Worlds largest paedophile ring discovered

[tinman0]

menguin said:

If someone views a snuff film, produced specifically for that kind of consumption, should they go to jail for murder?

Sure I read somewhere, that despite some long and repeated investigations, not a single snuff movie has ever been made.

[gtdc]

Aberdeenloon said:

The bottom line I feel is this: It should (and is) illegal to make, distribute and/or consume child pornography, and all three should dealt with equally severely because they are all interlinked - one part of the chain wouldn't exist without the other parts (whatever other people believe on here)

Edited by Aberdeenloon on Saturday 19th March 00:10

EFA

[menguin]

tinman0 said:

Sure I read somewhere, that despite some long and repeated investigations, not a single snuff movie has ever been made.

Not even one? I definitely saw Colour Sergeant Bourne indulging before the Zulu attack

[menguin]

Aberdeenloon said:

So you are saying that it should be illegal if you consume something that is made specifically to be illegally consumed??? I think that question kind of answers itself...

That is exactly what is happening, even if the original intent wasn't for some of these people to view it (only the "inner circle", as Frankeh put it), they are eventually viewing it and it IS AND SHOULD BE illegal - and punished severely.

The bottom line I feel is this: It should (and is) illegal to make, distribute and/or consume child pornography, and all three should dealt with equally severely because they are all interlinked - one part of the chain wouldn't exist without the other parts (whatever other people believe on here).

I may be wrong, probably am, but that's what I think for what it's worth.

I agree - it should be illegal to consume something that is made specifically to be illegally consumed. But I don't think that the three different offenses should be the same in law (for child pornography, drug usage, snuff films or anything for that matter) - I don't think that someone creating demand by consuming should be charged the same as someone creating the product to meet that demand, however abhorrent the discussion topic is.

[Aberdeenloon]

menguin said:

I agree - it should be illegal to consume something that is made specifically to be illegally consumed. But I don't think that the three different offenses should be the same in law (for child pornography, drug usage, snuff films or anything for that matter) - I don't think that someone creating demand by consuming should be charged the same as someone creating the product to meet that demand, however abhorrent the discussion topic is.

Why not?

[Jasandjules]

Aberdeenloon said:

Why not?

Surely it's self evident that someone who views material should not be subject to the same penalties and someone who actually makes it/commits the acts (recorded or otherwise).

Now, that's not to say that the punishment couldn't be death by 16 bullets for one and death by merely 1 bullet for the other............... Of course I jest, well, a bit at least...

[Aberdeenloon]

Jasandjules said:

Surely it's self evident that someone who views material should not be subject to the same penalties and someone who actually makes it/commits the acts (recorded or otherwise).

Now, that's not to say that the punishment couldn't be death by 16 bullets for one and death by merely 1 bullet for the other............... Of course I jest, well, a bit at least...

I don't agree. The fact is, the people that satisfy the demand are as much to blame as the people that create the demand (and vice versa) and as such should also be subject to the same 16 bullets.

Edited by Aberdeenloon on Saturday 19th March 21:22

Edited by Aberdeenloon on Saturday 19th March 21:25

Edited by Aberdeenloon on Saturday 19th March 21:26

[davidspooner]

Thanks, I didn't expect such an enlightening debate, some really interesting and stirring thoughts from reading this thread.

ETA: on reflecting on this more, to me it is clear the involvement of those looking at such material must encourage the crime directly in the case of websites offering the material. Websites are funded by ads, clickthroughs etc so even viewing them must encourage the creation of the content that brings them traffic

Edited by davidspooner on Thursday 31st March 21:01

[nobodyknows]

We had a bloke working for us a few years ago who had previously been arrested for suspected 'offences', had his work PC (previous employer) removed by the Police & was removed from the family home for a long period of time. This was AFTER his teenage stepson admitted the photos that caused the issue were his & nothing to do with his step dad.
Caused me to look upon these things with a different perspective, still think proper Paedos are scum & need removing from society before they can cause any (more) harm though.