12 week old baby raped

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4599524.stm

This is just beyond belief. The woman only got five years for her part in the crime but i hope and pray they don't even see a week in jail before some kind criminal person tears their throat out with a blade or at very least puts them in a coma after a stairwell nonce bashing

[Marcellus]

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. I agree that five years does seem a bit short.

[Viking]

Not shocking, I`m afraid. This happens at all ages, and it`s probably a hell lot of equally ugly cases not discovered.

[Ice]

I'd give him the death penalty. She should get life in prison.

[Devastatin Dave]

The human condition is in a horrible state. These people are lower than the lowest of life forms the creep, crawl, or slime across the face of this earth. I weep for mankind.:no:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Horrible, they both deserve 30 years in prison!

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

how the hell do you rape a 12 week old baby?

why the hell would you rape a 12 week old baby?

:viking:

[Ianofsmeg16]

Death would be too good for these monsters, let them pick up the soap until they're rotting and feeble, then i would hope that somebody puts a knife in their backs while they sleep.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In south Africa baby rape has happened a lot because of the "having sex with a virgin cures AIDS" myth. In England, I don't know of any such myths or similar. Hopefully it's just the news exaggerating something that wasn't a full rape but just a making of a very sick video that would look like rape despite not being it. But if it really was a rape... Then I don't understand how anyone could get the idea... They would make quite interesting subjects to psychology research.

[Viking]

how the hell do you rape a 12 week old baby?

why the hell would you rape a 12 week old baby?

:viking:


Please, don`t allow me to answer..

[Reenk Roink]

*vomits*

[Don Corleone]

I must not be understanding the article properly...

He: guilty of 1 count of rape, 4 counts of indecency, et. al.

She: guilty of 4 counts of rape, 5 counts of indecency et. al.

He: Life in prison

She: 5 years? :gah:

I agree he should spend the rest of his natural life in a septic tank, but if she's guilty of even more offenses than him, why is she only getting 5 years?

[Ianofsmeg16]

I must not be understanding the article properly...

He: guilty of 1 count of rape, 4 counts of indecency, et. al.

She: guilty of 4 counts of rape, 5 counts of indecency et. al.

He: Life in prison

She: 5 years? :gah:

I agree he should spend the rest of his natural life in a septic tank, but if she's guilty of even more offenses than him, why is she only getting 5 years?
If someone says womens rights i will cry...
I agree it sounds stupid, but 25 years still isnt enough please refer to my earlier post for what should happen to these bastards!

[Marcellus]

I agree he should spend the rest of his natural life in a septic tank, but if she's guilty of even more offenses than him, why is she only getting 5 years?

This is the reason the judge seems to give for the difference in sentences:


'Malign influence'

Sentencing French, he said: "You did not shrink away from the acts in which you joined, but looked forward to them."

But he said French was also a victim and had come under Webster's "malign influence" and was to some extent "corrupted by him".

[Don Corleone]

Pardon my Latin, but that's :furious3: . Unless he was found to have put a gun to her head to participate in these acts, she holds every bit as much responsibility as he does.

[Xiahou]

This is the reason the judge seems to give for the difference in sentences:Right, so even though she "looked forward" to the crimes, she was influenced by the man to do so and therefore is only like 1/10 as culpable? Sounds like a huge double standard to me.

[Marcellus]

Right, so even though she "looked forward" to the crimes, she was influenced by the man to do so and therefore is only like 1/10 as culpable? Sounds like a huge double standard to me.

I completely agree. Unless she was forced into it (which seems unlikely considering the words of the judge: 'You [the woman] did not shrink away from the acts in which you joined, but looked forward to them.'), she should not have participated in such heinous crimes, whether she was influenced to do so by her boyfriend or not.

[Sartaq]

This entire ordeal from the crime to the sentencing makes me sick...

[Templar Knight]

:no:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Horrible, they both deserve 30 years in prison!

Life...:shame:

[Just A Girl]

i think she should have gotten a life sentance also she is of an age that she should know right from wrong theres NO EXCUSE for her conduct i cant even begin to comprehend how people can do something so...so.... i cant even find the words to express how terrible their actions were oh, this is the real Just A Girl btw

[Lazul]

Slave labour, 12 hours per day, for the rest of life.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

If I were the babies dad, I'd pay a man to rape them everyday for the rest of there lives...

[Just A Girl]

If I were the babies dad, I'd pay a man to rape them everyday for the rest of there lives...


naaa that would be too good for them they'd prolly love it

[Ice]

Pardon my Latin, but that's :furious3: . Unless he was found to have put a gun to her head to participate in these acts, she holds every bit as much responsibility as he does.

That is horseshit. Life atleast for both. ATLEAST. :no:

Edit: I meant the ruling was horseshit, not you, Don.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

If I were the babies dad, I'd pay a man to rape them everyday for the rest of there lives...


naaa that would be too good for them they'd prolly love it

I would say something in response to that, but it's not appropriate...

[Soulforged]

visited her home after finding photographs detailing the abuse at Webster's home. Does anyone knows how the detectives found those pictures? I mean how they entered the house? By any chance.
About the crime, it's dispicable, beyond that I think that psicological problems most be the motive.
About the sentence: it doesn't separetes between material author and instigator, but if the instegator was the man and the material author the woman, then the sentences should be inversed (the harsh one for the woman and the soft one for the man).

[Oaty]

Does anyone knows how the detectives found those pictures? I mean how they entered the house? By any chance.
.



International law enforcers alerted police after Webster downloaded 7,000 indecent images from the internet.

It appears the internet was to be used for distribution or already was being used.

[Strike For The South]

He dosent deserve the needle. cut off a finger each day then toes then the happy place before we put him in a room where we slowly suck the oxygen out. Yay

[AntiochusIII]

how the hell do you rape a 12 week old baby?

why the hell would you rape a 12 week old baby?Sadly, nobody knows.

The crime is committed; it must be punished properly. In this circumstance, five years is a huge mistake from the judge. Even if retribution and deterrent -- not to mention one's, including my, rage at such acts of horror; why the **** would some ***** rape a baby? -- is not counted into the decision, the woman has proven, like the man, to be of an extreme danger to the individuals within society. They should be locked in for life.

Not shocking, I`m afraid. This happens at all ages, and it`s probably a hell lot of equally ugly cases not discovered.Perhaps, but what is the point of those crimes? No crimes of greed, of survival, or insanity fits with this particular case.

Horrid.

Sounds like a huge double standard to me.I won't dare to judge completely until the case has become clear, even though I don't want to pursue the details of this horrid crime any further; but still, I have to agree with you. She is perfectly responsible and must be properly judged before the law.

[Soulforged]

It appears the internet was to be used for distribution or already was being used.
Yes it was a rethoric question.
"The Ethics of Using Internet to Spy on others"? Or "This big-mouthed Society"? Either way it's sad to know that I might be banned as a perv or as a potential criminal just for downloading porn? Don't you think? Well I believe it's another subject.

[Zalmoxis]

Life in prison for these people, because being child molestors, they will be attacked by convicts who have children, far worse than the death penalty.

[Samurai Waki]

just slip a guard a 50$ Bill, and all the inmates on these people's block will know exactley what they've done...and child molesters are the most despised criminals by other criminals.

[Divinus Arma]

This is Bush's fault. He planned it all based on faulty British and Russian intelligence that said the baby was hiding weapons of mass destruction up its ***. The guy is actually innocent, but was outed by a Republican leak which aimed to destroy his credibility after secret NSA wiretaps discovered that his skank girlfriend was going to demonstrate with Cindy Sheehan with the Dali Lama and Hugo Chavez at a CIA black site in the North Pole on rafts since all the ice is melted from global warming.


In seriousness, I was shocked to read this before. Just the logistics alone is enough to make a grown man wince.

[Ja'chyra]

Yes it was a rethoric question.
"The Ethics of Using Internet to Spy on others"? Or "This big-mouthed Society"? Either way it's sad to know that I might be banned as a perv or as a potential criminal just for downloading porn? Don't you think? Well I believe it's another subject.

I can only imagine that it was kiddy porn he was downlaoding not your common or garden variety.

I would say that this case is why sentencing should be about punishment as well as rehabilitation, more focused on the punishment in this case.

The girl should have got life as well, hell, I would have killed them both, there is nothing more despicable than child abuse and anyone who can do this to a 12 week old baby is quite simply a waste of oxygen.

[R'as al Ghul]

just slip a guard a 50$ Bill, and all the inmates on these people's block will know exactley what they've done...and child molesters are the most despised criminals by other criminals.

