OT: You Might Be An Idiot If

[Saber Cherry]

Did I ever say kiddie porn was victimless? It's not. The illegal drug industry is also not victimless. In either case, there are lots of evil people that have revoked their right to be considered human.

But also, in each case, there are end-user addicts who are not hurting anyone, don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and pose no danger to society. Crack is filthy, and child porn is filthy... in my opinion. But I don't see how society is helped by tossing people in jail for being addicted to one or the other. If everyone with an abnormal tendancy was tossed in jail, there wouldn't be anyone left to work.

Of course, crack can be dangerous to other people, so people in important places (military, police, medical, pilot/driver, and so forth) should be thrown in jail for using it - because they ARE a threat to society. But jail is a place for reform, and if someone likes kiddie porn, tossing him into jail isn't going to change that. Unless there is some reason to believe that they actually PRODUCE said porn, or have a realistic chance of attempting to abuse an actual child, there's no justification for jailing them. You just get into a Big Brother situation, saying, "Ok, Bob has a collection of naked cupids that look like naked children, but have wings. He's OK. Joe cut the wings off his collection of naked cupids, so they are no longer cute and Christian, so he's a disgusting pedophile and goes to jail for 125 years. Dan read a book that contains explicit child abuse, but it's a national bestseller, so that's OK. Pete is writing a book that contains explicit child abuse, and we find that it is not of national-bestseller quality, so into the slammer with him." And so forth. See what I'm getting at? Just because there are crimes and victims, doesn't mean that everyone associated with a concept should go to jail.

-Cherry

Edit:

Ok, I changed my mind a little. I guess anyone who collects and enjoys looking at child porn is a danger to society. I certainly would not want to live near somebody like that. But I like the idea of a thought police even less. People's thoughts, interests, and activites should be private until they start hurting others. It would be nice to live in a society where future sex criminals could be identified at birth and destroyed, but that's not possible. So we have to choose one of 3 things.

1) Jail people who commit real crimes.
2) Have the thought police jail people who do suspicious things like collect child porn, which indicate that they might commit a real crime in the future, just because they MIGHT commit a real crime.
3) Label activites like collecting child porn as crimes, just because you find them disgusting, even though the act of collecting and viewing child porn does not actually hurt anyone.

I vote for option 1, because I like a free society, even though we'd all be safer from child molesters with options 2 or 3. Heck, we could execute XYY males at birth because they're 10X as likely as XY males to commit felonies, but I don't see any of you cheering for that.

[ October 16, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You know, when you check out the people who get involved in 'kiddie porn' you usually find that they were abused themselves. Maybe a lot of people need help rather than more abuse? The revenge model of 'justice' has never solved any problems. Back when everything from picking pockets to stealing a loaf of bread was punishable by hanging it didn't affect the crime rate. People committed those crimes out of necessity. Changing the conditions of society is what reduced the crime rate. Similarly, I think it would be far more productive to get people treatment for their sick sexual behaviors than to torture and mutilate them. Not only for the actual 'perps' but for society as a whole.

Dead set spot on.

Todays victims are tommorrows perpetrators.

Violence begets violence.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Plus lots of other true cliche's

Just because someone does something awful, this does not excuse us for sinking to a similar level, or justify inhumane acts on our part as an act of revenge.

The point is to act in such a way as makes things better.

Violence, retribution, revenge, lack of understanding - none of these achieve this aim. They only make things worse. We throw criminals into a brutal jail system where they become more violent and more criminal. Then we let them out, and give them very limited opportunities outside of crime. In what world does that make sense?

It does not come naturally to treat someone who has done something awful with compassion, but often this is the only way to make things better. Contrary to popular belief, then, compassion takes far more courage than revenge.

To quote the Song 'Where is the love?'

[edit:grammar]

[ October 16, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Erax]

I have to agree with Cherry, the problem is where to draw the line, how to decide what is tolerable (I won't say acceptable) and what is not. And what degree of punishment to apply in each case.

Edit / quote :

Compassion takes far more courage than revenge.

"The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

[ October 16, 2003, 17:52: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Saber Cherry]

Here's another one. The gem trade in Africa is the source of funding for many of Africa's bloody, seemingly permanent wars. The gems are bought by big companies and sold in jewelry in civilized countries where we don't have gem wars.

So, should people that buy emerald rings or diamond bracelets be jailed, because they are funding wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year? Or is that activity OK, because we all buy - or know someone who has bought - jewelry?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
But also, in each case, there are end-user addicts who are not hurting anyone, don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and pose no danger to society.

But they are, and though they might not want to, they do pose this danger.

