"Cynic" wrote in message
news:pmphu35bsdi2ln9rfah334l5j9j1f16uk3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:50:45 -0000, "Joe Lee"
> wrote:
>
>>Thank you, however I do believe that simple possession of the pictures /
>>images can, & in some circumstances will cause abuse or significant harm
>>to
>>others.
>>
>>An example would be when a market in the images is created (as was the
>>case
>>with Ore & I'm sure, others) The demand (as in any other market) needs to
>>be
>>satisfied in order to keep the money coming in & that can only be done by
>>committing further acts of .ual abuse against that child or other
>>children.
>
> I am aware of that argument, and have stated many times why it is
> deficit. If the production of child abuse images is illegal (which I
> do not have a problem with), there cannot *be* the market you speak
> of, because it is always going to be trivial to trace the money back
> to the seller.
I don't accept that proposition because it supposes that all those who
download such images (& we're now talking about the most extreme & obscene
images) will leave all the evidence connecting them with the suppliers, on
their HD's & just inviting it to be discovered. I believe that the vast
majority of those who buy such images will conceal not only the images
themselves but any evidence that would associate them with the sellers.
You seem to take no account of any steps they might take to avoid detection
& therefore the difficulty inherrant in detecting the crime. Yes, once it
has been detected & the location discovered & those responsible arrested &
their Accounts seized *then* it becomes relatively easy to trace the
transactions.
> Ore is certainly *not* an example of a market that
> would increase the amount of child abuse, because no money went to the
> people who actually produced the material AFAIAA.
Recognising that you don't actually know (& that only the individuals
involved in the abuse & supplying the images could have known at the time),
do you imagine that those who bought the images did so only after obtaining
the most stringent reassurances that those who were pgysically committing
the acts were not profiting in any way, or do you think as I do that they
wouldn't have cared less who was & who was not making money so long as they
got the pictures they wanted ?
> Unless money gets
> to people who make the stuff, it does not provide the incentive to
> make more.
The money obviously goes to the "people who make the stuff" by which I
include those involved in taking the pictures, maintaining the site,
fulfilling the 'orders' for the images & operating the Bank Accounts.
It would seem quite bizarre to me that only those physically committinng the
acts would be the only ones in such an organisation who would not be gaining
a financial reward by their actions. While you understand that was the case
regarding Ore I suggest you are straining credulity beyond it's limits if
you believe that would hold true in every case.
> The only cases I have heard of where children were .ually exploited
> to make money from the sale of kp were quickly traced, the
> perpetrators quite rightly convicted and AFAIK are still in prison.
How quickly do you think *all* such operations would need to be traced &
closed down for your argument to be a valid one ?
--
Joe Lee
|