Do not jail all paedophiles, says police chief (UK Story)

[IM469]

How much research have you done on this issue? Enough to recognize the thought patterns and belief systems of child predators?

Pedophiles usually appear normal on the outside. All types of people are pedophiles - doctors, lawyers, teachers, cops, fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers who all seem to be fine upstanding respectable citizens.

You better believe I can paint them all with the same brush.

Your zealous critic on Perry Mason and anyone who dares to try to separate paedophiles into any other category than active sexual predator reminds me of the zeal displayed by repressed homosexuals against gay activities. Do you find yourself abscessed in reading every lurid detail of this sick behaviour ? I had an encounter with a paedophile while was a cub scout and he was a leader years ago. The guy is finally behind bars after a history of attacking boys through hockey, scouts and other organisations. I would like to see him and other's like them out of circulation.

Your suggestion that the guy locked in his basement beating off to sick porno is the same as actively hunting kids is bullshit. The number one priority is protect the kids from becoming new victims. That is where the focus should be. Let the trained psychiatrist/ psychologist recommend the best way to keep paedophiles from our kids. I hope the message that a photo is the same as a real kid isn't one of them. My other concern is that the people who recognise they need help can get it without penalty.

 

[escapefromstress]

Your zealous critic on Perry Mason and anyone who dares to try to separate paedophiles into any other category than active sexual predator reminds me of the zeal displayed by repressed homosexuals against gay activities. Do you find yourself abscessed in reading every lurid detail of this sick behaviour ? I had an encounter with a paedophile while was a cub scout and he was a leader years ago. The guy is finally behind bars after a history of attacking boys through hockey, scouts and other organisations. I would like to see him and other's like them out of circulation.

Your suggestion that the guy locked in his basement beating off to sick porno is the same as actively hunting kids is bullshit. The number one priority is protect the kids from becoming new victims. That is where the focus should be. Let the trained psychiatrist/ psychologist recommend the best way to keep paedophiles from our kids. I hope the message that a photo is the same as a real kid isn't one of them. My other concern is that the people who recognise they need help can get it without penalty.

I am in disbelief.

You are openly advocating for viewing child sexual abuse images - and that's a crime. It's not my opinion, it's part of the Canadian Penal Code and the Codes of every other country I know of.

If you're not against it, you're either for it, or indifferent, and either is disgusting.

Do you honestly think the CHILD that is ABUSED cares if a pervert is just jerking off their to pic, or acting on impulses to abuse another child??

 

[Brill]

And I would much rather have a pedophile watching videos than molesting children!

Agreed.

Both are horrific but not equally horrific.

Nobody should be banned for stating this.

 

[escapefromstress]

Do you not understand that you don't need to touch a child to commit a crime?

Taking a naked or compromising picture of a child for the purpose of sexual pleasure - even if it's for your own little private collection, IS A CRIME.

I repeat -Do you honestly think the CHILD that is ABUSED cares if a pervert is just jerking off their to pic, or acting on impulses to abuse another child??

 

[canada-man]

Definition of child pornography
163.1 (1) In this section, child pornography means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Marginal note:Making child pornography

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Marginal noteistribution, etc. of child pornography

(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Marginal noteossession of child pornography

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Marginal note:Accessing child pornography

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Marginal note:Interpretation

(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.

Marginal note:Aggravating factor

(4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.

Marginal noteefence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

Marginal noteefence

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

Marginal note:Question of law

(7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material, visual representation or audio recording advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

 

[Brill]

Do you not understand that you don't need to touch a child to commit a crime?

Taking a naked or compromising picture of a child for the purpose of sexual pleasure - even if it's for your own little private collection, IS A CRIME.

I repeat -Do you honestly think the CHILD that is ABUSED cares if a pervert is just jerking off their to pic, or acting on impulses to abuse another child??

Nobody here said having child porn isn't a crime or that it isn't wrong.

 

[escapefromstress]

God bless you canada-man.

Definition of child pornography
163.1 (1) In this section, child pornography means


(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;


Marginal note:Making child pornography

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.


