On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:29:30 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>> Unless it was images of forced
>> ., the child has carried out *apparently* consensual .ual acts
>> for the camera without reporting it to the authorities.
>
>Three things there. Firstly there is no such thing as forced .. . is
>by definition *always* a non-consensual act.
But non-consensual does not mean "forced"
>Secondly, in law a child can
>never carry out consensual .ual acts with an adult as a child cannot give
>informed consent to the act/s.
A child can certainly consent as a matter of fact. Such consent will
not however be recognised in law as being a defence.
> Thirdly, a child is not complicit to the act
>by failing to report it to the authorities. As a matter of fact Cycnic I'm
>quite stunned & taken aback by what you say in that one brief paragraph
>alone!.
Stunned by the assumptions you appear to have made.
Anyone can be *consent* to do something (perhaps via persuasion) or be
*forced* to do something against their will. There is a huge
difference between the two regardless of the act under discussion or
the age of the person concerned. In law any .ual act with a child
is illegal regardless of the consent of the child, though you will
find that it has a big influence on the sentencing. Whilst almost all
.ual acts with a child will be prosecuted if the child was forced,
the vast majority of .ual acts in which the child consented will not
be prosecuted at all (even though they are illegal).
I did not say that the child was complicit by not reporting it - the
inference was that a paedophile may well regard such a child as
presenting less risk were he to do anything .ual to her than a child
whose reaction would be unknown.
> > I'm sure you
>> would not have quibbled with the use of the word wrt an adult .
>> actress, even if it was quite possible that she was forced by
>> circumstance or something else to take part.
>I fail to see the connection between adult . acttresses & children who
>are subjected to .ual abuse. Could you please explain the connection
>between these two disparate subjects ?
I'm guessing that the attitude of the person viewing the adult .
wrt meeting the actress would quite probably be the same as the
attitude of a person viewing child .ography wrt meeting the child
seen in the .ography.
>> Why? I believe it perfectly possible that a paedophile who in the
>> normal course of events would not dream of actually abusing a child
>> may well do so if he was subjected to abnormal temptation and
>> opportunity
>I see. So now you are offerring the concept of a person (the paedophile) who
>is .ually attracted to children but who would not dream of .ually
>abusing them. .ual contact constitutes abuse - the two cannot be
>dis-entagled.
I have said that he would not normally have dreamed of having .ual
contact with a child, but would have been satisfied with fantasy
alone. I cannot agree that looking at a photograph of .ual abuse
constitutes abuse any more than looking at a photograph of any other
crime amounts to the commission of that crime.
>> Such is simply human nature - anyone is capable of
>> committing almost *any* crime in the right circumstances. Men who
>> would never have dreamed of raping a woman in normal circumstances
>> have done so when sent as a soldier to a foreign country, for example.
>Yes but not every soldier. I suggest that some have a proclivity where
>others don't.
Absolutely, I do not dispute that at all. And the soldier's position
is a bit different because there may also be great peer-pressure to
commit the crime. I am not attempting to make excuses for such
actions, only explaining why the idea that a person who collect kp may
not be a significant danger to children in general whilst still being
a significant risk in exceptional circumstances (such as meeting a
child he knows is regularly taking part in adult/child .ual acts and
*apparently* ameniable to such.
--
Cynic
|