I heard about the hierarchy of crime in prisons and that child molesters
are on the lowest level and most hated by all. I hope it's true.

[King Henry V]

If only the fate of Prometheus could be carried out on these...worms. Sorry, that's being cruel to worms. They are lower than even the bacteria on a worm's ar**.

[Fragony]

Bah. This has to be one of the sickest things I have ever heard. Dans la oublier for these animals.

[Idaho]

just slip a guard a 50$ Bill, and all the inmates on these people's block will know exactley what they've done...and child molesters are the most despised criminals by other criminals.

The prison guards always let the other prisoners know who they are. The likelyhood is that they will be in solitary confinement for their entire sentences. The woman certainly will be as she will get a very very rough time in Holloway.

[KukriKhan]

Looking for other details on this story, I stumbled across another Alan Webster, this one in Huntsville, also facing prison for child porn.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=4034327

Something about the name?

Meanwhile...watching the BBC video clip of "How Police Caught Him", it's mentioned that 'international police' (who would that be?) 'noticed' that 7,000 images of kiddie-porn had been downloaded to Websters computer from the 'net. How do/did they know that?

I couldn't find any reference to the baby's father - only the mother, who had been 'persuaded' by the perps to let them babysit.

So, if the UK is "cradle to grave" social welfare, what went wrong here? The mother, for reasons unreported, went outside the official child-care provider regulations? Then got somehow duped by bad people?

[Ser Clegane]

Meanwhile...watching the BBC video clip of "How Police Caught Him", it's mentioned that 'international police' (who would that be?) 'noticed' that 7,000 images of kiddie-porn had been downloaded to Websters computer from the 'net. How do/did they know that?

My guess would be that either Interpol (http://www.interpol.org/Public/Children/Default.asp) or the "Virtual Global Taskforce" (http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com/) have been involved here.

[KukriKhan]

From the VGT site (thanks Ser Clegane)

...The Virtual Global Taskforce delivers innovative crime prevention and crime reduction initiatives to prevent and deter individuals from committing on-line child abuse...

Interesting.

[R'as al Ghul]

Meanwhile...watching the BBC video clip of "How Police Caught Him", it's mentioned that 'international police' (who would that be?) 'noticed' that 7,000 images of kiddie-porn had been downloaded to Websters computer from the 'net. How do/did they know that?

The method of the international police (Interpol?) can basically described
as hacking. The chat-servers used by pedophiles (as far as they are known)
are being surveilled to determine the IP's of the chatters. This is done with
port-scanning programs. They also use undercover agents that try to
gain the trust of the pedophiles, which is getting more and more difficult.

To "notice" what he downloaded they either need to hack the pedophiles
machine to know what's on there, or they need to surveill the server
hosting these files. If it was shared by p2p, they would need to log into that
temporary network and download the same files to know which IP's are offering/ downloading it.

Does anyone have more info on this?

[econ21]

So, if the UK is "cradle to grave" social welfare, what went wrong here? The mother, for reasons unreported, went outside the official child-care provider regulations? Then got somehow duped by bad people?

I think "child minders" (those who provide regular child day care in their or your home) are regulated in the UK now, although no doubt some bad eggs may slip by. But that regulation is more to do with fairly recent concerns about child abuse than our older "cradle to grave" social welfare system. That system made little provision for pre-school care, perhaps because when it was developed, the model was still the mother staying at home.

However, when we talk of "baby-sitting" rather than "child minding", we tend to mean more ad hoc arrangements for looking after a child in the evening while the parents go to an engagement. I would expect that is more of an informal thing, relying on friends or contacts of the parents rather than official lists. And of course, such personal knowledge is no guarantee - most child abusers were already known to (or part of) the family before they committed their crimes.

[KukriKhan]

I see. Thanks Simon Appleton. I kinda thought it was something like that, too. Though the news story seemed to allude to these incidents happening over a period of time, i.e. on repeated occasions.

Googling "UK Child Care" got me this gem of a gov't link:
http://www.childcarelink.gov.uk/index.asp
After making a few random clicks, I found: lists of sitters, minders, and educators 'in my area', as well as PDF versions of multi-page childcare manuals and gov't policy statements/definitions.

Idaho has pre-school aged kids; what does he do, for child-minding/babysitting, I wonder? And how does he find those resources?

[Idaho]

Idaho has pre-school aged kids; what does he do, for child-minding/babysitting, I wonder? And how does he find those resources?

My son is almost 4 and gets free nursery 5 mornings a week. The babies are at home with their mother. Childcare would be too expensive. Wouldn't earn enough to cover it.

Baby sitters are normally friends or neighbours who have kids - we trade evenings.

[Lentonius]

jail is more painful and destroying than a short shock....

about the rape though...

its hard to even imagine how twisted these people are...:no:

[GoreBag]

how the hell do you rape a 12 week old baby?

why the hell would you rape a 12 week old baby?

That's the part I don't understand. The whole idea is absurd.

[Soulforged]

I can only imagine that it was kiddy porn he was downlaoding not your common or garden variety.That's not the point, the point is that we're being spied openly and faceless.

The girl should have got life as well, hell, I would have killed them both, there is nothing more despicable than child abuse and anyone who can do this to a 12 week old baby is quite simply a waste of oxygen.So you're equiparating rape with murder? No way...The sentence was reasonable, what should have changed is the asignation.

UK Government announce creation of new Child Explotation & Online Protection CentreWhat's a "Child explotation center"? Anyway, I'm not sure to what point this is unconstitutional, at least here...Well there I go babbling nonsense again, if the scum is arrested no other thing matters right?

[Marcellus]

That's not the point, the point is that we're being spied openly and faceless.

Child pornography websites are monitored and their users 'spied' on. So in order to be 'spied' upon, the person would need to have accessed child pornography, which is a crime. This whole thing could therefore be seen more as an investigation than as 'spying.

[Just A Girl]

Its a known fact that Many child pornography websites Get monitored.

But ones that Are newly discoverd are also utilzed to catch these people.

AFAIK.
They are allowed to take away all the Payment details that have been sent to the web site, If they deem it to be a child pronography site.
I.E your credit card...

The problem is Its Not Illigal to keep child porn on the internet Due to diferent laws around the world.
Here it's Illigal to DOWNLOAD them.
And any one who does Will be caught.

i thought every 1 knew, or atleast had an idea of how this worked?

[LeftEyeNine]

I want to catch a single positive point of view through all this twisted swamp of s***. Maybe it's fortunate that the baby is too young to remember anything afterwards.

Bleugh ! He will probably be "digested" in the prison.

[Reenk Roink]

That's not the point, the point is that we're being spied openly and faceless.

Monitoring illegal activity is not "spying" in the connotation you put it in...


So you're equiparating rape with murder? No way...The sentence was reasonable, what should have changed is the asignation.

Capital punishment does seem too harsh, but it wouldn't be murder....

[KukriKhan]

My son is almost 4 and gets free nursery 5 mornings a week. The babies are at home with their mother. Childcare would be too expensive. Wouldn't earn enough to cover it.

Baby sitters are normally friends or neighbours who have kids - we trade evenings.

So it isn't literally 'cradle to grave' - the 'free' stuff happens after a few years. Before that, childcare is available, but not mandatory, and the gov't monitors providers and sets standards. Babysitting (which apparently our topic couple were engaged in) is a whole different, un-regulated, informal person-to-person arrangement. Do I have that right?

Sorry if it seems I've been asking questions with obvious answers. I'm just trying to explore whether this case was preventable somehow - if some procedure wasn't followed, some regulation not abided by, some beaureaucratic bit of bungling to blame - looks like the answer is: 'No'; until age three or so, a child's primary, indeed only, defense is its mother, and her judgment.

Until a prosecutable event actually occurs and is detected; then the criminal justice system kicks in.

Not dramatically unlike here in the US (just subtract the free nursery care, and its virtually identical). Is non-parental child-care different in other countries? More regulated? Less?

[Soulforged]

Child pornography websites are monitored and their users 'spied' on. So in order to be 'spied' upon, the person would need to have accessed child pornography, which is a crime. This whole thing could therefore be seen more as an investigation than as 'spying.So I get "investigated"? From the disguesed agent to this "investigation" I don't see anything morally aprovable, so it shouldn't be legal.

Monitoring illegal activity is not "spying" in the connotation you put it in...So you put a site with the specific purpose of catching people? Or you're saying that this sites are illegal? If it's the first: where's the morallity that the state and their dependences should be showing to the general public? If it's the second: then why aren't those sites closed? Or the creators fined?

