Life in prison with no chance of parole for child porn
Offline Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder?A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
Is anyone else going whaaaaat to this? I mean the guy deserves some jail time for sure but life in prison at 26 with no chance of parole for looking at some pictures? I mean he never even touched a child, if he had he might have gotten off lighter. (Bold is mine) The arguement that he is supporting this is weakened by the fact that he didn't pay for the images. Life in prison with no chance of parole for possibly harming a child in the most indirect of ways is not acceptable. This kind of thing delegitimates an entire legal system by punishing this guy more than the guy actually doing the molesting. The punishment must be proportional to the crime and this is just in another universe.
Now let me clearly state, the guys deserves jail, however not this much.
rest of the story is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/life-sentence-for-possession-of-child-pornography-spurs-debate.html?_r=1
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
I think this is a bit extreme. And the other consideration, even with good filters, and virus stuff, crap can get on your computer that you didn't intend.
I've clicked on non-porn links before, thinking I was going to one website and end up at another. And scam artists can make a website for a bank that looks lagit, And that is non-porn stuff. If scam artists can do it I am quite sure that sickos can do the same type of stuff, and you could unwittingly get that crap on your computer.
Not to mention, even outside porn, you can go to the beach and see girls who look like they are 18. I've seen old men at work stare at my co-workers daughters undressing them with their eyes. Should that be a crime too? Where does it stop?
I think trying to prosecute something like this would be hard, because how do you know that the stuff was knowingly clicked on or downloaded?
There is too much wrong with this attitude. It is one thing to want to protect children. It is wrong to treat all crimes the same.
This is an old climate, that started on a mass scale with the death of Adam Walsh back in the early 80s. I think this is more of the same "thought police" crap that placates the masses but does nothing real to protect children.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The sentence wasn't so long for simply looking at them, he was distributing them through a p2p network. http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/oct/06/jury-east-naples-man-guilty-child-porn-charges-fac/
Although, unless there is evidence that he was actually making it or actively involved with the people who were making it, I agree the sentence is excessive.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I totally agree with you.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Here's what should have happened: jail time, counseling sessions, early supervised release (if well behaved). Anything short of that is just saying "we have given up on you, you're beyond help and you're a sick piece of shit that doesn't deserve proper care." If after all that he is still exhibiting the same behavior, then you send him to prison and help him in a different way. It's depraved what he's doing, but he hasn't showed any predator-like demeanor towards any kids (that we know of) and until he does, he deserves to get treatment before going directly to extremes. Hell, call Chris Hanson to pay him a visit, ask him to take a seat and scare the shit out of him.
That does explain a lot. But even so.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
As censorship should be outlawed, and this person never actually engaged in sexual activity with a child, and didn't take the pictures himself, he should be released until such time that he commits a crime.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
+1
This kind of BS is batsh1t insane. Let call it what it is. It is jailing people for thought crime.
Would it be a crime if someone had murder scene pictures on their computer? Somebody had to die in order for there to be a dead body to take the picture of.
The 'murder' was the crime. A photo is just a photo. Looking at the photo doesn't makes you a murderer no matter how your brain reacts to looking at the photo, and whether ot not you own a knife or a gun.
No matter how much child porn someone has on their computer, it does not equal molesting a child. It doesn't even come close to a transgression against the child in the photos, or any other child. And it doesn't 'signal' that there is any intent to molest an actual child anymore than watching gay or lesbian porn signals that you will ever have gay or lesbian sex.
Period.
Let's take this to it's logical extension. Does this mean if someone who finds a candid family picture on Flickr of little Johnny in the tub naked and downloads it, he can be jailed? What if there are no genitals in the photo?
What if he had pictures that he found in a folder in the parking lot at WalMart? What's the difference? I mean really? Whether he jerks off to it or not?
What if the guy has art or photos of art depicting nude cherubs and jerks off to those?
What about people who have porn that depicts rape? Some women have rape fantasies. Should that be taken as a crime against someone else?
What about role playing? What if a woman wants to dress up like Little Red Riding Hood and get raped by the Big Bad Wolf?
What if the husband is the one who talks his wife into the role play because it heightens the arousal for him but doesn't for her?
There's no logic with these laws, whatsoever.
It may or may not occur to many people, but girls are able to conceive a child as young as 10 yrs old, and men are able to generate viable sperm into their 90's. That's how we evolved naturally.
