This.
In this case, the analogy would be between the engine and the driver. High speed collisions kill people. We should design cars that don't go as fast. Or we can design cars that will do 120 and not trust drivers to be idiots.
If you think you can define porn or sexual assault without loopholes, go for it. If you think you can design a more efficient engine than the ones we're using, more power to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, the analogy would be between the engine and the driver. High speed collisions kill people. We should design cars that don't go as fast. Or we can design cars that will do 120 and not trust drivers to be idiots.
If you think you can define porn or sexual assault without loopholes, go for it. If you think you can design a more efficient engine than the ones we're using, more power to you.
Or we can set a speed limit, and/or maybe educate drivers... see, there are a lot more possibilities than the ones you see, or at least are willing to admit.
Also, I acceded that there would always be some loophole, just as no engine is perfectly efficient. However, for porn a definition of "photographic or video recording of a sexual act involving at least one human" is not perfect by any stretch, but it's one huge hell of a lot better than "a depiction that is indecent by the standards of the community." And I came up with that off the top of my head. Do not let perfect be the enemy of good. There should be other safeguards, but that doesn't mean we should give up on trying to make sane laws, and just declare everything illegal.
I'm not expecting perfect. I don't think that automatically means that hoping for something better than "totally bat-shit insane" is unreasonable.
If it's a cartoon or CGI it's not pornography then.
If it's a cartoon or CGI it's not pornography then.
I would agree. I think the example of the man facing hard time in prison for looking at Simpsons cartoons, for example, is a striking example of how insane things have gotten.
I'm also impressed with something Andrew Vachss (an author and lawyer specializing in working with youths) said, along the lines of "It's dangerous and stupid to make a new set of crimes when the ones we already have perfectly fit the bill: a photographic depiction of a child being molested is evidence of a crime, and failing to report it is withholding evidence of a felony, which means abetting it. Let's charge collectors with conspiracy for their part in abetting felonies, not name a disease after them."
The problem with that is then it is something that can be shown on say... saturday morning cartoons so long as the cartoon depicts adults not children since it isn't pornography there obviously isn't anything wrong with showing it.
The problem with that is then it is something that can be shown on say... saturday morning cartoons so long as the cartoon depicts adults not children since it isn't pornography there obviously isn't anything wrong with showing it.
Just like anything that isn't strychnine is automatically candy? There's all kinds of stuff that isn't pornography that shouldn't be shown to children on Saturday morning cartoons -- snuff films, for example. But we can leave that to the TV censorship people -- the FCC -- and not to the federal prison system.
or at least are willing to admit
Knock that off.
All for something that is perfectly obvious. We "know it when we see it."
What is obvious to every person is different for just about every other person in the world. True story: my mother, upon first leafing through a copy of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, exclaimed (in all seriousness), "This is hard core pornography!" It's perfectly obvious; she knows it when she sees it. Should every newsstand then be raided by the FBI?
So I very strongly disagree that anything can be "perfectly obvious" while remaining totally undefined. Hell, most Americans consider any nudity at all to be "indecent" and hence "pornographic." This leads to a guy getting prison time for peeing outdoors. It means that most people's moms are producers of child pornography, if they ever took a picture of the kids playing in the bubble bath.
A clearer definition would ameliorate that. But obviously, from the responses, it seems people don't want a clear definition.
A clearer definition would ameliorate that. But obviously, from the responses, it seems people don't want a clear definition.
And what, pray tell, would be our motive for that?
And what, pray tell, would be our motive for that?
I would assume it would be motives, plural -- different ones for different people. Many people -- and I assume that applies to the nay-sayers in this thread -- seem to feel that their opinions/unconscious definitions on the subject must somehow be universal (which I can assure you is not the case), and hence pointless to articulate. For other people, the subject disturbs them and they therefore choose not to think about it. The moral crusaders -- who think about this stuff obsessively -- would want to allow themselves scope to ever expand their ability to "fight indecency and moral decay." The prison lobby's motives would be financial -- to ensure massive future growth of their industry. For some people it might be frustration getting the better of them -- "this is too hard to get right, it's obviously impossible, you'll just mess it up!" Etc.
"this is too hard to get right, it's obviously impossible, you'll just mess it up!"
That isn't a motive, its a conclusion. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that does require demonstration.
Okay, consider this. The IRS sends in a suggestion for a new tax law, based on the principle (regarding tax fraud) that "I know it when I see it". The senate and congress ask the people what they think. What would you say to a law that refuses to define what kind of behaviour is tax fraud, and yet carries prison sentences, often with a harsh minimum sentence and mandatory lifetime registration as a "tax offender"?
