Supreme Court striking down 1-year mandatory sentence for child porn possession

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Unsolicited dick pics going to your daughter. She doesn't want them.

The point is these situations are nuanced (as you and squeezer have highlighted with several different scenarios) and rigid laws are not going to be able to address these situations adequately or appropriately.
Hence, a judge ruling on it on a case by case basis is the right way to go about this.
The goal is to deter abuse, not look for opportunities to jail people.
Therefore the Supreme Court's decision seems to be right on this.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's the ladies fault. As long as he doesn't ask. So if it comes to light, yes, they get charged under the YOA.

These lessons need to be taught.

So you think teens should go to jail as pedos to learn a lesson for the good of the country?
To be forever marked as sex pests?

 

[Butler1000]

The point is these situations are nuanced (as you and squeezer have highlighted with several different scenarios) and rigid laws are not going to be able to address these situations adequately or appropriately.
Hence, a judge ruling on it on a case by case basis is the right way to go about this.
The goal is to deter abuse, not look for opportunities to jail people.
Therefore the Supreme Court's decision seems to be right on this.

Until pedos walk free. The issue has been unwarranted judicial leniency for years. It's why we have a revolving door justice system.

If judges used better judgement, there wouldn't be a need for mandatory sentences.

 

[nottyboi]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

That is utter rubbish.

 

[nottyboi]

My point stands. Cameras did exist. We vetted picture taking at parties. Same with video cameras. Our motto was no evidence. And we sure a fuck would never have taken nudes pics and video.

So no, because MOST young people DON'T take nudes, send nudes. It shouldn't be condoned or shrugged off. It should be taken MORE SERIOUSLY now with digital proliferation and the internet.

Abd if I had taken nudes when I was 16 and distributed them you think nothing would have happened?

Done stupid.

Dude when your how hard is it to replicate and send polaroid's vs select, share , send? And then hit the wrong contact? Talk about clueless.

 

[mandrill]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

Except the judges and prosecutors control who goes to jail and for how long. Who appoints the judges???.....

The provincial governments. Duggo decides who the judges are. Nothing to do with the Liberals.

You just pwned yourself and proved you know dick about any of this!!

 

[nottyboi]

Until pedos walk free. The issue has been unwarranted judicial leniency for years. It's why we have a revolving door justice system.

If judges used better judgement, there wouldn't be a need for mandatory sentences.

Recidivism rate for this type of crime is very low IMHO, 4.1% and I would certainly beef up sentencing guidelines for sexual offences that happen after the initial conviction. Anyone involved in any sort of intimidation, violence or blackmail using underage images, that is a whole diff level and they should receive significant financial and jail penalties. Maybe they should bring back corporal punishment. (even though some sickos might like it)

 

[Butler1000]

Dude when your how hard is it to replicate and send polaroid's vs select, share , send? And then hit the wrong contact? Talk about clueless.

It doesn't matter if they don't have them in the first place right?

You are condoning taking pictures of minors. It should be, not only legally, but SOCIETALLY, unacceptable, with very real consequences.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Until pedos walk free. The issue has been unwarranted judicial leniency for years. It's why we have a revolving door justice system.
If judges used better judgement, there wouldn't be a need for mandatory sentences.

Neither are pedos walking free, nor are judges lenient when it comes to these issues. So both are false statements.

 

[Butler1000]

Neither are pedos walking free, nor are judges lenient when it comes to these issues. So both are false statements.

You keep using that stupid argument. Once is too much. Zero tolerance.

 

[nottyboi]

You keep using that stupid argument. Once is too much. Zero tolerance.

No that sorta goal is idiotic, because you might create more injustices then you prevent. Justice systems are never perfect, no system that involves humans is, One needs to strike a balance.

 

[Butler1000]

No that sorta goal is idiotic, because you might create more injustices then you prevent. Justice systems are never perfect, no system that involves humans is, One needs to strike a balance.

What "injustice"? Are you saying it's an injustice to fry to deter porn pictures of teens?

Is that what you are into?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You keep using that stupid argument. Once is too much. Zero tolerance.

You keep making these stupid arguments based on non-existent hypothetical outliers.
Mandatory sentences could send non-pedos to jail as pedos which is unacceptable as well.

 

[squeezer]

My point stands. Cameras did exist. We vetted picture taking at parties. Same with video cameras. Our motto was no evidence. And we sure a fuck would never have taken nudes pics and video.

So no, because MOST young people DON'T take nudes, send nudes. It shouldn't be condoned or shrugged off. It should be taken MORE SERIOUSLY now with digital proliferation and the internet.

Abd if I had taken nudes when I was 16 and distributed them you think nothing would have happened?

Done stupid.

You have moved the finish line with this statement highlighted above.

This is why you leave discretion to a judge, not a minimum sentence, and it doesn't trap the consensual 18-year-old and 17-year-old as one example who consentually enjoy sending one another nude pics. As you said, growing up, we've all done stupid things as teenagers, but you didn't have to spend a year in jail because of a moralistic law to please the raging right.

EDIT: The legal age of consent in Canada is 16, so let's say 17 (18 for sex worker) and a 16-year-old.

 

[Anbarandy]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

"."

Just did.

 

[southpaw]

Is that what you are into?

Yes, because anyone who opposes mandatory sentences is obviously a pedophile.

And you are obviously a retard.

 

[Butler1000]

You have moved the finish line with this statement highlighted above.

This is why you leave discretion to a judge, not a minimum sentence, and it doesn't trap the consensual 18-year-old and 17-year-old as one example who consentually enjoy sending one another nude pics. As you said, growing up, we've all done stupid things as teenagers, but you didn't have to spend a year in jail because of a moralistic law to please the raging right.

EDIT: The legal age of consent in Canada is 16, so let's say 17 (18 for sex worker) and a 16-year-old.

No that sorta goal is idiotic, because you might create more injustices then you prevent. Justice systems are never perfect, no system that involves humans is, One needs to strike a balance.

They go in under the YOA, no public record.

You guys keep on condoning taking pictures of underage teens.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes, because anyone who opposes mandatory sentences is obviously a pedophile.

And you are obviously a retard.

I didn't say that. I said there needs to be a serious deterent. And that includes laying it out in sex education classes the consequences.

Then if they still do it, it's in them. And it's under the YOA for underagers

 

[nottyboi]

They go in under the YOA, no public record.

You guys keep on condoning taking pictures of underage teens.

Thats nonsense. Its already illegal. As you identified, the circumstances can vary significantly. What about a guy and girl that were dating when they were 15 sent nude pix to each other and are now 25 and in possession of child pornography and happily married. Mandatory sentence, destroy their lives and send their kids to foster care? You Cons are just destructive vandals.

 

[mandrill]

I didn't say that. I said there needs to be a serious deterent. And that includes laying it out in sex education classes the consequences.

So you actually propose a sex ed class that tells a 16 year old guy that if his 15 year old gf sends him a titty photo he'll have to serve at least 1 year in jail?????