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

[DesRicardo]

The fact it was 2 grown men caught with child pornography that challenged the law with a fake scenario makes this completely ridiculous.

All this does is leave the door open for lighter sentences for offenders that don't deserve such leniency.

 

[squeezer]

They go in under the YOA, no public record.

You guys keep on condoning taking pictures of underage teens.

No, we condone teens who consentually wish to share it with other teens should not be criminalized for it. If the parents want to take their phone away, they should have that right, but not the state.

 

[squeezer]

Do you think that filming a minor having sex is a crime?

If it is two consenting minors and the pics are not passed around secretly against one of the parties knowing, NO it's not and if I'm wrong and it is, it shouldn't be! If an adult films a minor nude, in a sexual fashion, then yes, throw the book at him.

ps...Unless it is an 18-year-old with a GF who both parties have been together while both were teens and the judge should make this call if an overzealous right-wing raging officer were to lay a charge.

 

[southpaw]

It's a simple question. Is filming a minor having sex a crime? And do you think a serious one?

And its a simple answer. Yes. The level of severity will be determined by a judge.

 

[Butler1000]

If it is two consenting minors and the pics are not passed around secretly against one of the parties knowing, NO it's not and if I'm wrong and it is, it shouldn't be! If an adult films a minor nude, in a sexual fashion, then yes, throw the book at him.

No, we condone teens who consentually wish to share it with other teens should not be criminalized for it. If the parents want to take their phone away, they should have that right, but not the state.

Wow. What if the parents WANT charges?

And btw, you just approved of the 18 year old facing "the book" with his 17 year old girlfriend.

 

[Butler1000]

And its a simple answer. Yes. The level of severity will be determined by a judge.

And if judges, like in the Epstein case are corrupt? Or just stupid?

 

[nottyboi]

The fact it was 2 grown men caught with child pornography that challenged the law with a fake scenario makes this completely ridiculous.

All this does is leave the door open for lighter sentences for offenders that don't deserve such leniency.

Supreme court decided it was a possible scenario. So would you trust the Supreme court or some guy on a hooker board?

 

[nottyboi]

And if judges, like in the Epstein case are corrupt? Or just stupid?

If they are that corrupt then they will just find him not guilty, or the prosecutor can be bribed for a lesser or different charge. Man are you guys effin simpletons?

 

[nottyboi]

Wow. What if the parents WANT charges?

And btw, you just approved of the 18 year old facing "the book" with his 17 year old girlfriend.

If the law allows for a charge, then there will be charges and a JUDGE will decide. Here is a similar scenario:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sex-school-consent-age-children-9.6945723

 

[southpaw]

And if judges, like in the Epstein case are corrupt? Or just stupid?

Judges can be corrupt, but Epstein was a unique case. Lot of power and money backing him. If the judges are stupid, they shouldn't be judges.

 

[squeezer]

Wow. What if the parents WANT charges?

And btw, you just approved of the 18 year old facing "the book" with his 17 year old girlfriend.

No I did not say that, read and read again. Here I posted it below for your reading pleasure. Unlike you my friend, I don't move the goal posts.

Do you believe parents would want their own children spending a year in jail even if young Suzi and young Chad decided to film themselves, because Butler wants to play morality watchman?

ps...Unless it is an 18-year-old with a GF who both parties have been together while both were teens and the judge should make this call if an overzealous right-wing raging officer were to lay a charge.

 

[DesRicardo]

Supreme court decided it was a possible scenario. So would you trust the Supreme court or some guy on a hooker board?

Only the 4 that voted against this.

This only opens the door for bribes and favourable treatment.

 

[mandrill]

And if judges, like in the Epstein case are corrupt? Or just stupid?

Wouldn't there be far bigger problems with a corrupt and stupid judge than just under-sentencing a child porn guy.

And a judge who clearly fucked up can always be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Because everyone - even smart, non-corrupt judges - makes mistakes from time to time.

 

[mandrill]

Only the 4 that voted against this.

This only opens the door for bribes and favourable treatment.

If that were the case, then judges would be bribed massively in financial crime and fraud cases and it doesn't seem to happen.

Who is more likely to bribe a judge?..... A guy with a business empire who defrauded his vics of $100M, or a broke ass little fuck with a folder of photos of naked 10 year old boys on his laptop??

 

[nottyboi]

Only the 4 that voted against this.

This only opens the door for bribes and favourable treatment.

And how big a problem do you think that is with sex crime trials in Canada? Also you need to remember Epstein was a rich and dangerous Mossad agent. How many pedophiles can muster vast sums of money and make credible deadly threats against justice officials? And as I said, if they can, they can just get the prosecution to fumble the case until it times out. So your concern about this is not resolved by mandatory sentences.

 

[nottyboi]

Wouldn't there be far bigger problems with a corrupt and stupid judge than just under-sentencing a child porn guy.

And a judge who clearly fucked up can always be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Because everyone - even smart, non-corrupt judges - makes mistakes from time to time.

Yes if the sentence is unjust either the defendant or prosecution can appeal it.

 

[DesRicardo]

If that were the case, then judges would be bribed massively in financial crime and fraud cases and it doesn't seem to happen.

Who is more likely to bribe a judge?..... A guy with a business empire who defrauded his vics of $100M, or a broke ass little fuck with a folder of photos of naked 10 year old boys on his laptop??

You guys are so naive it's not even funny.

I've know people that have pulled money from family or a Home LOC to guarantee no jail time.

Second, you have judges that give favourable decisions. So they've just opened the door things like No Jail-time.

 

[DesRicardo]

And how big a problem do you think that is with sex crime trials in Canada? Also you need to remember Epstein was a rich and dangerous Mossad agent. How many pedophiles can muster vast sums of money and make credible deadly threats against justice officials? And as I said, if they can, they can just get the prosecution to fumble the case until it times out. So your concern about this is not resolved by mandatory sentences.

Very Big.

We have repeat offenders in and out the system for various crimes all over Canada.

 

[nottyboi]

Very Big.

We have repeat offenders in and out the system for various crimes all over Canada.

But here we are talking about a VERY SPECIFIC crime, so don't try to conflate your way out of a lost argument. As I have shown (and you can verify) the recidivism rate for this type of crime is very low and they can easily up the sentencing guild lines for repeat offenses.

 

[Butler1000]

No I did not say that, read and read again. Here I posted it below for your reading pleasure. Unlike you my friend, I don't move the goal posts.

Do you believe parents would want their own children spending a year in jail even if young Suzi and young Chad decided to film themselves, because Butler wants to play morality watchman?

Dude, I can think of a shit load of father's that would happy see young Chad in jail for taking nudes of his daughter.

What planet are you on?