My hunch is that most people with more than two functioning neurons would thank that's a completely insane proposition.
THAT is why you need to define it, even if it's difficult. THAT is why tax law fills entire bookshelves in the libraries. Simply because any other method would have disastrous consequences.
What Sissyl said. Just because something isn't easy to do, doesn't imply that that thing shouldn't be done at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that does require demonstration.
Are you in the U.S.? If you get a life sentence for something that not only is harmless, but that under no reasonable standard could even be illegal -- would that be "demonstration" enough? Even if it hasn't happened to you yet, doesn't mean it hasn't happened to thousands of others. I would have thought that some of the examples linked upthread would be demonstration enough.
Or how do you write a definition that covers exactly what you intend and has no edge cases?
You can't. Nor did I ever claim it was possible.
My argument is not, and never has been, that an airtight law is possible. The sole point I'm trying to convey is that loose or unworkable definitions for crimes carrying, in many cases, harsher penalties than for murder, is not something that should be tolerated in a supposedly just society. Or, as I said, "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." I'm arguing against BNW's assertion that, quote, "the least bad solution is to make the law prohibitive and the prosecution sensible." I don't think that making the law as prohibitive as possible, and then trusting the prosecution alone to sort out who "deserves" to be punished (especially when the prosecution has a vested interest in prosecuting, not releasing!), is a better system -- unless the primary goal is to minimize false negatives.
I would fully agree with you that other safeguards are needed, which is why I'm also against mandatory sentencing laws in many cases. What we have currently are, in some cases, definitions that don't fit what we're trying to prevent; and in other cases, are too vague to be useful. That might be an acceptable scenario if we were talking about community service and no record. When it comes to prison time and permanent registry, I feel that, to be just, the laws need to be far better written, despite the myriad arguments against doing so.
I don't think that making the law as prohibitive as possible
Either do I. I think it has to be rather prohibitive. NOT as prohibitive as possible.
And prosecution was a bad choice of words, i don't just mean the prosecutor i mean the the process of prosecuting. You have the prosecutors discretion, the judge, the jury, and the appeals to sort out cases like this.
I don't think that making the law as prohibitive as possibleEither do I. I think it has to be rather prohibitive. NOT as prohibitive as possible.
And prosecution was a bad choice of words, i don't just mean the prosecutor i mean the the process of prosecuting. You have the prosecutors discretion, the judge, the jury, and the appeals to sort out cases like this.
I'd just like to point out, again, that those people's discretion may bend in the direction of convicting for a crime, even a misdemeanor, and feel justified in doing so. But the proscribed punishment is out of their hands, for the time being, which is registry as a sex offender.
Would you agree that such registration shouldn't be automatic but should be determined as part of sentencing, and open to removal upon repeal?
I think it has to be rather prohibitive.
Perhaps that's the root of our disagreement. If it were up to me, there would be very few things that were actually felonies -- murder, rape, grand theft, assault, fraud. Stuff like smoking dope or peeing outdoors or looking at dirty Simpsons comics would not be considered crimes heinous enough to merit the destruction of the perpetrator's entire life. (And, back on topic, we wouldn't be bringing in six-year-olds on felony charges for playing doctor.)
Perhaps that's the root of our disagreement. If it were up to me, there would be very few things that were actually felonies -- murder, rape, grand theft, assault, fraud. Stuff like smoking dope or peeing outdoors or looking at dirty Simpsons comics would not be considered crimes heinous enough to merit the destruction of the perpetrator's entire life. (And, back on topic, we wouldn't be bringing in six-year-olds on felony charges for playing doctor.)
Let me try again.
There's nothing above there that i disagree with. If you wanted to shut down the mexican cartels tommorow the best way to do so would be to make them compete with walmart for the market share.
But if you're trying to define a concept like rape, sexual assault, or porn, because the first two absolutely need to be stopped and I believe the third one needs to be regulated somewhat (ie you probably shouldn't be showing second graders hustler) then I think you have to have a broad definition subject to human interpretation because its a broad topic subject to human interpretation. As someone said above, narrowly construed laws about showing people body parts are how someone winds up on a watch list for mistaking a mcdonalds playground for a public bathroom.
Would you agree that such registration shouldn't be automatic but should be determined as part of sentencing, and open to removal upon repeal?