For one thing, as I said, allowing this to circulate only encourages it's production. The new circulation possibilities that opened up with the internet caused a huge surge in the world of kiddie-porn. To stop it's circulation, you have to do everything you can not only to attack production, but also to attack the consumer base.

Secondly, the more this stuff goes unpunished, the more these addicts are allow to congregate (in reality or virtually), the more then feel that their urges and acts are acceptable. This occurs with any behavior. No matter how wrong something is, if you are around people who do it long enough, it won't seem as wrong. 'Long enough' is not that long if it's something you do to.

Finally, these people are not addicted to looking at pictures or movies of terrible acts, they are addicted to the 'kick', the rush they get off these things. They never get the same kick off something that they did when they saw it for the first time, so they are constantly searching for new materiel. Eventually, this leads a lot of them into new behaviors in the 'real world' to get their kicks. You show someone who molests other people's children but who does not have child pornography, and I'll show you a blind or luddite child molester.

Now, about the drugs. The same "acceptance and demand" agreement fits, only more so. Unlike pornography, which can be reproduced endlessly, these things are consumables, so the more demand, the more will be produced, the more extra will be produced, the more will end up in new places hurting new people, and the more money and power the drug lords will get.

Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

Typically, someone gets hit with some moving violation, domestic disturbance, or some such and the cop figures that they're on something. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's not. But unless they're driving a car or on probation for something else stupid they did the cop can't demand a blood test. If they're in public, they get off with public intoxication, which is dumb enough on it's own. If it's in their house, nothing happens.

Now, the same thing can happen for possession. The cop has to have a reason to hassle them in the first place. If you don't want anyone to know you have drugs, don't act like a drug user. Don't dress like one. Don't talk like one. It's easy for the serious user. Don't do stupid things like getting in fights, shoplifting, or selling in public while your have your drugs on you.

The catch is, meth-, coke- and even pot-heads do the stupid stuff all the time. There is a connection between drug use and disorderly, uncivilized, law-breaking behavior. Of course, that same connection extends to alcohol, but again, you don't get busted for being drunk. You get busted for being drunk and doing something stupid.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Loser:
Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

You might want to look up the Dallas, Texas "fake crack" scandal. Here, I'll give you an excerpt:


"In January 2002, the FBI began investigating how paid confidential informants set up dozens of innocent people on charges involving drugs that later turned out to be gypsum or some other legal substance.

The fake drugs were allegedly planted on the victims in investigations run by Senior Cpl. Mark Delapaz and Officer Eddie Herrera.

Delapaz was fired in April after being charged with five counts of deprivation of rights under color of law and one count of making false statements to federal officials. Herrera remains on paid leave.

Drug charges against more than 80 people were later dismissed by the Dallas County District Attorney's Office."


Yes, lots of people went to jail for possession of gypsum (Calcium sulfate, a building material). I don't think they were high at the time. But yes, you're right that I've never been busted walking down the street. Unfortunately... black people have it a bit harder. I know blacks who have been pulled over and had their cars searched for drugs (and came up clean, because they're nice, normal, everyday people) just because they're black.

You're right that (in America) white people don't usually get imprisioned just for possession or use, but minorities do.

-Cherry

P.S. Better attribute my sources... http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2434012/detail.html

[ October 16, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Ran-Taro]

[quote]Originally posted by Erax:

The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

We need fewer warriors, but have too few monks.

[Loser]

I don't think it's fair, Cherry, to blame the law for abuses of the law. This certainly applies to the fake-drugs issue and to any other 'plants'. It could be said to apply to the issue of racial profiling, but I don't think that's a worthwhile fight.

To more directly address the abuse issue in profiling I'll briefly describe how the law says such a bust has to work. The officer has to back up his search by saying he has 'probably cause'. That is, as everyone here probably knows, that he or she has good reason to believe there are drugs in there. The cop cannot put "He was black." down on his paperwork to back up his search. He can, however, put "I smelled a sag-like odor." or some such nonsense.

With the growing freedoms of information, eventually someone will put it all together and report on how often the cops use BS reasons for their probably cause on minorities compared to how often they use them against anglos or whites in general. Then things will change. Until then, legalizing possession is hardly the answer.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, i really really hate to say this, but find me a mother that didn't take at least a couple of picture's of there kids in the bathtub.

well, we could always say 'any nude pictures of other peoples kids or imaginary kids, wings or not.' it's a start.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:
Until then, legalizing possession is hardly the answer.

Well, it would get rid of a hell of a lot of criminals that way. Given that you are never going to stop people taking drugs anyway, why not?

Perhaps then we could spend our law enforcement dollars on something else like, oh, I don't know... how about on addressing the root causes of violent crime? (Poverty and ignorance).

Nah, stupid idea.