Congratulations Toronto Police

[Argus]

"If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law."

And that is where the problem lies. You can molest a child "a little" and get away with it. Hell, with today's sentencing guidelines, you can molest a child "a lot" and get away with it.

As long as you pretty-please-promise not to do it a ninth time.

You are confusing child molesting with child porn. They are entirely different offences.

[geoffrey]

I have often tried to make the case in Alberta that if the courts won't deal with child rapists, etc, like they are criminals, then let them live in Nisku (the oilfield industrial park where I work). Make them wear a sign that states what crime they committed. Pick up the body 48 hours later. Problem solved.

The solution to violence isn't more violence. The law can deal with such people, if equipped properly. You'll struggle to find a cop that thinks sex offenders get just sentences... they all believe they should be locked up for good. The Calgary Police Association supports capital punishment for sex offenders. That's a vote of confidence from the police, let's see if our politicans step up to the plate and give officers the tools needed to keep these creeps behind bars for the rest of their lives.

[Hydraboss]

Capital punishment will never return to Canada, which is unfortunate. Very unfortunate. Do I approve of vigilante justice? Never did before, but after watching the scum of the earth get grounded instead of sentenced...I do now. So the solution to violence is not more violence? Ask any parent who has had a child raped or beaten what they would do with five minutes alone and no laws. Everyone here knows the answer to that question. I highly doubt that even those that support wrist-slapping could maintain their holier-than-thou stance if it happened to their loved ones.

Argus, I do know the difference between child molestation and child porn. My point about how to deal with these sub-humans was that there should be absolute sentences for some crimes. Watching or possessing child porn does not constitute child molestation in my mind (although it's not a lot better), and this should carry a very stiff sentence. However, whoever is involved in making the porn should be subject to the harshest sentences that society can physically provide (again, my preference would be capital punishment).

[FTA Lawyer]

"If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law."

And that is where the problem lies. You can molest a child "a little" and get away with it. Hell, with today's sentencing guidelines, you can molest a child "a lot" and get away with it.

As long as you pretty-please-promise not to do it a ninth time.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that if the only child porn that existed was provocative nude pictures of post-pubescent kids then we wouldn't have nearly the concern that we have now for imposing incredibly harsh sentences.

The fact that people are increasingly making videos of actual sex acts with toddlers and babies is alarming to say the least...and I was making the comparison to argue against Argus' proposition that a court need not view porn material to fashion a fit sentence.

I was making no comment whatsoever about child molestation.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

As to Argus' comments I totally disagree that sentencing for "pure child porn" cases shouldn't depend on how disgusting the material is. A naked picture of a 13 year old simply posing provacatively is child porn. A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped is also child porn. Mere possession of these two items by two different offenders reveals, in my view, vast disparity in the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Don't you think a judge can differentiate based merely on a description?

A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped seems descriptive enough to base a sentence on. It is clearly different than a picture of a 13 year old posing provocatively. What reason would there be for the judge to actually view the video? What new knowledge is this going to add, as opposed to rousing emotions in a person who is supposed to decide things with a cool, restrained mind?

I guess the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind.

What was argued earlier here is that sentences are not being given that reflect the actual nature of the crime when it comes to child pornography. Mere possession carries a maximum sentence of 5 years where making or distributing can be 10 years...but I can't say I know of any case where the maximum has been given...not saying it never has, but it would be extremely rare.

I can describe the Grand Canyon to you, but unless you actually go there and see it, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. Arguably, you can be repulsed by a description of a terrible porn video, but unless you actually watch some of it, you don't truly appreciate its severity.

FTA

[Hydraboss]

....and that would be the support for MINIMUM sentences. No one ever gets the maximums, so what is the point in having them? Judges refuse to protect children because of sub-human rights, meanwhile some poor two year old is being raped or stripped naked so some pervert f*ck can take take pictures of him or her and trade them with his friends.

END THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF CATCH AND RELEASE!

Let the bastards burn in hell (or at least share a cell with Bubba the Wonder Queer).

Before anyone starts with the "you're just making decisions based on emotional response" BS, why is that so wrong? It's an emotional topic, and it should be dealt with on that basis. There is absolutely nothing that could be considered too harsh a punishment for these creatures. Nothing.

[gc1765]

The Calgary Police Association was calling for capital punishment for sex offenders only a couple months ago.

How about mandatory castration instead....I'm only half joking.

[Argus]

Don't you think a judge can differentiate based merely on a description?

A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped seems descriptive enough to base a sentence on. It is clearly different than a picture of a 13 year old posing provocatively. What reason would there be for the judge to actually view the video? What new knowledge is this going to add, as opposed to rousing emotions in a person who is supposed to decide things with a cool, restrained mind?

I guess the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind.

What was argued earlier here is that sentences are not being given that reflect the actual nature of the crime when it comes to child pornography. Mere possession carries a maximum sentence of 5 years where making or distributing can be 10 years...but I can't say I know of any case where the maximum has been given...not saying it never has, but it would be extremely rare.

But that's not dissimilar to most other crimes. Almost all sentences are close to the bottom regardless of whether it's a violent crime, like manslaughter or sexual assault, or non-violent like fraud.

Tell me a guy stabbed another guy 400 times. I get the picture. I don't need to see a video of him doing it.

Also, we don't really know what type of guilt is involved. Someone who is actually producing the child porn, ie, molesting a child, would clearl have a far higher level of guilt, and should receive a much higher sentence for child porn (nevermind the actual molestation) than some guy who downloaded the porn from the internet.

And, as you pointed out, there are huge differences between a guy arrested for downloading a picture of a 13 year old posed provocatively in front of her web cam, and a guy arrested for producing baby rape videos. I have no evidence, but I'm going to assume the great majority of child porn cases involve people downloading pictures from the internet who have no record and are not suspected of having commited any other offense. Clearly their sentences would be towards the lower end of the spectrum.