Capital punishment does seem too harsh, but it wouldn't be murder....I was refering to equiparating the criminal value of rape with murder, not to capital punishment with murder.

[Lanemerkel1]

as someone in this thread previously stated, both of them deserve to spend life imprisoned in a septic tank.


so why is she only getting five years?

[Just A Girl]

So it isn't literally 'cradle to grave' - the 'free' stuff happens after a few years. Before that, childcare is available, but not mandatory, and the.... gov't monitors providers and sets standards. Babysitting (which apparently our topic couple were engaged in) is a whole different, un-regulated, informal person-to-person arrangement. Do I have that right?

Sorry if it seems I've been asking questions with obvious answers. I'm just trying to explore whether this case was preventable somehow - if some procedure wasn't followed, some regulation not abided by, some beaureaucratic bit of bungling to blame - looks like the answer is: 'No'; until age three or so, a child's primary, indeed only, defense is its mother, and her judgment.

Until a prosecutable event actually occurs and is detected; then the criminal justice system kicks in.

Not dramatically unlike here in the US (just subtract the free nursery care, and its virtually identical). Is non-parental child-care different in other countries? More regulated? Less?


The thing is, Untill recently we didnt really have any "Child minders" or "nannys" Well we may have had but it wasnt like it is today.
mothers didnt always work back then, and grand parents were often employed to babysit.

We had Wet nurses "eww", family, and baby sitters.
baby sitters are usualy teen's who are well known and trusted by the family they will baby sit for.

Now we have goverment Trustted Child minders, and day care centers exetera. These things Cost a fortune.
An avarage baby sitter would get payed £5-£20 for anything up to 8hrs work.

Goverment trusted Child minders and day care centers can be and not limited to. anything as ludicrous as £25 an hour.

Aditionaly, many of the "checks" that these people are ment to under go are often Ignored any way,

Who dosent remember The sick peodophile primary school Janitor That was recently convicted for the murder of 2 young girls?

Also there are many documented cases of Goverment trusted "child minders" beating children, And shaking babys untill they suffer brain damage becous they were crying.

So what with the Cost being more than most Earn.
The fact that checks are Rearly carried out on the people,
and the documented evidence of violence against children.
People these days Are more inclined to look for a "babysitter"
Also these days teenagres are More likley to be "busy" than they were Way back when.
So They end up setteling on nearly any 1.

This causes problems!

Thnx tony blair, Great Idea.

(bler "pronounced blair" in welsh mean MESS. A more apropreate name i could not have Thought of)

[Viking]

Perhaps, but what is the point of those crimes? No crimes of greed, of survival, or insanity fits with this particular case.

Horrid.


Sexual satisfaction is one theory. Pretty sick; but we already know about people like necrophiles, who have a very odd form of sexuality.

[Marcellus]

So I get "investigated"? From the disguesed agent to this "investigation" I don't see anything morally aprovable, so it shouldn't be legal.

You only get investigated if you access child porn websites, which in the UK is a crime. If there's a suspicion that someone has committed a crime, an investigation usually does follow.


So you put a site with the specific purpose of catching people? Or you're saying that this sites are illegal? If it's the first: where's the morallity that the state and their dependences should be showing to the general public? If it's the second: then why aren't those sites closed? Or the creators fined?
I was refering to equiparating the criminal value of rape with murder, not to capital punishment with murder.

As far as I know, these websites aren't set up by the authorities (if they were, then they would have to be putting child porn onto the web, which is what they're trying to stop). But they are monitored by them, and the IP addresses of those who use them (thus breaking many countries' law) can be passed on to national authorities. I imagine many are closed, but some may not be able to be closed, perhaps because it has not been outlawed in the countries where the servers are. Some websites may be closed down after their users have been identified.

[AntiochusIII]

So I get "investigated"? From the disguesed agent to this "investigation" I don't see anything morally aprovable, so it shouldn't be legal.The fact is: Child Porn is illegal in many countries, and for good reason. Real child porn means real children are being exploited, they are too young to decide for themselves who they want to have sex with, or even to have sex at all; most often enough, child porn is in fact, rape and torture, therefore anything that stops such crimes are often well received by the police, the juries, and the judges, who might otherwise put a "stonewall" on similar investigations. The police cannot arrest child porn downloaders in countries beyond their jurisdiction, as has been stated; they can only monitor.

Sexual satisfaction is one theory. Pretty sick; but we already know about people like necrophiles, who have a very odd form of sexuality.Ah...I suppose I don't want to thread further, as I'll probably never understand them, nor do I wish to. It might be considered a sub-group of "insanity," then, if we take insanity literally.

[Soulforged]

You only get investigated if you access child porn websites, which in the UK is a crime. If there's a suspicion that someone has committed a crime, an investigation usually does follow.However I'm being monitored in my private business.

The fact is: Child Porn is illegal in many countries, and for good reason. Real child porn means real children are being exploited, they are too young to decide for themselves who they want to have sex with, or even to have sex at all; most often enough, child porn is in fact, rape and torture, therefore anything that stops such crimes are often well received by the police, the juries, and the judges, who might otherwise put a "stonewall" on similar investigations. The police cannot arrest child porn downloaders in countries beyond their jurisdiction, as has been stated; they can only monitor. I agree with you, but there's still a moral problem with the use of this methods by the government see the next reply.
As far as I know, these websites aren't set up by the authorities (if they were, then they would have to be putting child porn onto the web, which is what they're trying to stop). But they are monitored by them, and the IP addresses of those who use them (thus breaking many countries' law) can be passed on to national authorities. I imagine many are closed, but some may not be able to be closed, perhaps because it has not been outlawed in the countries where the servers are. Some websites may be closed down after their users have been identified.The ones that are not closed should be closed right away using any possible legitimate means. The use of this sites to monitor your activities is unethical and shouldn't, for instance, and from the logical and legal point of view not be used by government dependences at all. That will be a motion that I would present in the court in defense of this two now convicts.

[Marcellus]

However I'm being monitored in my private business.

If your private business includes downloading child porn (no suggestion that it does whatsoever), then I would hope that this activity would be monitored. People will only be monitored IF they access these websites, which is a crime that should be investigated.


The ones that are not closed should be closed right away using any possible legitimate means. The use of this sites to monitor your activities is unethical and shouldn't, for instance, and from the logical and legal point of view not be used by government dependences at all. That will be a motion that I would present in the court in defense of this two now convicts.

If the website is closed down instantly, then the users of the website will simply move on to another website. However, if the people who use the website are investigated and convicted, then they will not be able to continue supporting the abuse of children. Using the websites to convict the users protects more children in the long run.

[Soulforged]

If your private business includes downloading child porn (no suggestion that it does whatsoever), then I would hope that this activity would be monitored. People will only be monitored IF they access these websites, which is a crime that should be investigated.No, I don't do it personally, but the problem is that, if I had any urging "need" of doing that as this kind of people, then the government will be using amoral means to catch them, thus sustaining the same crime that they want to battle. That's a big problem, that's why I compare it with the same case of undercovered agents, agents that even can commit crimes if it's part of their "job". The institutions should always provide for our freedom, before our security, if they're mutually exclusive in this case (though there's an issue of security also of any body, who atracted to this still-going-crime-sites, could be banned forever and be convicted later or be suspects), here's not a matter of freedom, I agre, because I consider this kind of porn to be disgusting, but it's a matter of security of innocent people who are invaded in their private business by the same entity wich should care for that privacy. A person who enters this sites is not damaging anybody (but themselves could be argued), for instance there's no way that the goverment could use this means to catch this people.

[ajaxfetish]

However I'm being monitored in my private business.

Mafia leaders in New York were also monitored in their private business while their crimes were being investigated. That's how investigation works: 1. suspicion of crime 2. investigation 3. trial

The people accessing the websites are committing a crime. Would you recommend not investigating people who are engaging in criminal activity? What is unethical about law enforcement monitoring an illegal internet site? How do you recommend they close down internet sites that are beyond their jurisdiction?

Ajax

[Soulforged]

Mafia leaders in New York were also monitored in their private business while their crimes were being investigated. That's how investigation works: 1. suspicion of crime 2. investigation 3. trialBut you fail to see that the way to obtain information that could be used in trial or even to get a "suspicion" is unethical, thus I think it should not be accepted in court.

