty something year old "well put together" females, why you ask?? Because I like "well put together" 20 something year old women.

Porn isn't like video games... I don't think that beacuse a kid kills gang members in Grand Theft Auto he will run out and asssault Black kids at school, but on this topic if I get a random chance to sleep with a "super hot" blonde that is over sexed than I will... Same with this guy, If you get off on an 11 year old boy getting touched by the "cool neighbor" than you are more than likely going to find a way to become the "cool neighbor" in your town.

Makers, buyers, sellers, and traders of Child Porn are or will become sexually involved with a child at some point. Anything thing that can be done to get these animals off the streets is good with me. As it is these animals are too protected. If they do get out of prison for touching or just watching a child they instantly have several groups fighting for their rights, so they don't have to Register in the communities they work and live in. Why should that predator be released into society without protecting the children of that community?

Yeah so is cancer... But people die from it everyday, with no choice!! Its like they have a life scentce... Nothing wrong with a Pedophile getting one themselves  ::)

While technically he is not sexually abusing a child (while viewing the porn), he is still an accomplice of sorts, since the video was created for his sexual gratification. The child was abused by another adult for him (and other sick fucks) to watch and masturbate to. I still believe the creators of child porn should receive a much harsher penalty, but on the other hand this guy is just as responsible for the sexual abuse as those who perpetrated the horrendous act on the children themselves. Chicken and the egg I suppose-anyway fuck them.

I say anyone who even thinks of children in that way should get such a punishment (or be hung by their balls)  : ok:  so can't say there's much compassion coming from this direction (and I have friends in prison, so I'm not some crazed 'kill all criminals' type, just utterly sickened and disgusted by pedophiles and the like)

a violation of the 18 USC 2257 (record keeping requirements for producers such as myself) is a sentence of 10 years in prison.    so yea the punishment does seem harsh, but who cares.  its some sick fuck who wants to jerk off to pictures of young boys.   he doesn't deserve a free life.

It IS a disease, and they ARE born with it! Its a genetics defect. What else could make someone want to do something so disgusting!?
I'm not condoning their behavior, no fucking way! They should most definitely be put in jail for life!

But I'd rather that research be done in order to prevent it instead of us having to pay taxes to feed, clothe and shelter those assholes!

The people who produce these things should be locked away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFVoLz88hiU&mode=related&search=

200 years is a bit much.
He still probaly jerks off to the thought of children in jail.

Probably. So, what exactly has been achieved by imprisoning him? Seems like a question worth asking.

Keeping him far away from children that he may harm.

Then shouldn't all adults be locked up? I mean, by accident or by design we all may harm children. Following your logic; shouldn't we arrest anyone who is proven to have downloaded pornography,  as they may choose to sexually abuse the objects of their own peculiar desires. I know, I know; "Only a tiny percentage of the people who have ever, in the history of mankind, obtained pornography have gone on to become rapists and other sundry abusers." True. But what percentage of rapists and abusers have accessed pornography to satiate or fuel their lusts? Backwards logic? Nonsensical? Yes, no matter who it's applied to. 

you are truly lost my friend.....does it feel good to stick up for the scum that look at child porn?  seriously...do you feel better about yourself for taking this stand?

200 years is fuckin ridiculous sentence. 50 or 75 would have done just the same thing. 200 is just a number the judge pulled out of his ass to make it look like something is being done, when in fact, nothing is actually being done to solve the problem at all.

Do you feel good about wanting a stranger dead?

It's not about sticking up for him, it's the principle.

do i feel good about wanting a sick fuck who looks at child porn who will probably act on it dead?? hmm yes....

Well, then you got a problem my friend. How about focusing on your own life.

Taking a stand? Just giving voice to the obvious flaw in the so-called logic behind these "zero-tolerance" positions. This guy got 200 years for looking at pictures - meanwhile, bona-fide convicted child molesters serve much shorter sentences before being released back into society. Which guy are you more worried about, the one waxing his carrot to pictures or the ex-con hanging around  the playground?  Your choice, we can lock up all of the people who download child porn or we can track down the criminals creating and distributing it, not to mention the private practitioners. I certainly don't see anyone advocating a tax increase so that both are feasible options.

Why don't we just lock-up everyone that we find creepy? Call it "suspicion of social disfunction." It's got a nice ring to it. I'm sure we'd all benefit from the false sense of security.

i have a problem for wanting a sick pervert dead? i think YOU need to do the focusing on your own life for having such a warped view of the world...ill tell you..you bleeding heart liberals make me want to throw up with some of the things you take stands for...standing up for someones rights is one thing..but you need to know where to draw the line...

