Burglar turns himself in to help catch a Pedophile

[Jamesman42]

Maybe the burglar himself was the pedo and he made it look like someone else so he could walk away with a less severe fine.

[Rina]

Maybe the burglar himself was the pedo and he made it look like someone else so he could walk away with a less severe fine.

ANYWAY, I'm glad he decided that catching someone like that was more important.

[El Barto]

Don't digital photos, even those taken with a phone have a timestamp placed on them? So the police can see WHEN the pics were taken? All they have to do is ask the guy when his phone was stolen and compare the dates.

If you're meaning a date put in the picture itself, no. And if you mean a creation date on the file itself, anyone can change that.

Really? I thought Jpegs had timestamps embedded in them. Or something. I dunno.

If it's a halfway modern phone there's probably XDIF data embedded in the picture.  That will tell you what time the phone thought it was when the picture was taken,  but that's not worth much.  Same thing with the file data. 

What is worth something is the logs from the service provider.  That'll give you a pretty good idea of when the phone was stolen and what it's been up to in the time since.

[73109]

...because the guy with the CP was actually harming people, raping children, eating babies and should burn in the fiery pits of hell...

It truly amazes me that people hate these people so much...

[Dark Castle]

...because the guy with the CP was actually harming people, raping children, eating babies and should burn in the fiery pits of hell...

It truly amazes me that people hate these people so much...

If you're taking pictures of children that are sexually driven then yeah I think you're wasting air on Earth.  Did you hear about the case in L.A. with the teacher taking bondage pictures of his 2nd grade students and putting spoonfuls of his semen up to their mouths?  Yeah it's fucking sick and he should rot in hell if it exists.

[73109]

He found pictures on the dudes phone. That A) Doesn't mean that he took them, text messaging and all that, and B) what the teacher did was wrong, but I see no problem in making use of CP that is already out there. Making new shit is the problem.

*waits to be banned or for this to go to P/R where I will not be allowed to post*

[Dark Castle]

He found pictures on the dudes phone. That A) Doesn't mean that he took them, text messaging and all that, and B) what the teacher did was wrong, but I see no problem in making use of CP that is already out there. Making new shit is the problem.

*waits to be banned or for this to go to P/R where I will not be allowed to post*

Even if you're just getting off on CP, I still find that sickening.

[73109]

I'd be willing to be every single penny I own and will ever own that you've masturbated to porn. You just so happen to be "blessed" with being a heterosexual male who digs heterosexual females of the same (or a relatively similar) age.

[theliloutkast]

My hatred of pedophiles far outweighs that of thieves. I have a lot of respect for this man for willingly facing justice for his crimes in order to help convict a much sicker man. Kudos to him.

[Dark Castle]

I'd be willing to be every single penny I own and will ever own that you've masturbated to porn. You just so happen to be "blessed" with being a heterosexual male who digs heterosexual females of the same (or a relatively similar) age.

Good for you, you guessed I masturbate to porn, and just to let you know, if I see child porn AT ALL, I immediately close my browser and steer the fuck away from where I saw it, and I have specific actresses that I watch
And theres something wrong with "you"(not saying you as in you, since I'm pretty sure you don't want child porn) still if you get off on little children

[73109]

Exactly. There is something wrong with that person, so I can't see why people demonize them the way they do. Same goes for gay people, but people are starting to realize that you are born gay and there is nothing they can do about even if they wished the opposite. Same goes for these guys.

And you are correct, I do not watch child porn. Although I do not have any issues with those that do.

[lonestar]

Exactly. There is something wrong with that person, so I can't see why people demonize them the way they do. Same goes for gay people, but people are starting to realize that you are born gay and there is nothing they can do about even if they wished the opposite. Same goes for these guys.

And you are correct, I do not watch child porn. Although I do not have any issues with those that do.

I think it is something innate to our survival instinct that we protect children, that is why predators of this nature are demonized as such.  Homosexuality doesn't carry the same level of stigma that child predators do, not even close.  You can't even compare the two.

[Dark Castle]

Exactly. There is something wrong with that person, so I can't see why people demonize them the way they do. Same goes for gay people, but people are starting to realize that you are born gay and there is nothing they can do about even if they wished the opposite. Same goes for these guys.

And you are correct, I do not watch child porn. Although I do not have any issues with those that do.

I think it is something innate to our survival instinct that we protect children, that is why predators of this nature are demonized as such.  Homosexuality doesn't carry the same level of stigma that child predators do, not even close.  You can't even compare the two.

This, to even compare the two almost seems insulting..

