Palindrome posted
>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
They can be considered separately, but for the moment let's consider the
loss to people who did *not* break the law.
>and who plead guilty even before going to court?
Many innocent people accepted cautions under police pressure, to escape
threatened prosecutions.
>
>How many were found not to have a quantity of kp on their computer?
Thousands. But they still got the 6am sledgehammer on the front door,
had all their equipment confiscated, were dragged through the mud,
excluded from their homes and threatened with the permanent loss of
their children.
>>>
>>> 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.
It doesn't matter whether you call them punishments or not. They cause
severe harm to the recipient. I can call hanging "acting to protect the
public" if I want, it doesn't alter its effect on the accused.
>>
>>> 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.
Plus, in this case, the families of persons *wrongly suspected* of
carrying out the 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.
Both are the problem, but I agree the "child protection" measures make
it far worse than it would otherwise be.
>
>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.
Jail. Signing the SOR. Orders restricting the person's mobility. CRB
record that precludes a vast range of jobs. You know this.
--
Les Invalides |