Having 500 pictures of the Sydney Opera House doesn't make you an architect.
Yes, child porn is despicable. So are murder and rape, why should looking at pictures get you a longer mandatory sentence than actively participating in those two crimes?

which part of LOOKING AT CHILD PORN IS AGAINST THE LAW do you not understand...and I am with you..child molestors should serve way harder sentences than they do..but thats what you have in this country when these liberal judges...yes I said liberal judges..god knows conservative judges would give them all the death penalty if they could....liberal judges are the ones putting them back out on the streets...take a look at what is going on in Vermont...its insanity

im with you on this...they shouldnt get a longer sentence...they should ALL have the book thrown at them....

It's not a question of the legality, or even of the punishment fitting the crime. What galls me about it is  the time, effort and money that will be wasted on the guy for what is, in essence, the most minor level of participation in the criminal act. If it wasn't for the need to pander to the emotional aspects of the crime, this guy would be slapped with a GPS transmitter and have his internet activity monitored and all of the money saved by not having to babysit him for the rest of his life could be put towards actually tackling the root cause of the problem.  Sure, it's probably impossible to completely irradicate any kind of crime, but you have a much better chance of limiting it if you have the resources to fight it.

You what? I discuss the case, not political stands. I dislike liberals as much as conservatives.

I believe in human rights, and getting thrown in jail for life for looking at pictures is not my idea of a just society.

defending the rights of child molestors or even sick perverts who look at child porn is generally a liberal stance...well its ALWAYS a liberal stance..that is why I said that...in light of what you have said I take that back..with all the arguing going on in this thread we have forgotten about the facts of this case...This is a TEACHER who is around children ALL THE TIME..who also has a thing for CHILD PORN...i think those factors make this a different case than the average person looking at child porn....

It just makes the situation more morally troubling. It doesn't change the nature or the severity of the crime though. It does often seem to be that teachers are involved in this sort of thing in a disproportionately large percentage of the cases that we hear about. Of course, that could simply be due to media preference rather than any more insidious reason. Then again, proximity and access are usually factors in criminal behavior.

First off, he's not a child molestor. We don't convict people on assumptions in western society, or at least that's the original idea.

And yes, he was a teacher with a fondness for child pornography. But as far as we and the court know he has never crossed the line and acted out on his urges. Of course he should be banned from working with children again, after all there is a high probability risk, I agree with that. But putting him in jail for life when he hasn't hurt anyone is just absurd. It smells more of satisfying one selfish needs than it does justice.

he is supporting the child porn industry..thus he is indirectly effecting the kids in the pics who were molested....just supporting that act makes him wrong on so many levels...im with you that he should be kept away from children for life...but i also think he should get some serious jail time..is life imprisonment fair...probably not...but you have to understand I have no repect for the rights of perverts......i dont think they are entitled to rights..they are not human beings like the rest of us...anybody that gets pleasure out of the pain of a child gives up his rights IMO...its that a completely rational opinion? no...but im far from a completely rational person when it comes to certain things....

Punishment and jail time is fair, but life or 200 years is overdoing it. After all, this guy didn't chose to be born with this defect. He did chose to break the law though, but there are much worse things out there that the justice system should concentrate on.

As a tax payer, I resent the fact that my tax contribution is paid to monitor people like this man who have commited such hideous crimes.

In the UK each prisoner costs approx ?400.00 per week ($750) to keep locked-up. In my opinion The death penalty should be much more widely used. A sex offender/murderer/rapist/peodphiles sentence serving a 30 year sentence costs the state ?6,420.000 ($11,610.000) surely even on a financial footing there is a case to execute the filth...

Those crimes I mentioned above are all surely worthy of receiving the death sentence. I hope that there isnt anyone that will try and defend these animals.

The death penalty? Then what about all of those people (it's alot) that suffer from wrongfull incarcination?

Killing people who might be innocent just to save money sounds more like The Third Reich or USSR than it does a democracy.

I havent suggested that people are sentenced if there is reasonable doubt.

Todays technology is far advanced, if it isnt 100% conclusive then there is a case of imprisonment.

In all other cases, give me the switch. In the case of peodophiles such is the case in question, give me a baseball bat with 8inch nails hammered through it and put me in a room with the scum bags.

