Alex Heney wrote:
>
> My *only* point, to which none of yours are relevant, is that if
> somebody is already doing something illegal, then it is less of a step
> to further (linked) illegality, and therefore it is slightly more
> likely that they will commit those further acts.
It needs to be a very similar crime, I would suggest. Whilst I am
willing to accept that someone that regularly does 80 in a 70 limit is
more likely to do 90 - I don't think that he is more likely to run a red
light.
I would suggest that the difference between looking at images and
attacking someone is too great for their to be a significant link.
>
> Having thought about it more, there is actually another aspect which
> makes men who look at child . more likely to commit the acts
> legally defined as .ual assault against a child than men looking at
> adult . would be to commit .ual assault against a woman. Namely
> that many acts legally defined as ".ual assault against a child" are
> in fact do0ne with the apparent consent of the child, so that the
> offender will not feel he is assaulting them at all.
I have absolutely no idea of how the mind of someone that sees a child
as a .ual object works.
--
Sue
|