h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

An interesting news story from America (From Penn Jillettes Radio Show so no actual links - apart from the audio download).

A 16 year old girl is being prosecusted for producing child pornography for taking pictures of two of her 18year old female friends and putting them on her personal web space.

As Penn said there has been a big crack down on child pornography but how many of these arrests have been 40year old blokes taking pictures of children and how many have been young adults playing about and exploring?

There is also the other side of this: they could be trying to make anything sexual 'taboo' since America is run by the religious right these days.

i believe the punishmentshould mirror the crime as closly as possible

craigy2334, does that mean you think child molestors should or shouldn't be exectuted?

The point is made in the original article that the death penalty in the U.S at present is reserved for crimes where someone is accused of causing another persons'd death. The argument in the article was that this punishment should be extended to apply to crimes where no death is involved but where the criems are abhorrent and "brazen". It was suggested the sexual abuse of children be one of these crimes where the death penalty should be made available.

If you think punishment should mirror the crime what do you think that punishment should be?

I'm just trying to get you to expand your answer a little more.

Here's the link to the article I started this discussion with if it helps.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188044,00.html


Clive


P.S (ergo everyone else )
The issue of executing terrorists does stray into this area a little. As far I understand the Moussaoui trial he knew enough of the planning of the attacks to apparently have assisted authorites to prevent them, had he not lied to them while arressted on immigration charges. However he took no active role in the attacks themselves - though he is clearly gratified that they took place and of his intent to help bring them about. And said so in testimony to the court, which is what made them decide to consider the death penalty as an option if he's found guilty so swift and uncontroversial.

You might even call this brazen and that he has not (at least directly) caused anyone's death, in the same sense that pointing a gun and shooting someone is murder. But please do be cautious about moving into areas of race and religion that really has nothing to do with the subject in question.

Clive.

in response as my last reply was a little short. for example if man or woman commits a crime such as rape to another person then the perpetrator of the crime should be themselves subjected to an ordeal with the same physical and mental torments as they have subjected their victims to ,though i do see problems in this vague theory such as who would commit the punishment as would that not also be rape ? unless a mechanical way of enforcing such a punishment maybe a way? as to when someone is guilty of a crime such as murder by way of proxy i dont think the simple locking up of someone is a sufficient punishment but the death penalty has had many faults in the past where innnocent people have been found guilty and been executed only to be later found that they were innocent

In England association has been enough to lead to a murder charge - and a subsequent death penalty, Craig and Bentley spring to mind.

I think I am right in saying that two people can be charged with the same crime but that the test for guilt in the case of serious assualts and murders (certainly in UK law) remains whether or not the accused person(s) were a) responsible for causing the death of another (and one can be guilty of causing a death through both action and by ommission to act) and b) that the level of mental action was an intention to kill or to seriously harm. These conditions are also subject to mitigating defences such as duress or insanity.

A lesser form of intent such as recklessness can lead to charges of manslaughter (such I believe was the case of the cocklepicker gangmaster in Morcambe Bay recently. He was convicted of causing the death of the cockle-pickers by acting recklessly and so endangring their lives and hence being responsible for their deaths. His manslaughter conviction reflects the fact that though responsible for their deaths he did not actively intend to kill them. The judgement condemned his cavalier attitude towards people over profit in this regard. I believe manslaughter convictions don't carry the same mandatory tarriffs which murder convictions do precisely in order to reflect the differing levels of malice involved.

A lesser form of action such a grievious wounding, which does not result in death - even if the intent was the kill - leads to charges of Greivous Bodily Harm and Actual Bodily Harm where the intent is reckless not specific.

In the case of Craig and Bently - this is a legendary case which always raises doubts becuase of the ambiguous nature of the events. It is interesting of course to note that whatever mitgating factors could have been taken into account for the defendent - the death sentence was I believe mandatory and so could give no consideration to anything that might mitigate his 'proven' guilt.
In Craig's case his juvenille age spared him that end.

It is cases like this that help raise in the subject of exectuing the guilty - what happesns if they were innocent (or at least less responsible)

-------------------------

The point of rambling on about the definitions of murder and manslaughter is to highlight what is in my opinion, the most contraversial aspect of John Gibson's article (regardless of whther or not child molestors *deserve* something harsher than they currently receive) it is the assertion that a death penalty should be applied into spheres of law where no death is involved.