While I appreciate your desire for fiscal responsibility, the idea of executing criminals for the sake of saving money is among the most repugnant ideas I've ever heard.  Hell, the elderly are a drain on the system, too!  Let's humanely off them!  In the US, we'll suddenly have no social security problem, and the environmental benefits abound, as there will be fewer guilt forced trips to visit grandma in the home! 

what's absurd is that in sweden, a guy who has raped and abused like 14 women and i think killed one got 14 years :no:

And that's an example of the court being tough. We live in kindergarten up there.

it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison for life......strange but true

When the justice system makes u feel sorry for the guilty then something has gone badly wrong...

You have a hard time grasping "logic"...

He should be imprisoned because his actions condoned and contributed to the sexual abuse of a child (in the porn.) It also is a proven fact that these sickos can not be rehabilitated-the continue to abuse children. Keeping him in jail keeps him away from kids simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he "might" do in the future, although I suspect that if you are watching child porn you certainly are more likely willing to act on that urge, if you have not already.

As far as I'm concerned people who create these movies should get life in prison.

Lock them the hell up.

I think you're missing the point that a lot of people are making. 

I do NOT feel sorry for the "guilty," in this case.  I do NOT support child porn or anything that could be associated with it.   I DO feel horribly for the abused children, who are probably locked away in some cage in Thailand, and I DESPISE those who are taking advantage of this situation to make money.   

However, I think we need to separate our societal desire for justice and/or vengeance from the greater societal need, which is to understand and reduce crime.  If we can USE these individuals, whether they're murders, rapists, or pedophiles, to get to the psychological roots of their actions, we can better treat those roots, before they lead to horrible actions. 

In other words, if we can find the cause of the desire to molest/rape/look at nudie pics of children, then we can better prevent it or treat it in the future.  Perhaps some criminal acts are untreatable or have no such cause...I'm not a psych person, so I do not know.  But using the convicted to study these issues strikes me as a better option than locking them up, away from those who study behavior or biology. 

Also, the REAL question here is whether so called mandatory minimums are a good idea.  Those in favor say it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide on a punishment, without some fairly strong guidelines.  Of course, we have to ask why a politician is a better judge of what such punishments should be than someone who deals with criminal activity day in and day out. 

see i think that people wanting and willing to pay for the child porn are nearly as bad as those who create it....cuz it is created for them...the kids are molested and abused cuz people buy the porn....anybody involved with the creation and distribution of child porn in any aspect should be locked away IMHO

It really depends...I've heard pedophilic tendencies, from kiddie porn to molestation, described as a "compulsion."  Again, as mentioned above, I don't know if it is.  But, if it stems from what we might call an "illness" of some sort, then I think it's less reprehensible than those who would simply exploit children for money.  Neither is acceptable to me, mind you.  And I DO think people are responsible for their behavior.  I'm simply saying that there may be a compelling reason to forego the desire for vengeance through punishment, in favor of study, observation, and (eventually, I hope) treatment.  Right now, we can only react to a crime, and punish it.  But if various crimes all came with "warning signs," then we'd be able to prevent a greater portion of these crimes.  And, I think, that should be the real goal.   

Your first remark is dubious at best and the second isn't even relevant. In reverse order; The guy wasn't convicted of, nor charged with, child abuse. He was apparently found to be in possession of child pornography, as far as any of us know he never has abused a child, nor can any of us prove his intent to do so. As for contributing to the abuse of a child, well, I have to wonder how someone contributes to anything by viewing records of it after the fact. I have seen hours of footage of the Iraq war on television, can't say I really feel like I have contributed. But if you do want to argue that his viewing child pornography contributes to child abuse in a more general sense, then I ask where exactly you draw the line. Doesn't simply acknowledging that child porn exists contribute to  awareness of it as well as perpetuating the very idea of it?

The perp is in prison because he broke the law. We need no further justification for punishing him. The question at hand is whether the punishment is genuinely fitting. Giving the guy a 200 year sentence might make us all feel better on a gut-level but if maintaining both the policy and the prisoners hurts us in the long run is it a good idea? 

It's bizarre, isn't it? Given that the human body is such a fragile thing, its grasp on life tenuous at the best of times, and that the mechanics of taking a life are very simple in themselves; How did we end up in a situation where a single death sentence ends up costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars?