The people accessing the websites are committing a crime. Would you recommend not investigating people who are engaging in criminal activity? No I'll recommend to close the site or not use it.
What is unethical about law enforcement monitoring an illegal internet site?The fact that you're persuing a crime by commiting it at the same time.
How do you recommend they close down internet sites that are beyond their jurisdiction?I don't know, they can close first those under their jurisdiction. The jurisdiction could be amplified to what now is the monitoring range, thus doing it acceptable to give them the same kind of power, but this time it's ethical. But that's not the problem here. This isn't a pragmatic issue it's more related to the respect of both, human dignity and the law in general.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make sense to me, especially how you determine whether or not something is 'ethical.'

Ajax

[Soulforged]

I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make sense to me, especially how you determine whether or not something is 'ethical.'
If I say to you that eating apples is wrong in an specially crazy world (the state of course sais it to you) and then the same state uses those apples to attract you and use them against you, is it ethical? I think it's very simple.

[Marcellus]

If I say to you that eating apples is wrong in an specially crazy world (the state of course sais it to you) and then the same state uses those apples to attract you and use them against you, is it ethical? I think it's very simple.

First, I would like to point out the very large difference between eating apples and child pornography. Eating apples causes no harm to anyone, but child pornography can do immense damage to the unconsenting child who is being exploited for another person's pleasure.

Second, the state is not trying to attract you into using child pornography. It is illegal, and the state has always tried to discourage people from using it. They are not advertising it to try to catch people out and 'use it against you'. The state monitors child pornography sites to find out the IP addresses of those who use them, people who, despite child pornography being illegal, immoral, and discouraged, still commit the crime. These people are then investigated and prosecuted to prevent them making or using material that exploits children so horribly.

I do not see what is unethical about investigating people who have used these illegal sites. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be unethical if the state did not monitor the sites to try to prevent people from using them and expoiting and harming children.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

If people are downloading images of children being abused they deserve all the punishment avaliable. We need to find these people, if you can call them that, and sort them out in the strongest possible way. I mean these guys are predators and vermin. They are preying on our innocents, young children and hurting them for their own sick, sadictic pleasures and it leaves me bewildered why any lawyer would stand up and defend them.

I also believe if you watch it on the net, seeing children being involved in depravity, then if you keep watching it your cravings will in the end see you hurting a child. I believe that and as far as law and human dignity goes those bastards lost it once they put there grubby, nonce-filthy hands on kids pur and simple, or am i missing something?

Imagine if it was your child they did that too? or took indecent pics of them? God i'd kill them with my bare hands. It is the one subject i won't allow any leeway on. It sickens me to the state of want of total agression and violence against them

[Crazed Rabbit]

We need to find these people, if you can call them that, and sort them out in the strongest possible way.

"In every major city..."


Imagine if it was your child they did that too? or took indecent pics of them? God i'd kill them with my bare hands. It is the one subject i won't allow any leeway on. It sickens me to the state of want of total agression and violence against them

Right. It isn't a question of if, but how.

Crazed Rabbit

[doc_bean]

There was an article in a Belgium magazine a while ago about pedophilia and the internet, it was quite scary. The apparent conclusion was that they are not so much into children as addicted to the power play, and a lot of them enjoy watching more than actually doing the deed. They became like collectors of rare items, trying to complete certain 'series' of pictures. However, pedophilia networks work in *circles*, you have to be thrusted to get to the really sick stuff, and in order to get thrusted you have to supply rare or new material, which pushes some people over the edge and turns them from observes into actual participants.

And now the sick part...
One of the perpatrators had wanted to make his own stuff so he could get into the inner circle, but he didn't have children he thought he could rape and get away with it. So he convinced his girlfriend to have a child, even though she didn't really want to. And a few weeks after the child was born, he raped it and taped it. i don't remember if the child survived.

A related story, the first time I heard about this kind of sick sh*t, came from the lead singer of Korn (hey, i was a teenager...), he used to work in a morgue and one day they brought in a baby corpse. The baby had been raped and had died from internal injuries. No wonder the guy is so messed up...

[Alexanderofmacedon]

"No wonder the guy is so messed up..."

Why is he messed up? Because he makes music that is distasteful to you?

[doc_bean]

"No wonder the guy is so messed up..."

Why is he messed up? Because he makes music that is distasteful to you?

Well, he seems to think of himself as being pretty messed up, so I didn't really mean it as an insult~:)

He's probably no worse than most people, he just flaunts it more.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Okay. Well, he makes great music...:2thumbsup:

[Soulforged]

First, I would like to point out the very large difference between eating apples and child pornography. Eating apples causes no harm to anyone, but child pornography can do immense damage to the unconsenting child who is being exploited for another person's pleasure.Actually it was a supposition you know. :rolleyes:

Second, the state is not trying to attract you into using child pornography. It is illegal, and the state has always tried to discourage people from using it. They are not advertising it to try to catch people out and 'use it against you'. The state monitors child pornography sites to find out the IP addresses of those who use them, people who, despite child pornography being illegal, immoral, and discouraged, still commit the crime. These people are then investigated and prosecuted to prevent them making or using material that exploits children so horribly.I'm not saying that it attracts you in that sense, you're attracted to eat apples with or without the intervention, but the problem is that the state stays behind the apple-seller and supports his activities by using his space just to trap potencial criminals doing a monitoring of all stores where apples are selled instead of closing them, because it's a crime to sell it too of course.

I do not see what is unethical about investigating people who have used these illegal sites. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be unethical if the state did not monitor the sites to try to prevent people from using them and expoiting and harming children.If you want to battle an antisocial attitude or a former crime, then you cannot use it to attract criminals and monitor them, create a database and then come to them when you've a suspicion. As I said the sites should be closed, the hoster fined and the creator should be punished, but using it as your trap is unethical at least.

I also believe if you watch it on the net, seeing children being involved in depravity, then if you keep watching it your cravings will in the end see you hurting a child. I believe that and as far as law and human dignity goes those bastards lost it once they put there grubby, nonce-filthy hands on kids pur and simple, or am i missing something?What if the subjects in question just entered the site for curiosity? They're being monitored anyway. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an investigation and a trial on this people, the problem is on the method. If a witness sees it and tells it to the local authorities it's fine, but if it's through this unethical method of internet space monitoring that does not descriminates between the guilties and the innocents, then it's sick for the government to do it, also sustaining the stability of this crimes that are still going on because they serve a practical purpose.

[doc_bean]

What if the subjects in question just entered the site for curiosity?

It's still a crime, how many people haven't stolen something just to feel what it would be like ? Should we do nothing against that ? Besides, people don't tend to be punished (severely) unless they distribute or have really huge collections of kiddy porn on their computer. If you just stumble onto a site or do a search out of curiosity, it's unlikely something bad will happen.
Honestly, it isn't like the terrorist hunt, you don't get on a black list for opposing Bush or being at an anti-war rally, or being of a certain religion.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Why would you want to enter a site like that? Curiostity? I just think that is an excuse and a right load of bollocks to be honest.

[Radier]

Execute the sick bastards... :skull:

[Marcellus]

Actually it was a supposition you know. :rolleyes:

I was aware of that, I was just pointing out how your supposition of the illegality of apples does not reflect the fact that child pornography is exploitative and, frankly, sick.


I'm not saying that it attracts you in that sense, you're attracted to eat apples with or without the intervention, but the problem is that the state stays behind the apple-seller and supports his activities by using his space just to trap potencial criminals doing a monitoring of all stores where apples are selled instead of closing them, because it's a crime to sell it too of course.

Oh they're attracted to images of young children being horribly abused, I feel so sorry for them [/sarcasm]. If they have a personality trait that attracts them to this sort of thing, then their morality should resist it. And the state does not 'stay behind' the child pornography websites, it tries to close them down and prosecute the owners where it can, but it doesn't always have the jurisdiction. And where they do have jurisdiction but don't close down the website immediately, it is to identify those criminals who use and maintain the websites to prevent them from simply setting up another website.


If you want to battle an antisocial attitude or a former crime, then you cannot use it to attract criminals and monitor them, create a database and then come to them when you've a suspicion. As I said the sites should be closed, the hoster fined and the creator should be punished, but using it as your trap is unethical at least.

Like I said, the criminals aren't being attracted to the website by anything but their own minds, which don't care for morals. If it is a 'trap' then I'm glad if people who support the abuse of children are caught. They have committed a serious, damaging crime, and deserve to be punished.


What if the subjects in question just entered the site for curiosity? They're being monitored anyway. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an investigation and a trial on this people, the problem is on the method. If a witness sees it and tells it to the local authorities it's fine, but if it's through this unethical method of internet space monitoring that does not descriminates between the guilties and the innocents, then it's sick for the government to do it, also sustaining the stability of this crimes that are still going on because they serve a practical purpose.