Marginal noteossession of child pornography

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Marginal note:Accessing child pornography

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Is there a lawyer here that could give us an interpretation of this?

(1) In this section, child pornography means


(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;


Is viewing and/or jerking off to child sex abuse images considered sexual activity?

If so, the very fact that terb members are advocating for the belief that viewing child sex abuse images is "less of a crime", is criminal content in itself and terb could be prosecuted for hosting such content.

Perhaps Jessie should consult with his legal counsel about this?

 

[Scarey]

I hate seeing threads like this on TERB. There's always someone in the conversation who has had something horrific happen to them and they never healed, and are just raw with anger and feel like anybody that doesn't agree with everything they say immediately must be a closet pedophile. Perry made a simple point about the lesser of two evils and got tagged with a disgusting accusation. Try and heal or that anger will eat you alive. We won't be going back and forth because I've said my peace.Cheers

Another senior member

Scarey

 

[Perry Mason]

escapefromstress, you need an escape from stress!

You sound like a very angry, irrational man whose emotions and beliefs are blinding him from reason and, as you said, likes to paint everything the same color, with the same brush.

I suspect you may be or were a victim of child pornography in some way or another along the way and cannot, or don't want to, distinguish black from white.

Get some professional help and stop reading in your fears into what others say...

And what you know about the law is, simply, ignorant!

I'm not ranting, I'm educating.

Who do you think you are trying to kid?

Perry

 

[goutam55]

Can someone explain the age of consent? I got confused. Google tells me 16 is the age of consent yet we can not have sex with 17 years old. What does it mean and what is the difference?

 

[rhuarc29]

I'm not ranting, I'm educating.

This is the critical flaw in your thinking: Some people are making a distinction between watching child porn and creating child porn; I likened it to the distinction between hiring an escort and exploiting an escort.

It's always abuse and it's always a crime when it's a child.

Holy fuck dude, did you not read the very next sentence?

 

[james t kirk]

.

We will have to agree to disagree strongly on that.

And seriously - if you're going to post on terb in defense of pedophiles and tell members that it's ok to view child porn, I think you should be banned.

Lighten up.

Perry didn't say that it was OK to be a pedophile. He said he understands it as a result of his experiences.

Huge difference.

 

[rhuarc29]

Can someone explain the age of consent? I got confused. Google tells me 16 is the age of consent yet we can not have sex with 17 years old. What does it mean and what is the difference?

I believe the argument is that the age of consent is upped to 18 years in circumstances of exploitation, and unless you're close in age the argument for exploitation is easier to make. Perry, as a lawyer, you got any insight?

 

[james t kirk]

I understand very well exactly what you wrote. Perhaps you reveal more of yourself in your posts than you realize.

You're so comfortable in your thought processes regarding child porn that you're not even aware of how much you communicate about your core belief system.

You need to stop listening to these pedo's.

You've already crossed over from being totally horrified at the thought of child porn, to finding it acceptable under certain circumstances, for people with 'special' problems.

You said you'd prefer they watch it than abuse a child. Your opinion should be that it is NEVER acceptable, because no matter how 'special' a pedophile might convince you he is, there is still a child that is going to be a victim in the photos he views instead of acting out.

And you're voicing this opinion on a public forum that is viewed by lots of normal people who will give weight to your opinion 1) because you're a lawyer, 2) because you're a senior board member.

You need to check yourself buddy.

You do terb no favours by voicing opinions like this.

You do realize that those charged of crimes are entitled to a fair trial right. And that fair trial does include the right to an Attorney. It's the system we've got and for the most part, it works. The alternative is of course just burning a guy at the stake. Sounds like you would prefer skipping that whole trial thing and just pass the gasoline.

 

[IM469]

I am in disbelief.

You are openly advocating for viewing child sexual abuse images - and that's a crime. It's not my opinion, it's part of the Canadian Penal Code and the Codes of every other country I know of.

If you're not against it, you're either for it, or indifferent, and either is disgusting.

Do you honestly think the CHILD that is ABUSED cares if a pervert is just jerking off their to pic, or acting on impulses to abuse another child??