It is one of the many reasons that I dislike the death penalty. Besides the obvious moral and intellectual complications, the mere financial cost makes the death penalty a punishment shared by everybody.

Yes, that would be great. Then we could just detain people because we thought that they might, possibly, eventually, one day, commit a crime, then we could forcefully rehabilitate them without regard to their human rights or the established legal process! Wouldn't that be peachy?!

(I know that you didn't quite mean that, but doesn't it seem not just likely but inevitable that "preventative law enforcement" would have to work similarly to the above description to be effective in any way?)

shut it : ok:

200 years for this is outrageous - his human rights have been raped and i am sorry for him as i am sorry for all those who are abused by absurd systems of 'justice'

Didn't the Reagan Administration do this? Preventive Detention or something?

Excellent post, and my thoughts exactly

It is patently absurd to blame someone for furthering a wider issue in this instance

Is the local smack head deserving 1000 years in jail for fuelling a drugs industry worth hundreds of billions worldwide?

That industry certainly does exist to service him - by the logic that this teacher is responsible for furthering the creation of child porn, then every drug addict is responsible for the corruption, murder and suffering of the drug industry

These images werent created for him, or any other individual - but for a group - and using those the police catch as scapegoats is just wrong

I am a fan of GNR - but they dont create music for me but i am funding them through ticket sales and buying albums

By the logic this man is responsible for furthering child porn I am responsible for Guns N Roses making music.....

I have to back SLC on this one.  Child pronography is created for a certain audience which purchases it.  Those people that purchase child pornography create demand for it thereby giving people an incentive (money) to make it.  Although drugs are similar in a way, there are important distinctions as well.  Growing drugs doesn't necessarily involve corruption, murder and suffering.  These are the result of their illegality and other factors in the countries in which they are grown.  Conversely, it is not possible to make child pornography without abusing or taking advantage of helpless children.

I agree with what you've said, and I'd be happy to see a thread where like minded individuals could try to convince everyone else how wasteful and harmful the "war on drugs" truly is.  My only point is that if pedophilic tendencies are representative of a mental illness, then it better serves a greater good to identify and treat that illness, ideally before it leads to harmful actions, than to punish it after the fact. 

While you are trying to identify and treat these people there is a there is a child somewhere being talked into some depraved act that he or she feels they must do because the adult (that they probably trust (or are related to)) might get mad at them. I know how to treat this disease... toss them in guarded "sex offender camps" and let them have all the fun they want with each other. Or if you don't like the idea of locking them away, just "fix" them like I did with my Boston Terrier (now he doesn't hump anything).

You're right.  Now that this guy's in jail for 200 years, kiddie porn no longer has a market.  How silly of me for wanting to prevent it from happening again.  ::)

If you know the causes, the God willing you can prevent these things from happening in the first place.  Punishing offenders after the fact does NOTHING to prevent others from doing the same.  Using those same offenders to find the causes of the behavior can help to prevent it in others, assuming it's somehow treatable.  If it's treatable, then you can reduce the "market," thus preventing more kids from being forced to do porn.  I don't mind punishment, but just throwing them in prison is wasting an opportunity.

I'm just wondering what sort of "testing"  you would like to do to these people to find the curable cause to their perversion. What do you think it is, a bad gene? A chemical imbalance?
So Chester the Molester takes a pill every eight hours and suddenly he sells his Van and Clown Costume?

Hey, if we can boil it down to guys named Chester, with vans and clown costumes, then I'm all for it!   : :rofl:

Seriously, though, I don't know.  And the reason I don't know is because I'm far from an expert on either psychology or biology.   I'm sure someone is studying this, and locking up CONFIRMED pedophiles, in a prison without psychological study, is wasting a resource.   

IF it's an illness of some sort, then I think it's best to study it, in the hopes of treating it and preventing others from doing these things.  For example, if we can determine some causes, maybe applicants for teaching positions could undergo some testing, to better safeguard the children.   

IF it isn't an illness, then lock the pervs away. 

I don't KNOW that either is established as fact.  People have claimed both, in this thread. 

Think of it this way:  if it IS an illness, and it's treatable, we can prevent some (probably, and sadly, not all) future occurrences. 

If it ISN'T an illness, we can only punish offenders AFTER children have been harmed. 

If it IS an illness, and we DON'T study it, then we're condemning further children to abuse, out of our desire to punish, rather than to learn. 

If it ISN'T an illness, and we study it, all we've done is to waste some time and money.