[73109]

You are correct in that it is an innate thing, and that's the problem. That is why people feel the way they do without giving much thought to what they're feeling. Like I said, it's really easy to demonize people for being different when you (the royal you) are completely normal. Do I think child molestation is wrong? Absolutely. Do I think the production of child porn needs to stop? Very much so, yes. Do I think child porn that is in circulation is doing more harm than the porn on redtube? Not in the least bit.

[zerogravityfat]

why didn't the idiot mail the phone with a note. win win for him.

Oh, for the love of Christ.

Seriously? You're unhappy a criminal turned himself in, and that a pedophile will likely be caught because of it? Criminals who turn themselves in for the good of society are idiots?

the guy is a thief. the reason he turned himself in was to make sure the other guy gets caught, so with my solution in mind, yes the guy is an idiot.

[73109]

Not to mention that Pedophilia is a certified disorder. It's like demonizing a schizophrenic for hearing strange voices and calling him weird.

[BlobVanDam]

Not to mention that Pedophilia is a certified disorder. It's like demonizing a schizophrenic for hearing strange voices and calling him weird.

It's not demonizing them simply because they're different. It's demonizing them because their disorder involves completely inappropriate thoughts and behaviour towards underage children who can't consent. Being a certified disorder doesn't excuse their behaviour. It just gives a legitimate reason for why they do what they do.
There's not even a comparison here.

[73109]

The only reason it is deemed inappropriate is because the majority doesn't partake in it. If we can demonize people for "inappropriate thoughts," I don't know what's next. Oh, and last time I checked, wacking it to porn does not affect those in it...

[SystematicThought]

The only reason it is deemed inappropriate is because the majority doesn't partake in it.

That really doesn't make sense to me when it comes pedophilia.

[ehra]

The fact that people want and look for this sort of thing encourages the creation of it. Name one instance where an active demand for and consumption/use of a product didn't result someone attempting to profit off of it. Hell, isn't part of the argument for pirating that exposure is good for an artist even if they don't necessarily make money off of your download?

If you're look for, downloading, and/or buying actual kiddie porn then you're supporting the market for it.

[BlobVanDam]

The only reason it is deemed inappropriate is because the majority doesn't partake in it. If we can demonize people for "inappropriate thoughts," I don't know what's next. Oh, and last time I checked, wacking it to porn does not affect those in it...

I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be dense to form an argument, but I already gave you at least one reason why it is demonized beyond simply "because the majority doesn't partake in it". It's demonized because it involves CHILDREN AND INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL ACTS.
Whether or not they are actually involved in the creation of the material or simply looking at it doesn't change the fact that indulging their behaviour is at the expense of corrupting children. (And no I'm not arguing whether or not demand plays any part in other people creating it, because I think it's irrelevant. The fact is that it shouldn't exist and they shouldn't be allowed to look at it just because the damage has already been done.)
You're trying to compare to a bunch of things while ignoring the actual key issue here. It's not like homophobia, because even though it was viewed as a similarly immoral sexual orientation in the past, the fact is that it can happen between consenting adults. It's not like schizophrenia because their behaviour is not at the expense of children suffering, and I've never known anyone to actually demonize it anyway. Seriously, who gets disgusted at a schizophrenic?

[Implode]

Just to play devil's advocate, you say that pedophilia is wrong because "indulging their behaviour is at the expense of corrupting children". What about artwork?

[BlobVanDam]

Just to play devil's advocate, you say that pedophilia is wrong because "indulging their behaviour is at the expense of corrupting children". What about artwork?

In what regard? That's a bit of a vague question.

[73109]

The fact that people want and look for this sort of thing encourages the creation of it. Name one instance where an active demand for and consumption/use of a product didn't result someone attempting to profit off of it. Hell, isn't part of the argument for pirating that exposure is good for an artist even if they don't necessarily make money off of your download?

If you're look for, downloading, and/or buying actual kiddie porn then you're supporting the market for it.

You are correct in almost every instance...except this one.

We should all know that the laws of supply and demand run the capitalist economy that the world is in at the moment. People think diamonds are cool, there aren't a lot of them, price is high. People want some good food, price is high. People are horny, people make porn and sell it.

The difference with Child Porn is that A) it is often traded, not sold and B) the laws of supply and demand don't work with it. No one goes "Hey, I'm going to rape my kid for a quick buck." Those that decide to sell the stuff are most likely the ones creating it for their own pleasure.

And Blob...

Children are not getting corrupted...they got corrupted. What's done is done, and I see no reason in not letting the shit that is out there stay out there. There have been studies that show that the use of child pornography (and pornography in general) actually lowers sexual abuse. People feel like they can enact their fantasies through the stuff so they don't do it in real life. Like I said, I agree that making the stuff is bad, but if letting people who might possibly harm children have access to the stuff that will dampen their desires, I'm all for that.

