Palindrome wrote:
> 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
>
>
Sue. Is it true what that poster said about you not wearing any knickers
while you post?
|