Taken in this light - even the problems of defining true guilt where a death has occured (underlined by Craig and Bently) will be but naught to determing whether someone accused of a crime should be executed even when there is no death caused.

I suppose we could look at the old "following orders" plea, beloved of soldiers. Sadaam Hussein is currently being tried for ordering murders, I don't think he's been accused of actually committing one. (Though I think we all know what both the verdict and the sentance is going to be.)

Well, for instance, if the war on Iraq was decided to be illegal by an international court and all of the countries' soldiers were tried on murder charges, "I were only following orders, guv," would be a perfectly reasonable thing for those soldiers to say to get off, in my humble opinion.

Alfster: I've nothing against young people exploring their sexualities since I am one. Taking nude photographs of people your own age as part of your sexual adventures/early experience is, IMHO, fine. But posting them on the internet is the point at which if those people aren't the legal age for modelling, the person who posted them is doing something wrong.

I'm surprised that 18 year olds are considered to be too young for nude modelling - in the UK, 18 is the age at which it becomes fine. Mind you, over here, you can have sex at 16 but can't legally look at the photographs until you're 18. Which is really, really stupid - it should all be 16, with nude models being 18 (having nude photos taken of yourself is vastly different from engaging in/looking at nudity in a private setting).

Alfster, I don't understand that crime, b/c I don't think 18 is legally considered child pornography in the US.

Who says it was the US? Not all child porn crime is committed in the US, just most of it.

Hi, SWL:

In answer to your question,
[If an 18 year old meets a girl who looks 16, acts 16 and says she is 16, what is the boy to do? If he has sex with her, it is illegal, even if she consents. The 18 year old finds himself on the sex offenders register for life.]
the answer is: Run for your life, and yell back over your shoulder, 'Come back when your 21 and I'm 23. I'll appreciate it a lot more then'.

Arnie

Exactly, neither can anyone else! apart from the FBI or whomever it concerns.


John


Exactly, remember (I can!) Sam Fox modelling at 16years old.

Can they be considered models if they are not doing it for money?

It is all quite absurd.

but how wasnt she doing it for moeny, it all riased her profile hence getting her money by proxy rather than a set fee for the pics, but that is another issue, how come it is chiuld pornography if it is done on the home while if it is done for a mag it is just art, fashion ect

>In England association has been enough to lead to a murder charge - and a subsequent death penalty, Craig and Bentley spring to mind.<

That wasn't guilt by association, that was a (wilful?) misunderstanding of what had happened and what the phrase 'Let Him have it, Chris!' meant in the circumstances of the case.

>Who says it was the US? Not all child porn crime is committed in the US, just most of it.<

It was in the USA because it was reported on an American Radio Show and was being prosecuted in American courts. And I'd be interested to see proof of your assertion that 'most' child porn is from the US.

Hi BS (Wait! That's an unexpected result of my tendency to use capitals!!):
Hi BS-Nmwiiowci-Iai!

I, too, would be interested in seeing statistics that 'most' child porn comes from the USA.

It's probably a bad time to point it out, but the Craig and Bently case had little to do with any misunderstanding of a phrase so much as it was joint participation (not mere association) that lead to the unfortunate tragedy. But that discussion is outside the scope of this thread. I just point it out to balance the information here.

Craig and Bentley is a red herring case, so uncommon in it's facts that like the Tony Martin case there is virtually no conclussions that can be drawn from it. The fact remains that 'association' is not sufficient to get you convicted in British law.

And BS is fine. I know what is meant and have never taken offence yet.

Thanks, BS. I wouldn't want to be yikes'd for a mere oversight.

C&B do sound like an unusual case.
[The fact remains that 'association' is not sufficient to get you convicted in British law.]
Thank goodness!

Strange, how often accusations come down to that. Stranger still is how the defense tries to play that card. Even Sweeney Todd's barrister thought to try get him off by claiming that all was due to Lovett, and that he was merely being connected to her (never mind the revolving barber chairs and other evidence).

That's probably the real problem with punishing people with the death penalty for crimes other than the most proven killings. Often, one has to take the word of the self-proclaimed victim over the accused. It depends a lot on memory and honesty. With no dead body, there is often little hard evidence that a crime has been committed.

Bob: It's still regarded as child pornography even if it's in a fashion magazine, where nudity and nakedness are concerned. If the photograph doesn't include nudity then it's not considered child porn.

"Revealed: chaos over sex attacker freed to kill"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1754927,00.html


az