You are a sick fuck ! I wrote "Your suggestion that the guy locked in his basement beating off to sick porno is the same as actively hunting kids is bullshit." You would equate the rape of your children to a person fantasising about it is insanity. These are real kids, innocent victims that you are willing to sacrifice rather than lean on the work of professionals. I agree the possession of kid porno photos should be unlawful but suggestion that it is the same as an actual attack on victims is to suggest looking at crime photos is the equivalent to murder. If you can't see the difference - it re-enforces a feeling that you have darker issues and are building higher walls to contain them.

I've seen these guys at work - if there is anyway to lead these guys from their victims - it should be done. Maybe they could generate porno that doesn't involve real kids - I don't know but my priority is to save real kids from becoming victims. I would rather rely on professions (including lawyers) to recommend solutions rather than idealist morons who can't differential a real victim from a fantasied one.

 

[malata]

... Maybe they could generate porno that doesn't involve real kids - I don't know but my priority is to save real kids from becoming victims...

I have an idea for one...how about "Mermaid Porn"?

 

[escapefromstress]

Lighten up.

Perry didn't say that it was OK to be a pedophile. He said he understands it as a result of his experiences.

Huge difference.

Ok. Good to know he 'understands' it.

You do realize that those charged of crimes are entitled to a fair trial right. And that fair trial does include the right to an Attorney. It's the system we've got and for the most part, it works. The alternative is of course just burning a guy at the stake. Sounds like you would prefer skipping that whole trial thing and just pass the gasoline.

I believe in a fair trial for every pedophile, as long as his victims get justice. You wouldn't want an unfair trial for the victims, would you.

You are a sick fuck ! I wrote "Your suggestion that the guy locked in his basement beating off to sick porno is the same as actively hunting kids is bullshit." You would equate the rape of your children to a person fantasising about it is insanity. These are real kids, innocent victims that you are willing to sacrifice rather than lean on the work of professionals. I agree the possession of kid porno photos should be unlawful but suggestion that it is the same as an actual attack on victims is to suggest looking at crime photos is the equivalent to murder. If you can't see the difference - it re-enforces a feeling that you have darker issues and are building higher walls to contain them.

I've seen these guys at work - if there is anyway to lead these guys from their victims - it should be done. Maybe they could generate porno that doesn't involve real kids - I don't know but my priority is to save real kids from becoming victims. I would rather rely on professions (including lawyers) to recommend solutions rather than idealist morons who can't differential a real victim from a fantasied one.

We're not talking about fantasizing, we're talking about viewing. No can can control what goes on in another person's head and I wouldn't want to know what goes on inside the mind of a pedophile. If you fantasize while viewing, it's a crime.

Again you're comparing apples to oranges.

Looking at photos of a crime scene is not a crime.

Looking at ANY photo of a victim of child sex abuse is a crime.

See the difference?

 

[escapefromstress]

escapefromstress, you need an escape from stress!

You sound like a very angry, irrational man whose emotions and beliefs are blinding him from reason and, as you said, likes to paint everything the same color, with the same brush.

I suspect you may be or were a victim of child pornography in some way or another along the way and cannot, or don't want to, distinguish black from white.

Get some professional help and stop reading in your fears into what others say...

And what you know about the law is, simply, ignorant!


Who do you think you are trying to kid?

Perry

Thanks for the advice Perry. I went and took a long hot bath and feel much calmer now.

Lulz

 

[escapefromstress]

Soooo.....if you have a rape fantasy, and view pictures of rape, you are a rapist?

In that instance, my opinion is that it would only be a crime if there's a child/underage person in the photo. But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.

The operative word here is CHILD. That's the issue. You can look at pics of snuff porn and it's not a crime as far I know, but you can't view any images of children that are victims of child sex abuse, no matter what the child is doing in the photo. If there's a child in the snuff porn, then it would be a crime to view it. But that's my uneducated opinion.

 

[IM469]

Looking at ANY photo of a victim of child sex abuse is a crime.

See the difference?

I see possession of child porn as a crime - I don't see it as an equivalent crime as actually committing it - nowhere near as similar.