Regarding artwork...Nevermind by Nirvana comes to mind...picture wise. Not to mention a metric fuck ton of paintings.

[Implode]

In what regard? That's a bit of a vague question.

I meant like drawings or fiction of child pornography. And I don't mean just artwork of naked children. I'm talking pure smut here. I just want to see how you expand your logic because "indulging their behaviour is at the expense of corrupting children" doesn't include that.

[rumborak]

The interesting part comes with CGI kiddie porn. Without a victim, is it still a crime?

rumborak

[73109]

If someone is OK with CGI stuff, I see no problem with stuff that is already out there.

[BlobVanDam]

The interesting part comes with CGI kiddie porn. Without a victim, is it still a crime?

rumborak

It's sort of similar to fetish porn such as rape/torture porn, I guess. A lot of these things are illegal to do in reality, but they're legal when they're simulated for porn. And if no children are actually involved at all, I'm having trouble seeing any *technical* difference. I think at that point, it's mostly just a moral objection.


And I think this is really at the point where it should be in P/R now.

[73109]

I'm milking this thread for all it has before it goes to PR...

If CGI child porn is OK because there is no victim, why is already made child porn wrong when the suffering by the real victim is long finished? There is no victim at the time of well...yeah...in either instance.

[73109]

Just throwing this here:

In an effort to study this issue, research has often been to expose subjects—usually university students—to SEM and then, with pencil and paper survey testing, evaluate their responses to questions posed as if these would be a reflection of their actual behavior (Donnerstein, Linz, & Penrod, 1987). A more fruitful method, started by the Danish researcher Kutchinsky, was to see what actually happened in those countries that transitioned from having a strict ban on SEM availability to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Using data gathered from various governmental records, Kutchinsky (1991) compared the relevant increase in available SEM following the liberalization of anti-pornography laws in Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the U.S. with both pre- and post-liberalization data regarding sex crimes reported in these countries. His research found that, in the countries studied, the rates of rape, sexual assault, and other sex crimes either decreased or essentially remained stable following the ready availability of erotic materials of all sorts. In none did sex crimes of any type increase.

Other countries have been investigated to see if Kutchinsky’s findings would hold across diverse cultures and traditions. Three Asian locations studied, Japan (Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999), Shanghai, China (Diamond, 1999) and Hong Kong (Ng & Ma, 2001) with very different histories and social structures from those studied earlier, also found that available government records showed that, while the amount and availability of pornography increased, the rates of sexual crimes decreased. Reassessment of the situation in the U.S. (Diamond, 1999) also supported this pattern, as did studies conducted in Croatia (Landripet, Stulhofer, & Diamond, 2006) and Finland (Diamond & Kontula, 2010).

https://www.springerlink.com/content/v046j3g178147772/fulltext.html#CR8

[Dark Castle]

I'm milking this thread for all it has before it goes to PR...

If CGI child porn is OK because there is no victim, why is already made child porn wrong when the suffering by the real victim is long finished? There is no victim at the time of well...yeah...in either instance.

Are you serious?  There was suffering at some point.  Seriously, suffering goes beyond physical, there's the mental suffering that can last for extremely long times.

[Ben_Jamin]

It's wrong because the child is still innocent, and can't defend themselves and will have psychological problems. Id compare it to rape. Raping the Childs innocence.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm milking this thread for all it has before it goes to PR...

If CGI child porn is OK because there is no victim, why is already made child porn wrong when the suffering by the real victim is long finished? There is no victim at the time of well...yeah...in either instance.

I believe it is wrong to be in possession of it regardless of whether the harm has already been done, and I don't think it makes a difference. I believe that allowing such a thing does encourage the creation of it to some degree, and your arguments haven't convinced me otherwise.

[ehra]

The difference with Child Porn is that A) it is often traded, not sold and B) the laws of supply and demand don't work with it. No one goes "Hey, I'm going to rape my kid for a quick buck." Those that decide to sell the stuff are most likely the ones creating it for their own pleasure.

You've really got no backing for it. There's no reason to assume that someone who's willing to make it in the first place wouldn't be willing to make more for money. You seem to think that just because making kiddie porn is super bad will keep people from wanting to do it for profit, but people do things that are on par and worse to their kids for money anyway. There's no basis for your claim that it works differently from any other market in existence.

[lonestar]

Children are not getting corrupted...they got corrupted. What's done is done, and I see no reason in not letting the shit that is out there stay out there.

Um, no.  There is a duty we owe to every child that is fucked or exploited in a sexual manner by an adult against their will or better judgement to make sure that it is taken out.  Do you think an abuse survivor wants to know that even in his/her twenties that pictures of the worst moment in their lives are floating out their.   If you're doing this solely for the sake of argument Cole, drop it.