Firstly, 'curiosity' does not justify using these sites. Secondly, they are only monitored if they enter the site i.e. it is the site that is being monitored to see who uses it, not random people being monitored to see who uses this particular site. Thirdly, your proposal for prosecutions based only on eyewitness accounts is useless: I doubt many users of child pornography websites are going to invite people from the streets to watch them, or use the sites in internet cafes. Finally, if people were on the site for just a minute or so before leaving and not returning, then I doubt the authorities will chase it up: they realise that people and stumble across these sites unintentionally.

[Soulforged]

It's still a crime, how many people haven't stolen something just to feel what it would be like ? Should we do nothing against that ? Besides, people don't tend to be punished (severely) unless they distribute or have really huge collections of kiddy porn on their computer. If you just stumble onto a site or do a search out of curiosity, it's unlikely something bad will happen.
Honestly, it isn't like the terrorist hunt, you don't get on a black list for opposing Bush or being at an anti-war rally, or being of a certain religion.
I'm not saying that objectivelly it's still a crime, but consider to points when talking about justice. 1- There's no real harm. 2- There's no intention of harming.

Oh they're attracted to images of young children being horribly abused, I feel so sorry for them [/sarcasm]. If they have a personality trait that attracts them to this sort of thing, then their morality should resist it. And the state does not 'stay behind' the child pornography websites, it tries to close them down and prosecute the owners where it can, but it doesn't always have the jurisdiction. And where they do have jurisdiction but don't close down the website immediately, it is to identify those criminals who use and maintain the websites to prevent them from simply setting up another website.It's pretty simple, don't use them, I've said it many times, if you can't close them then don't use them. Though I can see the practical adventages of this method, it's not proper to do it, and it could cause many problems to persons that do it out of curiosity, of an accident or those that have a computer where other people download this and can get them persecuted. Maybe they'll never be punished, but the question is: Why should I've a trial against me (wich can generate social problems) when the government tries to find praticity instead of respecting my privacy and developing an exemplary ethical behavior as a rational organ.

Like I said, the criminals aren't being attracted to the website by anything but their own minds, which don't care for morals. If it is a 'trap' then I'm glad if people who support the abuse of children are caught. They have committed a serious, damaging crime, and deserve to be punished.Of course you're glad, I'm too in a way, but that doesn't mean that I'll support this kind of methods.

Firstly, 'curiosity' does not justify using these sites.No, but it's not a crime. Read my examples above.
Secondly, they are only monitored if they enter the site i.e. it is the site that is being monitored to see who uses it, not random people being monitored to see who uses this particular site.Exactly. However does the government warns this people of what they're doing before entering the site? Does the page has this advices? Negative is a sure right. So what for those that don't know what the page is about? Or for those that know but don't know it's a crime? They're beign monitored anyway.
Thirdly, your proposal for prosecutions based only on eyewitness accounts is useless:Ahhh...little mistake there, I only propose the witness to go with the accusation (not official, just going to the autorities), not to use it as a proove, wich is useless without material proof. I doubt many users of child pornography websites are going to invite people from the streets to watch them, or use the sites in internet cafes.
Finally, if people were on the site for just a minute or so before leaving and not returning, then I doubt the authorities will chase it up: they realise that people and stumble across these sites unintentionally.That's a good point, but does your IP gets recorded?

[Marcellus]

I'm not saying that objectivelly it's still a crime, but consider to points when talking about justice. 1- There's no real harm. 2- There's no intention of harming.

Are you suggesting that child pornography causes no harm? Or are you saying that simply stumbling across the websites causes no harm? Because people who are only on the websites only very briefly aren't going to get prosecuted.


It's pretty simple, don't use them, I've said it many times, if you can't close them then don't use them. Though I can see the practical adventages of this method, it's not proper to do it, and it could cause many problems to persons that do it out of curiosity, of an accident or those that have a computer where other people download this and can get them persecuted. Maybe they'll never be punished, but the question is: Why should I've a trial against me (wich can generate social problems) when the government tries to find praticity instead of respecting my privacy and developing an exemplary ethical behavior as a rational organ.

Doing it out of 'curiosity' is a crime and is wrong. If it is an accident then they will not get prosecuted. And the chance of other people downloading huge amounts of child pornography on your personal computer seem very remote.


Of course you're glad, I'm too in a way, but that doesn't mean that I'll support this kind of methods.

What exactly is your objection to these methods?


Exactly. However does the government warns this people of what they're doing before entering the site? Does the page has this advices? Negative is a sure right. So what for those that don't know what the page is about? Or for those that know but don't know it's a crime? They're beign monitored anyway.

No, the government does not put warnings on the site. If the government could put a warning on the site, then it could also close it down. If you don't know what the site is about, then you will quickly find out and leave. And not knowing that it is a crime is hardly a defence, since I think that everyone would agree that it is morally wrong. You could hardly defend yourself against murder by saying 'I didn't know it is a crime'.


That's a good point, but does your IP gets recorded?

Probably for a while, but nothing will come of it if you're only on the site for a minute. Besides, to successfully prosecute I imagine you need to seize the offender's computer to find illegal files on the computer. An IP address alone isn't going to do anything.

[Soulforged]

Are you suggesting that child pornography causes no harm? Or are you saying that simply stumbling across the websites causes no harm? Because people who are only on the websites only very briefly aren't going to get prosecuted.The second of course.

Doing it out of 'curiosity' is a crime and is wrong. If it is an accident then they will not get prosecuted. And the chance of other people downloading huge amounts of child pornography on your personal computer seem very remote.That depends on the kind of curiosity, if it's regarding the whole content of the site it's not a crime, however if it includes knowing part of the content then it's.

What exactly is your objection to these methods?That it uses an illegal activity to gather material evidence against people who are involved in the same illegal activity. I think that the power of the logic of this arguement is enough to speek of the subject at least in abstract.

No, the government does not put warnings on the site. If the government could put a warning on the site, then it could also close it down. If you don't know what the site is about, then you will quickly find out and leave. And not knowing that it is a crime is hardly a defence, since I think that everyone would agree that it is morally wrong. Then the governament cannot use it (even if they could put warnings it will be unethical nontheless). In criminal matter the illegality of the actions are reputed known, but it's juris tantum, it can be prooved that the subject didn't know it (well in fact in principle the declaration of the author is enough)*. And continuing the arguement I need to say that illegality is not the same as amorality, there are even many laws that are amoral.
You could hardly defend yourself against murder by saying 'I didn't know it is a crime'.You could, depending on the gravity of the crime, supporting child porn by entering a site is hardly a grave crime.

Probably for a while, but nothing will come of it if you're only on the site for a minute. Besides, to successfully prosecute I imagine you need to seize the offender's computer to find illegal files on the computer. An IP address alone isn't going to do anything.Not effectivelly, but it will point you out as a possible suspect or potencial criminal.

*Edit to add: I made a mistake there, it's not the law but the wrongness of the conduct wich is reputed known.

[AntiochusIII]

That depends on the kind of curiosity, if it's regarding the whole content of the site it's not a crime, however if it includes knowing part of the content then it's.Curiosity does not justify you being customer of child pornography. Consumption creates demand, demand stimulates supplies. Supplies, in this case, is grave crimes of child torture.

That it uses an illegal activity to gather material evidence against people who are involved in the same illegal activity. I think that the power of the logic of this arguement is enough to speek of the subject at least in abstract.I understand that part. However, you forget that the sites' servers are often outside a government's -- say, US -- jurisdiction. They cannot close the website, they cannot alter the website, or do anything against the website itself; not that they want to if they want to catch the criminals. Therefore, they will only be able to monitor the sites to hopefully catch pedophiles that "consume" child porn that happens to live within their jurisdiction, or report foreign "suspects" to the countries where the visitors' IP are located. As far as I know, there are no international laws against governments monitoring websites.

Then the governament cannot use it (even if they could put warnings it will be unethical nontheless). In criminal matter the illegality of the actions are reputed known, but it's juris tantum, it can be prooved that the subject didn't know it (well in fact in principle the declaration of the author is enough). And continuing the arguement I need to say that illegality is not the same as amorality, there are even many laws that are amoral. You could, depending on the gravity of the crime, supporting child porn by entering a site is hardly a grave crime.Supporting child porn is a grave crime; but entering the site by accident is not -- however, if you enter a site and stay there for hours, then it's grave crime, too, because it becomes intentional.

Also, most -- in fact, I believe all -- of those criminals caught this way are singled out because they download child porn, not just enter a site for a minute or two.

