4 ms·
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 abo
by 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.
- loewenskind 16y ago>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. Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. If it came out a bit ambiguous that's because it is for me. I suspect that in most cases none of the people involved are abusers but I maintain that there is something wrong with some of them (especially the officials seeking convictions where a normal person would realize the material in question is innocent). >But if the clerk is acting in good faith This a case where I'm ambiguous on. On the one hand the Clerk was probably just trying to stay out of trouble so it was it was the fault of the Cop for not dropping it or other officials who continued to peruse it further. On the other hand "just doing my job" is no excuse. Further I would punish blind "job doers" much more aggressively than anyone else. They are the enablers of atrocities. No one would have ever heard of everyone's favorite Godwin subject were it not for (literally) armies of "just doing my job"s. Imagine what would have happened in Iraq if the US enlisted soldiers had simply refused to go there. Most any (if not all) atrocity one could name were enabled by people who more often than not didn't like what they were doing but ultimately did as they were told. >I'd pick neither. end of. Then your statement doesn't apply to what I said. I said that if I had to (e.g. gun is pointed at me, etc.) pick one of those two I would pick the Clerk. >because two people hugging is not associated with anything sexual or inappropriate. Nor were the photos in question. >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. I get what you were trying to do but I still maintain that if a person sees something normal and is disturbed by it then they have a disconnect. Something has to highlight this clearly for them so they realize they have the issue and can fix it. We should not cater to such eccentricity as this causes it to get even more extreme. >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. That would have been a better result to be sure.