retired_katie14

How long does it take to sentence someone?

Get a move on ffs.

shannon2007

Its more an emotional thing then. Was watching MASH , near the final episode when Hawkeye sees the mother on the bus smother the baby. Drove him insane.

I think it's because, partly of the weakness of the child, but there's more to it than that. Its the potentially thats snuffed out. If a young child and highly talented adult who was the top their field, were murdered, which would present the greater emotional outpouring.

We should never have stopped sending kids up chimneys tbh.

retired_princesspouty

The corruption of innocence has always had an emotive effect.

Ventil

I still remember mine.

San

And therein lies the problem. The fact that it evokes a stronger emotional reaction in some people is not grounds in of itself o justify a greater punishment for what is, essentially, the same crime. (or lack of a crime, as the case may be).

retired_princesspouty

So what is the basis for deciding the severity of a crime?

retired_justin05

Innocence is over-rated.

retired_justin05

Severity of crime should be based on what's best for society as a whole.

retired_the gizmo

outrage

San

So what is the basis for deciding the severity of a crime? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Without wanting to write an essay one would suggest that a prerequisite for something to be considered a crime is a causal link between the alleged perpetrator and the harm caused.

A strong link would mean the severity of the crime was proportional to the amount of harm caused.

A weak link would mean the severity of the crime will be considerably less than that.

No link whatsoever means exactly that - no crime committed by the alleged perpetrator.

In this context, it seems obvious there is no direct causal link between downloading child porn and the gravest harm caused - i.e. to the actual child in question. Thus the harm caused can only be to the morals of society, or be some future event.

Given that society as a whole has no problem whatsoever with downloading lesbian porn and whatever else, the argument would run that the level of harm caused here is minimal at most.

As to teh future event argument - to say someone who watches kiddie porn is likely to go child molseting is nonsense. Likelier, yes, but likely? Doubt it, to say the least. Thus the only harm here which could stand up would be a demand causes supply argument. Again, this is a very weak link between the one end user and the perpetrators, and is unarguable less blameworthy in my view.

The only argument I can see in favour of punishing these people is one of prevention - that is to say, making an example of them so people are generally less likely to act on any paedophilic impulses. But that does not make the individual any more blameworthy.