I understand your distrust of government, and the liabilities that those who stumbled upon child porn sites could suffer should the government wants to exploit that. But what can they do? It's the children or your privacy.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Curiosity does not justify you being customer of child pornography. Consumption creates demand, demand stimulates supplies. Supplies, in this case, is grave crimes of child torture.Yes it does if you don't know what are you doing. How can it be reasonable for the person to guess the future?
I understand that part. However, you forget that the sites' servers are often outside a government's -- say, US -- jurisdiction. They cannot close the website, they cannot alter the website, or do anything against the website itself; not that they want to if they want to catch the criminals. Therefore, they will only be able to monitor the sites to hopefully catch pedophiles that "consume" child porn that happens to live within their jurisdiction, or report foreign "suspects" to the countries where the visitors' IP are located. As far as I know, there are no international laws against governments monitoring websites.As far as I know the internet is the most irregulated virtual space. However lack of bill or statute is not lack of law, and analogy could be used. The principal arguement derives from the fact that the government cannot use this means that are illegal in themselves with any purpose, the problem is in it's use not in the ends. In justice the ends don't justifies the means. About the jurisdiction problem well as always the solution will be stop monitoring, I know that it sounds repugnant but when talking about penal law one never can be too careful knowing that the freedom and even the life of a person, or his social prestige is at stakes.

Supporting child porn is a grave crime; but entering the site by accident is not -- however, if you enter a site and stay there for hours, then it's grave crime, too, because it becomes intentional.No it isn't. Generally only the crimes that damage public stability are grave, for instance murder, evasion, etc...There are some exceptions that the legislative power establishes expressevely.

Also, most -- in fact, I believe all -- of those criminals caught this way are singled out because they download child porn, not just enter a site for a minute or two.The probability of a single persecution of an innocent based on the fact of accidentally passing through this site is enough to forbid such actions of monitoring as a guarantee of the individual. However think in the case of a person who downloads this porn in other people's PCs, if the authorities follow the IP there will be no difference between the one who really downloaded them and the one who only gets at it incidentally.

I understand your distrust of government, and the liabilities that those who stumbled upon child porn sites could suffer should the government wants to exploit that. But what can they do? It's the children or your privacy.I'm concerned too about the inpracticity of my proposition, however justice isn't a pragmatic science, as far as it's a science.

[Marcellus]

Yes it does if you don't know what are you doing. How can it be reasonable for the person to guess the future?

If someone enters the site by accident then they'll leave quickly and nothing will happen to them.


As far as I know the internet is the most irregulated virtual space. However lack of bill or statute is not lack of law, and analogy could be used. The principal arguement derives from the fact that the government cannot use this means that are illegal in themselves with any purpose, the problem is in it's use not in the ends. In justice the ends don't justifies the means. About the jurisdiction problem well as always the solution will be stop monitoring, I know that it sounds repugnant but when talking about penal law one never can be too careful knowing that the freedom and even the life of a person, or his social prestige is at stakes.

You still haven't stated a piece of principle of law to say why it is illegal.


No it isn't. Generally only the crimes that damage public stability are grave, for instance murder, evasion, etc...There are some exceptions that the legislative power establishes expressevely.

Intentionally accessing child pornography websites is a grave crime. Accessing it creates a demand for it, and this demand will be supplied by more children being abused.


The probability of a single persecution of an innocent based on the fact of accidentally passing through this site is enough to forbid such actions of monitoring as a guarantee of the individual. However think in the case of a person who downloads this porn in other people's PCs, if the authorities follow the IP there will be no difference between the one who really downloaded them and the one who only gets at it incidentally.

In all the cases I have heard of prosecutions, the evidence against people is based on seizing the offender's computer (using the IP address to find the real address) and searching for illegal material. It is possible to accidentally access a child pornography website. It is not possible to accidentally download a couple of gigabytes of child pornography.

[King Ragnar]

This case just cries out for the death penalty to be brought back to Britsh Law.

[Soulforged]

If someone enters the site by accident then they'll leave quickly and nothing will happen to them.Point already taken. The answer was to Antiochus III, read his post.

You still haven't stated a piece of principle of law to say why it is illegal.Why do I need to do that? Did you notice that my principal objection comes from a logical point of view regarding the esencial function of the judicial power and the state? It's not law based, it's simple logic. If something is illegal then you can't do it or use it for your own purpose, it doesn't matter if those purposes are nobles.

Intentionally accessing child pornography websites is a grave crime. Accessing it creates a demand for it, and this demand will be supplied by more children being abused. The demand and offer has nothing to do with the apreciation of justice, it's economic. The only way to proove this, is to find proof that entering this site causes in someway, a direct danger to the public order (in general it means contradicting directly the principles of the constitution). Murder and rape are, downloading porn (whatever that porn is) isn't.

In all the cases I have heard of prosecutions, the evidence against people is based on seizing the offender's computer (using the IP address to find the real address) and searching for illegal material. It is possible to accidentally access a child pornography website. It is not possible to accidentally download a couple of gigabytes of child pornography.Read my post again is not what I said.

EDIT: To bold text.

[Redleg]

Point already taken. The answer was to Antiochus III, read his post.
Why do I need to do that? Did you notice that my principal objection comes from a logical point of view regarding the esencial function of the judicial power and the state? It's not law based, it's simple logic. If something is illegal then you can't do it or use it for your own purpose, it doesn't matter if those purposes are nobles.
The demand and offer has nothing to do with the apreciation of justice, it's economic. The only way to proove this, is to find proof that entering this site causes in someway, a direct danger to the public order (in general it means contradicting directly the principles of the constitution). Murder and rape are, downloading porn (whatever that porn is) isn't.
Read my post again is not what I said.

Entering the site encourages those who make the films and pictures to continue to do so, because they recieve a profit from your download. The purchase of the fruits of a crime - especially knowing that it is the fruits of a crime, is also punishable under the law.

Hence the harm to the child is being encouraged by the download of the material, the purchase of the film showing the criminal activity, and other such activities associated with such a crime.

Or are you trying to argue that sex with a child is permissable in a lawful society, especially the filming of the unconsenting sex with a inconsenting minor child.

[Soulforged]

Or are you trying to argue that sex with a child is permissable in a lawful society, especially the filming of the unconsenting sex with a inconsenting minor child.
Mmmm...From where did you get that Red?

[Redleg]

Mmmm...From where did you get that Red?

Why else would someone defend the act of downloading child porn from the internet.

[Marcellus]

Why do I need to do that? Did you notice that my principal objection comes from a logical point of view regarding the esencial function of the judicial power and the state? It's not law based, it's simple logic. If something is illegal then you can't do it or use it for your own purpose, it doesn't matter if those purposes are nobles.

Accessing child pornography is wrong and illegal because it results in more children being abused to meet demand. The government monitoring a child pornography website to find and punish frequent users does not contribute (indeed it reduces) this demand, so in that respect it is not illegal for the state to monitor the site, because they do not contribute to the reason why these sites are illegal. Since your argument is based not on law but on 'logic', all I can do is say that I disagree with you - I believe that the state's duty is to protect its citizens, including its children - child pornography websites encourage the abuse of children, and distribute materials depicting the abuse of children, which can be a very disturbing idea to the abused children and their families. Simply monitoring who uses an illegal website is about as bad a breach of privacy as CCTV cameras near important buildings.


The demand and offer has nothing to do with the apreciation of justice, it's economic. The only way to proove this, is to find proof that entering this site causes in someway, a direct danger to the public order (in general it means contradicting directly the principles of the constitution). Murder and rape are, downloading porn (whatever that porn is) isn't.

Using these websites increases the abuse of children, which definitely is a direct danger to the public. It allows the distribution of images of real children being abused, something that is very disturbing for the children and their families. It must be horrible for families of abused children to realise that other people are getting enjoyment out of their children being abused. So yes, it does cause real, direct damage to people and to society. And anyway, there are many crimes that don't cause 'direct danger to the public order' Copyright theft is just one example.


Read my post again is not what I said.

First you stated your fear that people might be prosecuted for accidentally entering a site. It is this that I addressed in my reply.

In reply to your second fear about people downloading huge amounts of child pornography onto other people's PCs, I would first ask why anyone would download child pornography onto some else's PC, where it is largely inaccessible, and second, I would simply make the obvious point: it is not a good idea to let anyone you don't trust entirely to use your computer unsupervised.

[Soulforged]

Why else would someone defend the act of downloading child porn from the internet.
Am I defending the act Red? Please, try to follow my words correctly.

