12 ms·

>Investigators say they know child porn is on the drives. His sister saw some of it and the suspect is said to have shown his family an illicit video, too. So

>Investigators say they know child porn is on the drives. His sister saw some of it and the suspect is said to have shown his family an illicit video, too. So that's their basis for this "foregone conclusion" apparently. That at one point in time it was witnessed. That is very dangerous logic. The sadest thing in this is that it took child pornography to make the headlines, not political activism or journalism but the most despicable crime in our modern society.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
the-dude 10y ago
Pedophilia is the new red scare
- unlinker 10y ago
  Pedophilia is, sadly, far from being just a scare.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Pedophilia is a sexuality. Some people are just that way inclined. Don't confuse child abuse with sexuality the way people used to do about gays. That's extremely harmful to actual pedophiles who may have done nothing wrong. It's not even classified as a disease unless it causes problems for the person afflicted with it.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality. The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.
      - corin_ 10y ago
        The person you are replying to wasn't saying that paedophiles who look at child porn aren't doing anything wrong. If he was, your rhino analogy would be a good one, and is the reason nearly everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal even if you are only viewing it. But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. Plenty of paedophiles don't look at child porn, do anything to children, or negatively affect children in any way. The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.
        Retric 10y ago
        It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.
- ctack 10y ago
  Don't forget terrorism.
Kristine1975 10y ago
I wouldn't call looking at pictures (even of victims of child sexual abuse) "the most despicable crime in our modern society". The child sexual abuse itself is worse. Also torture, wars of aggression, mass poisoning...
- INTPenis 10y ago
  I was thinking of a modern twist of pedophilia where digital media has become a way to spread the product of child abuse. But maybe also that it's more relevant today due to the people being more informed and connected. So I was actually separating it in its modern form from much older issues like war, torture and poisoning for example. But that's a non issue really, sorry for unclear phrasing.
belorn 10y ago
A witness and some traces of keywords used on the suspect computer. I would not be too surprised if that was enough for a conviction, but the question remains on why the decryption should be necessary if the judge is already convinced beyond doubt that the accused is guilty. Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried.
- userulluipeste 10y ago
  "Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried." I (can only) presume that this is not something easily comparable to a murder. This is more like catching someone with illicit drugs, where the possessed quantity can be essential to establishing the due penalty.
s_q_b 10y ago
It's also totally insignificant. He could have broadcast it all over Times Square. That in no way waives his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Also, every prosecutor in history has thought their entire case in chief was a "foregone conclusion." That's totally irrelevant.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  It's baffling to me that people are treating "he will be found guilty" as evidence that he's already guilty and can be punished freely. We've got a code of laws specifically designed to avoid Inquisition-style "accusation of guilt is presumption of guilt" thinking.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    In the past in Europe, there existed the concept of "partially guilty." Someone got shot and you were seen in the vicinity of the crime scene with a gun? You're 25% guilty. Then you're tortured (since you're 25% guilty, it's not torture of an innocent, but punishment), and under torture you "confess", making you fully guilty. Source: Foucault's Discipline and Punish
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      That's absolutely fascinating, thank you. I need to finally suck it up and go read Discipline and Punish. As much as I'm not on board with "confession through torture", I wonder if non-boolean guilt could help sort out some of the dumber quirks of our legal system. As is we just have "innocent" and "guilty" (which is either 51% chance of guilt in civil cases, or 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal ones). But we're clearly fumbling around for new values. The Supreme Court decision about retrials (that "probably would have been found innocent at original trial" is not enough to justify a retrial) clearly makes more sense in terms of real-valued guilt - we can then set some actual standard for retrial, which is different from the standard for conviction. Perhaps you get convicted at 90% guilty in criminal cases, but don't get to open a retrial unless your estimate drops to 70% guilty. Now I'm fascinated. What would real-valued guilt look like in a modern system?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

the-dude 10y ago

Pedophilia is the new red scare

unlinker 10y ago
Pedophilia is, sadly, far from being just a scare.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Pedophilia is a sexuality. Some people are just that way inclined. Don't confuse child abuse with sexuality the way people used to do about gays. That's extremely harmful to actual pedophiles who may have done nothing wrong. It's not even classified as a disease unless it causes problems for the person afflicted with it.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality. The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.
    - corin_ 10y ago
      The person you are replying to wasn't saying that paedophiles who look at child porn aren't doing anything wrong. If he was, your rhino analogy would be a good one, and is the reason nearly everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal even if you are only viewing it. But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. Plenty of paedophiles don't look at child porn, do anything to children, or negatively affect children in any way. The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        > But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.
        Retric 10y ago
        It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.
ctack 10y ago
Don't forget terrorism.

Kristine1975 10y ago

I wouldn't call looking at pictures (even of victims of child sexual abuse) "the most despicable crime in our modern society". The child sexual abuse itself is worse. Also torture, wars of aggression, mass poisoning...

INTPenis 10y ago
I was thinking of a modern twist of pedophilia where digital media has become a way to spread the product of child abuse. But maybe also that it's more relevant today due to the people being more informed and connected. So I was actually separating it in its modern form from much older issues like war, torture and poisoning for example. But that's a non issue really, sorry for unclear phrasing.

belorn 10y ago

A witness and some traces of keywords used on the suspect computer. I would not be too surprised if that was enough for a conviction, but the question remains on why the decryption should be necessary if the judge is already convinced beyond doubt that the accused is guilty. Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried.

userulluipeste 10y ago
"Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried." I (can only) presume that this is not something easily comparable to a murder. This is more like catching someone with illicit drugs, where the possessed quantity can be essential to establishing the due penalty.

s_q_b 10y ago

It's also totally insignificant. He could have broadcast it all over Times Square. That in no way waives his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Also, every prosecutor in history has thought their entire case in chief was a "foregone conclusion." That's totally irrelevant.

Bartweiss 10y ago
It's baffling to me that people are treating "he will be found guilty" as evidence that he's already guilty and can be punished freely. We've got a code of laws specifically designed to avoid Inquisition-style "accusation of guilt is presumption of guilt" thinking.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  In the past in Europe, there existed the concept of "partially guilty." Someone got shot and you were seen in the vicinity of the crime scene with a gun? You're 25% guilty. Then you're tortured (since you're 25% guilty, it's not torture of an innocent, but punishment), and under torture you "confess", making you fully guilty. Source: Foucault's Discipline and Punish
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    That's absolutely fascinating, thank you. I need to finally suck it up and go read Discipline and Punish. As much as I'm not on board with "confession through torture", I wonder if non-boolean guilt could help sort out some of the dumber quirks of our legal system. As is we just have "innocent" and "guilty" (which is either 51% chance of guilt in civil cases, or 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal ones). But we're clearly fumbling around for new values. The Supreme Court decision about retrials (that "probably would have been found innocent at original trial" is not enough to justify a retrial) clearly makes more sense in terms of real-valued guilt - we can then set some actual standard for retrial, which is different from the standard for conviction. Perhaps you get convicted at 90% guilty in criminal cases, but don't get to open a retrial unless your estimate drops to 70% guilty. Now I'm fascinated. What would real-valued guilt look like in a modern system?