OT 19 Kids And Counting star Josh Duggar, 33, pleads not guilty to federal child porn charges

Well, I was using the case (that I thought applied to this guy) where someone looks at child porn (so, they are acting on it) but not physically harming children. So you can go much more extreme, from looking at pictures to going out and committing the acts.

 

“Just looking” at child porn is not victimless though. The person may not be THE person doing the heinous acts. But the people watching it create the industry (if you will), make it so it’s a thing people create and distribute. Just looking At it makes you a customer. The victim has been violated by the viewer.

 

The viewer might be "just looking" but an actual person was raped so the voyeur could watch.

 

Some percentage of readers of basketball messenger boards will commit a heinous act. Everyone reading this enables those future criminals. Therefore, Sly the ringleader should serve a long, long sentence as far from basketball readers as possible.

They used to say that marijuana is an entrance drug to heroin. So marijuana users got long sentences in many states.

I believe that anyone who has potential to break the law, has broken that law. They have "acted upon it" by thinking of it or looking at pictures. I myself have never had wayward thoughts, so I qualify to enforce the law upon you lowlifes.

 

This is not the same unless the readers are there with the intent of seeing that crime.

 

So everyone should go to prison for torturing a black man to death for 9 minutes on top of his lungs, if they watch "on purpose" the video of a policeman doing the same. And if you watch "with intent" a video of cars plowing into other cars, you should be imprisoned for multiple violations of reckless driving. Etc.

The guy who assembled the video of many car wrecks did so to get you to watch. You "enable" him to do it again, when others will enjoy the violent pleasure of watching car wrecks. Some may have their inhibitions loosened into trying it themselves. So you the viewer go to jail, says the evil legal system.

 

As terrible as it is, killing adults and wrecking cars is not as bad as raping kids.

Not even in the same conversation, IMO.

But aside from that, those acts weren't committed for the benefit of, and in association with those websites. Or yes, the viewers would be complicit.

The viewers didn't enable the police officer to kill anybody.

 

So you think that the rules of logic should bend to reach the desired conclusion. The law should use different rules of logic for one activity than for another.

If you take a logic class, you will find that there is only path in logic. The rules are consistent, not dependent upon a desired outcome.

 

Not at all. It was just something that occurred to me while I was responding.

 

As I understand the law, that part is not required to have broken the law. You break the law watching the video, whether or not the video was made for others to watch.

 

Well you said that the logic I presented might be suitable for killing people or wrecking cars, but not for rape. So you said that the logic of law should change depending on the crime. But logic is more consistent than that.

 

Okay, so you're inconsistent. No need anymore for me to show that you're inconsistent.

 

Wrecking cars us way below rape and murder. Cars are inanimate objects.


Yes, I know a lot of men think women are also.

 

No, I said those acts were a different conversation entirely than the rape of a child.

The second part of the post clarified that I don't think the logic you presented holds for the scenarios you described either.

 

If you somehow stumbled across it you would not be breaking the law. But the laws are such that it's incredibly unlikely that you would stumble across it without specifically seeking it out.

In fact, they encourage you to report it if that were to happen.

https://www.google.com/landing/protectchildren/

 

Any deterrence is the result of logical thought. It might not be correct but at least it's on the right track.
However, the death penalty has little deterrence if any at all according to most academic studies.
If you can't deter someone from committing a serious crime again then I'm all for locking them up for life.
And if the death penalty would definitely save the life of an innocent victim then I would flip the switch. But if life imprisonment would probably save the life of an an innocent victim then why not choose that option over a death penalty?

 

The issue at hand isn't "if you watch a video of a crime being committed, you're also liable." The issue at hand is that if a crime is committed for the sole or partial purpose to record it for others to watch, then watching it does make you culpable, because your demand is at least part of what makes those crimes happen.

So a police officer beating or killing a person in a murderous rage being recorded for accountability doesn't fit that. If you watch it, you didn't help enable the beating/killing. A rape being recorded to put on a website for people to watch does fit because at least some of the motivation for that rape happening was to create content for the website. Child abuse videos fall under the second category.

 

Louder for the people in the back