4 ms·

>No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway

>No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway). I put on the relatively tag for a reason. I heard of about 7 cases in one year, each one of them completely insane. That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. It's also a lot relative to how many should have happened, also zero. >but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender. No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them? Imagine some less extreme behaviors that people could do and how it would be greeted. Imagine some intimate situation like a young man proposing to a young lady in a restaurant. Suddenly some jerk walks up and loudly farts in his face. How would this be reacted to? I can think of a lot of potential reactions, all of which would be extreme enough to let the drive by farter know that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Now lets step it up a notch. Someone urinates on the floor in the middle of a semi-crowded area. Now we're talking jail time, right? Maybe the person grew up in a culture where this was acceptable or even expected. Doesn't matter, they did something more extreme than the last example and will be greeted with a more extreme result. Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. >Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her; it does not make them a sex offender. Neither did the person taking the photos. Remember, my statement was if I had to pick between the two of them. Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad news for you... >if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call the police? Bad example. Enough people are into such behavior that I absolutely would not call the police. Further, if I did I would fully expect to find myself on the business end of a peeping Tom case. But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference?

ErrantX 16y ago
That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. There are similar cases over here (in Europe), you just don't hear about them (for reasons I've never got to the bottom of). 7 cases may seem a lot, and you are right it should be 0. But relative to the number of successful child abusers caught it's a pretty good statistic. No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them? Agreed; this didn't seem to be what you were saying before. But now I see you were less suggesting they were sex offenders but that they should face the consequences too & this would limit their desire for prosecutions. I disagree with this being the right approach. Where this process failed was the first officer who thought the images were fine but still escalated it; that officer should be someone experienced, qualified and serious enough to have said "no, this is not a concern" - perhaps after quickly talking to the parents. Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. This is a completely different point to one you were originally making - at least how it reads anyway. And I agree; there should be consequences if you deliberately ruin someones life. But if the clerk is acting in good faith (in a way that doesn't sync with the examples you highlighted) so I'd argue a serious word/caution is sufficient to show him/her that they made a mistake and to take more care in the future. Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad news for you... I'd pick neither. end of. But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference? Yes. Sadly it is not a comparable example - because two people hugging is not associated with anything sexual or inappropriate. I was trying to highlight the idea that you might see something that others found sexually enticing but that simply concerned you - in such a case you are not a sexually excited by the event, just concerned. This is the mentality of the clerk; and you are right it is a result of a messed up society. What should have happened (assuming the clerk is still concerned enough in this perfect situation to have called the police) is the police man should have called the parents, chatted informally to assure himself that it was as he suspected and then left it at that. The failure here appears to be societies attitude to child nudity followed quickly by maddening bureaucracy.

ErrantX 16y ago

That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. There are similar cases over here (in Europe), you just don't hear about them (for reasons I've never got to the bottom of). 7 cases may seem a lot, and you are right it should be 0. But relative to the number of successful child abusers caught it's a pretty good statistic. No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them? Agreed; this didn't seem to be what you were saying before. But now I see you were less suggesting they were sex offenders but that they should face the consequences too & this would limit their desire for prosecutions. I disagree with this being the right approach. Where this process failed was the first officer who thought the images were fine but still escalated it; that officer should be someone experienced, qualified and serious enough to have said "no, this is not a concern" - perhaps after quickly talking to the parents. Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. This is a completely different point to one you were originally making - at least how it reads anyway. And I agree; there should be consequences if you deliberately ruin someones life. But if the clerk is acting in good faith (in a way that doesn't sync with the examples you highlighted) so I'd argue a serious word/caution is sufficient to show him/her that they made a mistake and to take more care in the future. Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad news for you... I'd pick neither. end of. But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference? Yes. Sadly it is not a comparable example - because two people hugging is not associated with anything sexual or inappropriate. I was trying to highlight the idea that you might see something that others found sexually enticing but that simply concerned you - in such a case you are not a sexually excited by the event, just concerned. This is the mentality of the clerk; and you are right it is a result of a messed up society. What should have happened (assuming the clerk is still concerned enough in this perfect situation to have called the police) is the police man should have called the parents, chatted informally to assure himself that it was as he suspected and then left it at that. The failure here appears to be societies attitude to child nudity followed quickly by maddening bureaucracy.