Cynic wrote:
> You assume that all people who commit .ual crime will
> also want to look at the type of .ography that suits their
> prediliction.
Yep.
> Yet .ography is *not* invariably found at the homes
> of .ual criminals.
It doesn't need to be "invariably" - just "majority".
> And yet again you assume the very thing you are
> trying to "prove" - that people who are willing to commit one type of
> crime will be more likely than normal to commit a different type of
> crime.
Nope. Try "people that won't risk a minor crime won't risk an extension
of it into major crime".
> The percentage of those convicted of
> child abuse who also have child .ography is around 60% IIRC.
OK, a majority. That will do. And what is the percentage of those that
commit .ual assault that have adult .?
> There are
> people who have easier private access to children than to the
> Internet. Unemployed single men willing to babysit for relatives, for
> example.
Yep. But that is subject to availability. Their own stash of child abuse
images is always available - even if it has to be taken inside a
newspaper to the loo..
> In addition, the probability of being caught is probably
> higher wrt downloading illegal images these days than with hands-on
> abuse.
If they are abusing children, they can take a camera. If they have a
computer, they can create their own with a bit of cut and paste of legal
images.
> Unlike other things you do in the privacy of your home, your
> online activities can all be monitored in real time, and logs and
> other permanent evidence of the crime can be examined later.
See above. Monitoring is not a significant risk unless they go to an
entrapment site or are already suspected.
> The
> sentence likely to be imposed is also about the same for both
> activities - in fact it is often higher for child . than with
> actual child abuse.
No iea if that is true or not. It appears incredible that images of chil
abuse can fetch a higher penalty than carrying out that abuse.
> I should think there are a *lot* of people who
> would be more certain that they could persuade a child to keep a
> secret than they would be confident of keeping their computer
> activities secret, especially after all the high-profile media reports
> of .ography convictions.
There is a way of getting children to keep a secret? Do tell. Is there
also a way of stopping them becoming adults and then telling?
>
> My experience with hetero.ual .ography is that the people who use
> it the most are the people who do *not* have an active . life.
No idea. Is that relevant?
> People who have a regular .ual partner are more likely not to need
> it. I know several people who have an active . life but abhor
> .ography (or at least they say they do). Why should it be any
> different for paedophiles?
Getting an adult .ual partner is considerably easier than getting hold
of a child to abuse.
> How can the "no inference can be drawn" in the above statement
> co-exist with your position that a person with child .ography is
> more likely to abuse a child?
>
"Statistically insignificant". If an individual belongs to a set
comprising millions of people with child abuse images that are not child
abusers, plus hundreds that are, how is it significant that there is
another set comprising millions of individuals without child abuse
images that are not child abusers, plus tens that are?
--
Sue
|