Accessing child pornography is wrong and illegal because it results in more children being abused to meet demand. No, it's illegal because it's the demostration of an act that really happened wich is repungnant to all morality, the page in itself is also repugnant to all morality.
The government monitoring a child pornography website to find and punish frequent users does not contribute (indeed it reduces) this demand, so in that respect it is not illegal for the state to monitor the site, because they do not contribute to the reason why these sites are illegal.Yes it's not illegal, I thought I never said that, it's unethical and amoral, the same case of undercovered agents, wich are legal, but offend morality and contradic logic.
Since your argument is based not on law but on 'logic', all I can do is say that I disagree with you - I believe that the state's duty is to protect its citizens, including its children - child pornography websites encourage the abuse of children, and distribute materials depicting the abuse of children, which can be a very disturbing idea to the abused children and their families. Simply monitoring who uses an illegal website is about as bad a breach of privacy as CCTV cameras near important buildings. Your analogy is interesting because it parts from an example (the important building) that is in fact legal, wich is monitored by CCTV cameras. Here the logic is different: you've first an illegal activity: child pornography on the internet, and then a legal stract applied to that, wich is monitoring. The difference is very easy to notice.
Lets take your analogy and turn it a little, let's suppose that this building is a place where organ traffic happens, and the government agency allows monitoring on it, without closing it. Now let's suppose that I go inside that building stay for a while and notice that it wasn't the building I was looking for
and then I go out. The authorities noticed that they've me taped. Now let's suppose that somebody accuses me, or the government finally decides to close this building and trial it's operatives, and look out for their dealers. I'll be one of those "dealers" and they'll have a tape to proove it. Now the analogy may seem as an exageration of my point because the internet is a global place and situations like this might never happen, but the question is: what if?

Using these websites increases the abuse of children, which definitely is a direct danger to the public. It allows the distribution of images of real children being abused, something that is very disturbing for the children and their families. It must be horrible for families of abused children to realise that other people are getting enjoyment out of their children being abused. So yes, it does cause real, direct damage to people and to society. And anyway, there are many crimes that don't cause 'direct danger to the public order' Copyright theft is just one example.No. The damage to public order is done by the abuser only. Even if it was a lone photographer only taking pictures without forcing the childs, it will not be a grave crime, it will be morally repugnant but not grave. Even less grave can be the simple download of this material wich hasn't a direct link (inmediat) to public order.

First you stated your fear that people might be prosecuted for accidentally entering a site. It is this that I addressed in my reply.Yes but in that case I didn't said "downloading" just "entering".

In reply to your second fear about people downloading huge amounts of child pornography onto other people's PCs, I would first ask why anyone would download child pornography onto some else's PC,Because they've mind problems perhaps?
second, I would simply make the obvious point: it is not a good idea to let anyone you don't trust entirely to use your computer unsupervised.Not all ideas are good but still they happen. Also there's public spaces for the use of PCs, I don't know in the UK but here you can download material. But also it can happen in a friends house who trusts you and lets you use his computer at will.

[Redleg]

Am I defending the act Red? Please, try to follow my words correctly.

Oh I followed them correctly, Notice how I asked the question and did not make it a statement in the initial comment.

An individuals right to privacy only covers so much ground. Having the state monitor such sites to catch criminals in the act - does not consitute an invasion of privacy. Therefor a logical arguement to say that the state should not monitor and prosecute such individuals does not exist.

Or would you like to address the flaws point by point in your logic. How about this premise.


Why do I need to do that? Did you notice that my principal objection comes from a logical point of view regarding the esencial function of the judicial power and the state?

The essencial function of the state is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Adults having non-consentual sex with minor children has been deemed to be harmful to the general welfare of the people, and in fact has been shown to be harmful to the minor children, would you like me to site the studies that show such activities cause emotional harm to the child that stays with them, or would you like to see the studies that show the physical harm that occurs to the child. This activity has been shown to be harmful. So the state can logically develop laws to monitor and prevent this activity.

Since the state has proven that the activity is harmful to the general welfare of the people and have inacted laws to that effect the judical system must activily pursue any violations of this law.

Since the act of child rape or non-consensual sex with a minor child is deemed a crime, any fruits of such an activity are part of the same posionous tree. The state has the ablity to prevent the viewing of such material on the legal, the moral, and the ethical levels.

Care for me to address logically the other flaws in your arguement regarding this subject. Its not hard.

[Soulforged]

An individuals right to privacy only covers so much ground. Having the state monitor such sites to catch criminals in the act - does not consitute an invasion of privacy. Therefor a logical arguement to say that the state should not monitor and prosecute such individuals does not exist.The logical construction doesn't include the premise "this is an invasion to privacy."


The essencial function of the state is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Welfare is an ample term.
Adults having non-consentual sex with minor children has been deemed to be harmful to the general welfare of the people, and in fact has been shown to be harmful to the minor children, would you like me to site the studies that show such activities cause emotional harm to the child that stays with them, or would you like to see the studies that show the physical harm that occurs to the child.You don't need to do that, since I never disagreed with the amorality of such actions.
This activity has been shown to be harmful. So the state can logically develop laws to monitor and prevent this activity.Not by using the same mediums that propagate them.

Since the state has proven that the activity is harmful to the general welfare of the people and have inacted laws to that effect the judical system must activily pursue any violations of this law.Why is that you try to enforce my common sense Red? I asure you, I still have it.

Since the act of child rape or non-consensual sex with a minor child is deemed a crime, any fruits of such an activity are part of the same posionous tree. The state has the ablity to prevent the viewing of such material on the legal, the moral, and the ethical levels.That part you do know from where it comes right? Well it's ironical that it's used exactly to point out evidence that has been obtained in an illegitime way. Anyway, irony aside, that's a fine arguement, however excuse me if I still don't value entering or downloading ths kind of material as grave crime, it's a crime but it's not grave.

Care for me to address logically the other flaws in your arguement regarding this subject. Its not hard.Please do, I always like to learn.

[ajaxfetish]

Not by using the same mediums that propagate them.


This is one of the many parts of your argument I fail to understand. Are you under the impression that in order to monitor access to child pornography sites, government workers are viewing/downloading child pornography? I don't see how their monitoring the sites propagates child pornography. It is those who go to the site to download its material that support child porn with their money, not the government trying to stop them.

Ajax

[Soulforged]

This is one of the many parts of your argument I fail to understand. Are you under the impression that in order to monitor access to child pornography sites, government workers are viewing/downloading child pornography? I don't see how their monitoring the sites propagates child pornography. It is those who go to the site to download its material that support child porn with their money, not the government trying to stop them.This is false. The government doesn't has to use the site properly said to make use of it advantages in exercising the public power. The analogy with the "important building", courtesy of Marcellus, provides a fine explanation. If something is illegal then it should be closed imediatly, not used by the same system wich sais it's illegal, wheter it's to download this material or just to monitor the IPs, if it's out of your jurisdiction then it's out of your jurisdiction wheter it's for monitoring or for closing. Another example (a bit of hyperbole here): Let's suppose that in an isolated location in "Nobody's City" there's a series of murder rituals happening in this same location everynight on friday and the authorities know it, and they know that it will happen again. So instead of reaching the place at night by surprise and catching the murderers they go on earlier and put cameras to monitor their activity, just to see if there's a "bigger fish" involved in the mess. Wheter there's or there isn't a bigger fish is unimportant but the authorities think that it's, so they keep monitoring this murders at the expense of the victims life. It could even be out of the jurisdiction case too, because the police of Tommy's City is monitoring this criminal activities in Nobody's City wich is out of jurisdiction. Again it's hyporbole but I think that you should get it with this.

[ajaxfetish]

There isn't an equivalent action to showing up in the night and catching the murderers red-handed available in the child porn situation. Closing down the site (even with jurisdiction to do so) doesn't catch the perpetrators, and they can go on with their business. Monitoring the site is the closest thing available to your recommended suggestion.

Ajax

[Redleg]

The logical construction doesn't include the premise "this is an invasion to privacy."

Then you have no logical construction.



Welfare is an ample term. You don't need to do that, since I never disagreed with the amorality of such actions.

Then you have no arguement.



Not by using the same mediums that propagate them.

The film is part of the crime - therefor sites that allow the film to be downloaded are propagating the crime.



Why is that you try to enforce my common sense Red? I asure you, I still have it.

Your arguement in this thread violates that common sense.



That part you do know from where it comes right? Well it's ironical that it's used exactly to point out evidence that has been obtained in an illegitime way. Anyway, irony aside, that's a fine arguement, however excuse me if I still don't value entering or downloading ths kind of material as grave crime, it's a crime but it's not grave.