Let the flaming begin...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
In a sense, yes, but think about it this way; if you were known for being a person that has twisted thoughts, but never acted out those fantasies, then yeah, punishing people for just thinking about something is pure nonsense. If, say however, you're known for exhibiting weird bouts of behavior ON TOP of always vocalizing your thoughts that disturb people, even if you have never hurt anyone or been in trouble with the law, then there's serious cause for concern since it might pose a problem in the future where the simplest social spark can set off a violent explosion causing real harm to others. I believe the real issue here is a lack of outlets and a black and white approach to situations that don't help the individual through their problems and delve deeper into why they feel the way they do. Now, the sick fuckers that already have harmed, sexually abused or molested children, well, a firing squad comes to mind.
No its not a thought crime but I am sympathetic to the position that images shouldn't be illegal for various reasons, but president for a day I would keep it illegal. The crime is not in your mind, it is very much in the picture and possetion of it. A thought crime would be illegal to think about it regardless f a posetion of the picture.
Here is where it gets rather interesting. Did you know (not in all countries) that you can be arrested for a text document written by yourself or others depicting child porn. No pictures or anything, just words. Regardless whether it is based on a real event or not. Can be completely made up and you can still be put in jail. That is pretty weird though if you ask me. It obvious depends on the level of explicitness and whether it is in a larger significant body of work like lolita (famous book).
The child has to be in a sexually explicit pose or position. Baby pictures are completely fine. I guess they might give you grief if you have hundreds of them and you dont know any of the babies parents or anything. But it varies country to country.
There is no sexually explicit posing or anything in these, culturally significant icon, I don't think they would care. I mean its pretty twisted but I don't think it would count as child porn in most countries.
Illegal where I live. It was even illegal in a text format as of 1996, I don't know if they have updated it since then.
Also illegal in losts of places. In austrailia, school girl outfits are illegal in porn I believe.
Agreed, in most cases.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Downloading, buying or getting child porn in any way will often encourage or support the people that did the actual manipulating and/or molesting though. That's just supply and demand. Like, during prohibition in the U.S., there would not be widespread illegal distribution of alcohol if people didn't want to drink it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The thing is a don't think it has to in anyway encourage or support it. But I do think it can thats why I would keep it illegal.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Is this thread legal? Are we even allowed to talk about someone who had pictures without committing a crime here?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Unstable people with twisted thoughts and behaviour problems are put in a psychiatric facility.
And how many of us would withstand the focus of our peers into our imaginations? I killed millions of people in a dream once. Does that mean I should be tried as a serial killer?
I can't even necessarily blame this guy for looking at pictures (unless they're of toddlers), because it is COMMON for young females (and males) to lie about their age, and no human I've ever heard of could serve as an age detector. I've been attracted to girls only to later find they were 15 or so. Well they didn't look it. But if my first image of them had been unclothed and unaccompanied by an inaccurate statement of age I could conceivably have saved the picture.
It all is exemplified by that 17 year old chick who got into porn by lying about her age a few decades ago. If these laws have any veracity, then anyone who took part in
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
the making of the multiple porn vids AND everyone who ever watched it should also be charged as a paedophile.
But they aren't. And neither should this person or probably 80% of the people charged in the last 15 years.
Oh yeah, include everyone involved with or who watched the Superman movies in the 80's too. There was a boys penis in the opening credits of 4 or 5 feature films.
My argument against Butter is equal to my arguments against any censorship or prohibition of material: You are only exacerbating the problem by making it illegal. You're creating an underground economy, the proceeds of which go entirely to crime, that subsequently causes danger to the population when the violators attempt to protect themselves against unjust authority. You aren't helping anything, you're making it worse for everyone. Including the children. They are now a witness that must be disposed of.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
sentence for killing 67 kids? I think it was 20 years?
This is a tough topic. Butter's a Dad, so his position will be informed by this. I'd be similar. I imagine the response of most parents to an actual event would involve wiping the perpetrator off the face of the Earth. This intense protective feeling for children is normal for adult homo sapiens and a good thing, too.
As far as the OP goes, the sentence was too harsh, in my view. The bloke should get some sort of counselling as part of his punishment. There should be more effort put into understanding what mechanisms that lead to this behaviour - there's something going on in these people's heads. In the meantime, I don't want him living on my street.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Lol, wtf?
No, I do not have any kids.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
could have sworn you said you had young 'uns. Must have been Mellestad way back in days of yore...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck