If you were judge for a day...

Originally posted by sh76
People are not really killed or hurt to produce Hollywood violence. Children are really abused to produce child porn.

I can show you websites which have a lot of pictures from the Holocaust where millions were killed; should possession of such materials be illegal as encouraging future Holocausts?

There are plenty of web sites and TV shows with materials from real murders and violence so I think you know this objection is beside the point.

Originally posted by sh76
I was referring to where there was no money involved. My comment was a follow up to KN's post which conceded that possession did indirectly hurt children in the case of paid for child porn.

The nexus is far too attenuated to justify criminal sanctions IMO; adoption of such a principle carte blanche would make possession of much First Amendment material subject to penal law if in the opinion of local legislatures that would be desirable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I can show you websites which have a lot of pictures from the Holocaust where millions were killed; should possession of such materials be illegal as encouraging future Holocausts?

There are plenty of web sites and TV shows with materials from real murders and violence so I think you know this objection is beside the point.

But the Holocaust was not staged expressly for the exchange of images of death and, that Brazilian chap aside, crime shows are not in the business of actually committing the crimes upon which they report.

Originally posted by sh76
I was referring to where there was no money involved. My comment was a follow up to KN's post which conceded that possession did indirectly hurt children in the case of paid for child porn.

I don't know to what degree people make child porn simply to distribute it for free.

Originally posted by DrKF
But the Holocaust was not staged expressly for the exchange of images of death and, that Brazilian chap aside, crime shows are not in the business of actually committing the crimes upon which they report.

And that matters how? Why is the motivation of the producer relevant to the criminal liability of the possessor?

Originally posted by yo its me
What would you do with Jon Venables?
The trial has already happened and he was given 2 years inprisonment. With his life as it is, it's doubtful that he will be able to have a productive life IMO. Do you think there's a better solution?

For anyone not familiar with him, he's a murder and danger to children.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world ...[text shortened]... s/2010/07/25/jon-venables-set-to-be-given-second-new-identity-at-cost-of-250k-86908-22438879/

Perhaps exported to Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Originally posted by no1marauder
And that matters how? Why is the motivation of the producer relevant to the criminal liability of the possessor?

Because if the making of the image for the benefit of the consumer motivates the harmful action, then that makes the consumer's role harmful. If the distribution of the video was not a factor in the motivation for the filmed actions, then the consumer's role is not harmful.

Your argument about the causation being too attenuated between the consumption of the video and the harmful actions that produced it makes sense, but that's a question for the legislature. Does natural right to privacy prevent the legislature from making a judgment that a harm is not too attenuated from a cause to outlaw the cause?

Originally posted by sh76
Because if the making of the image for the benefit of the consumer motivates the harmful action, then that makes the consumer's role harmful. If the distribution of the video was not a factor in the motivation for the filmed actions, then the consumer's role is not harmful.

Your argument about the causation being too attenuated between the consumption of the re from making a judgment that a harm is not too attenuated from a cause to outlaw the cause?

It violates long standing principles of our law to criminalize Person B's conduct because of Person A's motivation. Such an assertion would have been horrifying to the Framers.

I judge our Natural Right in the same way Justice Marshall did in Stanley i.e. "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." The legislature has no legitimate power to lessen it based on political expediency and their own moral outrage. The principles behind the First Amendment are a nullity if the legislature can set their limits at their whim.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It violates long standing principles of our law to criminalize Person B's conduct because of Person A's motivation. Such an assertion would have been horrifying to the Framers.

I judge our Natural Right in the same way Justice Marshall did in Stanley i.e. "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business t ...[text shortened]... ind the First Amendment are a nullity if the legislature can set their limits at their whim.

I do agree with you, that people should be alowed the freedom to look and read what they want in their own home. People reading political extreams at home are left to themselves untill they act on their ideas. But there's something so awful about a person who wants to see children in pain that I want to have that person castrated and locked away and left with no future, no pleasure, no love.

Originally posted by sh76
I think it would be a horrible idea to imprison parents for crimes of their children unless they were involved in their commission. In fact, the concept makes me shudder. There is a reason vicarious liability is a tort law concept and not a criminal law concept.

But if a child is not wholly responsiable for their actions then who is?
If my kids break somehting that belongs to someone else I pay for it.
If at work a cleaner leaves the floor wet and an accident happens it's the company who pay compensation.
I don't think it's such a bad idea myself. Afterall we're all happy to except congratulations when our children do well, and so we should it means we have raised them well.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He didn't [b]make any photos he downloaded them.

He pleaded guilty to three offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act. The first involved downloading 57 indecent pictures of children between February 2009 and February 2010.

The second involved distributing three indecent photographs of children in February 2010, while a third involved distributing 42 images in February 2008.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857[/b]

You're right. The BBC are a better infomation source. I should have looked at a few articles before I beleived one. It makes his crime a little less offencive but he's still in the industry as it were and still a part of a big awful crime.