Autistic (Asperger) Student had 900 child porn collection

Post Reply New Topic

Presuambly this applies to all crimes potentially motivated by lust? Rape. Incest. Anal sex. Oral sex (at least in Georgia). Sexual harrasment. Underage sex. Possessing any "obscene" photo (of adults). Oddly, "sexual offenders" include peeing in public, being nude in public, or making offensive remarks. Better add those just to be safe. Guy runs out naked during a soccer match... Cut off his nads! (Should cut off his legs too, just to be on the safe side!)

I mean, you are saying someone who possesses a photo of anyone under 18 is a provocative pose should be castrated... Why stop there? Guess that's better than saying he should be tortured to death.

(I don't know anyone who is a repeat child offender, or anyone who has been castrated. I don't think that is a stastically valid sample.)

arguing the death penalty for this has no basis other than emotional fulfillment, but claiming he did no wrong is similarly ridiculous.

sexual obsession with the underaged is dangerous, period. i know of pedophiles who manage to control themselves and even marry & have children, but that is such a minority of cases. by and large, human beings evolved to follow their sexual impulses, and this particular type of fetish tends to do a great deal of psychological/emotional damage.

and yes, the autism excuse is just terrible in this instance.

-josh

Since castrations are perfomed voluntarily, this is not conclusive. This article also does not make it clear whether "sexual offenders" are rapists or child molesters (or other lesser offences). The article makes the distiction as between rapist and child molester as whether the victim was 16 or younger or 17 or older (I would consider an appropriate age (a scientific study should use biological maturity of the victim) as being between 12 and 14). The importance there is that rape is more likley to be a crime of lust, and not a deeper compulsion. However, it does seem to effective. But it is not 100%.

http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/sexoffenders.htm

"Sexual obsession" (or fetish) has not been established. That is the relevancy of Autism. The Court believes he is not "sexually obsessed" with minors, but was obsessed with a collection. If he was not sexually obsessed, his only crime was breaking the technical law, and providing support towards websites that distribute this material (see Larree's earlier rational statements).

Last edited by roguetech on 24 Jul 2008, 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Glad we finally agree.

I agree to rash reflection. Most or many incest or rape victims dont even report their crime.
Someone needs to put a stop to it n perhaps lesser evil gettin caught in the ring but WHO CARES
Some one has to put a stop them n arguing others wise is extremely pathetic.

No. Not at all. Perhaps I should have been a little more blunt. YOU are ret*d.

Last edited by Larree on 24 Jul 2008, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who would want to agree with paedophiles
No not me
No not I
No not ....?????????
YOUR OUT NUMBERED
So HAHAAA

Not a good comparison since some people don't drink and drive. Child pornography is directly aimed at children while alchohol can be an addiction for some and not for others that's another arguement in itself that is comletely different from addiction targeted at children.

RT, it's your ambiguity on this topic of kiddie porn that bothers me. George W. Bush had a good saying: "If you are not with us, you are are against us."

This is a black & white issue and it calls for black & white thinking. Nothing in the gray.

Lukily, the justice system, although often devolves to such populist notions, strives to rise above it, and still uses justice as the ideal.

*facepalm*

Im not embarrased cause THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT
Men always read the wrong way
I meant that like me n Mscontrue n many others agree with me so the few that keep tryin to some how justify it ARE OUT NUMBERED
SO SHUT UP

Obviously an arguement meant to make a point, and not in favor of the death penalty for drivers. Driving a car while intoxicated certainly raises the risks of an accident (as does talking on a cell, talking to a passenger, and changing the radio station), but only increases the risk. Though cars are not "aimed at children", they are dangerous not just for adults, but children as well.

The main flaw in the arguement, is the benifit to society of using cars outweighs the harm, which can not be said of child porn (despite a person looking at child porn being at no risk of "accidentally" molesting a child). Just because there is a risk to children does not mean something should be subject to the death penalty (or even illegal).

Zero tolerance for all makers/publishers/purveyors/admirers of child pornography. It's the kids who are victimized here, not the pornographers. It's not the pornographers who need the protection of the law, it's the kids. This should be such a simple equation, but for reasons unknown it isn't. If you view/download kiddie porn, you qualify as one of the abd guys.

Still looking at you, roguetech. You must not have any children of your own.

Roguetech you absouletly infuriate me
Im goin befor I smash the computr n keyboard over someones head
I wisj\h