Open to removal upon appeal yes. If you succesfully appeal you weren't convicted, no conviction no crime (i don't think they can make you stay on the watch list if you appeal as it is now)
Not automatic no: We tried that. There were far too many people that should have been on the list that were getting off of it for one reason or another. People are acting as if this kid has already been tried convicted and put on a watch list when he hasn't been. The system hasn't failed yet, relax.
BNW,
The system hasn't failed in this case yet. I'm sure there are plenty of others where it has failed and failed badly already.
Its a system with 300 million people. Non failure in every case is not an option. How many failures of what severity and what direction are.
The system hasn't failed yet, relax.
Not yet, in this particular case -- but it has, and badly, in plenty of others.
Its a system with 300 million people. Non failure in every case is not an option. How many failures of what severity and what direction are.
To my mind, if you're getting more false positives than you are preventing false negatives, it's definitely time to re-assess. I'd rather let one flasher go free than imprison a dozen good parents for taking totally innocent photographs of their kids.
The system hasn't failed yet, relax.Not yet, in this particular case -- but it has, and badly, in plenty of others.
And look at the list. Even there most of the people weren't convicted of anything and didn't wind up on the list, and the 35 year old teacher that had sex with the 15 year old students BELONGS there, marriage or not.
Most of the idiocy is at the arrest level, which you are not going to define out of the equation no matter what.
Even there most of the people weren't convicted of anything and didn't wind up on the list...
Never mind. Obviously the fact that 1 out of every hundred adults in the U.S. is in prison right now -- the vast majority for nonviolent offenses -- doesn't bother you. That gives the U.S. by far the highest incarceration rate in the world -- largely because we're one of the few countries where prisons are a for-profit industry. The War on Drugs was very good for business -- before that, a mere 0.1% of the population was in prison. I guess the fact that, once the "war on drugs" peaks out, the "war on sex offenders" looks like a slam dunk winner to bring the rate up to 10% shouldn't bother you either, then.
At what point is it not OK that a harmless, nonviolent person is many, many times less likely to be a victim of a criminal than the victim of overzealous law enforcement and a for-profit prison industry? When everyone except the cops and politicians is locked up? Or before we get to that point?
This. Is. Lawful. Stupid.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Never mind. Obviously the fact that 1 out of every hundred adults in the U.S. is in prison right now -- the vast majority for nonviolent offenses -- doesn't bother you.
Stop pretending to read my mind or even know me. You're trying to extrapolate my entire political view from how i see one facet of one issue and its not working.
You're doing horribly. You're ranting at me for opinions that i have told you point blank that i do not hold.
That gives the U.S. by far the highest incarceration rate in the world -- largely because we're one of the few countries where prisons are a for-profit industry.
I think that china doesn't report, doesn't consider reeducation camps prison, might be keeping us in the number one slot, but i agree that the situation is horrible.
I however think the problem stems from a systemic quality of life gap between the well enough off and the urban poor, and some really antiquated morality, not a conspiracy by big prison. They're certainly taking advantage of the situation, but they're at worst exacerbating a trend that's already there from a simplistic "drugs are bad" approach.
The War on Drugs was very good for business -- before that, a mere 0.1% of the population was in prison. I guess the fact that, once the "war on drugs" peaks out, the "war on sex offenders" looks like a slam dunk winner to bring the rate up to 10% shouldn't bother you either, then.
Ok, how many times do i need to correct your ranting accusations? Just because I think the government NEEDS the leeway in the legal language for sexual misconduct to be prosecuted doesn't mean that i agree with the war on drugs.
pessimist about the possibility of defining a term------->?????-----> Die hard republican. You're missing a step.
At what point is it not OK that a harmless, nonviolent person is many, many times less likely to be a victim of a criminal than the victim of overzealous law enforcement and a for-profit prison industry? When everyone except the cops and politicians is locked up? Or before we get to that point?
There's a tipping point between some innocent person being put on a list for peeing in public and some "cured" pedophile getting off the list and raping and or killing someone again. You act as though tightening the leash on the prosecutors would have zero effect on their ability to catch actual bad guys. I'll believe a law or wording is that good when i see it. Its a trade off and you have to draw the line somewhere, just like everything else. 4,000 years of trying to achieve legal perfection and we haven't managed it.
Looking at that list i don't see any evidence of some sort of massive conspiracy, just individual nuttyness of human beings that somehow got promoted far above what their reasoning skills should have let them achieve. People are morons. It doesn't surprise me anymore.
While I do agree that folks that take advantage of teens are creeps and predators, do you think they're on the same level as a monster that rapes children or toddlers?
