Man sentenced for aggravated child pornography offenses - gets probation

[Deleted]

ah, the age old punishment versus rehabilitation argument.

Well, the statistics speak for themselves, countries who focus on rehabilitation have alot less repeat offenders than coutries that believe higher punishments solve all problems.

We have a focus on rehabilitation... Yet 65% of those who are sentenced to prison reoffend within 2 or 3 years.

[shrunken]

Weird how Sweden is so soft on child pornography. What a strange little place.

[melodramocracy]

Why were the children aggravated?

[Deleted]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=6658278

A man in his 30s had over 40 hours of footage with child pornography content. He is convicted of Uddevalla District Court to probation with special treatment plan.

A man in his 30s is convicted of Uddevalla District Court for aggravated child pornography offenses.

He allegedly had close to 12,000 images and over 40 hours of film in his computer containing child pornography.

More than 30 of the films contain hours abuses especially young children exposed to violence or otherwise ruthlessly exploited, which represents aggravated child pornography.

The man, who has admitted crimes, judged to be in need of treatment and was sentenced to probation with special treatment plan.


Rofl, swedish justice system not failing to surprise once again, not even prison for this piece of shit!

Nothing wrong with that if he isn't actively after children. Presumably his probation conditions include things like no internet, no computer, no missing treatments, gps tracker, etc.

[Coombs]

I mean, people can be filmed and/or have it distributed without their knowledge and there's pretty much no way to distinguish any sort of amateur porn made with consent vs revenge porn. I perhaps shouldn't have said "worker" to begin with, but the point is I don't really believe people are scrutinizing their material prior to consumption, so I see little distinction between them and someone who consumes existing material, as they're plenty happy to benefit from someone else's violation as long as they can persuade themselves it's totally different by not giving a fuck. That the material in question is rather objectionable for a variety of reasons is worth consideration, which is why I have no problem saying it should be illegal, but I'm not going to sit there and act like this person is some sort of monster because they downloaded some illegal media. If you wish to misconstrue this position as somehow supporting child pornography, that's your prerogative, but it really just tells me you have no interest in honest discussion if it even remotely challenges your preconceived moral sensibilities.

Yes the images are fucking despicable. But to further your point, how many people enjoyed the fappening? No one gave two fucks about Lawrence's consent.

[DSRilk]

I mean, people can be filmed and/or have it distributed without their knowledge and there's pretty much no way to distinguish any sort of amateur porn made with consent vs revenge porn. I perhaps shouldn't have said "worker" to begin with, but the point is I don't really believe people are scrutinizing their material prior to consumption, so I see little distinction between them and someone who consumes existing material, as they're plenty happy to benefit from someone else's violation as long as they can persuade themselves it's totally different by not giving a fuck. That the material in question is rather objectionable for a variety of reasons is worth consideration, which is why I have no problem saying it should be illegal, but I'm not going to sit there and act like this person is some sort of monster because they downloaded some illegal media. If you wish to misconstrue this position as somehow supporting child pornography, that's your prerogative, but it really just tells me you have no interest in honest discussion if it even remotely challenges your preconceived moral sensibilities.

This is an honest discussion. The fact that I don't agree with your assessment that supporting child porn and potentially supporting revenge porn is the same doesn't mean I'm not having an honest conversation - it means we disagree.

My main issue with your position is that you seem very focused on alleviating the moral outrage simply because "there are other bad things that happen" in the "industry". Your position seems to be to brush off the crime entirely other than a trite "it should be illegal." Additionally, even things like revenge porn or stolen personal pics or vids are in no way the same thing as child pornography. First of all, the acts in all those other things are entirely consensual between two adults making the (arguably stupid) choice to video take their sex lives. The fact that it gets leaked is bad. The fact that it is propogated because people don't care that it was leaked isn't good either. However, it is not remotely on the same level as forcing children into violent and sexual scenarios. It's just not. It's not even close. And THAT is where I disagree, and why your position seems - to me - to be arguably supportive of child porn. Because with the same hand you say it should be illegal, you compare it to revenge porn.

We act like people watching child pornography are monsters because the act of creating and enabling child pornography is, itself, monstrous. In the same vein, I would say anyone propagating revenge porn is inappropriate and wrong. Because that's what uploading a pic of your ex is. Wrong. It's not monstrous. Add to that the fact that the majority of porn watchers likely assume their porn is "valid" vs child porn watchers who know for a fact it's not... equating the two is just absurd. No where NEAR the same level of wrong to create and no where NEAR the same level of reasonable doubt. Not. The same. Thing.

[DSRilk]

Your entire argument boils down to people can easily and comfortably convince themselves that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, so it's totally different. That is, at best, willful ignorance, which to my knowledge has never been an acceptable excuse for anything ever. Oh, and continuing to slander me for not virtue signaling hard enough while ignoring examples you don't know how to respond to. That doesn't seem like an honest conversation using any conventional idea of "honesty" I know of. But hey, whatever helps you to sleep at night.

