Dissenter wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:25:05 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> However, I do realise that my attitude to kp isn't accepted by many here
>> either. Which is to have little sympathy for those that break the law,
>> by lack of care or deliberate act. And to appreciate that people that
>> risk so much just to have these images might easily be tempted to do more.
>
> If you don't have a clear idea as to what such people should do
> instead, regardless of their motivation, there is little chance of
> reduction of what you would regard as the greater evil.
>
> "Stick to over 20s" is no sort of solution.
You will have to explain to me why you think that.
>
>> ISTM that there is a great difference between a deliberate act of abuse
>> carried out by adults on children and poor parental judgement. A
>> difference that justifies additional legislation targetting it and those
>> that would encourage it.
>
> I suspect that "deliberate" would map onto ".ual" and "poor parental
> judgement" would map onto "physical" or "neglect" in practice in most
> cases by your reckoning.
Not by my reckoning. The law shouldn't differentiate between pictures of
a child being .d and a child being deliberately set on fire.
>
>> Children *are* also severely at risk from "the motorist, from tractor
>> driving, from riding quad bikes and a thousand and one activities
>> involving adults". But stupidity is something that society will always
>> have to live with and careless or reckless endangerment is univerally
>> accepted as being wrong.
>>
>> However, the deliberate endangerment without good cause of anyone,
>> particularly children is something far worse - even though the outcome
>> may only be equally tragic.
>
> I'm afraid that terms such as "endangerment", "good cause", and, of
> course 'abuse' are loaded and presumptive.
OK, so you suggest alternatives that aren't.
> And whether something is
> perceived as 'abuse' is often mainly dependent on the attitude of
> society, and so malleable in the long term - think of the way that
> "unmarried mothers" were treated in the near past.
Not just the near past. The current actions of the government to
"persuade" lone parents back to work springs to mind..
>
> Do you really think that the current draconian measures really make
> anything better for anyone, or do they just fuel an 'industry'?
>
That is a different issue.
The issue here is whether the possession of any images should be a crime.
Only those that accept that it should be are going to want to discuss
how such a law should be enforced and what the penalties and outcome
should be. The others are simply going to say that the law shouldn't
exist and therefore there should be no detection and no punishment.
ISTM that, yet again, HMG has taken the cheap option of compensating for
a low chance of detection and prosecution by greatly increasing the
penalties, once caught.
It may be cheap. It may be being seen to be doing something. But it
seems rarely to be actually effective in greatly limiting the numbers
willing to break the law.
--
Sue
|