Those people belong in the ground, not on a list.
They're not exactly people I'd want baby sitting my kids but putting them in prison or on a sex registry for watching imaginary sex is just messed up.
Yes, it is. Completely, totally, and utterly messed up. I just don't see a way to legally define the different levels without having human judgement involved, and some humans are going to judge poorly. Its not that i think this is a good thing i think its that the alternative: a system where people that deserve to be on the list get off if and someone gets raped or killed, is worse. I don't think having your cake and eating it too is a possibility.
Those people belong in the ground, not on a list.
At least there's one thing we agree on.
Despite what some people want to think, 15 year olds are still children.
Yes, they are -- and adults have absolutely no business going after teenagers. No argument here.
But I equally believe that the government has no business arresting parents for taking innocent pictures of their kids. The whole "war on drugs," followed immediately by this "war on sex offenders," strongly reminds me of McCarthyism -- yes, there were Communist spies in the U.S., but for every one they caught, fifty or a hundred harmless people lost their jobs and livelihoods while the hunt went on. At some point it becomes a bad trade-off. And it doesn't require a conspiracy -- just everyone else looking the other way.
This isn't a war though. It isn't systematic, and it isn't being directed from the top. Its being ENABLED there, but its incredibly sporadic.
You think its being enabled there on purpose. I think its being enabled there because of the realities of legalese, the legislative process never seeing a good idea it couldn't ruin, and the necessity of human decision making when dealing with anything subjective.
Its being ENABLED there, but its incredibly sporadic.
We'll just have to see how many people get caught up in it. My prediction, obviously, is that it'll be comparable to the "war on drugs." I hope I'm wrong -- I hope that you are correct. Time will tell.
We'll just have to see how many people get caught up in it. My prediction, obviously, is that it'll be comparable to the "war on drugs." I hope I'm wrong -- I hope that you are correct. Time will tell.
I can list more kids in my highschool who had problems with non sensible drug enforcement than you have from the nation on that page so... I'm winning!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are prudish. Crime this, punish that. In Germany and Denmark I go into a pool changing room and there is only one changing room. Men, women, children of all ages are in there changing. We go to a lake, and people take their cloths off and go swimming. You see people naked all the time. Klinton gets a BJ at the same time in Paris a statesman dies and his wife and his mistress are at the funeral standing side by side hand in hand mourning their loss. Everybody knows about his relationship with both women, including both women. Nobody minds. You look through a family album and there a lots of pictures of people nude of any age. Kids too. Is that wrong. No. But in America it's porn. You ask for pics in Germany and they wold give you some. Here you pay.
We know that Germany will allow all kinds of terrible stuff to be put on film (Uwe Boll, for example), but does Germany have a concept of unacceptable porn?
Unacceptable porn would be with parties who don't or can't consent. Period. Though I think that any age where the law deems it okay to consent to sexual activities it should be okay to consent to be filmed.
I know it's an absurd idea, but imagine this. Underage (by mere months) girl texts you naked pictures of herself. Then calls the cops on you and says you have child pornography on your phone. It's like text-bombing someone a life time of ostracism.
I think, for the most part, every country's laws are like this - the question being "when can a person consent and what is adequate proof that they have?"
Unacceptable porn would be with parties who don't or can't consent. Period.
At whatever the age of consent is, obviously. Thing is our country is NOT like this. In most states the age of consent is 16. You can't be photographed in sexually explicit activity until you're 18. I think largely because you can't enter into a contract at that age, but I don't think nudity should be a special case. Generally there aren't lawsuits for people just taking photographs of someone because consent is sort of implied if you're in public/with a dude with a camera pointed at you.
As far as legitimate, for profit pornography, typically, if it's a paid gig, they sign a contract. If it's just homemade stuff, if you look into the camera you know you're being filmed. If you know you're being filmed, and don't protest, that's consent in my book. It really shouldn't be different than other types of photography/videography.
|
We know that Germany will allow all kinds of terrible stuff to be put on film (Uwe Boll, for example), but does Germany have a concept of unacceptable porn?
While the age of consent is 14, young people under 18 are in the area of a "protection age" meaning even a consent sexual relationship due to the exploitation of a plight or with a guardian / caretaker / teacher (responsible for the childs education) or employer is considered criminal as long as the offender is at least 14 yoa. Any sexual act for money or equal material boons with a person under the age of 18 is illegal if the offender (in case of pornography that would include a possible publisher) is at least 18yoa.