Les Invalides wrote:
> Palindrome posted
>>
>> Part of it is what great harm is done by having such a law? The loss
>> seems a very tiny one.
>
> What about those who were caught up in kp investigations based on
> nothing more than credit card details or less? You have forgotten to add
> them into your cost-benefit equation.
Are these the ones found to have 49,000 images from 1 to 5 and who plead
guilty even before going to court?
How many were found not to have a quantity of kp on their computer?
>
>>
>> For those that choose to break the law, the penalties can be very great.
>
> You could excuse any criminal law by this formula. Hey, the kid poached
> a pheasant. He *chose* judicial execution.
Whether a law is right or wrong is independent of the punishment that
goes with it. However, most of the penalties associated with kp aren't
punishments - they are the side effects of acting to protect children
from people identified as presenting a risk.
>
>> But everyone must know this, by now.
>>
>> There are others in society in an even more difficult situation,
>> through absolutely no fault of their own. If there is to be any
>> priority for getting change, it should be to help them.
>
> Those who are "in an even more difficult situation, through absolutely
> no fault of their own" include the victims of the child . laws.
>
Yep, including the family of the person caught carrying out criminal
acts. Once the parent is identified as presenting a risk to children,
the authorities must act to protect them.
That is not the effect of the law - that is the effect of the assumed
linkage between possession of kp and risk to children.
The latter is the problem, not the law.
If the punishment for being caught in possession of kp was a 50GBP fine,
period - would you be that much against it?
The punishments are not really that severe.
It is the linkage to potential risk of children that seems to be the big
problem.
--
Sue
|