I did not call it grave, I called it a crime. Since you agree with me on this issue of it being a crime, your protest about monitoring and subsequent arrest of those you violate the law is mote, is it not?



Please do, I always like to learn.

The main one is alreadly covered - all others follow along the same logical fallacy of your main flaw. And the above mentioned paragraph where you acknowledge that it is a crime - shows that you know that your premise is flawed.

[Lentonius]

put it simply- more people looking at this sort of stuff adds petrol to the burning flame of this atrocity...


also, nowdays unfortunately individual hackers can overrule entire governments on the web, so lots of times the internet, and its sites, are pretty much immune to law if they have a good hacker behind them

[Soulforged]

Then you have no logical construction.Yes I've and it's a very simple one. If something is a crime then it shouldn't be done-> encouraging child pornagraphy is a crime-> it cannot be done. It's unethical and amoral for the same system wich helds us responsable for the crimes they say are such, to use the same criminal means just to catch other trangresors. And this includes monitoring a location where the crime still happens, wich is unethical at best.

Then you have no arguement.Yes I've, is an argument of form. In legal process the evidence obtained with cohercion, for example, is of no use because of many things, but one of the arguments is that the state cannot use this kind of means that will in any other occassion get a particular persecuted.

The film is part of the crime - therefor sites that allow the film to be downloaded are propagating the crime. So? I don't see the relevance in this statement.

Your arguement in this thread violates that common sense.No.

I did not call it grave, I called it a crime. Since you agree with me on this issue of it being a crime, your protest about monitoring and subsequent arrest of those you violate the law is mote, is it not?Pardon me then, I thought you were on the same line than the previous patrons.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes I've and it's a very simple one. If something is a crime then it shouldn't be done-> encouraging child pornagraphy is a crime-> it cannot be done.
Monitoring child porn sites is not encouraging child pornography; quite the opposite, in fact.


It's unethical and amoral for the same system wich helds us responsable for the crimes they say are such, to use the same criminal means just to catch other trangresors.
First you say it is illegal to monitor child porn sites. Then someone asks what law is being broken. Then you say you never said it was illegal. Now you say they are using criminal means. Either tell us WHAT criminal means or illegal action is being done, or stop using such phrases.


Yes I've, is an argument of form. In legal process the evidence obtained with cohercion, for example, is of no use because of many things, but one of the arguments is that the state cannot use this kind of means that will in any other occassion get a particular persecuted.
The government is not coercing people into downloading child porn. They are not torturing confessions out of suspects. Where is the coercion?


Your arguement in this thread violates that common sense.

No.
Yes

Ajax

[Lentonius]

Yes I've and it's a very simple one. If something is a crime then it shouldn't be done-> encouraging child pornagraphy is a crime-> it cannot be done. It's unethical and amoral for the same system wich helds us responsable for the crimes they say are such, to use the same criminal means just to catch other trangresors. And this includes monitoring a location where the crime still happens, wich is unethical at best.


It does make complete sense, but in any situation normal sane folk like you and me are not going to be 'persuaded' to go on these horrible sites. the people who go on them are mentally unstable and are quite frankly disgusting.


And this includes monitoring a location where the crime still happens, wich is unethical at best

unfortunately, although it is unethical, is someimes the best way of finding these paedophiles. the venus fly trap lures flies into its mouth by attracting the flies, then biting down hard...

[Redleg]

Yes I've and it's a very simple one. If something is a crime then it shouldn't be done-> encouraging child pornagraphy is a crime-> it cannot be done. It's unethical and amoral for the same system wich helds us responsable for the crimes they say are such, to use the same criminal means just to catch other trangresors. And this includes monitoring a location where the crime still happens, wich is unethical at best.

Monitoring a criminal site to catch other transgressors is not unethical. If the state established the site to catch transgressors - then it could possibily be seen as entrapment ( an ethical issue) however monitoring a site that has the material that has been establish by a criminal enterprise is not. So your arguement here is still flawed.



Yes I've, is an argument of form. In legal process the evidence obtained with cohercion, for example, is of no use because of many things, but one of the arguments is that the state cannot use this kind of means that will in any other occassion get a particular persecuted.

Your arguement hee is flawed - the state is not establishing the site to catch transgressors. It is monitoring a site established by an individual for that is a criminal enterprise. Using the evidence gained from such a site does not violate any legal process.



So? I don't see the relevance in this statement.


That is because you do not want to see the relevance.



No.


Attempt to argue in support of a criminal activity which you understand to be a criminal activity violated common sense.



Pardon me then, I thought you were on the same line than the previous patrons.

Nope the grave crime is the act of child rape, the criminal act of downloading child porn - while I find it disgusting is just a crime, warranting of prosecuting the individuals involved to face the consequences of thier behavior.

[Soulforged]

Monitoring a criminal site to catch other transgressors is not unethical. If the state established the site to catch transgressors - then it could possibily be seen as entrapment ( an ethical issue) however monitoring a site that has the material that has been establish by a criminal enterprise is not. So your arguement here is still flawed.Not at all. If creating it is, why not creating it, but taking advantage of it, is not. If a hunter goes to the forest and sees other's trap setted upon the ground and he makes use of it, what's the difference between that and the one who really setted the trap, the animal will be catched eventually both the same.

Your arguement hee is flawed - the state is not establishing the site to catch transgressors. It is monitoring a site established by an individual for that is a criminal enterprise. Using the evidence gained from such a site does not violate any legal process.As to questions of philosophy one can desagree in such matters. I disagree with you, I think that both: creating the crime and using it after that, are both unethical and amoral.

That is because you do not want to see the relevance.
The film is part of the crime - therefor sites that allow the film to be downloaded are propagating the crime. Again what's the point on this regarding my logic as I've said many times that the act is illegal.

Attempt to argue in support of a criminal activity which you understand to be a criminal activity violated common sense.Drug dealing is still a criminal activity, however the state allows their effectives to run in such actions if it's an advantage to the application of it's public power.

Monitoring child porn sites is not encouraging child pornography; quite the opposite, in fact. No, it's encouraging it because of two reasons: 1- the site is still not closed. 2- the state does not put an explicit warning to those entering such sites, so there's no difference between the one who entered previously to the monitoring and after that.

First you say it is illegal to monitor child porn sites. The word illegal was used in an ample sense, it isn't necessary a written law (act, bill, statute) it's enough with contradicting the principles of law.
Then someone asks what law is being broken.In strict sense none.
Then you say you never said it was illegal.Not in the sense he posted it.
Now you say they are using criminal means.Huh? So a site of child pornography is not criminal?
The government is not coercing people into downloading child porn. They are not torturing confessions out of suspects. Where is the coercion? Excuse me? Did you read that post, if you read it well you'll notice that the point is that the government can't use the same means to obtain evidence, not necessarily coercion, since it's not the only one.

[Redleg]

Not at all. If creating it is, why not creating it, but taking advantage of it, is not. If a hunter goes to the forest and sees other's trap setted upon the ground and he makes use of it, what's the difference between that and the one who really setted the trap, the animal will be catched eventually both the same.

poor analogy. What is the correct anology is that the park ranger notices that some traps have been established that violated hunting regulations. The ranger places safeguards to prevent innocent animals from straying into the area, but is on the lookout for hunters that utilize the traps for illegal hunting.

Perfectly acceptable in law enforcement pratice and is completely ethical



As to questions of philosophy one can desagree in such matters. I disagree with you, I think that both: creating the crime and using it after that, are both unethical and amoral.

Then you are not argueing from a base of logical construct like you mentioned.



Again what's the point on this regarding my logic as I've said many times that the act is illegal.

If the act is illegal in itself - your logic has a major flaw.



Drug dealing is still a criminal activity, however the state allows their effectives to run in such actions if it's an advantage to the application of it's public power.

State agents posing as drug dealers to capture and prosecute users would fall within the unethical arguement that you are trying to maintain.

The correct anology would be that the state discovers a drug dealer and decides to monitor his activities to discover his supplier and as many of his users that they can identify. This again is not unethical nor does it violate the establish legal codes. In fact I find no problem with this type of police work because it attempts to remove as much of the posionous vine as possible.

[ajaxfetish]

No, it's encouraging it because of two reasons: 1- the site is still not closed. 2- the state does not put an explicit warning to those entering such sites, so there's no difference between the one who entered previously to the monitoring and after that.


#1--the state can't do
#2--the state can't do
The site's illegal whether it has a warning or not; it doesn't matter if you entered before or after the monitoring started.

Monitoring the site and prosecuting those who use it to commit crimes is more of a discouragement for other prospective criminals than anything else the government has the power to do.

Ajax