[FTA Lawyer]

Argus,

I'm not sure we disagree much here other than I am of the view a judge ought to have to view material before punishing someone for having it...what if the overimaginitive judge conjures up an image in his or her head that is far worse than the actual material itself?

What I have struggled (rather unsuccessfully) to tell the Alberta Court of Appeal on two occasions is that the scope of the content of what is child porn is incredibly wide and when sentencing an offender we have to be very careful to sentence based on what the offender actually did and not on all of the horrors that the child porn industry as a whole is responsible for.

I would venture to say that Hydraboss' seamless shift from child porn possession to child molestation demonstrates how easy it is to lump all "sex offenders" into one category, when we know there is a plethora of varying degrees of deviance and severity.

Many people convicted of possessing child porn are not actually paedophiles and often, as you have surmised, do not have prior criminal records or even prior charges...of any kind.

If judges don't view material to get a true sense of what they are dealing with in a given case, it can actually make it very difficult for a defence lawyer to distinguish his minor offender client from the severely deviant.

FTA

[blueblood]

Argus,

I'm not sure we disagree much here other than I am of the view a judge ought to have to view material before punishing someone for having it...what if the overimaginitive judge conjures up an image in his or her head that is far worse than the actual material itself?

What I have struggled (rather unsuccessfully) to tell the Alberta Court of Appeal on two occasions is that the scope of the content of what is child porn is incredibly wide and when sentencing an offender we have to be very careful to sentence based on what the offender actually did and not on all of the horrors that the child porn industry as a whole is responsible for.

I would venture to say that Hydraboss' seamless shift from child porn possession to child molestation demonstrates how easy it is to lump all "sex offenders" into one category, when we know there is a plethora of varying degrees of deviance and severity.

Many people convicted of possessing child porn are not actually paedophiles and often, as you have surmised, do not have prior criminal records or even prior charges...of any kind.

If judges don't view material to get a true sense of what they are dealing with in a given case, it can actually make it very difficult for a defence lawyer to distinguish his minor offender client from the severely deviant.

FTA

just a question, wouldn't that make the person who has the child porn an accessory to the person who partaken in it and made it? I mean if it weren't for the people that viewed it, there wouldn't be a market for this filth and therefore no porn. I believe the person who enables this to go on is just as guilty and should get the same punishment as the creator of it.

[Argus]

just a question, wouldn't that make the person who has the child porn an accessory to the person who partaken in it and made it?

I don't see how. If you view a picture of a person being murdered does that make you an accessory to the murder?

I mean if it weren't for the people that viewed it, there wouldn't be a market for this filth and therefore no porn.

Debatable. First, I don't know there is much of a market for it anyway. If you're speaking profits, that is. Second, lots of people make their own porn, these days, without any intention of anyone else ever seeing it.

Third, my understanding is that most child porn out there is decades old, and came from a brief period when it was legal. Most of the newer stuff is the byproduct of sexual molestation, not the cause of that molestation. Paedophiles don't molest children in order to put it on the internet. The molest children because they're paedophiles. And yes, they take souvenirs which they are often proud to show to like-minded types, especially if they think they can trade. But I doubt there are many, if any instances where a paedophile would not have molested a child, even with the opportunity, save the chance to take pictures or videos.

Now if you're speaking about paying for this stuff, maybe from Russian producers, say, then I think you could make an argument that you were inspiring the molestation and should be prosecuted for that reason.

The laws don't work that way, however. If they did, then the end consumers of illegal narcotics would be charged with inspiring the violence the drug trade causes.

[FTA Lawyer]

just a question, wouldn't that make the person who has the child porn an accessory to the person who partaken in it and made it? I mean if it weren't for the people that viewed it, there wouldn't be a market for this filth and therefore no porn. I believe the person who enables this to go on is just as guilty and should get the same punishment as the creator of it.

Being an accessory (or accessory after the fact) refers to the situation where you assist someone who has committed a crime in getting away / evading capture.

What you are referring to is being party to an offence which is a bit more complicated. In law, you can be a party to an offence by 1) actually committing it, 2) doing or omitting to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it, 3) abetting any person in committing it. [see Criminal Code s. 21]

While creating demand for child porn by accessing it does give a paedophile a possible motive to molest more kids, that won't make you a party under 1) or 2) and would be impossible to prove under 3) unless you are caught communicating with a particular paedophile and encouraging them to make you some new material.

It is also noteworthy that merely being present at the scene of a crime and doing nothing to stop it does not make you criminally responsible (morally maybe a different story)...you have to at least be doing something to assist or encourage the actual perpetrator.

FTA

[blueblood]

just a question, wouldn't that make the person who has the child porn an accessory to the person who partaken in it and made it? I mean if it weren't for the people that viewed it, there wouldn't be a market for this filth and therefore no porn. I believe the person who enables this to go on is just as guilty and should get the same punishment as the creator of it.

Being an accessory (or accessory after the fact) refers to the situation where you assist someone who has committed a crime in getting away / evading capture.

What you are referring to is being party to an offence which is a bit more complicated. In law, you can be a party to an offence by 1) actually committing it, 2) doing or omitting to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it, 3) abetting any person in committing it. [see Criminal Code s. 21]

While creating demand for child porn by accessing it does give a paedophile a possible motive to molest more kids, that won't make you a party under 1) or 2) and would be impossible to prove under 3) unless you are caught communicating with a particular paedophile and encouraging them to make you some new material.

It is also noteworthy that merely being present at the scene of a crime and doing nothing to stop it does not make you criminally responsible (morally maybe a different story)...you have to at least be doing something to assist or encourage the actual perpetrator.

FTA

I see