My entire argument boils down to stealing a pic of someone of age who intentionally had consenting sex (or even just a nude pic) is NOT the same thing as forcing children into violence and sex. It's really that simple. I think you have to work pretty hard not to see that.

It is not virtue signalling to think child porn is wrong.

Please tell me what examples you have that I didn't respond to. I honestly thought I hit them all. If you happened to mention "it's as bad as people peddling porn of kidnapped women," then I'd agree entirely with you. If someone was caught watching and spreading that type of pornography specifically - just as bad. But I don't recall you using that example at all. Or anything nearly that unsavory.

Calling me "virtue signalling" because I think child porn is wrong and saying I'm not being honest when I try to be as blatant and clear as can be while you literally ignore my point (reiterated - again - in the first line of this response ) does not make me the one avoiding an honest conversation.

I don't see how I was slandering you. I never called you names nor said you were a supporter of child porn. The worst I did was say you seemed to be trying to justify the watching of it - and given that you said you don't think there should be jail time... it fits. However, if that went too far for you, I'll rescind that statement. Along with my "I hope you're just trying to be edgy" comment. I'll grant you that was more cathartic than helpful.

[DSRilk]

This guy downloaded child pornography. He didn't manufacture it. He didn't rape anyone. So what he's doing isn't the same thing as forcing children into violence and sex either, nor was I even talking about the people who actually leak the photos or videos, so much as the people who are consuming them, who wouldn't be stealing a picture of someone of age who intentionally had consenting sex.




You never addressed this. Your response only focused on people who knowingly made videos or took photographs, only to have them leaked later. Apparently your response though is you don't care much and it's not a big deal. I mean hey, maybe some of what's depicted is literally rape. Who knows? Not the viewer because they don't care enough to find out. As long as they can convince themselves what they're doing is fine, they don't care if it actually is because it would be inconvenient to make sure it's actually the case and they have things to do.

I didn't "call you 'virtue signalling,'" let alone for disliking child pornography. I said you were taking issue with me not virtue signaling hard enough because I'm not about to flip out about some random pedophile for downloading existing media and you subsequently accused me of supporting child pornography or watching child pornography or whatever, despite explicitly saying otherwise numerous times. That's just an all around shitty tactic and not even a remotely rational conclusion to draw.

I haven't said a single thing about jail time in this thread prior to this post.

Viewing vs making. There's not much of a difference to me. If you're viewing it, you're supporting it. If you're paying for and trading around child porn, you are (to me) just as guilty as those making it.

People being filmed without their knowledge. Bad, for sure. Not quite as bad as kidnapping and forcing rape, but certainly bad. Do I think that makes up the majority of porn viewer's material? No. I have seen no evidence that's the case. And yes, if you're someone who's viewing bdsm, for example, I hope you're asking yourself honestly whether or not that's consensual.

I never asked you to flip out, nor did I flip out. I did question whether or not you supported it, for the reasons I stated. I certainly didn't say you absolutely did - just that your position and comments certainly could lead to that conclusion. I certainly never said you partook.

I apologize for the jail time comment. It was Gilrak who said that. My mistake in attributing it to you.

[Kaganfindel]

The ruling was that he was insane and in need of treatment. Do you disagree? Do you think anyone in their right mind would save 40+ hours of that horrible shite to their hard drive?

He's sick in the head. You treat sick people.

[DSRilk]

The ruling was that he was insane and in need of treatment. Do you disagree? Do you think anyone in their right mind would save 40+ hours of that horrible shite to their hard drive?

He's sick in the head. You treat sick people.

Anyone who thinks its okay to take a human life is mentally ill. So's anyone who thinks it's okay to take what belongs to another. I mean, it's really all just stuff in your head, right? I think it's complex. That said, to me, the key is removal from society until that person is no longer going to perform anti social behavior. That goes for pretty much any criminal case though.

[Mistame]

But to further your point, how many people enjoyed the fappening?

*raises hand*

No one gave two fucks about Lawrence's consent.

And yet without it, we wouldn't know that all her bits are perfect.

[Kaganfindel]

Do we know what's on the treatment plan? Maybe temporary institutionalization is part of the judgment.

[God Save The King]

While I don't think child porn should be tolerated, I find it really hard to be outraged that someone downloaded existing material from the internet for use in the privacy of his own home.

Agreed, especially if they're not paying for the material.

[DSRilk]

Equating viewing and creating isn't even passable enough to qualify as specious. It's just plain bad, and obviously so. It's not like people who used to use sites like Ogrish were out there making all of those things happen. They were just consuming existing media.

It's not viewing, it's purchasing or enticing others to an illegal act. It's just like hiring someone else to kill your wife or commit any other crime. Even outside of money changing hands, it can be equated to collusion and other criminal acts where a non-direct participant holds some responsibility for the actions of another.