Good for them,,, but I have been under the impression we already had strict laws on the books to deal with child abusers. I live in Ohio, and I recall a few years ago, our courts sentenced a man to 45 years for having child porn on his computer. Now granted, that seems like a lot of time for looking at pictures, but you have to realize, with these people, thats where it starts, looking at pictures, then it esculates to watching playgrounds, to then meeting and grooming. These people do not stop with doing things in secret. It always leads to a hurt child somewhere before they are caught.
I feel like for someone like that, it would be better to put them under probation where their communications are monitored. And get them to seek therapy.
Banning alcohol because of drunk drivers is not the answer. Now I don't think child porn should even exist ever, but the devil is crafty. Anyone engaged in harming a child should be punished very severely. Distributing the product of such an abuse should be conspiracy or at least 50% of the punishment for the abuser. Someone being the consumer should also be punished, but treat it like a fentanyl possession.
And also, get rid of strict liability crimes. Nobody should be going after girls under the age of 21, but allowing someone to be punished as a pedophile if a woman lies about her age is crazy. Intent and knowledge of relative age is pretty easy to prove with a jury. It's not like someone is going to get away with pedophile due to willful blindness. Willful blindness is itself a general understanding of wrongdoing. And if there is an organization that makes underage girls get fake IDs to stay "above board", they will be taken down by just a couple testimonies by the "workers" and by customers.
No need for strict liability. I hate child abuse in any form, but strict liability is not justice. It just gives the FBI a way to fuck people over.
Sounds like judging by your discription, we should just pardon child molesters, as they don't realize they are committing crimes, until, they are caught.
Good for them,,, but I have been under the impression we already had strict laws on the books to deal with child abusers. I live in Ohio, and I recall a few years ago, our courts sentenced a man to 45 years for having child porn on his computer. Now granted, that seems like a lot of time for looking at pictures, but you have to realize, with these people, thats where it starts, looking at pictures, then it esculates to watching playgrounds, to then meeting and grooming. These people do not stop with doing things in secret. It always leads to a hurt child somewhere before they are caught.
I feel like for someone like that, it would be better to put them under probation where their communications are monitored. And get them to seek therapy.
Banning alcohol because of drunk drivers is not the answer. Now I don't think child porn should even exist ever, but the devil is crafty. Anyone engaged in harming a child should be punished very severely. Distributing the product of such an abuse should be conspiracy or at least 50% of the punishment for the abuser. Someone being the consumer should also be punished, but treat it like a fentanyl possession.
And also, get rid of strict liability crimes. Nobody should be going after girls under the age of 21, but allowing someone to be punished as a pedophile if a woman lies about her age is crazy. Intent and knowledge of relative age is pretty easy to prove with a jury. It's not like someone is going to get away with pedophile due to willful blindness. Willful blindness is itself a general understanding of wrongdoing. And if there is an organization that makes underage girls get fake IDs to stay "above board", they will be taken down by just a couple testimonies by the "workers" and by customers.
No need for strict liability. I hate child abuse in any form, but strict liability is not justice. It just gives the FBI a way to fuck people over.
Sounds like judging by your discription, we should just pardon child molesters, as they don't realize they are committing crimes, until, they are caught.
Got it. You can't read. I addressed that, and that's not what I said.
I just see a lot of sympathy to a set of adolsences who otherwise should face a firing squad.