Cynic wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:06:12 +0100, Alex Heney
> wrote:
>
>>> So what connection *have* you suggested?
>
>> I have suggested only that *on average*, the type of person who is
>> interested enough to look at images they know to be illegal is *more*
>> likely to be interested enough to take the further step of what is *in
>> law* regarded as .ual assault.
>
> I do not believe that the probability is any greater of a person who
> looks at child . committing an actual .ual assault than a person
> who looks at adult ..
I find it hard to accept that you believe that.
Were looking at images of child abuse to be permitted by law, the pool
of those doing so would certainly increase. Thus, at the moment, the
/percentage/ of child abuse image viewers that go on to commit offences
must be higher than the percentage of adult . viewers who go on to
commit assault. There is a greater probability of a child abuse viewer
going on to commit actual abuse than there is of an adult . viewer
going on to commit an actual assault.
Only if both . and child abuse viewing were legal would the
probabilities equalise.
You might care to think of it the other way around. If both were legal,
the probability would be the same. As a very large number of people that
are the most unlikely to go on to commit abuse have been removed from
one pool, the concentration of those that remain will has increased.
There is thus a higher probability of one of them going on to commit
actual abuse.
>
>> That is NOT to say they are likely to do so, just a little less
>> unlikely, nor is it to suggest they are even more likely to carry out
>> what they would see as a physical assault.
>
>> But AIUI, in most cases of . with children, the adult concerned has
>> managed to believe that the child actually wants it, so they don't
>> think of it as "assault".
>
> AIUI many rapists also believe that their victim "wanted it".
>
IIUC, the more common expression is, "Asked for it".
--
Sue |